2nd close call at JFK in last few days...

[NickBartolotta]

See story here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/11/jfk.near.collision/index.html

Attached is the clip, you can definitely hear the controller tense up a bit but he kept his cool. Not sure if this was a close one or just the media being its usual self.

[Beantown]

Good job by atc.

[kevinb721]

yep just read this.  he handled it very well.

[air727]

They're plenty of runways in the United States that have perpendicular takeoffs and landings. Realizing that an aircraft can call a missed at any point on the approach, don't you think controllers should hold the departing aircraft until the landing a/c has either completely landed or executed the missed.

Why is this so difficult?

In this case, the controller at JFK handled it beautifully.

[cessna157]

They're plenty of runways in the United States that have perpendicular takeoffs and landings. Realizing that an aircraft can call a missed at any point on the approach, don't you think controllers should hold the departing aircraft until the landing a/c has either completely landed or executed the missed.
Why is this so difficult?

Okay, I'll be the devil's advocate here.  You say who is this so difficult?  I say...it has never been a problem.  Crossing runways exist at a majority of the nation's busy airports.  How many aircraft have hit each other?

The separation of 600' vertically and 1/2 mile horizontally is huge.  The pilots probably didn't even think twice about it.  If the weather was clear and the pilots could see each other, then this is a non-issue.  Maybe if the wx low Low-IFR then I could see some restricitons put in place. 

I think LAHSO is a bigger danger than this arguement.  I saw 2 mainline aircraft come within a few hundred feet of becoming one with each other because the LAHSO aircraft didn't lahs.

[athaker]

As I wrote in the other forum, my feelings agree with cessna here.  It seems like this would be much more dangerous if the controllers timed the release for departure wrong or if an aircraft didn't follow instructions properly to keep separations.

Using a different airport as an example:  Parallel runway operations at LAX.  Let's deal with the 24's.  When traffic is on final for 24R, they usually position and hold an aircraft on 24L.  This aircraft is released when the traffic is on short final.  I understand that this greatly prevents any LAHSO dangers.  There are times, however, when the outgoing traffic is cleared for takeoff pretty early so that is a go around did occur, takeoff would have to be aborted.  The controllers probably time it right so safety isnt compromised, but if ABC7 news was eating lunch at In N Out and watched this happen, I'd put money on an article about a dangerous procedure called aborted takeoff.

Back to JFK.  Now, ATC will have to figure out what to do with the SAME number of planes as before, but without the ability to pack them for landing or takeoff as tightly.  It seems like more delays getting into the air = taxi times, fuel costs, bored pilots, pissed passengers, etc....

[athaker]

An AP video and article (in the more info section) on the go-around procedure from a few months back:

[cessna157]

That YouTube AP video is an old sensationalized video and does not cover these go-arounds that happened at JFK.  Their version of a disasterous, danger frought go-around was just an aircraft landing behind another that hadn't cleared the runway in time.  "climbed drastically!" is a bit of a dramatic version of a go-around. 

I guess the passenger would rather just fly lazily around the sky without climbing at all?

"go arounds increase the risk of a mid-air collision"   Well duh!  Any time an aircraft spends more time in the air and not on the ground, the risk of a mid-air is raised.  How about all of the aircraft holding going into LGA, PHL, EWR, JFK.....?   I'm surprised they just aren't bouncing off of each other!   

[KASWspotter]

Funny this came up about that old video about go arounds being dangerous. I experienced my first GA as a passenger on July 4th at Reagan National in an Emb-170. I knew at the time we were on a runway 1 approach. We got to where i estimated about 400-500 feet of vertical altitude just about to go feet dry. Right before we crossed over land the nose pitched up and the engines spooled up and away we went. As we banked left over the airport, I glanced to the right and saw the AA MD-80 that had been on the runway climbing out. Seemed like no big deal at the time. The only thing really noticable was how the power was a real kick in the pants although they didnt use it very long and the deck angle seemed a little bit more exaggerated. A left turn and we were back on the downwind and back on the ground in about 5 minutes. One of the pilots even managed to get on the p.a. and apologize and explain there was still an aircraft on the runway.

Now being the enthusiast, I got home on the 8th and went to work. Found the archives on here which were pretty low quality that day. Flight tracker shows our last known altitude before the go around at 600 feet. If someone can clean it up, the audio was pretty cool. Our flight checks in with tower at about 23 minutes on the july 4th 1100 zulu archive. Our flight was Brickyard 3294. Tower cleared the AA flight for takeoff with phrases "keep it rolling" and "no delay" he gave the distance of our final, I think it was 2 miles. It didnt work out and the controller told us to go around.

My point I guess is that the media does love to sensationlize because thats what makes news. As Cessna pointed out if theres a 1 in a million chance for something bad to happen, they are gonna write about that one chance.