Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Jets Pass Within 300 Feet on Runways (BWI)
The Washington Post ^ | Dec 8, 2007 | Del Quentin Wilber

Posted on 12/08/2007 6:06:52 AM PST by RDTF

Two commercial jets came within 300 feet of hitting each other at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport last weekend, federal aviation officials said yesterday.

The incident occurred about 7:25 p.m. Sunday when a Delta Connection regional jet took off and flew over a US Airways Airbus A320 that was landing on a crossing runway, officials said.

Airline representatives said there were 43 passengers on the Delta Connection jet, which is operated by Comair and was headed to Boston. There were 150 passengers on the US Airways jet, which was arriving from Phoenix. No one was hurt on either plane.

The US Airways pilots reported the incident, FAA officials said, adding that the Delta Connection flight crew never saw the other plane.

FAA officials said a controller in the BWI tower improperly issued a takeoff clearance for the Delta Connection flight even though the US Airways plane was approaching the runway. The controller was not identified.

A system that alerts controllers to potential runway collisions sounded, but not in time for the controller to take action, FAA officials said. A representative of the controllers union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, declined to comment.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: aerospace; atc; bwi; faa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 12/08/2007 6:06:53 AM PST by RDTF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RDTF
Airline representatives said there were 43 passengers on the Delta Connection jet

I'm shocked!!!

The real story here is a passenger plane took off with some empty seats on board.

Every time I fly, I feel like the last fish being stuffed into a sardine can

2 posted on 12/08/2007 6:18:51 AM PST by Popman (My doohickey is discombobulated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

I flew back from Germany on Air Canada and ended up with a seat empty next to me. It was great.


3 posted on 12/08/2007 6:22:17 AM PST by AntiKev ("No damage. The world's still turning isn't it?" - Stereo Goes Stellar - Blow Me A Holloway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Popman

Landings (runways-to-taxi’s-to-terminal) are what concern me flying.


4 posted on 12/08/2007 6:23:00 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Was this another one of those “Land and hold short” clearances?


5 posted on 12/08/2007 6:37:49 AM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Did everyone wave?


6 posted on 12/08/2007 6:38:08 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

We fly out of BWI all the time. This really gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. BWI is not exactly the most crowded airport in the world, so one wonders what the excuse is for this. . .


7 posted on 12/08/2007 6:40:31 AM PST by Fairview ( Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
When someone from the media asked officials from the two airlines involved to comment on the incident, the official response was,

"What's the big commotion about? Trains pass within a couple feet of each other every day, and you guys are hassling us about 300' ?

Find some real news to report to the flying public about!"

8 posted on 12/08/2007 6:43:11 AM PST by webschooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fairview

THe excuse is in the article. And Air traffic controller improperly gave permission for a jet to land when one was taking off.


9 posted on 12/08/2007 6:46:16 AM PST by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Wow, they came within 300 feet and “no one was hurt”! I’m shocked that the intersecting force fields didn’t collapse somebodies spleen.


10 posted on 12/08/2007 6:46:58 AM PST by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
11 posted on 12/08/2007 6:50:47 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

Cajungirl, I did understand that this was the mechanism of the near-miss. I was wondering how the air-traffic controller made such a mistake.


12 posted on 12/08/2007 6:58:41 AM PST by Fairview ( Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fairview
BWI is not exactly the most crowded airport in the world, so one wonders what the excuse is for this. . .

********

True enough about the "busy/crowded" traffic level at BWI...

HOWEVER...
There is a lot of inherent possibilities woven into the multiple-crossing-runway design of the field.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The approach pathways are built to circumvent DCA and IAD (Dulles) to the south -- and bumped up against PHL to the north....

Ergo...
Local controllers have to accept and release traffic from BWI on several rhythms that extend well beyond the field boundaries (spelled - "distracted")...

Throw in the "angles".. and the "mix" of the bigs and the commuters, the corporates and the small general avation users...

My honest and professional [retired "bigs"] opine...

Barring major investment and improvements in the eastern seaboard corridors...
It's only a matter of time...

BWI is in the middle of the air traffic "combat zone"
(Everything North from RIC- Richmond, VA to PWM --Portland, ME.)

"Let's be careful out there..."
--Sgt Esterhaus

13 posted on 12/08/2007 7:09:35 AM PST by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

You left out nuclear warfare. :=)

14 posted on 12/08/2007 7:19:14 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

Is there an official distance between airliners that is acceptable under these circumstances, e.g. 1,000 feet?


15 posted on 12/08/2007 7:24:04 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
I was a Communications Officer in the Air Force in the late 60s when our Air Traffic Control System was upgraded from WWII technology and techniques. As Newt pointed out in the 96 election cycle, the FAA is the biggest purchaser of vacuum tubes!! ..and nothing else has changed.

With Tom Tom on the dash board you can navigate your car to the nearest Pizza Parlor after you kids soccer game. Cost? $500 plus shipping and handling!(thank you Billy Mays.) Yet a recent crash on takeoff occurred because the pilots were directed to the wrong runway for takeoff!!!!! With GPS and a laptop, none of these situations would happen. But then you would have to downsize the ATC to its needed stregnth, ZERO! Money and lives would be saved but the union wouldn't allow it!!!

Mind you with GPS and drones in the sky we can drop bombs to within inches of their aimpoint. This technology would allow us to downsize the cockpit crew to ONE! That person would be the emergency backup for the automated system which, God Forbid, would rarely CRASH!

Case closed.

16 posted on 12/08/2007 7:28:09 AM PST by Young Werther (Julius Caesar (Quae Cum Ita Sunt. Since these things are so.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
IIRC:

Approach-Landing or Takeoffs one behind the other:
Anything up to big--behind big... normally 3 miles...
Anything up to big--behind "jumbo" or "heavy" big... normally 5 miles...

Runway clearances -- same runway:
Landing traffic completely clear
Take-off traffic: airborne/clear of the surface (and GA - unable to abort/re-land on the same surface)

INTERSECTIONS: Conflicted traffic physically clear BEYOND the intersection

17 posted on 12/08/2007 7:31:06 AM PST by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Fairview

The same way anybody else makes a mistake. When you get a hamburger instead of the cheeseburger you ordered at McDonalds, it not as big a deal though. The person making the mistake was usually distracted. The garden variety idiots usually get sorted out pretty quickly, especially in air traffic control.


18 posted on 12/08/2007 7:46:36 AM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades and poop fights. Or so I'm told.
19 posted on 12/08/2007 7:52:37 AM PST by Doohickey (Giuliani: Brokeback Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

I green light at a traffic intersection does not mean “go”. It means “proceed with caution”. Same with “cleared to land” or “cleared for takeoff”. It’s not an invitation to take a mental snooze.


20 posted on 12/08/2007 7:59:22 AM PST by kylaka (iT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson