South Korean airliner avoided mid-air collision by 12 seconds : report

Yahoo ^ | AFP

[UseYourHead]

A tower warning system activated, indicating a collision was imminent, but the controller's response was delayed, according to US government investigators.

I think we need a quick check on this controller to see what happened - I don't like the sound of "response was delayed" when we are talking about a collision course.

[kaboom]

Already saw the video. Pretty close. One aircraft was pulling onto the runway and the other was about to land on top of it. This was an Aug 19 incident but the video must just be making the rounds and news, now.

[Deaf Smith]

"That can't be correct,"

145 ft is vertical. How quickly do you think a 747 can make a climb from a descent? The 12 seconds may be from the point of visual to clearing the SWA by 145 vertical feet.

[nw_arizona_granny]

ping

[Publius6961]

when the planes were just 12 seconds and about 145 feet (43.5 meters) apart...

I don't buy this. It's impossible to abort when that close. Maybe we should wait for more experienced reporting.

[Publius6961]

Where did you see the video?

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I'm thinking 12 seconds of reaction time by the Asiana pilot resulted in a 145 ft closest point of approach. Of course I could be wrong but we are reading a journalist writing about something that is almost science/math. Big risk on our part believing any of it to be true or correct.

[IonImplantGuru]

I'm thinking 12 seconds of reaction time by the Asiana pilot resulted in a 145 ft closest point of approach. Of course I could be wrong but we are reading a journalist writing about something that is almost science/math. Big risk on our part believing any of it to be true or correct.

Spot on, I think. I'm a pilot (not a pro, just private ticket) but I read between the lines and figured someone calculated the numbers based on KAL 747 airspeed on 3 deg landing glide slope (std for the heavy iron) that - if the KAL pilot had taken no corrective action and continued to land -that the KAL would have hit the plane taking off in another 12 sec; taking corrective action by making a go-around, the KAL missed the other a/c by ~150 ft of (probably) vertical separation.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I must be smart because I'm not even a pilot and couldn't even keep a plan level on Microsoft's flight simulator program.

[IonImplantGuru]

As an addendum, despite the fact that this appears to be a tower controller error, shame on the copilot (right seat, if they were turning left onto active runway) or pilot (if they turning right) of the a/c moving onto the active runway of not looking out his/her side window for incoming traffic as they started to roll to the runway. That is basic precaution taught early on to every pilot!

Conversely, an attaboy to the KAL pilot for some heads-up aviating. Traffic avoidance is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC (pilot in command) - not the tower, or controllers. At least that's the way I read the FARs (Fed Air Regs).

[nycgal]

Several years ago the plane I was on was coming in for a landing. The runway under us. Suddenly we were up, probably a couple hundred feet. It was fast. I didn't know we were up until we were. A little scary at first but awesome after we finally landed. 12 seconds is a long time when it comes to jets.

That happened to me in 1998 flying into O'Hare. We had almost touched down when we were suddenly going up, up, up. No explanation but I suspect the pilot managed to avoid a collision with a plane on the ground.

[SuziQ]

Makes me think of that horrible accident on the island of Tenerife, oh, maybe 30 years ago now. I believe a jet, while landing, flew right onto the top of one still on the ground on a foggy runway.