Posted on 08/17/2007 9:13:26 AM PDT by 7thOF7th
L.A. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Aug. 17, 2007 (KABC-TV) - A close call at LAX could have had disastrous consequences. Airport officials are reporting two planes came within 200 feet -- perhaps as little as 50 feet -- on the airport runways. There have been near collisions at LAX before, but this one was very close. The FAA says it appears that both the air traffic controller and the pilot of the plane landing made mistakes.
The incidents happened around 1 p.m. Thursday afternoon. Officials say a WestJet Boeing 737 coming in from Canada was landing. The plane seats around 132 passengers. It nearly struck a Northwest Airbus A320 that was taking off. The WestJet plane managed to stop just in time to avoid a collision.
A FAA spokesman says that the arriving pilot was on the wrong radio frequency and therefore unable to get directions from the air traffic controller. Then the ground traffic controller cleared the pilot for landing without first checking with the air traffic controller.
LAX has had a number of these incursions, and this was already the eighth near collision on a runway at LAX this year. That already matches the total number of such incidents in 2006.
The FAA is looking at changing some policies and instituting some new measures that hopefully will ease some of these near collisions at airports across the country.
I always thought they should make the whole nose cone out of glass for maximum visibility. :-)
BUMP!
I am a retired USAF air traffic controller. After reading this article I have no idea what the writer is trying to say. The article talks about a ground traffic controller and the air traffic controller. These don’t refer to any ATC positions I am familar with. Ground Control does not clear aircraft to land or takeoff, they issue taxi clearances to aircraft on the ground. The Local controller in the tower issues landing and takeoff clearance. All are air traffic controllers so I’m no sure exactly what the author is trying to say. Was the arriving aircraft on ground frequency, Tower frequency, or Approach frequency? Not much of this article makes any sense to me.
It might have scared you, but it was probably out of an abundance of caution that the pilot went around. Most go-arounds aren't strictly necessary - they are precautionary because the pilot feels that something isn't right about his approach or what he sees in front of him. Nothing to worry about - on the contrary, a pilot that kept on going might have ended up scaring you a lot worse!
I've only heard it from the tower. Only after clearing the runway did I ever speak to ground.
ML/NJ
“You beat me to it!”
Me too.
You are right, of course, but aviation and air traffic control is difficult to explain to the layman. If you don’t have an aviation background it is hard to understand VORTACs, radial, DME, visual separation, special VFR, etc.
Those are completely fake.
Kick the tire,
light the fire ,
go on guard, leave the yard.
Ping.
Maybe he ran out of fuel and just sort of dropped onto the runway. With today's MSM writers who knows what happened.
Hello ops33!
First, thank you for your service!!
Second, you are totally correct, there is much lacking from this story.
Recently retired from ATC, there have been many cases of aircraft on my frequency in error. Sometimes you have them return to previous. Other times you try to find where they should be. Then, there are times, when known traffic, you call the call/talk to controller responsible and just relay the clearances.
There is much left to be said in this story.
Thanks again,
Rohn
When these misguided souls showed up on your frequnecy in error, did you tell them they were "cleared to land"?
ML/NJ
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.