2 planes nearly collide in midair above Orlando airport

[Oxman]

Video in link...

2 planes nearly collide in midair above Orlando airport

Video captured two planes nearly colliding in the air above Orlando International Airport in Florida last month — and the FAA is now investigating the close call.

nypost.com

Two planes nearly collided in the air above a Florida airport in a close call that was captured on video — and the FAA is investigating the mishap, according to a report.

The pilot of a single-engine Cessna plane came within about 500 feet of a Delta 757 that was taking off from Orlando International Airport last month, ABC News reported.

The pilot, Malik Clarke, told the news station he had to take “evasive action” to avoid the much larger plane.

“I knew that this didn’t look right, so immediately, I turned right and I climbed as steeply as I could because the Boeing 757 from Delta has a much higher climb rate than the aircraft that I was flying,” Clarke told ABC.

Video taken by Clarke of the incident shows the huge jet taking off just a relatively short distance from his small aircraft.


“If I hadn’t done that evasive maneuver, it’s quite likely there would have been a midair collision,” he added.

The Federal Aviation Administration is probing the near-miss, according to the report.

“It was somebody’s error to put them in the same part of the sky,” said Steve Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former State Department official.

Delta is also investigating the error.

“Nothing is more important than safety,” a spokesperson told ABC.

 

[fholbert]

Saw this. I thought the GA pilot was making a big deal out of nothing.

When I was an AF ATC'er departures had an attitude restriction until departure end of he runway, it was 500" below the overhead pattern. We also ran VFR traffic over the runway to to local airport 4 miles away at the overhead pattern altitude. Sometimes a pilot would say something about a C-5 / C-141 passing below. Legal vertical separation for VFR aircraft is 500', even above a C-5.

It's also possible visual separation was being provided by Delta or the Tower.

 

[MikeD]

Saw this. I thought the GA pilot was making a big deal out of nothing.

When I was an AF ATC'er departures had an attitude restriction until departure end of he runway, it was 500" below the overhead pattern. We also ran VFR traffic over the runway to to local airport 4 miles away at the overhead pattern altitude. Sometimes a pilot would say something about a C-5 / C-141 passing below. Legal vertical separation for VFR aircraft is 500', even above a C-5.

It's also possible visual separation was being provided by Delta or the Tower.

View attachment 66705

thats still standard for mil fields. Here at DMA, for example, all takeoffs are to cross the departure end of the runway no higher than 3700’ (1000’ AGL) due to the overhead pattern above at 4200’ (1500 AGL).

And also similar to your example above, DMA has a single runway 12/30, about 6 air miles away to the west, TUS has a perpendicular runway, 1 of 3 of its runways, that is 3/21. When TUS would be using 21 for westerly winds, I’ve had a number of times when airline traffic is on final for 21 at TUS, crossing the midfield of DMA perpendicular about 500 or so feet above the overhead pattern. Granted, I haven’t had one pass directly above me as I was crossing initial inbound, as ATC seemed to sequence them before or after overhead pattern traffic, and the airliners weren’t talking to DMA tower anyway, they were getting switched at that point from RAPCON to TUS tower.

But yeah, that kind of stuff is still standard.

 

[MikeD]

Video in link...


“I knew that this didn’t look right, so immediately, I turned right and I climbed as steeply as I could because the Boeing 757 from Delta has a much higher climb rate than the aircraft that I was flying,” Clarke told ABC.

Just fyi, not the recommended technique for collision avoidance……trying to out climb factor traffic to you that has a much faster climb rate than you. Find a different flight path vector to take. Maneuver towards the traffic’s six and stay level, versus trying to out climb or out pace his vertical or horizontal flight vectors. Natural building of vector angles will avoid any collision potential for these very disimilar

Dogfighting basics on avoiding a midair.

 

[N826AW]

Just fyi, not the recommended technique for collision avoidance……trying to out climb factor traffic to you that has a much faster climb rate than you. Find a different flight path vector to take. Maneuver towards the traffic’s six and stay level, versus trying to out climb or out pace his vertical or horizontal flight vectors. Natural building of vector angles will avoid any collision potential for these very disimilar

Dogfighting basics on avoiding a midair.

That's what he did. If you watch the video he made a right turn that's when ATC picked up something was wrong and asked him to verify the heading he was given.

 

[MikeD]

That's what he did. If you watch the video he made a right turn that's when ATC picked up something was wrong and asked him to verify the heading he was given.

how he describes it in the part i highlighted, is faulty logic. All he had to make was a turn, no “climb as steeply as I could” needed, for the exact reasoning he gives……he isn’t going to be about to out climb factor traffic with a climb rate that far exceeds his.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I think the important takeaway here is that his heroic actions saved the day. Which was presumably reflected in his check from the tabloids.

 

[BobDDuck]

When I was an AF ATC'er departures had an attitude restriction until departure end of he runway, it was 500" below the overhead pattern.

That's not a 121 (or civilian in general) thing. At my previous gig we used to fly into a several joint use airport. Eglin was notorious for clearing us for takeoff and then when we were at about 80 knots in the takeoff roll, telling us to stop our climb at 500 or 800 feet due to traffic in the overhead. It all eventually got straightened out but it took a few ASAPs and the FAA getting involved.

 

[fholbert]

That's not a 121 (or civilian in general) thing. At my previous gig we used to fly into a several joint use airport. Eglin was notorious for clearing us for takeoff and then when we were at about 80 knots in the takeoff roll, telling us to stop our climb at 500 or 800 feet due to traffic in the overhead. It all eventually got straightened out but it took a few ASAPs and the FAA getting involved.

In my experence, at military airports the climb restrictions are published. Tower broadcasting climb restrictions is simply a reminder when inbound traffic will create a conflict.

I’m sure Orlando does not have the published restrictions but telling an aircraft to maintain an altitude would not be uncommon. When the local controller observed visual separation the altitude restriction can be cancelled.

 

[Beefy McGee]

That's not a 121 (or civilian in general) thing. At my previous gig we used to fly into a several joint use airport. Eglin was notorious for clearing us for takeoff and then when we were at about 80 knots in the takeoff roll, telling us to stop our climb at 500 or 800 feet due to traffic in the overhead. It all eventually got straightened out but it took a few ASAPs and the FAA getting involved.

They still do it at 1000" sometimes.

 

[BobDDuck]

They still do it at 1000" sometimes.

Better, but still crappy.

 

[fholbert]

Better, but still crappy.

What’s crappy? That would be vertical separation 101.

 

[Beefy McGee]

What’s crappy? That would be vertical separation 101.

That kind of ATC constraint usually comes at a bad time where you can't refuse it, such as with a fighter about to be directly overhead. So you have to comply and that can put you in a situation of having to deviate from company SOP and limitations. So that may mean having to level off at an altitude where you can't (per your SOP and manuals) do stuff like raise flaps, or because by 1000' our plane is usually hitting about a 3000 fpm climb rate, you have to be pulling power out before our SOP normally allows for it. It forces us to violate normal procedures. Probably not something you would get in trouble for, but what if during this you had bad luck and lost an engine or something too? Now you are off script and potentially not in the standard config that has been tested for safety to deal with said emergency. All because a controller decided not to tell you about overhead traffic and rolled you anyway.

 

[BobDDuck]

That kind of ATC constraint usually comes at a bad time where you can't refuse it, such as with a fighter about to be directly overhead. So you have to comply and that can put you in a situation of having to deviate from company SOP and limitations. So that may mean having to level off at an altitude where you can't (per your SOP and manuals) do stuff like raise flaps, or because by 1000' our plane is usually hitting about a 3000 fpm climb rate, you have to be pulling power out before our SOP normally allows for it. It forces us to violate normal procedures. Probably not something you would get in trouble for, but what if during this you had bad luck and lost an engine or something too? Now you are off script and potentially not in the standard config that has been tested for safety to deal with said emergency. All because a controller decided not to tell you about overhead traffic and rolled you anyway.

Not to mention the takeoff data is predicated on a certain climb gradient through a certain altitude. Stopping your climb at 500 or even 1000 feet puts you below the gradient and takes away whatever terrain protections were built in to the departure procedure.

 

[MikeD]

That kind of ATC constraint usually comes at a bad time where you can't refuse it, such as with a fighter about to be directly overhead. So you have to comply and that can put you in a situation of having to deviate from company SOP and limitations. So that may mean having to level off at an altitude where you can't (per your SOP and manuals) do stuff like raise flaps, or because by 1000' our plane is usually hitting about a 3000 fpm climb rate, you have to be pulling power out before our SOP normally allows for it. It forces us to violate normal procedures. Probably not something you would get in trouble for, but what if during this you had bad luck and lost an engine or something too? Now you are off script and potentially not in the standard config that has been tested for safety to deal with said emergency. All because a controller decided not to tell you about overhead traffic and rolled you anyway.

Tower should reiterate the departure end crossing restriction when takeoff clearance is given. It’s simple to accomplish so long as you have been made aware of it and can meet it yourself right after liftoff, then continue climb afterward. The suck part is being told of it during your takeoff roll, which doesn’t make it impossible to meet, but is not the optimal time to be thinking of that while monitoring a takeoff. ATC needs to let planes know that early.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Is it me or did he say he was told to overfly the runway but was actually flying well past the departure end? Afaik if you’re told to overfly a runway 99% of the time that means midfield where any departures are still on the ground. Also, they never had less than 500’ vertical and the DAL pilots had him sight so were probsbly told to maintain visual Sep.

 

[fholbert]

Not to mention the takeoff data is predicated on a certain climb gradient through a certain altitude. Stopping your climb at 500 or even 1000 feet puts you below the gradient and takes away whatever terrain protections were built in to the departure procedure.

Mike has seen more of these than I, but overhead patterns are typically at 1,500' agl (sometimes 2,000' agl). Overhead aircraft make a level turn to downwind. Departing aircraft are restricted to 1,000 agl until the departure end of the runway so they don't climb through the overhead pattern.

A couple things I don't understand.

• This is SOP for a lot of Military Pilots, many flying heavy jets, others high performance fighter types. Why is this a burden for a 91, 121, or 135 pilots?
• When a departure procedure is TERPS it's built from the departure end of the pavement. If you cross the departure end at 1,000' with flying speed, it seems like your money in the bank.
• I know many carriers policy is to engage the autopilot ASAP. Are you going to get into trouble for hand flying for a mile? Sure beats an F-22 up your APU.

I do acknowledge it's a little inconvenient, but I don't see the issue?

 

[FlyingAccountant]

It doesn't look that close. Wouldn't the DL guys have had him on their TCAS scope anyway?

 

[Skåning]

It doesn't look that close. Wouldn't the DL guys have had him on the fish finder?

FTFY

 

[ASpilot2be]

• I know many carriers policy is to engage the autopilot ASAP. Are you going to get into trouble for hand flying for a mile? Sure beats an F-22 up your APU.

It is?