NTSB investigates repeat RJ near-miss at O'Hare

Status
Not open for further replies.
derg

derg

Apparently a "terse" writer
Staff member
NTSB investigates repeat RJ near-miss at O'Hare

By John Croft


Two Embraer regional jets under air traffic control guidance came close to colliding at the Chicago O'Hare international airport on 8 August in clear weather, an incident that appears very similar to a near-collision in the same location on 16 May.

According to the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary reportissued on 25 August, Chautauqua airlines Flight 5021, an Embraer ERJ-135 with 36 passengers and 3 crew, passed within 38m (125ft) vertically and 106m laterally of Trans States airlines Flight 3367, an ERJ-145 with 42 passengers and three crew, above runway 32L at 1100 local time that day.

"The Chautauqua ERJ-135 was on final approach to land on runway 9R when the Trans States ERJ-145 was cleared for takeoff from runway 32L," the NTSB said, adding that the flight paths for the two runways intersect over runway 32L.

Investigators say the local controller working the Trans States flight detected the conflict when the Chautauqua aircraft was approximately 1mi from the threshold of runway 9R. He instructed the local controller handling the Chautauqua arrival to "discontinue the landing and go around" and radioed the departing Trans States aircraft, which had just lifted off, "traffic alert, left to right, stay as low as you can," according to the report.

There were no injuries to the passengers or crew on either aircraft, and the Trans States flight continued on to its destination of Moline, Illinois.

The incident bears a striking resemblance to a near-miss in clear weather between a SkyWest CRJ200 and an ExpressJet ERJ-145 over runway 32R at O'Hare on the morning of 16 May.

In that incident, the NTSB says SkyWest flight 6958 was landing on runway 9R as ExpressJet flight 6075 was departing runway 32L. "The aircraft came within approximately 480ft [146m] laterally and 275ft [84m] vertically of each other while over runway 32L," says the NTSB.
Click to expand...
 
This airport has stuff like this happening all the time. Exactly why I don't subscribe to the "just keep moving...it's ok that they don't let you read back clearances."
 
Screaming_Emu said:
This airport has stuff like this happening all the time. Exactly why I don't subscribe to the "just keep moving...it's ok that they don't let you read back clearances."
Click to expand...

Well, while I do subscribe to this...

I think it's significantly different when we are operating on or near a runway in Chicago.

There guys are good, but as history has shown, there are some trouble areas that need real improvements.
 
Screaming_Emu said:
This airport has stuff like this happening all the time. Exactly why I don't subscribe to the "just keep moving...it's ok that they don't let you read back clearances."
Click to expand...

The majority of the problems I saw at O'Hare were from this exact situation, which doesn't really relate to the whole "don't read back the whole clearance" thing. The issue is the configuration they use all the time. Since there's like 1000'+ of separation between 32L and 9R (more along the approach to 9R), I think sometimes pilots unfamiliar with the operation sometimes don't realize that it's not OK to depart 32L when someone's on final for 9R. Additionally, I think they almost always had a separate controller for 32L and 9R. I never saw this kind of issue for 22L departures when landing 28 or 4L departures when landing 9R (same controller for both runways).

The only time the taxi instructions scared me was when an "english limited" carrier was taxiing to the south cargo terminal or 10--there's plenty of ways for things to get bad there. Other than that, I think all the recent incursions have been due to simultaneous departure/landing clearances.

That airport is a mid air waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

The only two things that scared me there were 1) another guy overshooting a parallel final, and 2) simultaneous go-arounds on intersecting runways. The taxi situation isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be.
 
if the 9R arrival was sent around before the 32L dept crosseed his path it will not be an error, as screwed up as that sounds thats the rules. once the arrival is sent around the tower is seperating the aircraft visually and as long as they dont hit it isnt an DEAL. this is what happened on May 16th, this was also not classified as an error.
 
The 27R/35 thing at PHL was interesting back in the day. I watched an airshow one day between a DHC-8 that was told to go-around on 35 about the same time the 737 on 27R decided to go-around on his own because he didn't like the spacing.

The only thing heard on the tower freq was "um, that was interesting".

Richman
 
MikeD said:
Taking the taxi tour around the Wedge, Bridge, Scenic, and Lakeshore Drive taxiways when the penalty boxes were full.
Click to expand...


You kids today have no idea what it was like taxiing around ORD back in the day...

(See attachment)


ORD.jpg


Kevin
 
surreal1221 said:
I think it's significantly different when we are operating on or near a runway in Chicago.
Click to expand...

See...that's the thing. There are a lot of people who have been the cause of runway incursions that didn't think they were on/near runways. In an ideal world, being extra alert near runways and what not is nice, its not always enough.

Saying "well its a busy airport, they operate a little different" is just like saying "well, we're number one in line for takeoff...lets skip the before takeoff checklist". I know it doesn't have a lot to do with this incident per say, but I still think it was worth mentioning.
 
Richman said:
The 27R/35 thing at PHL was interesting back in the day. I watched an airshow one day between a DHC-8 that was told to go-around on 35 about the same time the 737 on 27R decided to go-around on his own because he didn't like the spacing.

The only thing heard on the tower freq was "um, that was interesting".

Richman
Click to expand...

I've heard that phrase used at DCA once before. Not a good day.

35/27R isn't too bad. It is just assumed that the guy on 35 will go around. It's the new tall ships policy that makes me nervous.
 
BobDDuck said:
Not a good day..
Click to expand...

"Interesting days" never are....

Those six-eight leg days between DCA and PHL....you pretty much had to bring your A game, and keep it all day long. These days, I get winded if I have to walk back to the 2L lav.

Richman
 
Talked to the crew of the TSA plane the other day. Said they saw the CHQ right at V1. FO was flying and he just kept it as low as he could even before ATC told them to. Definitely got their pucker factor up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top