Updated: Whoa, That Airplane Is Really Close To Ours
Jon was freaked out when flying on Jetblue and his flight came in close proximity to another aircraft. He wonders if he should, and how he might, report such an incident. His story, and advice we got from an Air Force pilot, inside...
UPDATE: A former Air Force flight safety officer chimes in with some points to clarify about what our Air Force pilot had to say...
Jon writes:
We were about 20 minutes into the flight when the plane made a very sharp (~30 degree) bank to the right and went nose down. A few seconds after the maneuver began the plane began to shake violently. We eventually leveled off and went back to our original altitude. The pilot came on the PA and said that air traffic had given another plane a route to altitude in our path and that we had gone through it's jetwash. He then stated that basically we got too close. Later in the flight he was announcing our descent and must have hit a pocket of turbulence mid-sentence and we could all hear his voice shaking and he was taken by surprise. After talking to folks on the other side of the airplane (I was in the left side window), they saw the plane and said it was ridiculously close.
I asked my Air Force pilot buddy, Stephen Migala. He was able to explain what probably happened, and how the best way for you to take action is to lobby your reps for more funding for modernizing our current air traffic control system. His response:
The term the pilot used for the jetwash was probably wake turbulence. What your reader experienced is actually quite common, unfortunately.
Envision the skies as you would the U.S. Interstate system, a series of highways that come together around major cities/airports. The amount of traffic dramatically increases the closer you are to these places. Because of noise abatement procedures and what are known as departure and approach corridors (feeder ramps to align you with a runway) there is a very limited way to transition out of these airports and busy airspaces onto these sky highways literally called "jet routes." Consequently there are a lot of planes in a small amount of space. The FAA does its best to secure and divide the spaces into airspace that air traffic controllers regulate. Obviously it is impractical and difficult to control and talk to everyone flying around, especially smaller commuter or single engine prop planes, so procedures are in place to allow them to fly in certain areas without talking to controllers. The thought is that it is their responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft, meanwhile the larger planes in contact with air traffic control share a responsibility for avoidance with most of the impetus resting with the controllers that rely on passive radar signatures and hopefully working radar beacons equipped on all of these planes. It was these very beacons which likely caused the abrupt maneuver. It was what is known in the field as a Resolution Advisory (RA) from a traffic collision avoidance system. (Ref Wikipedia for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS) A computer on board each equipped airplane searches for other signals and beacons, analysis their position and movement relative to itself and if it is projected to or does get close enough it advises the aircrew of an impending threat. It is only in this case of an computer-advised threat that pilots are authorized to deviate from their assigned air traffic control instructions. Because it is so last minute the maneuvers have to be aggressive to avoid a collision. The aforementioned wake turbulence would then likely describe the violent shaking as the maneuvering plane probably passed the air that the threatening plane disturbed as it flew through creating vortises and unstable air that disrupt normal airflow around the wings producing lift and even into the engines for combustion.
I cannot knowledgeably speak to the consequences for controllers. I know it is not good. A repeated amount will have them in trouble and if the offended planes file what is known as a HATR (Hazardous Air Traffic Report) there could be a mini investigation to find out why such a dangerous situation developed. The FAA does track these and there is accountability. Not to try to take away any empowerment from the consumer but there is an inherent problem in allowing people/passengers to report such incidents. The when, where, how, and why would be unknown as would the circumstances resulting in more paperwork and money and no results. Most of the pilots flying around have thousands upon thousands of hours of experience and training and they cannot sometimes avoid it or figure out how it happened. Tracking this down other than through the filed paperwork by experts in the field and through quality assurance at the air traffic control centers is fiscally impractical at the level that these incidents currently occur. I currently know of no system in place to report such events by the flying public. I would however think that it is public domain to know the frequency of such occurrences and I 'm pretty sure there are statistics available about this but it would require a lot of digging.
Not to lessen the trauma of such an incident for the helpless passengers but it is unfortunately an increasing commonality as the US national airspace system designed decades ago struggles to accommodate far more planes and passengers than it ever planned for. These incidents are obviously not a result of the airline but of a series of minor lapses and oversights that occur daily by controllers and even pilots which happen to snowball into an event like this.
One of the best ways to take action is to demand from your representatives more funding and a restructuring of the national airspace system to modernize itself. The FAA has also cut back on controllers and many of them are overworked and underpaid for their unnoticed work in helping millions commute safely everyday, more of a voice and public backing for them would surely be appreciated.Flying is still by far the safest mode of transportation but being the best doesn't excuse not striving for perfection, especially when lives are at stake. I hope this helps some. While you're at it maybe a few disgruntled comments about the TSA would help too, the complacency generated by the appearance of security and ironically fear mongering is just as great of a danger.
Here's a great post Carey wrote about how to most effectively write a letter to Congress.
(Photo: Getty)
UPDATE: Reader Brian, a former Flight Safety Officer at the Moody Air Force Base, has a few points he wants to clear up about Stephen's response:
Your Air Force friend is looking at this from the Air Force's point of view, not the civilian point of view. I was a Flight Safety Officer in the Air Force at Moody AFB, and have investigated the Hazardous Air Traffic Reports (HATRs) he mentioned. However, civilians do not file that form normally, that HATR is strictly an Air Force Form 651. Civilians normally file the NASA Aviation Reporting System form (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/) , and this in most cases will protect the pilot filing the form of any punishment as it is used to improve safety in aviation system. The only time a HATR is filled out by a civilian is when someone calls the base because of an incident (near miss usually) with a military aircraft. Only the Air Force investigates and tracks HATRs. The FAA does not get involved with HATRs unless it directly involves an FAA resource such as a radar, published procedure, FAA-owned navigational aid, or an FAA controller action.
Also, he is only partially correct on the departure and arrival corridors. Some are for noise abatement, but all are for giving aircraft a way to transition to/from the airways. He said "Obviously it is impractical and difficult to control and talk to everyone flying around, especially smaller commuter or single engine prop planes, so procedures are in place to allow them to fly in certain areas without talking to controllers" is incorrect and misleading. Of course small planes can fly around at low altitudes without talking to controllers, but not commuter planes. They have different routes to fly at the lower altitudes, but they still talk to controllers. Also, when the president visits a city, everyone within 30 nautical miles is required to talk to an air traffic controller, or they get a personal airshow from an F-16 until they land.
His quote "most of the impetus resting with the controllers that rely on passive radar signatures and hopefully working radar beacons equipped on all of these planes" is also misleading. If the radar beacons are not working, they are not allowed into airspace above 10,000 feet and will get a very non-efficient route until it is working. ATC radar is actually active in nature by sending out a signal and getting a return. Passive is where a system just listens for information instead of sending out a "request," in this case the radar signal. TCAS is actually a passive system relying on the ATC radar to generate a return from other aircraft's' beacon, and then it is shown on the pilot's display. The rest is correct about TCAS.
"..is unfortunately an increasing commonality as the US national airspace system designed decades ago struggles to accommodate far more planes and passengers than it ever planned for," is not an accurate quote. The National Airspace System can handle the amount of airplanes in it now and more in the future. In fact, the number of cruising altitudes was doubled in 2005, going from 2000 foot separation to 1000 foot separation above 29,000 feet to 41,000 feet. Yet delays were not reduced. The largest problem is the lack of runways built to handle the traffic. The true on ramp and off ramps to the highways in the sky are runways, and until the laws of physics change, only on airplane can land or takeoff on a runway at a time.
As a somewhat recent hire into the field of Air Traffic Control, I appreciate his appreciation of our hard work in the field despite the current relationship with those who are making it harder for us to do our jobs. The FAA didn't exactly cutback on the number of controllers, they just failed to hire replacements in a timely manner in an effort to reduce payroll for the demanding, high stress job that is air traffic control.
Thanks,
Brian
This is a test using rich text formatting and html links. It's the generic "company" ad that should appear on all posts with the Company category if they don't have an ad attached to a specific company.
Post a comment
Comments:
Thankfully there is no need to address this problem through modernizing our air traffic control system.
Jet fuel prices, the bankruptcy of five airlines in the past few months and the grounding of hundreds of planes by multiple carriers should sufficiently reduce airport skyway congestion, eliminating these close calls.
You know with teh internets, perhaps we could outsource air traffic control? Why pay high prices for people to sit in those towers? A few webcams and we could have "Hello My Name is Debbie" from overseas managing our airspace (and taking your McDonalds drive-in order!).
Arent the air traffic controllers still relying on Towers and radar systems when they could (albeit at a hefty price) switch to Satellite-based traffic control?
I had one of these "near misses" and it kept me from flying for a few years....very troubling
Wow, that was quite thought provoking. I've often wondered how close is too close, but would have assumed that sucking 'wake turbulence' from a close pass by is TOO EFFING CLOSE!!!
I've had big jets pass by close enough to make out faces through the little window ports, and thought that that was already too close, but this story one ups anything I've yet experienced (thank God!)
Yikes! (Thanks to AF person for the valuable info, and for being our AF hero of the day ;^)
I think the Air Force pilot's response pretty much covers anything anybody could ask about this issue.
Wake turbulence hangs out for 2-4 minutes, depending on the jet. It doesn't necessarily mean "close call".
Though it is scary. I've taken hundreds of flights over the last 30 years and only had one wake turbulence scare coming out of a very busy Frankfurt.
Interesting fact, most air traffic control could be done more effectively and cheaper using GPS, but the air traffic controllers' union doesn't want that.
Thats what I what to "lobby" my Congressman for.
True story.
I think someone needs to start a consumer website dedicated to reporting these incidents. Looks like www.holyshitthatwasclose.com is available.
Something similar happened to me last year when I was flying back to Birmingham. We were just about to land (and I mean, we were *really* close to the ground), when all of a sudden, we pulled up and accelerated quickly. The pilot came on the intercom and said that another plane was crossing the runway and we could have hit them if we had landed. Quite scary.
Every time somebody talks about "Flying Cars" in the future, I think about things like this.
People can't operate motor vehicles currently in two dimensions - if even professional airline pilots have this problem, imagine the idiot down the street in his flying DeLorean!
@ras_d: Oh you said it before me, but its a major capital improvement, and it could be done with private business, so the government wouldn't be there to mess it up, and we wouldn't be on the hook for it.
I have a feeling our next President will not be willing to expand capitalism, or please Americans at the expense of unions, but maybe someday we can do the logical thing with air traffic control and privatize/ modernize (under government jurisdiction and guidelines of course, no one wants air traffic control to be held in the hands of someone irresponsible)...
Good thing Maverick was in control!!
This gives me chills.
I may write Congress, but ask them to improve Amtrak funding/track priority.
That wasn't a near miss...it was a near HIT!
We miss ya, George.
@JeffDrummer: Hasn't capitalism expanded enough? The commies in China are doing it better than we ever did, and thanks to our business-owned politicians they'll keep on doing it to us.
True, without those pesky unions mucking up the god(less)-given right of the bosses to deny a stake in innovation, healthcare, the right to air grievances, and other taboo items, "expanded capitalism" would also be able to wreck our country faster, too. Maybe there's a well run company like Enron, Bear Sterns, Countrywide, Diebold, etc. that can step up to the plate and revolutionize air traffic, too.
Can't wait to jump into a plane that's managed by software built by the same clowns that gave us Ohio 2004. At least the malfunctions and crashes will be disproportionately weighted toward those who bought the anti-union rhetoric as well as the rising cost of tickets.
@InfiniTrent: Actually, I think that's part of what is holding up the Moller Skycar. I believe a lot of their funding went into preparing a satellite-based 'skyway' system for their future pilots.
I think I'll go a-hunting and see what I come up with, as I have no idea what the status of that is.
Wasn't 'wake turbulence' essentially what brought down that American Airlines flight over Brooklyn in November of 2001?
Hat's off to Stephen Migala! Well-written and informative. Thanks!
To the Freepers, one word: Haliburton. You had your shot and the results speak for themselves. Will you ever learn from mistakes of your own making? To the back of the line with you.
I've read that one of the causes of rising congestion is the mini-airlines owned by the biggies, so that they can post 20 JFK/National flights a day. All ten of them. Pawned off on no-union, less trained, less maintained charter fleets. If the majors would constrain themselves to several flights a day (times ten) instead of the dozen, it'd reduce congestion without impacting service much, and lead to fewer near-misses.
Wake Turbulence can last for 3 minutes and it travels back and downward. You can hit it without being in a near miss. This is a common issue for small aircraft to avoid landing or taking off directly behind a larger one since it can flip the plane.
@ophmarketing Yes, I think so.
@ophmarketing: I think technically it was an incorrect response by the pilot to wake turbulence, i.e. overly aggressive rudder input which caused the rudder to fail.
On another matter, it is important to remember that it is very difficult to judge distances in clear air without a frame of reference. Therefore although you can see the other plane apparently flying quite close, you really have no idea of the separation distance.
@Trai_Dep:
"...I've read that one of the causes of rising congestion is the mini-airlines owned by the biggies...Pawned off on no-union, less trained, less maintained charter fleets....."
do you think or do any research before spouting uninformed bullshit?
One thing I remember being told by someone in the aviation industry once was always wear your seatbelt even when the seatbelt sign is off. I am guessing the maneuvers on the flight being described are the exact sort of thing behind that.
@ophmarketing: That was American 587. It went down in Belle Harbor, Queens.
Trai_Dep: in the immortal words of Phillip Fry, "you're close, but you're way off." It's the crowding of the airways by a lot of smaller planes. Basically, the airlines would rather fly four smaller jets than one big or two medium ones.
This does not discount the other comments raised here (the antiquated ATC system, insistence on old-style IFR flight rules, etc).
Triborough: you are correct, sir.
TCAS works pretty well to avoid these issues. Wake turbulence was involved in the NY AA crash but not the sole factor. Now this doesn't stop hotshot military pilots from buzzing other aircraft. [www.aopa.org] Classy.
@MissPeacock: That's a go-around and more common than you would think when flying. Pilots train for that maneuver many times in their training routines and even have to learn to do it on one engine.
Regulations say there can only be one moving aircraft on the runway at a time, so anytime another aircraft comes close and may not stop, the pilot (or controller in the tower) can call for a go around. Of course, go-arounds can happen for many more reasons also.
@kepler11: Actually, he's not that far off. Companies like Mesa, American Eagle, etc. tend to have less experienced employees, with a lower union headcount. But as Joe Hass mentions, its the numerous commuter jets that are the bigger part of the problem. They require just as much time, airspace, etc. as a big jet and carry 1/4 (or less) the passengers. The small airlines do this to save on costs and offer more flight times. But in the end it costs them more money due to the costs of delays (fuel prices, OT, operating costs). Of course, nobody wants to be the only company that cuts back on their commuter flights as the other airlines will pick up those take off spots, so nobody will blink (google "tragedy of the commons").
@Silversmok3: Well, if you have a "near-MISS", you pretty well screwed, cause you just hit something.@Fallom: Agreed.
@dweebster: OK that is an absurd argument, the GDP per person in China is over 10x less than America.
It is romantic to think that Communism works well, but it just doesn't.
In China there is no such thing as land ownership (except to very few) nearly no one owns a house (they are all leased from the government)...
I am going to go on a limb and assume that you have never been to China. The cities are indeed almost as nice as American cities, Shanghai is absolutely amazing, unlike anything you would ever see, however just past the city, slums unlike anything you could imagine.
So you really want Communism? Yes, America has its slums, I have been through some bad neighborhoods in Birmingham, NoLa, and right here in Buffalo... nothing close to China.
@ras_d:
Ditto. Why not use sat based navigation, have the planes positions all tracked and run them through a model that would warn of future collisions? We can't honestly still be using only radar to keep track of these things?
As usual, it comes down to money.When there was a near miss at Ohare some months back, an ATC manager laid it out:
Its about the fact that upgrading costs money, and changing over from the old system to a new ground-up ATC system requires:
A training all the pilots internatinally to recognize the new system.
Physically building a secure ATC network from scratch that , again, works internationally.
Training the ATC staff to use the new system
And finally adapting from the old to the new.
No one wants to be responsible for an air crash/accident because of a transitonal 'glitch'or a computer bug in the new ATC sattelite/GPS system.
As long as the computer is authorizing a deviation from a flight path before you hit and with enough time to avoid hitting, there is no problem. How long do plane wakes last behind a plan? If it is a couple of minutes, this probably wasn't as close as people think.
Amazingly, in the span of just 33 comments we've seen the following two solutions to this problem:
More unions!
... and ...
... wait for it ...
More Communism!
Does anyone actually, seriously believe that the situation would be remedied by either of these, or are these just reflexive responses to any issue that involves large corporations and government regulation?
There is already a huge group of projects meant for completely modernizing these systems. One of the managers for a few of these projects is in my immediate family. Believe me, things will be MUCH better in the future.
With all the airlines cutting back flights (as well as a few bankruptcies), this should happen less and less.
If it was an official incident (i.e near miss, Clear Air Turbulance, etc), I believe the crew would be required to file a report with the NTSB. If so, it would show up here: [ntsb.gov]
@banmojo:
Actually, the wake from some aircraft (757s are major offenders in this arena, as are pretty much anything with a high wing load, like RJs) can persist for up to... 5 minutes, or so. I've eaten wake turbulence off a 757 while being about six minutes in trail (mind you, I was flying something considerably slower-climbing - a Beech Travelair), so it's possible. That would work out to about 30 miles of spacing (give or take), far more than the three miles required in terminal airspace (and five miles enroute, or outside of Class B and C airspace, the kind that normally surrounds major airports).
Hence TCAS. Wish my airplane had it. But it's a Metroliner, so it'd probably double the value of the airplane ;)
@MissPeacock: As scottr0829 said, going around isn't a once-in-a-million event. Your pilot was probably going as slow as he could, trying to give the other guy time to clear the runway, and it just didn't happen in time. It happens, and usually at the most annoying time, especially when the airplane in front of you swore up and down he'd make a specific exit, then goes blazing past it at Warp Nine, forcing the guy behind him to go around. Be glad you didn't have a truck pull out in front of you as you came over the fence, as happened to me not terribly long ago (at a northern strip, where security might just be Chinese to the airport operators) ;)
Sat Navigation is one of those things that sounds simple. But remember, it's not only the ground-based equipment that would need to be upgraded. ALL of the avionics equipment in all the commercial and civilian airplanes in the US would have to be upgraded. And then what about the rest of the world? It would still be on the old system of VORs, etc. So in order to replace the current system, you'd have to have a transition period of several decades where both systems were in operation.....sounds like a nightmare.
Also, what's the big deal with this story and the other stories of close calls? I had similar incident landing at John Wayne Airport in CA. Civilian aircraft strayed into the path of our plane, which then had to make a quick turn to avoid it. There was no crash so the system worked. Commercial airlines have warning system that will warn them before a mid-air collision. When was the last time there was a mid air collision involving a commercial airliner in the US?? Been a while. Why spend 100's of billions of dollars replacing a system that works just fine. Sure, it could always use some upgrades, but lets not get our panties in a bunchl.
Ugh. Unless I have to travel overseas, I am sticking to transport that touches the earth's surface at all times.
@JeffDrummer: Aboslutely, 100% WRONG! The majority of airplanes use GPS today, and the controllers union is not against upgrading. Read some information before spouting your verbal diarrhea.
The controller's want the FAA to upgrade the system, just not all at one time, but in small steps to make sure it works and not to some politician's family member.
@JeffDrummer: You must be a member of the ATA saying those things. How well as the FSS privitization gone? NOT WELL, in fact very poorly! Read some stories about the private company running the ATC system in Austrialia and it will change your mind. Plus user fees will KILL General Aviation just like it did in Europe. Fuel taxes are fair and collected with minimal cost instead of tracking every flight and then billing the user.
@kepler11: My source is Patrick Smith's Ask the Pilot column and book [www.askthepilot.com.] He's well regarded by the wings-on-their-collar types, so I figure he knows more about such things than I do. And, I'd bet, a great deal more than you do.
@kepler11: And, Freeper guys, you realize when you call us to cite our refs, we can, right? We're not dittoheads, fercrissakes.
We're happy to. Makes you guys look foolish and allows us to reinforce our point. Again. Meanwhile, your retort is... Poorly sourced ad hominems?
It doesn't really make your position look more persuasive. At all.
Quit while you're ahead?
@Joe Hass: It could be a combination of the commuter flights and the mini-airlines chartered by the major carriers? It's been a while since I read Smith's article, but what you're saying was one of his major points: smaller planes take the same "slot" as a jumbo-jet, only much less efficiently, leading to our current overcrowding. Thanks for the clarification.
And as ARP says, it's a Tragedy of the Commons. Maybe rising fuel prices will help fix this?
"It's called Thunderbird."
@BK88: I believe that while the planes do use GPS, I do not believe the ATC track planes by GPS. The current GPS plane tracking system running are a sort of trial run for the FAA. A private company will be running the new nationwide GPS tracking system. So your fears might be realized.
About 20 years ago I was flying into BWI on a commercial airline flight from San Francisco. It was night and the the weather was clear. As soon as the plane's wheels touched the runway the pilot gunned the engines and took off again. I knew that touch and go maneuvers are a no-no on commercial airliners and I tried to find out why this happened. I ran into a brick wall in my attempts to find an explanation. It seemed like the airline felt that it was none of my business.
If you have a near miss in an airplane, there's not too much you can do about it unless you're the pilot.
And if there's a midair fender-bender youll have bigger problems then which agency to file a compaint with.