הכול
← Back to Squawk list
Video: FAA Releases Radar and ATC Tape of Near Miss at Reagan National
The FAA late Thursday afternoon released a radar replay and air traffic control recording of an incident in which a plane was cleared for takeoff against the flow of traffic arriving into Reagan National Airport. (www.youtube.com) עוד...This is only 1/4th of what happened. We only hear the tower controller's voice.
To completely understand why this operational error happened, we need to hear what coordination occurred between the tower and the approach control supervision BEFORE the runway change.
We also need to hear the coordination that must be going on between the tower and the approach control DURING the events that are happening on this tape. During the long pauses this controller must have been asking for help from her tower supervisor, or someone else in the tower is asking the approach control just what is going on, etc.
Usually, the tower will tell the approach control that a runway change will be complete after a certain event takes place: after this arrival, after this departure, or whatever.
The screwup here (which is called an Operational Error) is someone ignored the parameters for when the runway change will be complete. And, my guess is that it is the Approach Control for sending the arrival inbound too early, much to the surprise of the tower controller, who still had two departures in the air and one more to depart. ( Yes, the tower could have messed up the departures, too.)
So, until we hear the "rest of the story", or the other coordination between the tower and the approach control before and during the Error, we don't really know why this happened at all.
To completely understand why this operational error happened, we need to hear what coordination occurred between the tower and the approach control supervision BEFORE the runway change.
We also need to hear the coordination that must be going on between the tower and the approach control DURING the events that are happening on this tape. During the long pauses this controller must have been asking for help from her tower supervisor, or someone else in the tower is asking the approach control just what is going on, etc.
Usually, the tower will tell the approach control that a runway change will be complete after a certain event takes place: after this arrival, after this departure, or whatever.
The screwup here (which is called an Operational Error) is someone ignored the parameters for when the runway change will be complete. And, my guess is that it is the Approach Control for sending the arrival inbound too early, much to the surprise of the tower controller, who still had two departures in the air and one more to depart. ( Yes, the tower could have messed up the departures, too.)
So, until we hear the "rest of the story", or the other coordination between the tower and the approach control before and during the Error, we don't really know why this happened at all.
Like it or not, the phrase “near miss” is here to stay. We all know what it means: it was a miss, it was close, but it was not a collision. The two planes came near each other, but they did not hit.
A good case could be made that “near miss” makes more sense than “near collision”. A collision is a collision. Could we have “far collisions” and “near collisions”? It makes more sense to talk about “far misses” and “near misses”.
It would probably solve all the semantic disputes to switch to adverbial phrases. Then we could say “nearly a miss” (which would be a collision), or “nearly a collision” (which would be a miss). We could also replace “nearly” with “almost” and "collision" with "hit" … but, as I said, like it or not, “near miss” is not going away.
Barring something amiss, my comment could be a hit, or it could collide with the semantic sensitivities of others, in which case it would definitely be amiss.
A good case could be made that “near miss” makes more sense than “near collision”. A collision is a collision. Could we have “far collisions” and “near collisions”? It makes more sense to talk about “far misses” and “near misses”.
It would probably solve all the semantic disputes to switch to adverbial phrases. Then we could say “nearly a miss” (which would be a collision), or “nearly a collision” (which would be a miss). We could also replace “nearly” with “almost” and "collision" with "hit" … but, as I said, like it or not, “near miss” is not going away.
Barring something amiss, my comment could be a hit, or it could collide with the semantic sensitivities of others, in which case it would definitely be amiss.
This reminds me of George Carlin's routine. "Near miss? It's a NEAR HIT! A collision would the a near miss! 'Oh, look. They nearly missed!'"
The jet problem occurred Tuesday afternoon after a miscommunication between a manager at Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar Approach Control and two traffic management coordinators at the airport, Huerta said."
Caused by management and staff, not controllers.
Caused by management and staff, not controllers.
Media sensationalism, YES