NTSB Report - Close Call (question)

[JEP]

When a close call like this takes place, do they go back and review tapes, etc... to see who/what/where/when and how the planes got so close?

[ QUOTE ]
NTSB Identification: LAX04IA302
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO
Incident occurred Thursday, August 19, 2004 in Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Boeing 737-7H4, registration: N461WN
Injuries: 182 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 19, 2004, about 1455 Pacific daylight time, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4, N461WN, was overflown by an Asiana Airlines Boeing 747 while the Southwest airplane was holding on the active runway 24L, at Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California. The Boeing 737 was operated by Southwest Airlines under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121. There was no damage to the airplane nor injuries to the 182 passengers and crew. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight plan had been filed.

On August 24th Southwest Airlines safety personnel reported to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator that the captain of Southwest flight 440 reported that an Asiana Boeing 747 came with in 200 feet of his airplane while it was executing a missed approach. Southwest flight 440 was in position for takeoff on runway 24L and holding. The captain's statement indicates that he became concerned when the Asiana airplane did not come in to his view as it should have when landing on the parallel runway 24R. He began to move his airplane off the runway when the Asiana airplane overflew his, coming within 200 feet. Preliminary information indicates that the captain of the Asiana Boeing 747 identified the runway conflict and executed a missed approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MikeD]

At least there wasn't a repeat of US Air 1493/Skywest 5569 from 1991 in this incident.

[cime_sp]

[ QUOTE ]
When a close call like this takes place, do they go back and review tapes, etc... to see who/what/where/when and how the planes got so close?

[ QUOTE ]
NTSB Identification: LAX04IA302
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO
Incident occurred Thursday, August 19, 2004 in Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Boeing 737-7H4, registration: N461WN
Injuries: 182 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 19, 2004, about 1455 Pacific daylight time, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4, N461WN, was overflown by an Asiana Airlines Boeing 747 while the Southwest airplane was holding on the active runway 24L, at Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California. The Boeing 737 was operated by Southwest Airlines under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121. There was no damage to the airplane nor injuries to the 182 passengers and crew. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight plan had been filed.

On August 24th Southwest Airlines safety personnel reported to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator that the captain of Southwest flight 440 reported that an Asiana Boeing 747 came with in 200 feet of his airplane while it was executing a missed approach. Southwest flight 440 was in position for takeoff on runway 24L and holding. The captain's statement indicates that he became concerned when the Asiana airplane did not come in to his view as it should have when landing on the parallel runway 24R. He began to move his airplane off the runway when the Asiana airplane overflew his, coming within 200 feet. Preliminary information indicates that the captain of the Asiana Boeing 747 identified the runway conflict and executed a missed approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

A Southwest Airlines flight with 182 passengers and crew??? OK, I'm confused. Were they carrying people in the baggage compartment as well?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[A Southwest Airlines flight with 182 passengers and crew??? OK, I'm confused. Were they carrying people in the baggage compartment as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That's total pax on both aircraft involved.

[tonyw]

That doesn't sound right, Mike.

A 747 and a 737 with 187 total?

Must have been one very lightly loaded 747! Or was it flying cargo?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't sound right, Mike.

A 747 and a 737 with 187 total?

Must have been one very lightly loaded 747! Or was it flying cargo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or could be a typo.

[JEP]

Its probably just wording, or miswording but here are some specs from the boeing site: It looks like the 737-900 would work: something is missing though:

[tonyw]

Yuppers. In any case, it will be interesting to see what they find out.

And another question. Why is it a near miss? Shouldn't it be a near hit?

Kind of like how the foul pole is actually in fair territory?

[Doug Taylor]

Here's a quick story before I go back to work...

Asiana had a big string of incidents similar to this a few years ago.

So the FAA started looking at the background of a few of the pilots, traced them back to their flight schools and 'invited' the CFI's that trained them for a 'chat'.

How do I know? Well, lets just say that Oklahoma City is warm in the summertime and can be nervewracking especially when you've just upgraded to captain and they're threatening a violation for students I trained almost three years earlier.

The FAA 'unwritten rules' about ATP-quality English...

Be careful!

Going to ATL at o'dark thirty, woo!

[JEP]

[ QUOTE ]
How do I know? Well, lets just say that Oklahoma City is warm in the summertime

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume all went as well as could be expected in OKC. Did they determine it to be "a command of the english languge" problem? Do they go back and review tapes from controllers to see who was where and where they should have been.

Have a nice flight tonight. Are you on your way home after arriving in Atl.? 6 more hours of work here... woohoo !!

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ts probably just wording, or miswording but here are some specs from the boeing site: It looks like the 737-900 would work: something is missing though:

[/ QUOTE ]

Except SWA doesn't fly -900s. I think it's either a misquote, a typo, or it is very likely that the 747 was that lightly loaded. There were only 4000 people total flying into MCO on SWA today. There's a possibility that the SWA flight only had about 25-30 people on it.

[JEP]

<hijack>Kellwolf just checking your bio and saw:
"Someone Hire Me, I have Ramp Experience!

Check out Pinnancle in Mem. I was just checking there site and they are hiring for some different positions. Watch for Mesaba as well. I was just offered a PT ramp position in MSP with Mesaba. They are hiring 30 people in Sept. and another 50 in October. Busy, Busy, Busy...

</end hijack>

[kellwolf]

My next move is gonna be Pinnacle. Not sure if they're hiring in MEM, but I'm gonna give it a shot. I'm also hitting up FedEx, Wilson Air Center and (gulp) Signature.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]
And another question. Why is it a near miss? Shouldn't it be a near hit?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be near miss.

Miss is a noun, which serves to describe the action that occurred: "What happened?" "There was a miss." Near is the adjective which modifies the noun: "What type of miss?" "It was a near miss."

While you could accurately say that the planes nearly hit (adverb and verb), you cannot call it a near hit because there was no hit of any kind (near or otherwise).

[/grammer police]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

MF

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And another question. Why is it a near miss? Shouldn't it be a near hit?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be near miss.

Miss is a noun, which serves to describe the action that occurred: "What happened?" "There was a miss." Near is the adjective which modifies the noun: "What type of miss?" "It was a near miss."

While you could accurately say that the planes nearly hit (adverb and verb), you cannot call it a near hit because there was no hit of any kind (near or otherwise).

[/grammer police]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

MF

[/ QUOTE ]

ahem ... nerd.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ QUOTE ]


ahem ... nerd.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Crap!! They're on to me! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

In my own defense, I teach legal writing, and my students' **cough interesting cough** use of grammar has required me to relearn all those rules I forgot 20 years ago.

MF