February 26, 2014

Near Misses and Close Calls in the Air

More articles by »
Written by: Patrick Smith
Tags: , , , , , ,

Not to scare anybody, but the number of near collisions between commercial aircraft is going up.

In the past year, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, the rate of what it considers “serious” airspace incursions in the United States rose from 2.44 per million flights to 3.28 per million flights. That works out to fewer than 10 incidents per year, but still the trend is a worrying one, especially as the number of lesser infractions has risen more sharply.

The news isn’t entirely surprising. There are more planes flying than ever before, overseen by an air traffic control infrastructure that has not kept pace. And regional jets, which tend to fly short-haul routes at lower altitudes, in and out of busy hubs, now account for half of all commercial traffic. The terminal area — airspace in and around airports, where collisions are most likely to occur — has never been busier.

Pilot and controller organizations, together with the FAA, are taking this uptick very seriously. As they should. In the meantime, nervous fliers should be wary of alarmist media coverage.

In an Associated Press story making the rounds, reporter Joan Lowy writes, “In some cases, pilots made last-second changes in direction after cockpit alarms went off to warn of an impending crash.”

The alarm she’s referring to is part of a cockpit safety device called TCAS — Traffic Collision Avoidance System, pronounced “Tea-Cass.” Linked to the plane’s transponder, TCAS gives pilots a graphic, on-screen representation of surrounding aircraft. If certain thresholds of distance and altitudes are crossed, it will issue progressively ominous oral and visual commands.

Personally I find TCAS to be needlessly complicated and over-engineered, but most important, it works. If two aircraft continue flying toward each other, their TCAS units work together, vocalizing a loudly imperative “Climb!” instruction to one, and “Descend!” to the other.

When the AP says “last-second,” that’s not to be taken literally in most cases. Response times vary. And “impending crash”? Probably not. The alarm is designed to prevent a near miss, not  respond to one.

In 1978 a Pacific Southwest Airlines 727 collided with a Cessna while preparing to land at San Diego. In 1986 an Aeromexico DC-9 plunged into a Los Angeles suburb after hitting a Piper that had strayed, sans permission, into restricted airspace. Ten years later, a Saudi Arabian 747 was struck by a Kazakh cargo jet over northern India. Tragedies all, but these accidents occurred when TCAS was not yet standard equipment, and when ATC protocols were not as sharp as they are today. Through technology and training, the threat of midair collisions has been greatly reduced.

But for everything to work as it should requires the cooperation of both human and technological elements, bringing to mind the 2002 midair collision between a DHL freighter and a Bashkirian Airlines Tu-154 over the border between Switzerland and Germany.

An ATC error had put the two planes on a conflicting course.  Swiss controller eventually noticed the conflict and issued a command for the Bashkirian crew to descend. At the same time, both airliners’ TCAS systems correctly interpreted the hazard, issuing their own instructions in the final seconds. TCAS told DHL to descend, and Bashkirian to climb. DHL did as instructed and began to lose altitude. The Bashkirian crew, however, disregarded the TCAS order to climb, and chose instead to descend, in compliance with the controllers’ original request. Suddenly, both planes were descending and were still on a collision course.

But what of dangers here in the U.S., home to the world’s most crowded airspace? Isn’t our ATC outmoded and much of its equipment obsolete? Aren’t improvements badly needed?

To some extent, yes, though bear in mind that a call for change is not to imply a situation rife with danger. The fallout from past accidents helped usher in valuable enhancements that have saved many lives. Overall our accident record is an excellent one, and a testament to the reliability of our ATC system, clunky and maligned as it is. It can and should be better, but dangerous it’s not.

Have I ever been involved in a near miss/close call in a plane I was flying? Only once — which is more than most pilots can say — as a private pilot, operating under what’s known as visual flight rules (VFR). That story, which some of you have seen previously, is here.

 This article was originally published on Salon.com. Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author behind the site www.AskThePilot.com. In his spare time he has visited more than 70 countries and always asks for a window seat. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts


About the Author

Patrick Smith



What Did and Didn’t Happen at LaGuardia Today?

After air traffic control staffing issues caused delays at LaGuardia and other east coast airports, we take a look at what did and didn't actually happen.
by Ben Granucci


OPINION: Privatization Is Not The Answer For Our ATC System

Columnist Dave Williams takes a look at President Trump's proposal to privatize the nation's air traffic control system, and finds that there are more cons than there are pros.
by David J. Williams



OPINION: The Issues Behind Air Traffic Control Reform

Air Traffic Control privatization is being considered by Congress. Let's take a close look at the process, the prospects, and some of the top issues.
by Tom Rainey


ATC Reform: The President’s Push for the Privatization of Air Traffic Control

On Monday, President Trump threw his support behind a renewed plan to privatize air traffic control services in the United States.
by Stephanie Gehman


The FAA and President Trump’s Order on Regulations

The President wants two regulations removed for every new regulation enacted. Here's a first step for the FAA in making that happen.
by David J. Williams