Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: EWR: "Runway disaster waiting to happen?"

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193

    EWR: "Runway disaster waiting to happen?"

    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=5261595

    Runway disaster waiting to happen?Eyewitness News Exclusive
    Eyewitness News

    (Newark - WABC, April 30, 2007) - Air traffic controllers at Newark Liberty Airport are speaking out and warning the public that the FAA is ignoring their worries about close calls at intersecting runways.

    The Eyewitness News Investigators Jim Hoffer has this exclusive story.
    For months, air traffic controllers at Newark held off talking to us on camera in hopes that the FAA would change the way they claim is a risky landing pattern involving intersecting runways. Days ago, they decided they were tired of waiting and it was time to tell their story.

    It was a November day in 2005, air traffic controller Phil Wagner's worse day in his 12 years working the tower at Newark Liberty Airport.

    "I'd say it was real close. The closest I've ever seen in my career," he said.

    Two commercial jets were coming in for a landing at Newark at the same time on intersecting runways -- usually not a problem unless winds, poor visibility or timing forces one of the planes to abort its landing. And that's exactly what happened in this case. The pilot of the jet landing on runway 11 aborted his landing and started to climb directly into the path of the other plane landing on runway 22.

    Air traffic controllers say there have been other close calls and there will be more in the future, because they say, landing planes simultaneously on intersecting runways especially when visibility is bad is just too risky.

    "What's wrong with it is we're looking at is running two airplanes on converging courses that if one of the airplanes go around, they're going to hit somebody," said air traffic controller Russ Holleran.

    For more than two years, Newark air traffic controllers have been urging the FAA to do something about this controversial procedure involving intersecting runways yet they still continue.

    "All we're asking for is for the FAA to assist us in doing our jobs. It's our mandate to keep airplanes from colliding and we just want the tools and the help to do that," said air traffic controller Ray Adams.

    One of those tools is the Converging Runway Display Aid, a radar that assists controllers in the safe landing of planes. But because of technical problems, it "has been disabled." Controllers say they need that radar or they need landings on intersecting runways to be staggered rather than simultaneous -- but that could slow down traffic.

    Jim Hoffer: "Why does this continue? Is it because of capacity, because the FAA wants to get as many planes in as it can?"
    Ray Adams: "FAA is under immense pressure to keep capacity high at Newark Airport. That pressure comes from the airlines."

    In a response late today, the FAA said these landings are done "only in conditions where controllers can clearly see the incoming planes," adding "controllers are responsible for safe separation between airplanes."

    And if there is a potential problem, "a controller is expected to use standard procedures to maintain safety, including asking one plane to abandon its landing and make a second approach."

    That's exactly what this controller says he did and he swears it nearly led to a mid-air collision.

    "This is a risky procedure and it needs to be stopped," Phil Wagner said.

    The FAA says it only runs the intersecting landings during good weather. Controllers say even when it's clear, aiming two aircraft at each other leaves little margin for error.
    "Keep 'em Flying"

  2. #2
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    *yawn* These articles pop up every 6 months or so about an NY airport. It really becomes the boy who cried wolf.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13
    Two commercial jets were coming in for a landing at Newark at the same time on intersecting runways -- usually not a problem unless winds, poor visibility or timing forces one of the planes to abort its landing. And that's exactly what happened in this case. The pilot of the jet landing on runway 11 aborted his landing and started to climb directly into the path of the other plane landing on runway 22.

    I am not an expert but why and how would you use intersecting runways if weather was a factor. One of those aircrafts might have been landing in a cross wind which could have been one of the reason for the go around.
    PS: How do they do it at LGA?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cortlandt Manor NY Under HPN ILS 16
    Posts
    1,427
    They were most likely using LAHSO and 11 intersects about 300 feet away from the end of the runway.
    "lol retart"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brick, NJ
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by stuart schechter
    They were most likely using LAHSO and 11 intersects about 300 feet away from the end of the runway.
    LAHSO is only used when landing runway 4R. In this configuration the plane to 22L needs to be through the intersection before the other plane crosses threshold or the plane landing 11 needs to be on the deck holding short.

  6. #6
    Moderator mirrodie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Me like the Robert Downey Jr of cooooooookies!
    Posts
    5,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D.
    *yawn* These articles pop up every 6 months or so about an NY airport. It really becomes the boy who cried wolf.
    That is exactly what I think. There was no real news, so they went into the regurgitated news file.
    And I, I took the path less traveled by
    and that has made all the difference......yet...
    I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    149
    Let's say this was true. I'm not an expert, but what difference would it make if the RW11 landing was aborted? Even if it landed, the timing would still put in on a collision course with the 22 landing.

    And doesn't every landing really have to account for a possible missed approach? It just doesn't make sense to me that they would allow simultaneous landings.

    On that note, what about simultaneous landings of the parallels? Is that ever allowed at EWR?
    I'm learning to fly, around the clouds. But what goes up must come down. - Tom Petty

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Oceanside, NY
    Posts
    985
    One mistake at EWR could mean HUGE disaster if you ask me.
    In loving memory of Casey Edward Falconer
    May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brick, NJ
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by uplander
    Let's say this was true. I'm not an expert, but what difference would it make if the RW11 landing was aborted? Even if it landed, the timing would still put in on a collision course with the 22 landing.

    And doesn't every landing really have to account for a possible missed approach? It just doesn't make sense to me that they would allow simultaneous landings.

    On that note, what about simultaneous landings of the parallels? Is that ever allowed at EWR?
    It doesnt make no sense if you ask me. If you watch the video on the link, thats what the one controller said happened and how it was a close call. The runway 11 arrival went missed. They can do simultaneous approaches if the pilots can maintain visual separation on final because the runways are in such close proximity. But this doesnt happen very often.

    Quote Originally Posted by JetBlueAirwaysFan
    One mistake at EWR could mean HUGE disaster if you ask me.
    One mistake anywhere could be a huge disaster.

  10. #10
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by mirrodie
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D.
    *yawn* These articles pop up every 6 months or so about an NY airport. It really becomes the boy who cried wolf.
    That is exactly what I think. There was no real news, so they went into the regurgitated news file.
    Ditto.

    No news like bad news sells. (especially speculations)
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  11. #11
    Senior Member Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Where the PARK routing crosses the Expressway Visual 31
    Posts
    1,590
    The standard config at EWR is to land on the outer (4R/22L) and depart the inner (4L/22R), with RJs thrown in on either 11 or 29 as the winds dictate. I don't know if I've ever seen or heard of simutaneous arrivals on the parallels (which are fairly close together, so it's visuals only).

  12. #12
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193
    I don't have any illusions regarding the motives of "EyeWitness News" mind you....

    But these three controllers are have put their names out there.

    Any speculation on their motives?

    Just curious...
    "Keep 'em Flying"

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    PTW R-090 12.9 DME/ ARD R-275 17.0 DME
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Mateo
    The standard config at EWR is to land on the outer (4R/22L) and depart the inner (4L/22R), with RJs thrown in on either 11 or 29 as the winds dictate. I don't know if I've ever seen or heard of simutaneous arrivals on the parallels (which are fairly close together, so it's visuals only).
    Yea, There is no operation for simultaneous approaches. It would be just way to much for one local controller to handle that.

  14. #14
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Mateo
    The standard config at EWR is to land on the outer (4R/22L) and depart the inner (4L/22R), with RJs thrown in on either 11 or 29 as the winds dictate. I don't know if I've ever seen or heard of simutaneous arrivals on the parallels (which are fairly close together, so it's visuals only).
    I have seen it, not often at all.
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Within earshot of MD-80s who don't "Over fly Prospect Park to the extent practical"
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Mateo
    The standard config at EWR is to land on the outer (4R/22L) and depart the inner (4L/22R), with RJs thrown in on either 11 or 29 as the winds dictate. I don't know if I've ever seen or heard of simutaneous arrivals on the parallels (which are fairly close together, so it's visuals only).
    I'm not sure if EWR allows simultaneous approaches to the parallel runways, but even if they did, the problem here is being caused by simultaneous operations on the INTERSECTING runways.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •