37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 109557 |
Time | |
Date | 198904 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : jfk airport : jf2k |
State Reference | NY |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1900 msl bound upper : 2100 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : n90 tower : jfk |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other landing : go around |
Route In Use | approach : visual enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 4 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 2600 flight time type : 100 |
ASRS Report | 109557 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 153 flight time total : 2603 flight time type : 39 |
ASRS Report | 109556 |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : nmac non adherence : required legal separation |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance other other |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 100 vertical : 200 |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation Operational Error |
Narrative:
On approach into jfk we were on a 220 degree heading at 180 KTS at 4000'. We were given traffic at our 12 O'clock position, an air carrier X widebody transport. We believed the white widebody transport at our 12 O'clock position was the aircraft in question since we did not see any other traffic in front of us. The air carrier X was on the 31R localizer and we were told to follow that traffic and were cleared for the visibility to 31R behind this traffic. Widebody transport was told to maintain 180 KTS. We followed this air carrier X for approximately 15 mi with good sep. I was a DOT high on the G/south as I always am behind a heavy jet. Approximately 3-5 mi on final we heard the air carrier X widebody transport come on the radio saying we had just passed over him at 200' above him. The tower asked us if we had the aircraft off our left side, which we were supposed to be following. We stated we did not have any traffic off our left side; we believed our traffic was on short final at our 12 O'clock position. The widebody transport captain asked the tower how I was supposed to follow him if I was in front of him. The tower stated that I must have overtaken him. After some hesitation from the tower, they told me to climb to 2000' and turn to 090 degrees. We did this and entered the downwind and the approach and landing were normal. I never did see the widebody transport that I passed over. No evasive action was taken on the widebody transport's part. At that time of day from the direction we were coming from the sun is in your eyes. We believed the traffic we followed for 15 mi was the traffic we were supposed to follow. The traffic we were supposed to follow must have been hidden under our nose the whole time. The downward visibility in an light transport is not very good. ATC never said anything for the whole time on final about our spacing being too close to the aircraft in front of us. We thought the spacing was perfect, but we were following the wrong aircraft. ATC should have seen we were too close if a near miss was reported. I believe visibility approachs based on seeing another aircraft at an airport like jfk with simultaneous operations on parallel runways should not be allowed. If they are, ATC should still maintain proper sep on the aircraft. Where were all the alarms and warnings on the controller's screen? I know I will never take a visibility approach based on seeing another aircraft unless ATC can verify that that aircraft is the only one there that I could possible see. If I was 5 mi behind the air carrier Y widebody transport I was following, and the air carrier X I passed over was also following him at 5 mi, that means we were in the same place behind him. ATC should have caught this since we both followed him for 15 mi. It bothers ms that no one caught this and I never saw him even after they broke off my approach. It could have been a catastrophe.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CLOSE PROX COMMUTER LTT ON A VISUAL TO RWY 31R AT JFK AND ACR-WDB ON LOCALIZER FOR RWY 31R.
Narrative: ON APCH INTO JFK WE WERE ON A 220 DEG HDG AT 180 KTS AT 4000'. WE WERE GIVEN TFC AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS, AN ACR X WDB. WE BELIEVED THE WHITE WDB AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS WAS THE ACFT IN QUESTION SINCE WE DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER TFC IN FRONT OF US. THE ACR X WAS ON THE 31R LOC AND WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW THAT TFC AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VIS TO 31R BEHIND THIS TFC. WDB WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN 180 KTS. WE FOLLOWED THIS ACR X FOR APPROX 15 MI WITH GOOD SEP. I WAS A DOT HIGH ON THE G/S AS I ALWAYS AM BEHIND A HVY JET. APPROX 3-5 MI ON FINAL WE HEARD THE ACR X WDB COME ON THE RADIO SAYING WE HAD JUST PASSED OVER HIM AT 200' ABOVE HIM. THE TWR ASKED US IF WE HAD THE ACFT OFF OUR LEFT SIDE, WHICH WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING. WE STATED WE DID NOT HAVE ANY TFC OFF OUR LEFT SIDE; WE BELIEVED OUR TFC WAS ON SHORT FINAL AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS. THE WDB CAPT ASKED THE TWR HOW I WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW HIM IF I WAS IN FRONT OF HIM. THE TWR STATED THAT I MUST HAVE OVERTAKEN HIM. AFTER SOME HESITATION FROM THE TWR, THEY TOLD ME TO CLB TO 2000' AND TURN TO 090 DEGS. WE DID THIS AND ENTERED THE DOWNWIND AND THE APCH AND LNDG WERE NORMAL. I NEVER DID SEE THE WDB THAT I PASSED OVER. NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE WDB'S PART. AT THAT TIME OF DAY FROM THE DIRECTION WE WERE COMING FROM THE SUN IS IN YOUR EYES. WE BELIEVED THE TFC WE FOLLOWED FOR 15 MI WAS THE TFC WE WERE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW. THE TFC WE WERE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW MUST HAVE BEEN HIDDEN UNDER OUR NOSE THE WHOLE TIME. THE DOWNWARD VISIBILITY IN AN LTT IS NOT VERY GOOD. ATC NEVER SAID ANYTHING FOR THE WHOLE TIME ON FINAL ABOUT OUR SPACING BEING TOO CLOSE TO THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US. WE THOUGHT THE SPACING WAS PERFECT, BUT WE WERE FOLLOWING THE WRONG ACFT. ATC SHOULD HAVE SEEN WE WERE TOO CLOSE IF A NEAR MISS WAS RPTED. I BELIEVE VIS APCHS BASED ON SEEING ANOTHER ACFT AT AN ARPT LIKE JFK WITH SIMULTANEOUS OPS ON PARALLEL RWYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IF THEY ARE, ATC SHOULD STILL MAINTAIN PROPER SEP ON THE ACFT. WHERE WERE ALL THE ALARMS AND WARNINGS ON THE CTLR'S SCREEN? I KNOW I WILL NEVER TAKE A VIS APCH BASED ON SEEING ANOTHER ACFT UNLESS ATC CAN VERIFY THAT THAT ACFT IS THE ONLY ONE THERE THAT I COULD POSSIBLE SEE. IF I WAS 5 MI BEHIND THE ACR Y WDB I WAS FOLLOWING, AND THE ACR X I PASSED OVER WAS ALSO FOLLOWING HIM AT 5 MI, THAT MEANS WE WERE IN THE SAME PLACE BEHIND HIM. ATC SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS SINCE WE BOTH FOLLOWED HIM FOR 15 MI. IT BOTHERS MS THAT NO ONE CAUGHT THIS AND I NEVER SAW HIM EVEN AFTER THEY BROKE OFF MY APCH. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CATASTROPHE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.