Near miss JFK

I did find a couple of different reports on this, but they all said that both the regional jet and the Cirrus were landing at JFK, but... they were not talking to the Cirrus. So it sounds pretty bogus to me.

It will be interesting if more details come out that really explain what happened and if both planes were Cleared to their respective altitudes and headings.
 
ADS-B data shows crossing vertical separation was slightly in excess of 500 ft. Cirrus (N274EF) was descending from 3K to 2.5K and was talking to TRACON, which called the CRJ (EDV5289) as traffic to the Cirrus. At that point, EDV had already changed to tower. Cirrus pilot sounded very much at ease operating in JFK Class B.

When tower called the Cirrus as traffic to EDV, tower included the statement “we’re not talking to him,” which may be the basis for media implying that the Cirrus was not talking to ATC. As noted above, the Cirrus was still with TRACON at this point. Perhaps an indication that TRACON had not coordinated the Cirrus as EDV traffic with tower.

Tower queried EDV if they had received an RA. EDV stated no RA, just TA.
 
Maintained vertical separation,talking to ATC common event at big airports.
 
"The Delta pilots were told to hold still instead of maneuver..." That would be a neat trick.
 
Jim_R said:
"The Delta pilots were told to hold still instead of maneuver..." That would be a neat trick.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding the aerodynamic challenges of “holding still” in a flying airplane, I heard no evidence on Live ATC that the EDV crew received any such instruction from ATC. After receiving the initial traffic advisory from tower, the EDV crew continued to report to tower on the flight path of the Cirrus. My impression is that the EDV crew thought the Cirrus was a Class B violator, based on ATC’s “we’re not talking to him,” and was providing information to help ATC track the “rogue” Cirrus pilot. After EDV reported that they were still receiving a TA on the Cirrus, tower noted “looks like he’s inbound for the parallel.”

Note that EDV, inbound for 22L, was on a different tower frequency than the Cirrus inbound for 22R. Seems there was not only poor coordination between TRACON and tower, there was also poor coordination between the two tower LCs.
 
(A "There I was memory" from a little airplane guy flying around JFK):

Back when the supersonic Concorde was still flying daily across the pond, I was VFR with Flight Following, eastbound at 7500' above the NY Class A (called TCA back then), when they launched a British Air Concord.

Didn't take long before it was handed off to NY Departure. SpeedBird something checked in on my frequency and was immediately instructed to level off at 6000', there's Mooney traffic at your 2:00 o'clock level and 3 miles, level at 7,500. The cool sounding British pilot accent answered, "traffic in sight". Unfortunately cell phones with built-in cameras weren't yet around back then to record the event.

The Concord leveled off a couple of miles ahead in a high angle of attack, with the distinctive articulating nose drooping downwards. Grinning ear to ear, I watched it travel left to right. After it emerged from under the nose back into view, ATC soon cleared them to climb to the southeast. It entered a steep climbing left turn towards the southeast.

I'm sure the Cirrus pilot referenced in this thread would agree, the airspace around JFK can sometimes provide some very awesome and memorable views!
 
Jim_R said:
"The Delta pilots were told to hold still instead of maneuver..." That would be a neat trick.
Click to expand...
The TCAS RA that would have you "hold still" is a "Monitor vertical speed" with a VSI range of level to a shallow climb/descent, as appropriate, based on the location of the intruder. It prevents you from changing your flight path toward the intruder.

A VFR target passing above, or below, 500' will almost always produce that RA.
 
AquaLand said:
When tower called the Cirrus as traffic to EDV, tower included the statement “we’re not talking to him,” which may be the basis for media implying that the Cirrus was not talking to ATC. As noted above, the Cirrus was still with TRACON at this point.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification! I used to fly out of FRG for a few decades and the initial news story just didn't make sense for that airspace.

Actually thought maybe someone from FRG had drifted a bit west, but then the statement that the Cirrus was also landing at JFK nixed that.
 
Larry in TN said:
A VFR target passing above, or below, 500' will almost always produce that RA.
Click to expand...
It will produce and "RA" as in a Resolution Advisory (Climb!, Descend!, etc.) if the other traffic is 500ft above and there is no conflict??? Or did you mean to say a "TA" Traffic Advisory?

If you really do mean RA, I'm curious what do you fly and what your companies parameters are between a TA and RA?
 
How many feet of separation between parallel runways?
 
M20K said:
It will produce and "RA" as in a Resolution Advisory (Climb!, Descend!, etc.) if the other traffic is 500ft above and there is no conflict??? Or did you mean to say a "TA" Traffic Advisory?

If you really do mean RA, I'm curious what do you fly and what your companies parameters are between a TA and RA?
Click to expand...
"Monitor Vertical Speed" is an RA. A TA is just "Traffic Traffic".
 
Last edited:
M20K said:
It will produce and "RA" as in a Resolution Advisory (Climb!, Descend!, etc.) if the other traffic is 500ft above and there is no conflict??? Or did you mean to say a "TA" Traffic Advisory?

If you really do mean RA, I'm curious what do you fly and what your companies parameters are between a TA and RA?
Click to expand...
All TCAS units are on the same software, though it has evolved of the decades. I've flown with TCAS on the J32, CRJ, DC8, DC9, 757, 767, and 737. Every company's parameters are the same. You follow the vertical guidance of the RA, report that you are responding to an RA, and follow any lateral guidance for ATC but not vertical. You report clear of conflict and resume following your IFR clearance.

Yes. It produces an RA if you are passing very near to traffic 500' above or below you. The RA is as I described, a "Monitor Vertical Speed" RA which prohibits you from changing your vertical flight path toward the intruder. If both of you are level, it will prohibit altitude changes toward the other aircraft.
 
Larry in TN said:
Yes. It produces an RA if you are passing very near to traffic 500' above or below you.
Click to expand...
So if you're saying it will be an RA for other traffic 500ft above or below, why did the EDV state no RA, just TA, when queried?

Not that it really matters, I'm just curious.
 
M20K said:
So if you're saying it will be an RA for other traffic 500ft above or below, why did the EDV state no RA, just TA, when queried?

Not that it really matters, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...
It's not based on altitude, it's based on predicted path and time. Traffic 500' above may or may not trigger an RA.
 
M20K said:
So if you're saying it will be an RA for other traffic 500ft above or below, why did the EDV state no RA, just TA, when queried?

Not that it really matters, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about this incident. I've been talking about what TCAS does.

TCAS uses range, altitude, and closure rate to predict future conflict. It issues alerts based on time to closest approach, not just current separation. If there was no RA, the predicted conflict did not meet RA criteria.

TAs are not typically reported to ATC as such reports are not required. RAs must be reported if you deviate from your clearance in order to follow them. A "monitor vertical speed" RA may not require any action other than to keep doing what you've been doing.

TAs are common as they are often generated when aircraft are properly separated because TCAS does not know that somebody's going to turn or level off. It assumes that current trends will continue. RAs are less frequent but I get a few per year.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
I don't know anything about this incident. I've been talking about what TCAS does.

TCAS uses range, altitude, and closure rate to predict future conflict. It issues alerts based on time to closest approach, not just current separation. If there was no RA, the predicted conflict did not meet RA criteria.

TAs are not typically reported to ATC as such reports are not required. RAs must be reported if you deviate from your clearance in order to follow them. A "monitor vertical speed" RA may not require any action other than to keep doing what you've been doing.

TAs are common as they are often generated when aircraft are properly separated because TCAS does not know that somebody's going to turn or level off. It assumes that current trends will continue. RAs are less frequent but I get a few per year.
Click to expand...

TCAS II also uses a very crude estimate of azimuth. very crude
 
dmspilot said:
Traffic 500' above may or may not trigger an RA.
Click to expand...
That's what I was confirming. A couple of you said it *was* and RA where the pilot said no, it was a TA. So just wanted to clarify that not all detections are an "RA" which is the way I thought it worked.
 
In a recent video posted that contained post-landing comms, EDV amended his previous “no RA” report to ATC as “yes, we got an RA, initially described to tower as “don’t climb” but then clarified as “monitor altitude.” The tower controller still seemed perplexed with the Cirrus crossing maneuver that TRACON had directed. EDV accepted tower’s offer to make a phone call to ATC.
 
AquaLand said:
initially described to tower as “don’t climb” but then clarified as “monitor altitude.” The tower controller still seemed perplexed with the Cirrus crossing maneuver that TRACON had directed. EDV accepted tower’s offer to make a phone call to ATC.
Click to expand...
TCAS does not issue either of those RAs. It is, "Monitor Vertical Speed".

ATC only knows ATC separation standards. They don't know the criteria for TCAS TA and RA alerts.

A "monitor vertical speed" RA does not mean that any separation standards were violated. It means that a change in your flight path might do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top