Two commercial planes have a close call in Chicago

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hatu

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
645
132
MIA
(CNN)Two commercial planes almost collided at Chicago Midway International Airport Tuesday night, the Federal Aviation Administration confirmed.

Southwest flight 3828 was cleared for takeoff and started on the runway, but simultaneously Delta Air Lines 1328 also began on an intersecting runway without proper clearance according to a statement released by the FAA.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/flights-narrow-miss-in-chicago/
 
Callsign overlap. 1328 and 3828 are too similar sounding, and never should have been allowed at the same airport in the same time window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
eolesen said:
Callsign overlap. 1328 and 3828 are too similar sounding, and never should have been allowed at the same airport in the same time window.
 
Yeah except AFTER receiving a radio message, the FAA standard protocol is to REPEAT the transmission received, followed by the verbage.... " C O P Y " !!
 
While I can buy the confusion with the flight numbers, I can't overlook the different runways that were called out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Glenn Quagmire said:
. Controller did good here to avoid disaster.
 
Absolutely.
 
I do have 1 question though:  one of the news stories said that the WN plane returned to the gate to check things out after slamming on the brakes (so to speak), whereas the DL flight then took off for ATL.  Why didn't the DL jet go back to the gate?  Is this (WN decision to return to the gate) a carrier specific SOP?  Just curious.
 
Maybe one of the WN pilots messed their drawers?...

It's possible that only one of them had a brake overheat concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
There is no spin. It was an event that could have gone very bad. For whatever reason - and it will be discovered - DL started to roll when the call was for WN.

Safety is and always will be something that EVERYONE has to win at.

Kudos to the air traffic controller for being on top of the situation and preventing a disaster.
 
exactly, Jim.

that's what ATC in the US is supposed to do and they do very well.

Remember that two DL pilots did not catch that the call was not for them.

 
Callsign overlap. 1328 and 3828 are too similar sounding, and never should have been allowed at the same airport in the same time window.
precisely.

there are flight number changes that take place all the time because of this and the rules may be expanded to not allow the same final two digits to be allowed on the ground within a 2 or so window esp. for the same airline.

ATC did its job, the investigation will take place, and changes should take place to fix what went wrong.
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Yeah except AFTER receiving a radio message, the FAA standard protocol is to REPEAT the transmission received, followed by the verbage.... " C O P Y " !!
Really. Seriously. Now where exactly is that in the aim?
 
WN substituted a different aircraft, so it's likely that the WN 737 was moving faster in its takeoff roll; the DL 717 was quickly inspected and then arrived slightly late to its destination.

My guess is that the WN 737 began its takeoff roll first, and then the DL 717 began its roll, and was quickly stopped by the ATC.
 
jimntx said:
Kudos to the air traffic controller for being on top of the situation and preventing a disaster.
 
 
Glenn Quagmire said:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1434603989

ATC recording.

Delta 1328 was answering for Southwest 3828. Southwest had the clearance. Always hear the runway ident and airline call sign before moving. Delta should have waited when he kept stepping on the Southwest transmission. Controller did good here to avoid disaster.
Great catch by the controller.  Very much so deserving kudos to the controller...
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Yeah except AFTER receiving a radio message, the FAA standard protocol is to REPEAT the transmission received, followed by the verbage.... " C O P Y " !!
I think you're confusing FRA and FAA, Bears.

Rail transmissions require a verbatim repeat. (49 CFR §220.33)

Can't find any evidence of that in 14 CFR 121.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.