FAA's Comments on Near Miss In Chicago Last week

After further investigation of the near miss resulting from Air Traffic Control error over Indiana on Tuesday, between a Midwest Airlines Regional Jet and a United Express aircraft, it appears the FAA are playing the incident down. John Diedrich reports the FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory, stated "We're not calling it a near miss". Although Elizabeth also admitted in the interview that "this event definitely violated our separation standards".

The FAA confirms reports that the two aircraft came as close as 1.3 miles horizontally, and 600 feet vertically with the aircraft's Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) resolving the conflict. The horizontal proximity being almost one fifth of the minimum standard of 5 miles and almost half the vertical standard of 1000 feet.

The fact that the Federal Aviation Administration would make such a comment is not so surprising. They display the same attitude when it comes to their staffing crisis. As reported in my previous post, the FAA believe "staffing levels were adequate" even though Air Traffic Controllers complain of fatigue and over work. A member of the Chicago Controllers Association believes the FAA was not prepared for the high number of retirements of controllers. Three controllers a day retire nationally and three a month locally which has resulted in the shortage.

The "near miss" over Indiana is unfortunately not an isolated case, with three incidents since October 1 in the Chicago facility. Air Traffic controllers in the Chicago region and elsewhere have said "they were weary and more error-prone after having to work repeated six day weeks". Joseph Belinno from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association says the chances are "pretty good" that controller error will increase at busy times. "Any time you have people on six day work weeks it always increases".

Near Miss In Chicago Last Week

I recently read a report of a near miss over northern Indiana between a United Express and Midwest Airlines aircraft. It appears the incident was due to an error by Air Traffic Control.

I'm sure all the Air Traffic Controllers from FAA will be pleased to read that a Federal Aviation "Official" commented that "staffing levels were adequate despite controllers' complaints of fatigue and over work".

This comment is in complete contradiction to the following news clip I found on Youtube titled "FAA: Unsafe staffing: Air Traffic Controller Fatigue." from April 12, 2007. Government regulators say "Tired controllers are putting people in danger".

It reports on an Air Traffic Controller on his second shift in a 24 hour period, was working on only two hours sleep when an aircraft taxied onto the wrong runway last August resulting in a fatal accident killing 49 people. NTSB reports that this Kentucky crash is "hardly the only example of troubling controller fatigue".

I was also shocked to learn that Air Traffic Controllers working for the FAA can work 4, ten hour shifts in three days as long as they have an eight hour period between shifts! NTSB is urging the FAA to change the way Air Traffic Controllers are scheduled to give them longer rest periods between shifts. The FAA apparently welcomed the recommendation with a response of "Controllers need to play a role too".

My question is, if staffing levels are so adequate why are these controllers having to work constant six day weeks?

The incident on Tuesday night occurred when the Air Traffic Controller vectored the Midwest Airlines aircraft east, into the path of the United Express aircraft heading west out of Greensboro, N.C.

The only thing that saved a mid-air collision at FL250 was the aircraft's TCAS systems. The two aircraft coming within a proximity of 1.3 miles horizontally and 600ft vertically.

The required separation standard in this situation for Air Traffic Controllers here in Australia is 5 miles horizontally and at least 1000ft vertically.