JetBlue Plane & Learjet Nearly Collide On Boston Runway

Would be nice to see the FAA actually release aggregated data on near misses to either show if this is an anomalous (and concerning) trend or if we're on par or below previous periods of time.

Just getting reporting on all of this doesn't provide sufficient context that they could be helping provide.

Yeah, this is getting scary now. While I do think social media and tracking leads to more coverage, these kinds of things are definitely happening more often. At this rate it’s a matter of time until one of these incidents ends in disaster. I mean, we’re at a rate where a close call like this is happening almost once a week.

You’re missing the incident on Burbank yesterday too.

I think its the constant social media coverage about the "first-of-a-kind" incident, soon followed by a similar one, only to realize its something that happens almost everyday. take the example of the earthquakes in Turkiye, every news agency was out there to report every earthquake happening both in the US and around the world (CA, Japan, New Zealand).

similarly, this might have been happening much more frequently than we think or know. but thanks to social media, the general public get to know more about it and helps us to ensure that there's thorough investigation being conducted and efforts being made to reduce the chances of incidents like this happening in the near future.

They use this setup a lot in my experience. I fly out of there in msfs using real traffic and real atc (liveatc) and they very often put the flight I’m mimicking onto runway 9 while waiting on a runway 4R arrival. Weird there isn’t a better non intersecting method but that’s what they frequently do. I can’t imagine mistaking a line up and wait for a takeoff clearance yet here we are. And I’m not a professional pilot.

BOS is a very complex airport due to many different direction runways (a result of when the airport was first designed) and strict noise abaitment regulations. The favorite runway combinatoins are either arrivals 4R and departures 9 with heavy departures being slotted in 4R and overflow arrivals (mostly smalller planes) doing parralel visual approached to 4L, or departures 22R and arrivals 27 with occasioanl overflow arrivals on 22L, or departing 33L and arriving 27 with smaller planes doing 32 in overflow. Runway 32 and 33R are too short to only do operations on those runways and 33L, and the 4/22s are too close together and have too many conflicting departure paths to be useful similtaniously.

"On the surface it sure seems like something is going on here."

Sure seems like communicating information about such incidents to the general public is a lot easier and more widespread.

Does that say anything about the number & severity of the incidents historically over time? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But it sure increase blog traffic!

Precisely. Anecdotes are just that. I do suspect the number of these incidents is increasing. Notable is that several other incidents involved two air carrier aircraft while this one did not

" these kinds of things are definitely happening more often"

Are they? Or is that just your guess?

I'm going with "your guess".

FAA data shows that runway incursions increased from FY2021 to FY2022. So no, not a guess. Part of the perceived increase is due to the media focusing on these incidents. But the numbers are on the rise too.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics/year/?fy1=2022&fy2=2021

Thoughts from an old guy here... back in 1985 (before many where born LOL ) Delta had a run of very bad luck. Or was it '86... anyway, Delta had a fatal crash at DFW (not the windshear one) and suddenly Delta was in the news A LOT. Why ? because attention was focused on Delta.
Communication is far more instant now and (rightfully) attention is being focused on these "near misses" that otherwise would not have been reported in the media.
This is not a bad thing, I think.

A 10% increase!

I tried to find FAA data on total US flight operations over that period and failed, but given than early 2021 was still very COVID depressed I bet flight operations were up well over 10% from year to year.

Here's the FAA database showing statistics of runway incursions - https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics/year/?fy1=2023&fy2=2022 (You can change the years depending on what you want to see.) It appears 2023 is slightly down from 2022 but slightly up from 2021. (Note - These numbers are done on a federal fiscal year (October - September) not calendar year.)

You can see more details on the categories at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions.

Let’s ask Pete

Sometimes we make ourselves believe it's worse than in the past because of the amount of news coverage but usually it's about the same so who knows. Take for example in San Francisco there were constant news coverage of smash and grab at Walgreens all over northern CA. Fast forward a year later on Walgreens earnings call the ceo himself pointed out that maybe everyone including themselves overreacted because lost from theft fiscal year was actually down. But you hardly hear about that earnings call because it won't sell news.

Your memory is a bit crisscrossed. DL191 was in 1985. The media uproar was in 1988, after the crash of DL1141... and that's because both crashes occurred at the same airport.

Not sure where you're getting the "very bad luck" thing from though--- as these two incidents, while terrible, were 2 of the total of 4 fatal crashes that the airline has sustained since the dawn of the jet age, the other two having both occurred in 1973.

But the numbers are on the rise too.

That doesn't really tell us anything, without factoring in that the number of flights are WAY above what they were in 2021/2022 as well; and in fact, it may well contradict the idea that you seem to be putting forth.

Sure, the aggregate number of incidents is up.

But if flights are up nearly 50% while incidents are up only 10%, then that's actually an improvement per flight operation over those years......

"the reality is that the average pilot on a jet right now has a lot less experience than five years ago. It’s largely a similar story among air traffic controllers."

In terms of ATC, are there actual stats you're using to reach this conclusion? Because on the face of it, this really seems like you're just saying words based on an opinion you've formed.

Surprisingly, I did hear about that revelation. But that might just be because I'm based in NorCal.

very scary

I intended to wait a day before commenting and see some responses.

People here are fixated by statistics and or more news coverage stuff.
Those are the job of greedy corporates who calculate profit before the value of your life, not the government or the regulator, the ones who should be keeping corporate in check and the people safe.

This isn't about statistics.
Fact is, there is another near miss incident. A preventable incident with the the aid of current technology. Not the obsolete system from the 70s.

I don't know how many more incidents or loss of lives need to happen before we stop this. I have to keep saying this.

Isn't it about time we automate all these things and leave human error out of the equation.

We have all the technologies available over the counter, but a bunch of Regulatorsaurus who are buddies with Unionosaurus aren't extinct yet.
Worst part, the public is blinded by statistical smokes and mirrors.

Whether such incidents were happening with similar frequency in the past or not, it is still concerning. It won’t be long before neat miss turns into a fatal one. So focus on comparing the numbers is misguided.

Sometimes, punishments have to be disproportionate to the mistakes. Folks need to be made an example so that others don’t make those same mistakes. But that doesn’t seem to be happening, we as a society has gone softer. Certain mistakes don’t deserve just/equitable punishment.

Given the extreme rarity of any injury/deaths in commercial airlines, much less due to pilot or ATC error, your suggestion that we need to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and move over to complete automation indeed indicates you've bought into media fear mongering.

And I wonder how many deaths we'll incur during the trial and error phase of complete automation (since automation is still created and programmed by humans, it's still prone to error, as we read about just the other day re: Alaska Tail Strike).

We need to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, so few hundred lives don't have to perish from a preventable error.

From a corporate standpoint, not worth it.
From a safety standpoint, it saves more lives.
Sadly regulators are overseen by politicians who need donations. A conflict of interest that is a result of the broken system.

Bringing up the 'Alaska Tail Strike' as an argument against automation already shows that you, like most of the public, have no clue how to design automation systems nor how far technology has progressed.
As far as I can tell, 'Alaska Tail Strike' could have been prevented by a logical test system, the redundancy that 4 human pilots were supposed to do. You also assume every piece is working dependent of the same source. That's not even the fundamentals of avionics design used by humans.

The reason we are lagging behind is because of ignorant dinosaurs like you, which sadly is still the majority roaming this planet.

Hope a Jet already looking for new Learjet 60 Pilots. https://www.hopajetworldwide.com/careers/pilot-learjet-60/

"Bringing up the 'Alaska Tail Strike' as an argument against automation already shows that you, like most of the public, have no clue how to design automation systems nor how far technology has progressed."

Fair enough, and let me just clarify that I'm not against automation in the scheme of things, but...

"We have all the technologies available over the counter"... shows that you, like most of the general public, doesn't understand the nuances and complexities of aviation.

There is no way in hell that a transition to complete automation (piloting and ATC) using current available tech doesn't lead to hundreds of deaths.

We haven't even figured out how to get safely done with cars (iirc, we're about 8 years away from that).

Also, you calling me a dinsour is ironic, since you're advocating to turn me into a dinosaur.

The statistics are relevant, because if there are no more or less near misses over a 15+ year period, then it stands to reason that the actual risk of an accident is steady (not 0, but certainly insanely low).

Redundancies/Swiss cheese. Yes, the goal should be to plug the hole here... how do we make sure someone doesn't start takeoff without a clearance... but also examine the odds all redundancies fail at the exact wrong time.

Can't speak to piloting, but ATC moved away from the punishment method well beyond a decade ago, focusing on safety culture instead. My understanding is that such a thing improved safety instead of diminishing it.

@JoePro

So no punishment for ATC?

I guess all terrorists need to do these days to crash planes is to get a job!!!!!

You don't get safety without accountability.
You think we have "improved safety" from mass shooters if punishment are more lenient?
You're delusional.

First, I'm not trying to turn you into a dinosaur. Consider that you actually can see the light at the end of the tunnel, I'd take that back. You're already more evolved than a lot of people.

Now to cars, which isn't a good comparison.
It's a lot easier to do it with planes. Far fewer and more regulated. I would think planes would get fully automated system wide before cars.
Cars share the road with too many non automated objects.
It will be a political nightmare, like 2nd amendment, impossible to eliminate your 'rights', aka. human drivers right to bear cars. So your automation now shares the road with less disciplines, more DUI, animals, debris, old drivers, old car, expired license, failed inspection, etc.
It's going to be much longer than 8 years to have safely automated cars. People will blame autopilot even if a deer jumps on a parked Tesla.

Unlikely the case with planes. And using the currently available tech is not in anyway meaning current tech in use, which is a relic of the 70s. To be fair, with some upgrades, but on obsolete foundation. Techs are all here, advance sensors, fast computation, reliable IT infrastructure, huge communication bandwidth, etc. Calculation might be complex but not difficult as long as they don't have to factor in the irrational behaviors of humans.

Problem is the cost of implementing it is still enormous. So back to the equation, your death is still cheaper than paying for the upgrades. And potential conflict with private pilots' right to bear planes.