E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Nik Wheeler / Alamy
At Los Angeles International Airport, an outreach program seeks to educate pilots, controllers and vehicle operators on all aspects of runway safety.
Around 10 p.m. on a clear summer evening in 2006, United Airlines Flight 1015 was rolling down the runway at Chicago O’Hare, picking up speed, when the pilots saw something heart-stopping: an Atlas Air 747 cargo plane moving directly into its path. Unable to abort takeoff, the United pilot made a split-second decision to turn sharply. The planes avoided impact by a mere 120 feet.
Close runway calls like this are more common than travelers realize — or most airports like to admit. Runway incidents at airports are, on average, a daily occurrence in the United States. They range from near collisions to vehicles or people wandering onto a runway without permission.
And some airports simply have a higher number of close calls, based on an analysis by Travel+Leisure. T+L looked at the Federal Aviation Administration’s latest Runway Safety Report and more recent runway safety statistics supplied by the FAA to determine which of the 35 busiest commercial airports in the United States have had the most near misses and other runway incidents over the past five years (2006–2010). The verdict? Chicago O'Hare ranks as the No. 1 most dangerous airport, with 75 incidents. Cleveland Hopkins International, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International, and Honolulu International round out the top five dangerous airports.
See the full list of the most dangerous U.S. airports
Rankings were based on both the overall number of runway safety occurrences and their severity, especially “A” and “B” incidents in which an aircraft collision was narrowly avoided or there was significant potential for a collision. (See the full methodology.)
While everything from weather to wildlife can contribute to an incident on the tarmac, “two-thirds of all runway incursions are caused by pilot deviation,” says Wes Timmons, FAA’s recently retired director of runway safety. In other words, pilots simply ignore instructions from air traffic control. For better or worse, most of these offenders aren’t commercial pilots; of those two-thirds, says Timmons, nearly 80 percent are caused by small private planes. “Places where you have a lot of [pilot] training activity or a large number of flight schools,” says Timmons, “tend to see a larger number of runway incidents.”
The overall number of runway incursions fluctuates from year to year; fortunately, the vast majority are minor incidents where there’s little or no possibility for runway collisions or casualties.
Airports and the FAA are always working to minimize runway incursions. “We’re making significant progress,” says FAA spokesperson Tammy Jones. In 2000, U.S. airports recorded 67 serious runway incursions that could have easily led to injuries or fatalities. According to Jones, the total dropped to 12 serious incidents by 2009, and just six last year. Over that same span, the number of serious incidents involving commercial aircraft plummeted from 34 a decade ago to only 3 in 2010.
Since launching a call to action on runway safety in 2007, the FAA has put a number of new programs and technologies into service in cooperation with airports, airlines, pilots and other concerned parties. These include conducting pilot seminars and air traffic controller refresher courses, identifying “hot spots” at major airports where the risk of collision is higher, and implementing new technologies like Runway Status Lights and airport surface detection equipment.
In fact, incorporating new airport and runway safety features has “accelerated greatly” in recent years, says Steve Jangelis, chairman of the Airport and Ground Environment Committee for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents more than 53,000 pilots flying for 39 airlines in the U.S. and Canada.
Yet runway incidents still occur.
Methodology
We looked at the 35 busiest airports in America over the last five years (2006–2010) and used information from the FAA’s Runway Safety Report and individual runway safety data supplied by the FAA. We averaged the Runway Incident Rate-the total number of runway incidents divided by the total number of runway operations (takeoffs and landings)-over the five years covered in our survey period. We then looked at serious (Category “A” and “B”*) runway incidents in which there was a strong or good possibility of a crash or human casualties. We assigned values to these incidents: 1 for “A” and 0.5 for “B.” We added these Category A/B incident scores to the incident rate per year to achieve an overall score and ranking. We’ve listed the 15 airports with the highest scores.
Category “A” is a serious incident in which a collision was narrowly avoided. Category “B” is an incident in which separation decreases and there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a time-critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision.
More from Travel+Leisure
- World's most romantic all-inclusive resorts
- America's most beautiful college campuses
- World's most-visited tourist attractions
- Best life-changing trips
Leave a Comment:
The article talks about one thing, runway incursions, and then the slide show lists events that are crashes and runway EXcursions - where the plane goes off the runway. Apples and oranges Sensationalist journalism with no point - shame on you.
I can visualize nearly hitting something, but nearly missing it?
WTF an inch is as good as a mile or close only counts in horseshoes & hand grenades.
......you forgot nuclear weapons!
The most congested and difficult airport to navigate is in Charlotte NC. You literally have to run to get your connecting flight. No time for bathroom break. This is really a problem caused by US Air and their poor scheduling. If you are not young enough to run or old enough to flag down a taxi car, you are almost always our of luck making your connecting flight. Whenever possible, I avoid going through Charlotte, and avoid flying US Air for all of the above reasons.
For the love of God, when will the writers of these types of articles get it through their heads that "near miss" means a hit? If you mean a close call in which no collision took place, then its a "near hit" - not a "near miss".
You're a writer - get a grasp of the English language!
"near miss" does NOT mean a hit...doh...
it was "near" and it was a "miss" thus the term near-miss...so how in blazes could it have been a hit????
when will you get it through YOUR head that had it been a hit of any kind, even just a scrape, it would've been categorized a COLLISION...cheeeeeez!
Actually s goofy as it is, that's the terminology used in aviation to signify a close proximity unintended flight too near to another aircraft:
Near miss. If it's in the air, it might be termed a 'near midair'. or' near midair collision'.
That's what they call it.
You missed them but they were near.
Don't ask me to explain the English Language. There's lots of stuff like that in every day use.
Pandora : Your exactly right. I've been asking myself for years why journalists refer to these incidents as a near miss. No such thing. If you miss you miss. As you say it's a near hit.
I think this article is a "near miss."
Thats aviation terminology. With all the morons on the road driving i probably could say i have 50 near misses a day just driving to the store. This is a rediculous story reporters always trying to fear monger.
I agree, stealth. I probably have a far greater chance of a ground collision via automobile crack-up than one via jet aircraft.
However, (and you knew that was coming, didn't you?), I was on a Swissair flight from Zurich to Kennedy several years ago. We were coming in low on our final decent ... I mean, LOW. All of a sudden, the captain hits the engines, the overhead bins fly open, and we're in a sudden ascent. Not a sound in the plane.
The pilot comes on and says, "Dear ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for our sudden abrupt departure from our standard landing. However, air traffic control failed to notify us that a 737 was directly in our landing path. We will have you on the ground shortly, and quite safely."
Yes, this IS a true story, and it was a cloudy day, so I assume the cockpit was flying on radar/controller info. How another plane was sitting on the runway directly in front of where we were supposed to land in less than 2 minutes, I dont know. But that pilot had the ability to take that jumbo jet, pull it out of the landing, and get us out of the way of that other plane - in a nanosecond!
Probably the closest I ever came to meeting my maker. Even closer than two major car accidents on the ground!
did your cheeks pinch the seat?
It is doubtful any pilot simply ignores ATC. More likely there is airport unfamiliarity and/or complexity/speed of verbal communications of specific instructions at the base of this problem.
I fly light planes. Sometimes I go into large hub airports or smaller city regionals with heavy traffic. They are definitely not user-friendly for non-commercial traffic. They are set up for IFR flight handoffs from enroute control to their local control and published approaches. If you come in VFR you are sort of crashing the party.
Even commercial pilots goof up the directions from ATC or ground control occasionally. It's going to happen as long as there are people in the loop and airports are handling increasing traffic loads.
I have only had two incidents in my 44 years of flying, and one was a near midair collision with a 727 outbound from LAX 42 years ago. It was investigated and determined to be controller error. They said we missed by about 50 feet, at the same atitiude. me at 120 mph and level, and the jet climbing at 275 passing directly in front. I tumbled and spun but recovered. The jet did not know he did it until informed. ATC didn't pay attention to the scope and the jet pilots trusted the system too much and didn't bother to look out enough.
That still ranks as the scariest close call I ever saw. That last second vision still haunts me and makes my palms sweat.
Maybe some new tech could be devised in the future to assist even more with the operations. Then again, the more we trust tech to solve all our problems, the more we find potential difficulties with it, including hacking.
Hello! There is already technology being used by both commercial and private operators. It is called the Traffic Collision Avoidance System or TCAS for short. There are also other devices that basically work on the same princibles. They are the Portable Collision Avoidance System (PCAS) and Traffic Collision Avoidance Device (TCAD).
like comanche says:
the purpose of which is to keep the giddy minds of the people at large off the REAL issues such as the steep price of fuel in general which leads to steep prices in everything else; political crony-ism and corporate welfare to the tune of trillions of dollars that the thieves in our government perpetrate at taxpayers' expense; the destruction of the constitution of the united states in a blatant ploy to turn the us into another socialist/communist banana republic...to name but a few of the real issues.
What a tool! But then, he's got to write about something. Otherwise he might have to get a real job that required intellect.
Strictly a fluff article that should be featured in one of the supermarket tabloids.
Geez, lighten up, beeman. It is a lightweight article with incomplete facts, but, people buy this stuff. How will your bad vibes improve the situation?
I love how the article tries to inflame the traveling public about the deficiencies of private pilots, when three of the five worst major airports listed have virtually no private traffic. Of the top five listed, only Cleveland Hopkins has a fair amount of private light aircraft traffic. ORD and SFO are dangerous because their runways cross each other, and both have very crowded terminal ramps where space is at an absolute premium, as does LAX with its 8 different terminal layout sandwiched almost too close between 4 active runways, with hundreds of aircraft service vehicles competing for taxiway space with jetliners.
You want to know a really dangerous airport that didn't make the list, where virtually every commercial operation is a near-miss??? Next time you fly into or out of Burbank, check-out the distance between the tail of aircraft parked at the terminal gates there and the near side of both active runways there!!! What, maybe 200 feet??? Anything goes wrong and a commercial aircraft crashes at high speed into aircraft parked at the terminal, or goes screaming through 6 lanes of traffic since the runways at Burbank are just a bit on the short side too. Kind of odd too, because straight east of the terminal there is all kinds of space for a much-larger new terminal where aircraft could be separated by double the distance that serves as a parking lot these days.
By far the worst problem with runway incursions occur at small airports that lack control towers where most or all of the air traffic is light private aircraft flying under visual flight rules, and many of these incidents go unreported too. And, there are several other major urban airports that have crossing runways where space is at a great premium too, like Midway, Logan, or National too. Now DIA here in Denver has more physical space than just about anywhere else, but that fact hasn't prevented a couple of incidents here either. Just the other day a de-icing truck clipped the wingtip of a commuter jet here too, despite the fact that the truck could have missed the plane by a couple hundred feet without getting in the way of anyone else! Perhaps the real problem is that we are all human, and nobody is perfect either?
It is very interesting these incidents and near misses are caused by "pilot deviations" they are never called pilot errors.
Sometimes they are controller errors too. Once in a while you have a system failure as in a radio course device, transponder altitude encoder, or even an altimeter off enough to cause a significant deviation.
They call it a deviation because it isn't necessarily an error. If the pilot makes a choice to do something because it is necessary for the safety of the plane/passengers, it's still called a deviation even if it was on purpose. In their example of a plane veering to avoid another plane, both pilots would have been said to deviate. One was a real error, while the pilot who veered off was doing so on purpose. It was still a deviation, but was not an error.
That's the problem with MSN whenever they put these articles up about airport/flight safety. They always count all of the controlled deviations (deviations done on purpose) as if those were accidents or problematic issues that were causing flying to be dangerous. If you only counted true errors, the numbers would be significantly lower. But that doesn't make for a good story, does it? /sigh
I'm curious as to how the following actions affected "pilot deviations".
What worries me is that a pilot for SWA has no problem sending an e-mail in June of 2009, in which he states that he "spent a good part of the last few work days trying to come up with a solution on how to avoid the taxes" & that he "talked extensively with USAA and with three tax advisors in Maryland, about this matter". The wording in this e-mail gives me the impression that these activities are commonplace, at least for this pilot. It makes me wonder how many activities such as these contribute to "pilot deviations".
Then around 9:30am in September of 2009, this same pilot tells another that he "wanted to get this (personal) matter taken care of before I have to focus on training. This whole matter is very upsetting. I am in Dallas right now and need to be brief." Again, this pilot openly admits that he's taking care of personal issues when he should be focusing on what seems to be job-related training. It's unnerving to wonder what this pilot may be unprepared to handle.
Based on this SWA pilot's e-mails & the matter-of-fact tone in which he writes, I can only assume that spending his work days on personal issues is not uncommon. As a potential passenger, I would hope that each pilot has his mind on his job & not on personal issues, and that each pilot uses this knowledge & concentration to reduce "deviations".
i would venture to guess that the Denver Airport is the most dangerous "airport" that exists seeing that we're all going to be killed there.
We need to train the pilots and air traffic controllers more. Even if these airports modify the runways for more better landings and or different directions from oncoming/incoming traffic, it still wouldn't a big difference. Stop relying on technology so much and start learning on your own.
By the way, what is the ratio of total takeoff/landings to "near misses"? Is one near miss in East Farfoodle as bad as ten at Ohare?
They love to use these types of headlines to scare people. Yes, errors happen regularly. No, that doesn't mean it's dangerous.
Let's say it's storming and visibility is very low. A plane in coming in for a landing and sees they are short of the runway, so they go back up for another run. That is counted as a problem even though the pilot was in full control and was trained to deal with that sort of problem. I lived in Alaska for 5 years and part of that time was down at the end of the Aleutian Peninsula in a town called Cold Bay. You could get there only by boat or by plane. And if you come in by plane, the runway is on the edge of a cliff. One time when we came in to land when it was foggy, we were too far along the runway and would have gone off the end of the cliff, but the pilot simply took us up for another run. He had even warned us ahead of time about the possibility of needing to do that due to low visibility. As far as I'm concerned, that was not a problem, but a well executed landing by the pilot. But the FAA would mark that as a problem simply because it wasn't a standard landing without any issue.
Simply put, just because something is marked as being an incursion or other flight problem doesn't mean it was really a problem. Pilots are trained to handle these situations and they do so well. If you want to really see what airports are most dangerous, then stop looking at things that aren't dangerous and look only at actual dangers (crashes, for example). Having to change course because another plane got too close (but still has plenty of distance) while in a landing pattern is not something that is dangerous, but again is treated as a problem. You can't count those if you really are looking at what is dangerous.
At least they made one point that is not meant to sensationlize airport dangers... most problems are caused by non-commercial pilots and those who are learning to fly.
Absolutely agree. This is another example of the media hyping "the danger of aviation" without understanding the "factual data" that is used in the article. In addition to what you wrote about, this article mentions the "average of one runway incursion a day," without stopping to note that most of these occur at small airports where there is no commercial air traffic at all. Additionally, the statement "pilots simply ignore instructions from air traffic control" is completely inaccurate; while I've witnessed (in my 23 years as a pilot) many pilots make mistakes and accidentally begin to taxi into a movement area where they haven't been given a clearance, I've never witnessed a pilot outright "ignore instructions by ATC." There are very serious consequences for such actions. Shame on the media! Write about something you understand! Aviation supports this country. Don't sully its reputation.
Pilots do not "just ignore" instructions from ATC. A person who is neither a pilot or controller is not qualified to write such an article. It would be wonderful if no one ever made a mistake, but then, if you are driving and have to swerve or lock a wheel to avoid a "near miss" is it an accident? If pilots are really so stupid in your eyes, just sit and watch the cars at any intersection for 5 minutes. Whoever is without sin may cast the first stone
I don't like flying..I refuse to get on a plane...that's why I take Amtrak when I travel...we get a bedroom and it's way better than any first class seat on a plane...Nah, I'll leave flying to the brave souls who fly...
How foolish of me to believe that anyone purporting to be qualified to write this article would have even read it after completion. First of all, O'Hare (KORD) was the "worst" offender at 75 incidents but the FAA spokesperson claimed that from the total from all us airports over the same basic period totalled 67. Who is using the new math?
Secondly, the statement was made that "80% of the problem was small private planes" and large number of flight schools. Please enlighten me as the the large number of flight schools located in Ohare (KORD) Los Angeles (KLAX) or San Francisco (KSFO). The answer is NONE.
Maybe someone should write an article about the number of errors generated daily by the media and rank them in order.
Having the cleanest bathrooms around doesn't give Chicago O'Hare much cachet in light of it being ranked the most dangerous airport. But I do have to say their hard-working cleaning staff should be commended. Other airports I have frequented have been downright pigsties.
All who say this is journalistic sensationalism are right. It's absolutly wrong to label an airport dangerous when the danger is caused by events outside the airport's control. The blame should be placed where it belongs--either with the FAA or the airline and not be used to blemish the airport or city's name. We all know they can aptly do that themselves.
This is why I fly private.
No, you fly private because you can afford to.
Until I had a massive heart attack I flew my own plane. Small airports are more dangerous than large ones.
As a pilot I can attest that this story is in fact accurate. The FAA (not always the best authority on aviation) has been very effective in this area. From International airports all the way to your hometown landing strip, the runway incursion awareness program has touched every pilot in the nation. Every air traffic controller and every pilot are taking it very seriously.
This has undoubtedly saved lives and is a huge, if somewhat rare, success.
As if we really NEEDED yet ANOTHER reason not to fly?
Wow, that must be a REALLY old stock image. 2 727's, a DC-10, and an L-1011 (or another DC-10... hard to tell for sure with that stabilizer in the way.) As far as I know, no U.S. airlines still fly any of those planes (at least not for passenger service.)
It's not surprising that the lead photo with 4 jets apparently on the taxi way no longer fly commercially in the United States, the 727 (2), the L1011, and the DC-10. It only verifies the credibility of the authors and editors of this sensational article. I'm a travel agency owner and we don't need more scare tactics to thwart our industry like this!
The headline on this article is needlessly and recklessly over-dramatic and sensationalistic. If you're trying to attract readers, I guess you hit the mark. But the facts DO NOT support any use of the word "dangerous" to describe U.S. airports or the U.S. air traffic control system. Far from it. We currently have the world's safest system and are flying at a time of unmatched safety in our skies and on our runways and taxiways.
It is time to devote more attention to the great jobs done by the safety professionals at all levels of the system, from mechanics to flight crews to dispatchers to controllers. We are working together to ensure the safety of the flying public.
Safety professionals respectfully ask that you rewrite the headline atop this article.
Really?!
"We currently have the world's safest system and are flying at a time of unmatched safety in our skies and on our runways and taxiways."
-- Wake up & read the article, "Another Air Traffic Controller Falls Asleep", By Alan Levin, USA TODAY, Updated 4/7/2011 8:31 AM. It cites both the Feb. 19th (controller) and the March 23rd (supervisor) incidents. Then, it cites on March 27th a controller making a seemingly inappropriate request of the SWA pilot.
"We are working together to ensure the safety of the flying public."
-- I recommend reading my above comment (#7.3) because I don't see how a reduction in pilot concentration matches up with your claims of people working together to ensure a safe flying situation. In my opinion, the worst part being that he seemed to have no problem letting people know his personal issues came before his duties as SWA pilot. It makes one wonder if this is a common practice among those we trust with our lives.
You state that this article's headline was inappropriate. Hopefully, I've shown why the reported actions of controllers &, at least, one pilot's example render your safety statements silent.
Just finished reviewing the slide show and comments on the top 21 most dangerous airports. Interesting that altho the author takes great care to point out that "80% of the problems" were due to "small private planes" NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE SHOWN IN THE SLIDE SHOW INVOLVED A "SMALL PRIVATE PLANE". Additionally, CONTROLLER ERRORS were indicated in several of the examples and virtually all of the examples shown on the slides involved COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT to include the new Airbus 380.
It is also interesting to note that Van Nuys (KVNY) in California is one of the busiest airports in the world based on total take offs and landings and is totally based on general aviation usage, but is not shown on the list.
Your bias toward general aviation is a large as your ignorance of it.