Sunday, March 20, 2022

Federal Aviation Administration Increases Reviews of Midair-Collision Warnings for Commercial Flights

Air-safety regulators don’t see imminent risks to passengers but are studying close calls near several busy airports

The Wall Street Journal 
By Andy Pasztor and Micah Maidenberg
March 20, 2022 8:00 am ET

Air-safety regulators recently stepped up scrutiny of midair-collision warnings around the U.S., prompted by an increase of close calls at a handful of busy airports, according to people familiar with the matter and industry documents.

Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor airlines think there are imminent risks to passengers, and they haven’t issued emergency orders or mandated other changes to carrier operations. Rather, safety experts said they are concerned that potential collision risks could rise as traffic continues to rebound from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Airborne close calls requiring airline pilots to take last-second evasive maneuvers have been largely eliminated by advances in technology over the years. Since last summer, however, some FAA and airline officials have become concerned that instances of commercial aircraft flying dangerously close to other planes rose in 2021 from pre-pandemic 2019 levels near some airports, according to the documents and officials familiar with them.

Senior regulators, veteran airline managers and pilot-union leaders held a series of discussions and conducted fresh studies of the issue during the summer through late last year, documents summarizing some of those meetings show.

The documents identified escalating midair risks in 2021 near Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and Hollywood Burbank Airport in Southern California. The documents, which haven’t been reported before, designated additional “airports of interest” requiring further analysis. They include New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, Miami International Airport and Honolulu’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport.

Earlier this year, a different industry document identified the Dallas region as among those showing a pattern of increases in midair-collision warnings.

Flight safety is the purview of the FAA, and airport operators haven’t participated in the FAA-industry groups evaluating airborne risks. Representatives from those airports either had no comment or noted the FAA’s regulatory role.

Denver International Airport, according to the documents and separate FAA safety updates, is of particular concern to government and industry officials. For more than a decade, safety officials have tried to reduce potential collision risks that are most acute during landing approaches to some runways. The FAA, which for years has worked on safety enhancements at Denver, recently launched another safety review there, an FAA spokesman said.

A spokeswoman for the airport said officials at Denver are monitoring progress toward a potential solution.

Some senior flight-safety officials said the increases in midair-collision warnings may be explained in part by pilots, air-traffic controllers and other aviation professionals grappling with the widespread shutdown in activity in 2020 as the pandemic ensued, followed by the intense recovery.

The FAA, working with officials from various aviation groups, told airlines last summer to consider monitoring several issues related to airborne-collision warnings. Joint FAA-industry groups have stepped up efforts to analyze and counter the trend, according to industry documents and officials involved.

The spokesman for the FAA said data the agency collects through voluntary reporting programs has been effective in identifying midair-collision threats and other risks.

Meanwhile, data collected by the National Transportation Safety Board through a mandatory reporting system show increases in airborne-collision warnings near several major hubs. The NTSB’s data, which tracks incidents differently than the FAA, indicates collision warnings rose around several busy airports last year compared with pre-pandemic traffic in 2019.

At Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, for example, reports of such incidents rose to 11 from three during that period. They also increased to four from one at Los Angeles International Airport, and to 15 from 11 at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida, according to the NTSB data, which includes passenger airliners, large cargo aircraft and other commercial operators. Representatives for Newark, Los Angeles and Fort Lauderdale had no comment.

The number of warnings captured by the NTSB is minuscule compared with the roughly 6.2 million domestic airliner flights last year tracked by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics, but they represent some of the most serious potential risks in aviation. Each incident tracked by the NTSB involved what the board’s reporting criteria categorized as requiring pilot action in response to “a substantial risk of collision.”

The last midair crash in the U.S. involving a major passenger plane occurred about 36 years ago, before advances in cockpit technology, above Cerritos, Calif., and resulted in the deaths of more than 80 people. Domestic passenger airlines haven’t suffered any kind of fatal crash in 13 years.

The full significance of the NTSB data and industry documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal isn’t clear. The data from the NTSB isn’t reliable enough to make definitive risk assessments around specific airports because airlines are inconsistent in reporting close calls leading to collision-avoidance warnings, a spokesman said.

The safety board, which investigates transportation accidents but has no regulatory authority, reviews each report it receives to track potential safety issues and seeks to determine the seriousness of the events, the NTSB spokesman said.

In recent months, joint FAA and industry safety teams have reviewed some of the same airports where the NTSB data shows warnings increased, according to people familiar with the matter.

At the heart of the safety reviews by regulators are Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems, on board airliners and other types of planes, that alert pilots to potential midair hazards. The equipment has drastically reduced midair collisions over the decades. Known as TCAS, the systems initially provide pilots with automated warnings about nearby air traffic.

If planes continue to converge, TCAS becomes an aviator’s ultimate lifeline by issuing more-urgent, automated voice commands to descend or climb—technically called resolution advisories—that pilots typically are obliged to follow. Those advisories are tracked by both the NTSB and FAA.

Cockpit crews are expected to react in a few seconds and at most, typically have about half a minute to take emergency action to prevent an airborne catastrophe.

Denver International, which has described itself as the third-busiest U.S. airport, illustrates the difficult technical challenges of combating midair risks.

The airport’s mile-high elevation and layout can confuse TCAS software, resulting in more-frequent warnings requiring pilots to go around for another landing attempt, according to government, industry and independent safety experts.

Many airlines and the FAA describe those warnings as “nuisance alerts.”

To avoid longer flights and increase runway capacity, many pilots approaching certain Denver strips are allowed to turn off the TCAS collision-avoidance feature. That is permitted under strict conditions, such as when planes approach runways in daylight and with enhanced monitoring by air-traffic controllers, according to pilots and flight-safety officials.

Responding to persistent industry efforts to expand daily operations, the FAA has blessed the practice for years. Most U.S. carriers, including Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc., have adopted it.

Those airlines said safety isn’t compromised if pilots turn off the warnings during final approaches of some flights landing at Denver. Some veteran regulators, aviators and air-traffic control officials have said the warnings were never intended to be turned off in normal flying conditions.

The spokesman for the FAA said that reducing nuisance warnings can promote safety near airports by eliminating distractions during landings. Pilots can opt to turn off the warnings during certain Denver approaches because the airport’s altitude and runway configurations generate advisories for flight paths with “low-to-no collision risk,” he said.

American Airlines Group Inc. said it doesn’t allow the warnings to be turned off at Denver. “We don’t want to take away that level of protection,” said John DeLeeuw, an American safety official who formerly led the safety committee for the pilots union at the carrier.


  1. Sure would like to see the criteria and detail for these air collision warnings. Maybe we can take this at face value, but it seems all too often some government agency moves the goal posts and then cites an increase in whatever they're measuring.

    While The Wall Street Journal does much better than most, I wish the media would provide detail and context instead of only headlines and hand wringing. But I get it; the average reader doesn't want an explanation that is complicated, or requires more than 30 seconds of thought.

    1. Regrettably, WSJ aviation authors follow the FAA mostly.

      I have been advocating for years, following their 737 MAX coverage, that they learn to fly and learn something about engineering and manufacturing, as long as aviation and/or transportation is their area of concentration.

      NTSB aviation accident reports should be another must reading.

  2. This is a bit of a mind-bender; these incidents somehow are a huge concern? At LAX, for example, warnings skyrocketed from one to four in 2021 over 2019? Statistically, this doesn't even get on the ho-hum chart; there's a lot of verbiage here from the WSJ, which is usually forthright and careful about its reporting, but this article is simply a huge waste of everybody's time, and runs, in my opinion, far below the standards of responsible journalism (if it exists today). Perhaps some reader will get lathered-up since the article mentions airline safety, but I seriously doubt it. Coupled with the very noticeable lack of hard data, I would expect to find this collection of nonsensical puffery in the National Enquirer. Andy and Micah will undoubtedly be reporting on the danger of toxins in the latest cake recipes in the near future.

  3. When I was landing a 777 at an airport that also had a traffic pattern full of light airplanes, I had to do a go-around because the controller was so busy she failed to give me landing clearance (I was on an ILS). Illustrative of the problem of mixing light airplanes with jets, especially heavy jets. It was a white knuckle ride, wondering if we were going to have a collision. I was mad enough to call the tower supervisor after landing and complain. When does a traffic pattern become full and the controller starts taking action? Turning off TCAS is unacceptable, especially when you have light airplane traffic accidentally flying into your final approach path.

  4. It's not so much the increase in TCAS RA's that is the issue. It's ATC trying to cram 50 pounds of **** into a 5 pound bag. There is simply not enough capacity at most large airports and separation criteria is being reduced and fudged all the time while being accompanied by ridiculous speed assignments on final. At some point, the FAA is just going to have to tell the airlines "NO" and start reducing the number of flights into or out of busy airports. The same applies to GA. The busiest GA airports in the DFW area are simply stretched to (or beyond) the limit in terms of the number of airplanes in the pattern at any given time. Throw in new pilots with limited experience / skill / judgement and an overworked tower controller and you have a recipe for disaster.