American Airlines flight 2587 from Chicago O’Hare to Austin had a near-miss with a 1979 Cessna R182 that passed it with just about 400 feet of vertical separation on Wednesday.
The American Boeing 737 had been alerted to the traffic in the area, but lost it descending into fog on final approach. They responded to a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alert as the Cessna flew directly into their approach path, almost right below.
The Cessna, registration N738PG, ultimately landed about 65 miles south of Austin’s airport in Gonzales, Texas.
ATC: American 2587 traffic 11 o’clock and five miles westbound. Altitude indicates 2,000 type unknown.
Pilot: Searching for traffic American 2587.
Pilot: In sight of the high wing American 2587.
ATC: 2587 descend maintain 2,000 and turn right heading 260.
Pilot: 2,000 right turn 260 American 2587…
ATC: American 2587 do you still have that high wing that’s crossing over your final now?
Pilot: Negative, American 2587
ATC: You said Negative?
Pilot: Correct, Negative. We lost it when we descended into the fog.
ATC: American 2587 Roger turn right heading 2 6.. correction turn right heading 3 3 0, join the final runway 36 left.
Pilot: Right heading 3 3 0, join the final runway 36 left …
ATC: American 2587 as you make turn airport is 1 o’clock 7 miles
Pilot: Airport in sight American 2587
ATC: American 2587 that traffic’s through your final now. You’re cleared visual approach runway 36 left.
Pilot: Cleared the visual runway 36 left American 2587…
Pilot: We’re responding to an RA, American 2587.
ATC: American 2587 when you can climb maintain 3,000 fly heading 360, I’m just gonna vector you back around.
Pilot: Standby.
ATC:…American 2587 turn left heading 175, and did you ever see him the second time around?
Pilot: 175 We saw when he flashed us and turned right into us.
ATC: Roger, yeah he immediately turned southbound I was trying to get you out of the way sorry about that.
Pilot: No worries.
ATC: And roger, if you wanna declare a near-miss let us know.
The crew of an American Airlines 737 responded to a TCAS alert after a Cessna 182 turned directly into the American flight’s approach path to Austin on 16 Oct. The two aircraft were only separated by 400 feet as the 737 passed almost directly over the Cessna. Watch and listen: pic.twitter.com/w1NMRvyJFo
— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) October 18, 2024
The Cessna, registered to an individual in Acadia, Louisiana, wasn’t on the approach frequency. They were probably flying at low altitude to avoid instrument meteorological conditions, continuing flying with visual. It appears from their flight history that they were largely just doing touch and go’s over several days.
That plane took the unexpected turn, wasn’t communicating, and air traffic control cleared that 737 knowing the Cessna was out there and that the 737 had lost visual with it. Most of the blame here is on the private pilot, but it doesn’t look like ATC distinguished themselves either. The win here is automation, the TCAS alert that flagged proximity and triggered the pilot and controller to reroute.
PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) 727 wasn’t as lucky in 1979 when it collided with a Cessna upon approach to San Diego. The Cessna was taking off in the opposite direction. No one survived.
I think this could actually be an airspace problem – the class C airspace (which requires ATC communication) at that distance from Austin is from 2100-4500. It was designed that way because aircraft approaching or departing Austin will likely be between those altitudes. ATC cleared the American flight to 2000, putting them below that shelf. If that’s routine, then the airspace shelf should be redefined lower to keep the GA aircraft clear.
Steven, the crash was in 1978. Actually the Cessna, which was not taking off, was run down by the jet, which had lost sight of it. While there were errors all around (the Cessna had turned, the airline pilots assumed they were ahead of it and traffic control didn’t stay on top of the situation) the 727 crew did have most of the responsibility. Safer procedures were learned from this, but at a terrible price.
I think this one fall entirely on ATC. It looks like the 182 was under the shelf and in VFR conditions. As the slower airplane the 182 has the right of way. The 737 was on an IFR flight plan (under the direction of ATC) and reported losing visual of the Cessna, which was still flying due west at the time. ATC didn’t notice the 182’s turn until much too late. Not judging ATC, they have a lot going on. Hopefully a learning experience for all.
“I think this could actually be an airspace problem”
Agreed. If KAUS remains Class C, seems that an additional shelf – or bump-out of an existing shelf – might be in order for the lower transitional altitudes for the approach / departure gates.
The Cessna jockey appears to have been flying in accordance with the airspace procedures & restrictions. That said, VFR flights – that low, no comms – crossing a final approach course within five miles of the landing runway threshold is troublesome. And particularly considering the traffic growth at AUS. Yet, I don’t believe AUS activity is near Class B status.
The controller issuing a decent to 2000′ normally would not be a problem since the airliner was in the approach transition. Judging from the recording, AA would’ve reached 2000′ just as he was crossing the the boundary of the Class C inner-ring.
@Brad There is no concept of right-of-way based on speed. Between different categories of aircraft right-of-way is broadly determined by maneuverability, but both of these aircraft were in the same category. Therefore, the aircraft to the others right had right-of way (14CFR91.113(d)), unless they were heading straight at each other, in which case they both should have turned right (14CFR91.113(e)). It could be argued that the jet had right-of-way because it was landing (14CFR91.113(g)), but I think it was too far out to be considered “landing” under this clause.
Since the jet had TCAS, responding to an RA trumps pretty much everything else, and this is exactly what they did, maintaining separation. At the end of the day it would seem that a potentially dangerous situation arose as a result of a) the rules of the sky not being perfect in all instances, and b) humans not being perfect in many instances. However, automation did its job, which is exactly why it’s there.