Air traffic services play a pivotal role in maintaining safety and efficiency in the aviation sector. Air Traffic Control (ATC) professionals guide aircraft during takeoff, en route, and landing operations, helping to prevent mid-air collisions, manage traffic flow, and assist pilots during emergencies. However, major air traffic incidents sometimes occur despite the expertise and best intentions of all involved. An analysis of these incidents offers invaluable learning experiences to improve future air traffic services and enhance aviation safety. This article examines several major air traffic incidents, offering a deeper understanding of what happened, why it happened, and what steps were taken to prevent a recurrence.
Analysis of Major Air Traffic Incidents
Case Study 1: The Tenerife Airport Disaster
The Tenerife Airport Disaster on March 27, 1977, remains the deadliest aviation accident in history. A series of unfortunate events, including a terrorist incident, poor visibility, miscommunication, and a crowded airport led to two Boeing 747s — KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736 — colliding on the runway, resulting in 583 fatalities.
Both aircraft were diverted to Tenerife’s Los Rodeos Airport due to a terrorist incident at Gran Canaria Airport, their initial destination. With several diverted flights, the small airport was extremely congested, leading to non-standard taxiing procedures. Simultaneously, dense fog drastically reduced visibility, and miscommunications occurred between the tower and the KLM flight.
KLM 4805 started its takeoff roll without clearance just as Pan Am 1736 was taxiing on the same runway. By the time both crews realized the danger, it was too late to prevent the collision.
This tragic incident led to major changes in air traffic services. The importance of clear, standardized communication between pilots and air traffic controllers was emphasized, resulting in the creation of standardized phraseology in aviation.
Case Study 2: Uberlingen Mid-Air Collision
On July 1, 2002, two aircraft — a Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev Tu-154 and a DHL Boeing 757 — collided mid-air near Uberlingen, Germany, resulting in 71 deaths. The tragedy happened despite both planes being equipped with Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), a technology designed to prevent such incidents.
The collision resulted from the simultaneous decision-making by the human pilot and the automated system (TCAS). The air traffic controller, who was working alone due to a colleague’s break, instructed the Tu-154 to descend, which was the same initial TCAS instruction. However, TCAS then advised the DHL plane to descend and the Tu-154 to climb, but this updated advisory was not communicated by ATC.
As a result, both planes descended and collided. This tragic incident highlighted the potential conflict between ATC instructions and TCAS advisories. In the aftermath, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised its guidelines to mandate that if TCAS issues a resolution advisory, pilots should follow it, regardless of any contrary ATC instructions.
Case Study 3: Hudson River Mid-Air Collision
On August 8, 2009, a sightseeing helicopter and a private light aircraft collided over the Hudson River in New York, causing nine fatalities. The airspace where the collision occurred was not controlled, meaning pilots used the “see and avoid” principle and communicated on a common frequency.
Several factors contributed to the collision, including the limitations of the “see and avoid” principle, ineffective communication on the common frequency, and the controller’s distraction by a non-work-related phone call.
In response to this incident, the FAA revised its regulations for the airspace over the Hudson River, creating new exclusion zones and defining specific altitudes for local and transiting aircraft. They also mandated stricter rules for ATC about non-work-related activities during duty hours.
Case Study 4: 2010 Mangalore Air Crash
On May 22, 2010, Air India Express Flight 812 overshot the runway at Mangalore Airport in India, fell down a hillside, and burst into flames, resulting in 158 fatalities. The crash occurred due to the captain’s decision to continue landing despite the plane not being correctly aligned with the runway, which resulted from a delayed descent and higher-than-normal approach speed.
Although ATC was not directly implicated in this accident, an analysis of the situation highlights an opportunity for ATC to assist in preventing similar situations by providing additional alerts to pilots about misaligned approaches and high speeds, provided that radar services are available.
Following the accident, recommendations were made for air traffic controllers to be trained to identify unstable approaches when aircraft are in radar contact, and to provide appropriate alerts to pilots.
Each of these major air traffic incidents brought tragic losses yet offered essential learnings that significantly improved air traffic services and aviation safety protocols worldwide. By analyzing these incidents, we can understand the value of clear and standardized communication, the harmonization of human and automated decision-making, the limitation of “see and avoid” in congested airspace, and the role ATC could play in identifying unstable approaches.
While we hope such incidents will never repeat, it’s incumbent upon us to continue studying them. Only by doing so can we ensure that the lessons learned lead to improvements in procedures, technology, and training that will help prevent future accidents in our endlessly complex and ever-evolving air traffic system.
See more: