**\[O\]**

On April 3, 1998, about 0821 eastern standard time, US Airways flight
920 (USA920), a McDonnell-Douglas DC-9, and Air Canada flight 703
(ACA703), an Airbus Industries A-319, nearly collided above the
intersection of runways 22 and 31 at LaGuardia Airport (LGA), Flushing,
New York. Both aircraft were scheduled passenger flights; USA920, as a
domestic carrier, was operating under 14 CFR Part 121, and ACA703, as a
foreign air carrier, was operating under 14 CFR Part 129 while in U.S.
airspace. The incident occurred in visual meteorological conditions, and
no injuries were reported.

On January 23, 1998, about 1819 eastern standard time, US Airways flight
1186 (USA1186), a Boeing 737, and American Airlines flight 350 (AAL350),
a McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 nearly collided at the intersection of LGA
runways 4 and 13. The reported weather was ceiling 600 feet and
visibility 2 miles. According to an NMAC report filed by the captain of
USA1186, his aircraft was on a 2.5 mile final for an instrument landing
system approach to runway 13 when the local controller cleared AAL350
for takeoff from runway 4. The USA1186 captain reported that AAL350 did
not pass through the intersection of runways 4 and 13 until after
USA1186 had crossed the runway 13 threshold. The runway 13 threshold is
1,700 feet from the intersection with runway 4 or 7.5 seconds flying
time at an estimated approach speed of 135 knots. (Runway Incursion;
runway safety)

**\[Recommendations\]**

[A‑00-35]{.underline}. Amend the Aeronautical Information Manual to
inform pilots that controllers will issue traffic information about
aircraft operating on intersecting runways where flightpaths converge
and explain the rationale for the procedure.

**\[Responses\]**

[FAA LTR DTD]{.underline}: 9/6/00

> The Aeronautical Information Manual currently informs pilots that
> controllers issue traffic to the maximum extent consistent with higher
> priority duties. The working group that will be formed to review
> existing phraseology will also address this issue. It is anticipated
> that the working group will complete its review by December 2000.
>
> I will inform the Board of the FAA\'s action to address this safety
> recommendation after the working group completes its work.

[NTSB LTR DTD]{.underline}: 3/9/01

> The FAA states that air traffic controllers currently exchange traffic
> information on and around the airport and that the AIM currently
> informs pilots that controllers issue traffic information to the
> maximum extent consistent with higher priority duties. The Safety
> Board notes that the investigation of the incidents that prompted this
> recommendation showed that no traffic information was issued until
> evasive maneuvers had to be taken. To address these recommendations,
> the FAA states that it will form a working group to review
> phraseology, including traffic advisories.
>
> The Safety Board is concerned that the FAA may not understand the
> intent of these recommendations. The safety recommendations ask that
> traffic advisories be mandatory for aircraft operating on intersecting
> runways where flightpaths converge. Currently these advisories are
> optional. The FAA plans to address these recommendations by forming a
> working group to review phraseology. However, the recommendations do
> not concern phraseology; they concern procedural issues. Pending the
> recommended amendments to Order 7110.65 and the AIM, Safety
> Recommendations A‑00‑34 and A‑00‑35 are classified \"Open Unacceptable
> Response.\"

[FAA LTR DTD]{.underline}: 10/4/01

> To reduce runway surface incidents, the FAA formed a work group
> representing a diverse cross‑section from the aviation community. The
> work group is tasked to review both procedures and associated
> phraseology and to improve by condensing, modifying, or eliminating
> extraneous verbiage without compromising safety. The group will
> specifically address traffic advisories as they apply to intersecting
> runways.
>
> It was anticipated that the work group would complete its review by
> December 2000. However, due to coordinating and scheduling
> difficulties the work group did not meet until April 2001. The group
> has since met in May and June and plans to complete the review in
> October.
>
> I will inform the Board of the outcome of the work group\'s efforts by
> December 2001.

[NTSB LTR DTD]{.underline}: 12/26/01

> On September 6, 2000, the FAA stated that, to address these
> recommendations, it would form a working group to review phraseology,
> including traffic advisories. In its March 9, 2001, response, the
> Safety Board stated that it was concerned that the FAA did not
> understand the intent of these recommendations. The recommendations do
> not concern phraseology; they concern the procedural issues of making
> traffic advisories mandatory for aircraft operating on intersecting
> runways where flightpaths converge. At that time, the Board classified
> Safety Recommendations A‑00‑34 and ‑35 \"Open Unacceptable Response.\"
> The FAA now reports that the working group is tasked to review and
> improve both procedures and associated phraseology by condensing,
> modifying, or eliminating extraneous verbiage without compromising
> safety. The FAA states that the group will specifically address
> traffic advisories as they apply to intersecting runways.

The Safety Board appreciates the clarification provided by the FAA in
its October 4, 2001, letter, regarding the group\'s work to address
procedural issues, specifically traffic advisories that apply to
intersecting runways. Pending the results of the working group and the
recommended amendments to Order 7110.65 and the AIM, Safety
Recommendations A‑00‑34 and ‑35 are classified \"Open Acceptable
Response.\"

[FAA LTR DTD]{.underline}: 7/11/02

> Based on the FAA\'s position in response to Safety
> Recommendation A‑00‑34, the FAA does not plan to revise the
> Aeronautical Information Manual to inform pilots that controllers will
> issue traffic information about aircraft operating on intersecting
> runways where flightpaths converge.
>
> I consider the FAA\'s action to be completed in response to this
> safety recommendation.

[NTSB LTR DTD]{.underline}: 12/4/02

> The FAA reports that, as part of its efforts to reduce runway surface
> incidents, it tasked a work group to review both procedures and
> associated phraseology and to improve them by condensing, modifying,
> or eliminating extraneous verbiage. The FAA states that the work group
> specifically addressed traffic advisories as they apply to
> intersecting runways. The FAA reviewed recommendations from the work
> group and determined that the amendments called for in Safety
> Recommendations A‑00‑34 and ‑35 are not warranted. The FAA believes
> that the current procedures are acceptable.
>
> The Safety Board disagrees with the FAA\'s decision, and continues to
> believe that the revisions to FAA Order 7110.65 and to the AIM, as
> requested in Safety Recommendations A‑00‑34 and ‑35, are needed. The
> Board notes that the procedures the FAA believes are acceptable and
> not in need of revision were in place when the incidents that prompted
> these recommendations occurred. The Board is aware that the National
> Aeronautics and Space Administration\'s Aviation Safety Reporting
> System (ASRS) continues to receive reports of similar runway incidents
> involving intersecting runways. In many cases, the pilots making these
> reports have indicated their desire to have been informed of the other
> traffic on the converging runway, as recommended.

On October 1, 2002, staff from the FAA and the Safety Board met to
review the FAA\'s position (1) that current procedures are acceptable
and (2) that additional requirements are not warranted. The Safety Board
provided copies of reports of recent incidents similar to the incidents
that prompted these recommendations, and that indicate that current
procedures are not acceptable. In the meeting, it was noted that the
Board is always open to considering alternative actions to satisfy the
intent of its recommendations. The FAA staff indicated that they would
review the additional information made available, and consider revisions
to requirements to address these problems. In the interim, Safety
Recommendations A‑00‑34 and ‑35 are classified \"Open‑Unacceptable
Response.\"

[FAA LTR DTD]{.underline}: 7/28/03

On October 1, 2002, representatives from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) met with your staff to discuss these safety
recommendations. Based on additional information your staff provided
during the meeting, the FAA initiated an air traffic control regional
and field facility review of a document change proposal (DCP) requiring
controllers to issue traffic advisories to aircraft operating on
intersecting runways when the flightpaths intersect. Initial comments
have been received from the regions and field, along with suggestions to
make procedural modifications to the DCP. The DCP is currently being
modified and will be redistributed to the regions and field facilities
for final comments.

> I will inform the Board of the outcome of this effort once all
> comments are received and analyzed.

[NTSB LTR DTD]{.underline}: 10/27/03

On October 1, 2002, staff from the Safety Board met with staff from the
FAA to discuss the need to implement these safety recommendations. As a
result of that meeting, the FAA published a document change
proposal (DCP) for FAA Order 7110.65 requiring controllers to issue
traffic advisories to aircraft operating on intersecting runways when
the flightpaths intersect. The Board notes that the DCP is currently
being modified based on comments from its regions and field facilities.

The Safety Board is pleased to learn that the FAA is taking the actions
recommended, and would appreciate reviewing a copy of the DCP when it
has been revised. Pending results of the DCP and completion of the
recommended actions, including the amendment to FAA Order 7110.65 and
the amendment to the Aeronautical Information Manual, Safety
Recommendations A‑00‑34 and --35 are classified \"Open‑Acceptable
Response.\"

[Note to File]{.underline}: 3/4/05

The Document Change Proposal was modified by ATO memorandum dated
September 3, 2004. Changes to Paragraphs 3-9-8 and 3-10-4 were provided
to NTSB, Jeff Marcus on March 4, 2005.