(3 of 3)
Although wind shear is invisible to the eye, the conditions that make it probable can be spotted by radar and detected by weather instruments. Any violent thunderstorm, of course, raises a possibility of such dangerous air currents. But the problem in combatting this hazard is that it is capricious, its intensity is unpredictable, and to close down airports every time the wind shear possibility remotely exists would seriously disrupt air travel. U.S. investigators have, in fact, cited wind shear as contributing to the probable cause of only one previous accident: the crash of an Iberia Airlines DC-10 at Boston's Logan Airport on Dec. 17, 1973. In that case, the plane was severely damaged but no one was killed.
Facing Backward. Last week's tragedy at Kennedy, however, raises serious questions about the reaction of airport authorities, pilots and air traffic controllers to the wind-shear menace. In this case, at least two pilots had detected the danger and alerted the tower. But no move was made to close the affected runway. Although the ill-fated Eastern pilot had acknowledged his awareness of the danger, he might have been lulled into a belief that it had passed by the successful landing of the two intervening nights. At issue is a longstanding and sensitive dispute over who must decide whether or not to land. With their own lives at stake, as well as those of their passengers, pilots have long insisted on final authority over such decisions. Current federal regulations accord them that right. At each airport the Federal Aviation Administration's tower chief has the responsibility for closing specific runways or the entire field. Controllers are required to advise pilots of adverse conditions but cannot order them to seek another airfield. The Kennedy crash makes plain the need for clearer standards for determining when wind shear presents grave dangers, as well as tougher guidelines on what course to take when it does.