NTSB CAROL · Event
Event NYC99IA036
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The Cessna pilot's incorrect visual identification of the Boeing 737's altitude, and decision to take evasive action that was not required, which resulted in the two airplanes coming within 500 feet horizontally, and 0 feet vertically of one another.
Factual narrative
On December 8, 1998, about 1725 eastern standard time, a Boeing 737, C-GCPX, operated by Canadian Airlines International Ltd. as Flight 528, experienced a near midair collision while maneuvering to land at La Guardia Airport, New York, New York. The airplane was not damaged, and the 2 flight crewmembers, 4 flight attendants, and 46 passengers were not injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed for the scheduled passenger flight that was conducted under 14 CFR Part 129. According to the duty chief dispatcher for Canadian Airlines, the Boeing 737 was on downwind for La Guardia's runway 4, at 4,000 feet msl, when the crew caught a glimpse of three lights. The lights were red, white, green, and aligned vertically with the red light on the bottom. The duty chief dispatcher added that the first officer saw the other airplane and had enough time to realize they were not going to collide, but not enough time to execute an evasive maneuver. In addition, the airplane's traffic alert collision avoidance system went from "TRAFFIC" to "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED" to "CLEAR OF CONFLICT" in approximately 2 seconds. According to the Federal Aviation Administration's Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report, the other airplane was a Cessna 172, IFR, at 5,000 feet msl. The pilot of that airplane apparently saw the Boeing 737 at his 12 O'clock position and perceived it to be at the same altitude. To avoid a perceived collision, the Cessna pilot executed a descent, and at 4,000 feet MSL, the two airplanes passed 0 feet vertically and 500 feet horizontally from one another. The Boeing 737 was on downwind for La Guardia's runway 4, at 4,000 feet msl, when the crew caught a glimpse of three lights. The lights were red, white, green, and aligned vertically with the red light on the bottom. The first officer saw the other airplane, and had enough time to realize they were not going to collide, but not enough time to execute an evasive maneuver. In addition, the airplane's traffic alert collision avoidance system went from 'TRAFFIC' to 'MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED' to 'CLEAR OF CONFLICT' in approximately 2 seconds. The other airplane was a Cessna 172, IFR, at 5,000 feet msl. The pilot of that airplane saw the Boeing 737 at his 12 O'clock position, and perceived it to be at the same altitude. To avoid a perceived collision, the Cessna pilot executed a descent, and at 4,000 feet msl, the two airplanes passed 0 feet vertically and 500 feet horizontally from one another. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_1998_NYC99IA036.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (midair collision). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Technical Memorandum (TM)
A preliminary study of a wake vortex encounter hazard boundary for a B737-100 airplane
A preliminary batch simulation study was conducted to define the wake decay required for a Boeing 737-100 airplane to safely encounter a Boeing 727 wake and land.
- NASA NTRS 2018 · Other
A Numerical Simulation Study to Develop an Acceptable Wake Encounter Boundary for a B737-100 Airplane
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is conducting research with the goal of enabling safe improvements in the capacity of the nation's air transportation system.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Airspace Saturation and Midair Collision Risk: A Case Study at a Class D Airport
Near midair collisions are precursor events to actual collisions and may be an indicator of risk. While previous studies have used reports of near midair collisions to relate factors such as airspace …
- NASA NTRS 2023 · Presentation
The Viability of See-and-Avoid for Midair Collision Avoidance for Urban Air Mobility (UAM)
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems.
- NASA NTRS 2023 · Presentation
The Viability of See-and-Avoid for Midair Collision Avoidance for UAM
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is an emerging aviation concept that could supplement today’s ground and air transportation systems.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Other - Patent
Apparatus for aiding a pilot in avoiding a midair collision between aircraft
An apparatus for aiding a pilot in avoiding a midair collision between aircraft is described. A protected aircraft carries a transmitter, a transponder, a receiver, and a data processor; and an intrud…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗