NEW YORK (CBS)  -- NEAR COLLISIONS AND AIR SAFETY.

For the second time in less than a week, there's been a near collision of two aircraft at JFK, and the FAA is thinking that their latest safety procedures might need more work.

The acting head of the FAA is going to re-examine takeoff and landing procedures at New York's JFK Airport after the second near-collision in less than a week.

On Friday, the pilot of a Delta 757 did a routine landing abort, only to fly into the path of a commuter flight that was taking off. The two planes came within 600 feet vertically and a half-mile horizontally. On July 5th, there was a similar encounter that brought two jets even closer than that.

Air traffic controllers saved the day both times, directing the pilots to take evasive action. But David Field, U.S. editor for Airline Business Magazine, thinks he knows why it happened: "You have staffing issues at the major New York-area towers. You have fatigue issues, and you also have labor issues with the air traffic controllers union at the three New York towers. And those are the issues that caused the recent near-mishaps at JFK."

The FAA was quick to dismiss that theory, and you can see why.

How would it look after a catastrophic runway collision to be sitting at a Congressional hearing and hear someone testify, "Well, we had labor issues..."? Or "Well, we didn't have enough staff..."? Or "Well, you know, people were a little tired that day..."?

In any case, the FAA says that's not the problem, the problem is not knowing when other planes are in the way, and for that, major airports are going to get special warning lights.

"These are like traffic lights. They change color when it's safe to enter a runway. What they do is they're at the intersection of two runways, or at the intersection of a taxiway and a runway," said Field.

That should remove any ambiguity. And, remember: as scary as these things are, the most dangerous part of any flight is that you'll slip in the shower on the morning of your trip. And the FAA can't help you there.

A FORMER PROSECUTOR ON THE TERROR WATCH LIST.

Jim Robinson wants off the terror watch list. You see, apparently he thinks that, as the former Assistant Attorney General who ran the Justice Department's Criminal Division during the Clinton Administration, the FBI should cut him some slack.

At a time when flying has become cold and impersonal, Jim Robinson, former Assistant Attorney General, finds that for him, it is all too personal: "...Happened last week, on two different flights." (:03)

Once upon a time, Jim was the Justice Department's top criminal prosecutor. But these days, the TSA has him pegged for just the kind of guy who'd wear a shoe bomb.

"You can't get an electronic ticket, either over your computer at home or at a kiosk at the airport. You can't drop off your bags at curbside and get a boarding pass. You have to wait in line, you have to see an agent," said Robinson.

Apparently, someone named "Jim Robinson" was put on the terror watch list in early 2005. And ever since then, his life has been a chapter out of a Kafka novel: getting scrutinized at the airport by one branch of the government, while another branch of the same government trusts him enough to give him a top secret security clearance: "Not only did I have top secret security --- but in a case I had last year that involved my need to have access to classified information, I had a re-up of my top secret security clearance."

The FBI acknowledges that with 400,000 names on the list, it's not going to be perfect. But Jim wants off, and he wants off now. So, he's joined the ACLU lawsuit to get the list fixed: "Sent them copies of my passport, my driver's license, my voter's registration card. And not only had I heard nothing, but it didn't do me any good."

Well, of course not, Jim. Because, a watch list is just that: it's a list of people we need to watch. And so it includes not only people who have done something wrong, but people who might do something wrong.

If it's any consolation, Jim ... I just want to say that no matter what the FBI thinks, I trust you. For now, anyway...

OFFSHORE DRILLING DEBATE RAGES ON.

There is a game of "petroleum chicken" going on. The oil companies clearly want the government to open up more offshore drilling, and the President is clearly ready to oblige.
 

"Today, I've taken every step within my power to allow offshore exploration of the OCS," said President Bush.

The OCS, that's the Outer Continental Shelf, which reaches as far as 350 nautical miles from the coast.

The President's betting that the prospect of $5 gas might find even environmentalists willing to at least take a peek to see if, while we're waiting to be rescued by those elusive alternative fuels, to see if maybe there might be friendlier sources of oil than the Middle East.

In a capitalist economy, everybody has their price. And polls are beginning to show that even for people who consider themselves environmentalists, $5 a gallon may be it.

And with Democratic leaders insisting that the oil companies not even be allowed to look for more offshore oil, the President pounced: "The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump, and they're waiting to see what the Congress will do."

The comeback from Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is that the oil companies already have plenty of places to drill: "We want oil and gas companies to drill for oil on the leases that they've been given, tens of millions of acres, both onshore and offshore."

Hmm, so he has no moral opposition to more drilling. He just thinks he knows better than the oil companies where to find the oil. And until they drill where he thinks they should, he doesn't want them even looking someplace else. He has a better idea for controlling prices: "We believe that we should start with speculation, see what we can do to stop that. We know it will have a tremendously important impact on the markets."

Well, yes ... except that what drives the speculation is the fear that there's no more oil to be found. And if you don't look, you're never gonna find it. And so, the Democrats have handed the President the perfect opening to put the blame for $5 gas right where he wants it: "And as the Democratically-controlled Congress has sat idle, gas prices have continued to increase."

THE PRICE OF THE BIG MORTGAGE LIFELINE.

OK, investors: you can exhale, for now, maybe.

The Treasury Department's promise to back up mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae didn't calm investors all that much.

The Federal backup means that Freddie and Fannie will still be able to buy up loans, which puts more money into banks, which they can then use to keep lending money to would-be homeowners, so that the housing market doesn't completely collapse for lack of buyers. But, CBS Business Correspondent Anthony Mason says there's a price to that: "Some economists are saying that this is likely to prolong the housing slump. This is gonna drive up mortgage rates for people. And it's gonna mean that prices won't hit bottom now maybe until the middle of next year, or even the end of it."

So, it merely slows down the inevitable. And as for the smaller banks who clearly are not going to be getting Federal banking, CBS News business reporter Alexis Christoforous says investors want out: "The fact that cornerstones of the mortgage industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, can have trouble is leading investors to wonder: Who's next?"

And if nobody was actually yelling "fire" in the crowded theater that is Wall Street these days, plenty of people were whispering it, and bank stocks kept dropping. And beyond that, there's a sense that there are no more Federal rabbits in the hat.

"Some are looking at this bailout plan as a disaster. They say it's really the taxpayer who's going to shoulder the burden for the bad decisions that were made. And critics say, 'Look, this is no time for the government to be taking on over five trillion dollars in debt,'" said Alexis Christoforous

Now, some people would be depressed by this sort of thing, but others saw it coming. I got a call from a listener in Tacoma who in 2001 started buying gold at $200 an ounce and storing it his basement safe.

"(Dave:) Can you tell us, just on the QT, how much gold you've got now?

(Caller:) I have about 1,500 ounces.

(Dave:) So that would be...

(Caller:) ...and about probably 6,000 ounces of silver.

(Dave:) That's over a million dollars.

(Caller:) Well, yeah.

(Dave:) I hope you have a decent security system.

(Caller:) Yes, it's guaranteed by Smith and Wesson."

Yes, I wouldn't get any ideas, if I were you...