Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

300 feet from disaster at CDG

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    gabe, except that Susan and Martin dont sound anything remotely alike. whereas 9 left and 9 right are still 9's.

    i have 3 kids. i dont confuse their names. more importantly though, when i call one of them, the other two never answer
    Reminds me of a friend of mine who "doesn't have a favorite child. He loves Matthew and Not Matthew equally".

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Nobody can disagree that standard phraseology must be used, but I highly doubt that "confirm sidestep 09R" would have worked any better than the "understand sidestep 09R" that was used.
    Definite arm-chair, Monday morning, 0 kts, 0 ft AGL, judgemental parlour talk, but I’d prefer:

    “Are you sure you want us on 9R with you sending EasyJet for departure in front of us”…

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post

    Avherald says RIMCAS was triggered.

    Based on my limited understanding of the french (and I also could well be wrong) the final report gives the following timings and heights of the approaching B787:

    05:18:10 @ 270 ft Easyjet A320 says "Tower there is traffic landing 09 Right"
    05:18:14 @ 200 ft Easyjet A320 says "Go around 09R go around"
    05:18:19 @ 105 ft United B787 initiates go around
    05:18:23 @ 80 ft United B787 minimum height starts to climb
    This kinda suggests that the landing plane was not ‘overly aware’ of the departing plane. LMK when you are in the neighborhood and I’ll buy you a beer.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    (as I understand it, the controller didn't intend a runway change, just spoke the wrong runway)?
    I read some where that another aircraft requested the longer runway, and the controller didn’t really misspeak, but told the wrong plane.

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    I don't know... "understand" communicates understanding; "confirm" is a request for confirmation requiring further attention from the tower.
    Since CDG is a European airport, isn't the aircraft supposed to explicitly request confirmation of the runway change and wait for confirmation from ATC before side-stepping? Admittedly not a regulation, but in the "strongly recommended "category. Also I believe the FAA regulations require the controller to use the phraseology "Change to Runway" in this instance (3-10-5)? That phraseology was absent here. One might argue that should have alerted the 787 that confirmation was needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    Nobody can disagree that standard phraseology must be used, but I highly doubt that "confirm sidestep 09R" would have worked any better than the "understand sidestep 09R" that was used.
    I don't know... "understand" communicates understanding; "confirm" is a request for confirmation requiring further attention from the tower.

    9R is also 900m closer than 9L. Isn't this short final runway change a violation of stable approach criteria (as I understand it, the controller didn't intend a runway change, just spoke the wrong runway)?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    To take this on a totally different angle, landing traffic has right-of-way over taxiing traffic…

    Arguably, Easy-jet deserves a demerit for taking the runway, giving out ATC commands AND not attempting to exit the runway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    787 crew should have used standard terms in asking for confirmation. Tenerife taught us about the importance of standard coms terminology.
    Nobody can disagree that standard phraseology must be used, but I highly doubt that "confirm sidestep 09R" would have worked any better than the "understand sidestep 09R" that was used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    I guess you could look at this and say the system worked. The controller misspoke, apparently. The 787 crew became concerned about the last minute runway change and scanned the runway. The A320 crew took one last look down the centreline while turning into position and saw the swingover. The A320 communicated to the tower and the other aircraft. The 787 spotted the A320 and initiated a go-around. The controller called for a go-around and RIMCAS was triggered. That's three defenses that worked here.

    But it resulted in a 300ft separation and it's easy to imagine a different outcome in more limited visibility, or with less vigilant crews, or both...

    787 crew should have used standard terms in asking for confirmation and gone around when they failed to receive confirmation for the runway change. Tenerife taught us about the importance of standard coms terminology.

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    I've got a beer that says it was an extremely calm decision by the 787 crew who was PROBABLY aware of the whole thing, and followed procedures very well.

    Obviously that information is lacking in the report from a highly-reliable news source, so I could be wrong.
    Avherald says RIMCAS was triggered.

    Based on my limited understanding of the french (and I also could well be wrong) the final report gives the following timings and heights of the approaching B787:

    05:18:10 @ 270 ft Easyjet A320 says "Tower there is traffic landing 09 Right"
    05:18:14 @ 200 ft Easyjet A320 says "Go around 09R go around"
    05:18:19 @ 105 ft United B787 initiates go around
    05:18:23 @ 80 ft United B787 minimum height starts to climb
    Last edited by flashcrash; 2021-07-23, 01:41. Reason: Added material from final report

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    And as a pilot entering the runway for takeoff normal procedure is to mentally and visually assess that there isn’t someone on a shortish final.
    Fixed, based on 172M training, although I recognize that the procedures are different for an A-321-236A.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Correct, and as the pilot flying the aircraft, it's your responsibility to make sure you land or takeoff on the assigned one.
    And as a pilot taxiing, hopefully it is your responsibility to monitor the tower frequency and recognize controller errors, as appears to have been the case here.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Correct, and as the pilot flying the aircraft, it's your responsibility to make sure you land or takeoff on the assigned one.
    And the controllers responsibility to assign the correct one…which they did not in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

    And more too, but after they run out of L, R and C they start changing the numbers (even if the runways have exactly the same heading).
    Correct, and as the pilot flying the aircraft, it's your responsibility to make sure you land or takeoff on the assigned one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    There are plenty of airports with 3 parallel runways.
    And more too, but after they run out of L, R and C they start changing the numbers (even if the runways have exactly the same heading).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X