Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

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

  • Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

    Thought I should probably start a new topic heading after all the talk of chickens, sharks, eggs and Friedensangebote. Friedensangebote???? Anyway ....'

    IndiGo and Air India planes almost collide on runway in Mumbai (qz.com)

  • #2
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
    Thought I should probably start a new topic heading after all the talk of chickens, sharks, eggs and Friedensangebote. Friedensangebote???? Anyway ....'

    IndiGo and Air India planes almost collide on runway in Mumbai (qz.com)

    Comment


    • #3
      That is either a fake AI video or a blind flight crew. Or maybe this is just another day in India.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        That is either a fake AI video...
        The lack of constant horn-blowing by both aeroplanies made me think the same, but it's real.
        "I know that at times I can be a little over the top." -ITS

        Comment


        • #5
          I dunno, I remember some impressive squeeze plays at Flyover. My ass hat opinion was that as long as only one was touching the pavement it was fine, but Gabe told me it was illegal.

          I’d also ask if going around is that much better as two planes FLY in close proximity and speeds.

          Finally, “the legalities” are that the landing pilot is the lawbreaker, not ATC.

          In true Indian style, it worked beautifully:

          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            I’d also ask if going around is that much better as two planes FLY in close proximity and speeds.
            At the point the video begins, it was possibly better to land. But in VMC, how did it ever get to that point? I recall something about how being visual with the runway was a visual approach requirement and that cockpit windows are provided for this. When a go-around should have happened, that departing plane would have been quite in the window.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post

              1. At the point the video begins, it was possibly better to land.
              2. But in VMC, how did it ever get to that point?
              1. What?

              2. You really don’t know? I won’t speak to this exact incident, but the tower decides that, although it’s tight, it can work. The landing plane may be asked to slow down. The departing plane may have been a little further away, or a little slower taking the runway.

              I have heard some post go-around zingers from pilots: “I could have told you it wouldn’t work, he was too far back. The screw up was the decision to try it. From there, it’s often locked in…although Gabriel expects the tower say “expect late clearance” followed by, “go around, sorry”.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 3WE
                My ass hat opinion was that as long as only one was touching the pavement it was fine, but Gabe told me it was illegal.

                I’d also ask if going around is that much better as two planes FLY in close proximity and speeds.
                Even both planes can be legally touching the pavement at the same time. That's the 'land after' procedure.
                In this case the official minimum distance would have been 2000m. Difficult to tell, how far the departing traffic is away as the IndiGo touches down, but it looks like it's less than 2000m.
                Since the IndoGo pilot clearly had the departing traffic in sight and could maintain sufficient separation, landing was not a bad option.
                As you correctly observed, a go-around in this case would have been really dangerous.

                I still remember a similar case with significantly less separation when my Captain decided to land really close behind a departing MD-80.
                What he underestimated was the violent jet wash we encountered during the flare!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  But in VMC, how did it ever get to that point?
                  As 3WE has pointed out, the landing plane may be asked to slow down, or ATC asked if the landing traffic can maintain own separation. If the departing traffic accelerates slower than expected, the officially required 2000m quickly reduce to e.g. 1500m. Risking a go-around at the point isn't a 100% option either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bstolle View Post
                    Even both planes can be legally touching the pavement at the same time. That's the 'land after' procedure.
                    In this case the official minimum distance would have been 2000m.
                    Source? Is that in India? Because, in the US, as far as I know, this applies:

                    FAA Order JO 7110.65AA - Air Traffic Control

                    3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

                    a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists

                    2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end. If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft is airborne, it need not have crossed the runway end if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists:
                    (c) When either is a category III aircraft- 6,000 feet.​
                    Note that, while 6000ft is more or less 2000m, that distance can be used in lieu of "the other aircraft has crossed the runway end". Not in lieu of "the other aircraft has departed". Which means that both being on the runway at the same time would be illegal.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I know neither the FAA nor the Indian rules but that's the way it's being used in Europe e.g. at LHR and LGW;

                      (a) When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use the following separation distances will exist:
                      (i) Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
                      (ii) Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bstolle View Post
                        I know neither the FAA nor the Indian rules but that's the way it's being used in Europe e.g. at LHR and LGW;

                        (a) When the runway-in-use is temporarily occupied by other traffic, landing clearance will be issued to an arriving aircraft provided that at the time the aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway-in-use the following separation distances will exist:
                        (i) Landing following landing - The preceding landing aircraft will be clear of the runway-in-use or will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
                        (ii) Landing following departure - The departing aircraft will be airborne and at least 2000 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use, or if not airborne, will be at least 2500 m from the threshold of the runway-in-use.
                        Are European aircraft equipped with crystal balls? That’s a lot of ‘will be’ in those regulations. How about this:

                        (iii) The arriving aircraft will be colliding with the departing aircraft if the departing aircraft rejects takeoff and the arriving aircraft experiences any of the conditions common to runway overrun incidents.

                        What? A combination of factors? When has that ever happened? Oh, right, Tenerife…

                        The FAA regulations make sense if safety is truly your concern. No departing and arriving aircraft can occupy the runway at any given time. No brainer.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sigh, as usual Evan doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post

                            1. ***The arriving aircraft will be colliding with the departing aircraft if***

                            2. I often have no brain.
                            1. I will post a favorite Three Dog Night tune from upper grade school days at the bottom.

                            They will crash if the pilots deliberately make an effort to crash…otherwise in severe VMC conditions, you sort of steer away from the other aircraft and hopefully have type-specific training to turn off the autopilot.

                            Thanks for your ongoing black and white insight.

                            2. Fixed. Just because of your certainty that a take off abort = no option for collision avoidance.

                            Footnote: By the way, Evan, do we really want planes with underslung engines wantonly going around?…there’s all that trim and somatogravic illusions (Bernt, I’m being sarcastic here.)

                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                              Thanks for your ongoing black and white insight.

                              2. Fixed. Just because of your certainty that a take off abort = no option for collision avoidance.
                              Here, I’ll give you some shades of grey:

                              Departing aircraft rejects. Auto brakes. Rapid deceleration. Arriving aircraft touching down is not aware of this. Situational awareness delay. Then reaction time. Then the reverser/ground spoilers/brakes malfunction. The following occurs over a span of seconds.

                              shade a) Arriving aircraft attempts to stop but collides with the rejecting aircraft. Bad outcome.

                              shade b) Arriving aircraft attempts to get airborne again. Tenerife. Bad outcome.

                              shade c) Arriving aircraft manages to steer off the runway at damaging speed. Maybe only losing some gear and an engine in the process, Or maybe only slicing into the departing aircraft with one fuel-laden wing. Best outcome.

                              This scenario requires two factors. Most fatal accident do. Swiss cheese.

                              What the FAA seems to understand and you cannot is that all of these outcomes are possible when two aircraft are on the same runway in a high-energy state. And I’m not even getting into jetwash in the flare.

                              I had a flight into JFK break-off last minute in severe VMC because the pilot didn’t like the separation. The traffic ahead had landed but had not cleared the runway. That’s a pilot from a strong safety culture. I wish they were all like that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X