Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

[bstolle]

Sigh, I should have known better. It's always amazing how much crap you can write with so few words.

Concerning your judgement from your pax seat:

I could judge the altitude quite well from the landmark Brooklyn airflield

Have you considered the possibility that your pilot wasn't concerned about the runway not being clear, but that he was simply too high, and hence he discontinued the approach?

Anyway, I'll try to avoid replying to your posts in the future since it's just wasted time.

[Gabriel]

And, as I said, I would draw the line at spacing runway operations at least 60 seconds apart. One minute!

One minute between what and what?

The DGCA drew that line. Why would they do this if it's no big deal?

[Insert facepalm icon here]
May the fact that they were WAAAAAAYYYY less than 6000 ft apart when the landing plane crossed the runway threshold have something to do with that?
Had they been 6000 ft apart (or 2000m, or whatever the requirement is in India, it might have been no big deal indeed.

My take on that is:
Tower is looking at the plane taking off and the plane approaching. Plane approaching is not cleared to land yet.
If the plane taking off reaches the 6000ft mark before the plane approaching reaches threshold, tower clears plane approaching to land.
If plane approaching is coming close to the threshold and plane taking off has not reached the 6000ft mark yet, tower instructs plane landing to go around.
If for whatever reason tower does neither, plane approaching has to go around since they are not cleared to land. (They will probably ask the tower "are we cleared to land yet?" before reaching this point).

What is your proposal, again?

[Gabriel]

OK, you guys have to stop scratching at this. I guess I have to spell this out e x p l i c i t l y:

1) I showed an instrument approach chart for REFERENCE ONLY to the last point in the approach where I think a SAFE GO-AROUND procedure should occur on a visual approach if the runway is still occupied.

That's not how it works. The runway will still be occupied MANY TIMES as you fly through the DH in an ILS approach, for example. You would be some 15 seconds from the threshold at this point, plenty of time for the airplane that is at 120kts on the take-off roll to lift off before you reach the threshold.

[3WE]

What I don't like are non-pilots like you who apparently love to blame pilots for every accident/incident as much as possible with mostly hairraising explanations.

What in the world leads you to this strong assumption?

Check with Bobby if you are unsure about blue font.

[Not_Blue Font] I also wanted to highlight how “the new guy” has (yet again) reached a very similar conclusion to several other forum members.

Evan: Now that you’ve ridden a bike, you need to do some fence perving at a busy, old airport, without the 12 parallel runways. Get a VHF scanner(or use live ATC). Dallas, Washington, Hobby would be good ones. You might observe 1) Human factors and 2) Big shiny airplanes. It’s even cooler on windy days. Live ATC + FligtawareRadar would also work from your sterile bubble.

[ATLcrew]

RIght... right... sooo many basic errors. But we better tell Jeppesen that there is no such thing as MAP or making a climbing turn at the missed approach point.

Now-now, Evan, what does the chart actually say? Does it say one HAS to turn at the missed approach point or does it say something else? Also, nobody flies that approach "dive-and-drive" anymore so the "MAP" is effectively as soon as you hit (in our case) 850MSL, since we require a 50' addition to any MDA.

I was based at JFK for 4 years, this was one of my favorite approaches. I wonder if that makes me a "confrontational insider", what with all those credentials and all...

BTW, I recall there being some ambiguity on the subject if we could continue the approach if we ONLY saw the leading lights but not the runway. I remember the FAA said something like "Ummm..." Fortunately, I have never had to shoot it anywhere near IMC, it was almost always clear and a million. If the weather was iffy, they would use 04R for arrivals, even with decent crosswinds.

[BoeingBobby]

Now-now, Evan, what does the chart actually say? Does it say one HAS to turn at the missed approach point or does it say something else? Also, nobody flies that approach "dive-and-drive" anymore so the "MAP" is effectively as soon as you hit (in our case) 850MSL, since we require a 50' addition to any MDA.

I was based at JFK for 4 years, this was one of my favorite approaches. I wonder if that makes me a "confrontational insider", what with all those credentials and all...

BTW, I recall there being some ambiguity on the subject if we could continue the approach if we ONLY saw the leading lights but not the runway. I remember the FAA said something like "Ummm..." Fortunately, I have never had to shoot it anywhere near IMC, it was almost always clear and a million. If the weather was iffy, they would use 04R for arrivals, even with decent crosswinds.

As was I for 4 in the 200. I loved doing that approach and I miss the pound cake at the 5 Towns!

[bstolle]

I had to fly this once at night without the lead in lights due to an overweight landing in the 767-300ER. Additionally we had to use a reduced flap setting because we couldn't fly the turn with full flaps (Vfe) and selecting full flap after rolling out of the turn wasn't an option.
Since a had flown this approach only once or twice before and duringc day time, this was the most stressful landing in my career. It even topped flying the Dash7 into Courchevel.

[Gabriel]

It even topped flying the Dash7 into Courchevel.

Did you fly for Tyrolean Airways in the 80's?

[3WE]

This was one of my favorite approaches.

According to what we have read it was also a favorite to many obscure typists. I’ve read about it so many times, I feel like I’ve almost actually done it. I’d also bet that Less Moustature performed it better than any of you guys.

[bstolle]

Did you fly for Tyrolean Airways in the 80's?

Yes. From 89-94.

[Gabriel]

I will keep saying this. Stop clearing a plane X to land when other planes are already, or will be, cleared to land or take-off on the same runway ahead of plane X.

Instead, tell airplane X to continue the approach and to expect a late clearance, and withhold that landing clearance until the last airplane landing or taking off ahead of plane X has cleared the runway.

I am convinced that this change will end up being implemented. I am NOT convinced that it will be implemented before hundreds of persons are roasted inside 2 planes that collide on a runway.

https://avherald.com/h?article=5059befc&opt=0

[3WE]

No.

I don’t want 15 planes on a foggy night at ATLDFWORDCLTCVGMSP fretting over landing clearance..

Just give them an electronic depiction of the runway with aircraft and be smarter about tower frequencies.

I also still like my idea of point and vocalize for controllers like Japanese train drivers do.

[Evan]

I just have to respond to a few points then I'm finished trying to use an analogous anecdote to make a point on this forum.

Sigh, I should have known better. It's always amazing how much crap you can write with so few words.

Have you considered the possibility that your pilot wasn't concerned about the runway not being clear, but that he was simply too high, and hence he discontinued the approach?

Well, first of all, you managed to exceed all crap expectations with just two words: "fatal logic".

Secondly, as I said, the pilot quickly informed us that he wasn't comfortable with the separation and was going around for a second approach. So zero possibility of simply being too high.

Now-now, Evan, what does the chart actually say? Does it say one HAS to turn at the missed approach point or does it say something else?

Now, what did I say? I said that a pilot DID go around at this point (more or less) and followed (or should I say 'mimicked') the missed approach procedure (more or less). I brought this here to give an example of what I consider to be the judgment of a good pilot when it appears that the runway may not be clear when touching down.

I included the Jeppesen chart to correct bstolle's insistence that one never turns during a go-round, or that there is no MAP acronym 'in any procedure'. He has yet to acknowledge his errors.

That's not how it works. The runway will still be occupied MANY TIMES as you fly through the DH in an ILS approach, for example. You would be some 15 seconds from the threshold at this point, plenty of time for the airplane that is at 120kts on the take-off roll to lift off before you reach the threshold.

Have you forgotten the subject of this thread (I wouldn't blame you)? The issue is crossing the threshold when the other airplane HAS NOT lifted off. I am only addressing that scenario.
I am referring to a point where a safe go-around should occur if the arrival pilot judges that the departing plane might not be clear of the runway at that point. Such as if the departing aircraft is still lined up at the threshold or just beginning to roll (and might potentially reject). Kapiche?

What's my plan? To enforce minimum ATC spacing of approx. 60 secs per runway operation. Plane A taking off gets the first minute. Plane B landing gets the second minute. No two planes get the same minute. At the minimum. How is that not possible with proper ATC? Are the skies that crowded today? Maybe in India.

As for the risk, and the safety culture that makes flying today the world's safest mode of transportation, I'll hand it over to an 'insider' to make my point.

Flying is so safe in part because the industry generally responds to every problem, even those that pose little threat. In the United States, airlines, manufacturers and agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the N.T.S.B. are constantly monitoring and reviewing risks and hazards in air travel.

“The level of systems that are in place monitoring current-day commercial air transport are profound,” Ms. Pritchett said. But this doesn’t mean that anyone involved can lose vigilance in assessing the possibility of danger."

-- Amy Pritchett, a pilot and professor of aerospace engineering at Pennsylvania State University.

So, if you don't agree with that, take it up with her.

[bstolle]

Secondly, as I said, the pilot quickly informed us that he wasn't comfortable with the separation and was going around for a second approach. So zero possibility of simply being too high.
I included the Jeppesen chart to correct bstolle's insistence that one never turns during a go-round, or that there is no MAP acronym 'in any procedure'. He has yet to acknowledge his errors.

i have some shocking news for you. He might have lied to you. When we screw up during an approach, e.g. being too high and/or too fast, that's one of the standard PAs and as my final reply to you, I'd like to borrow one of BoeingBobby's replies:

You sir, are an absolute idiot!

[3WE]

What's my plan? To enforce minimum ATC spacing of approx. 60 secs per runway operation. Plane A taking off gets the first minute. Plane B landing gets the second minute. No two planes get the same minute. At the minimum.

That’s nifty.

But, you know what? I’m guessing that someone else beat you to it, with a slightly different plan.

Did Gabriel maybe list some “ideas” in this thread…stuff that other countries might have tried? AND I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT CLEAR(ED) TO LAND.

And, can you get it though your black and white, pilots-bad mentality that 1) Your NY ATC guys were honestly trying to provide the procedural separations and 2) Your 1 in a million, safe pilot MIGHT MAYBE have gone around because he saw the anointed separation distance going away?

I’m just a parlour talker but I think there’s maybe some damn decent separation procedures already being used.

Finally, just so you know, wind speed generally increases with height, and planes slow down when they get lower…they might just tend to bunch up and there might be a tiny shred of art getting them into New Yark efficiently.