Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

[Gabriel]

Another variation...

We have another example of the procedure of clearing planes to occupy a runway (take off, land, cross) with another airplane cleared to land on the same runway.
In this case, Tower cleared Bluestreak to land and immediately after cleared Endeavor to take off in front of Blustreak nose.

It seems to have been a gross miscalculation by the Tower, but the pilots didn't help either prevent the situation and in fact it seems they made it worse than it needed to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmI6pVTjCt0

So many questions...

How far was Bluestreak from the threshold when ATC cleared Endeavor to take off?

1. Was Endeavor already lined up and waiting (or already in the process of doing so) or holding short? Would like to see how much earlier the line up and wait clearance was, and how far Bluestrak was by then (if there was any such line up and wait clearance)
2. Related to the above: If they were holding short, whatever happened to "clear right, clear left" (especially clear the final) before entering a runway? Of course if they were already lined or lining up, they could not have seen them at this point, but they could have seen them earlier when they were cleared to line-up and wait
3. If Endeavour was already lined or lining up, they should have seen them much earlier. If not, they should have initiated the go-around as soon as Endeavor started to roll onto the runway. It looks like they did it much later, which greatly reduced separation. Go-around should be started as early as possible, early is always safer.

Tower clearly messed up here, but it is possible that pilots made it worse or at minimum didn't help mitigate it.

[3WE]

FIRE BOEING EXECUTIVES!

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/RFqcFjqVpgEHRhSt/?mibextid=qDwCgo

[Not_Karl]

Indeed. They might start tweeting about it, or complain on an obscure discussion forum .

But then pilots could read our valuable advice on said forum and Not_screw up next time

[3WE]

Of course, but the point I was trying to make is, that if we screw up, there's no need to tell the passengers.

Indeed. They might start tweeting about it, or complain on an obscure discussion forum .

[bstolle]

I wanted to inject that sometimes ATC is to blame on getting you a bit high or fast and needing to do a missed approach/go-around/same thing.

Of course, but the point I was trying to make is, that if we screw up, there's no need to tell the passengers.

[BoeingBobby]

Since I don't think that pilots are generally idiots who wantonly screw up approaches, I wanted to inject that sometimes ATC is to blame on getting you a bit high or fast and needing to do a missed approach/go-around/same thing.

In fact!

[3WE]

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!

Since I don't think that pilots are generally idiots who wantonly screw up approaches, I wanted to inject that sometimes ATC is to blame on getting you a bit high or fast and needing to do a missed approach/go-around/same thing.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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

[bstolle]

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

Yes. From 89-94.

[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.

[Gabriel]

It even topped flying the Dash7 into Courchevel.

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