Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 115 of 115

Thread: MD-80 skidded off runway at LGA

  1. #101
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    ...There is no unsafe altitude for a go-around...
    Ummm, remember that we can't dismiss that go arounds are kind of a big deal.

    And, maybe we shouldn't be comparing VMC where the crew can mentally prep for a go around vs IMC where it will be more of a surprise. Additionally, in IFR there are greater separation standards...the last second thing should not apply. The failure was the tower not checking the ground radar and whether the back up is adequate.

    AND, it just hit me...the answer is that the landing aircraft be reqired to call in when clear and the tower AND THE LANDING PLANE be required to note it. (And perhaps acknowledge it.). Not too different from what guys do on unicoms- although I always thought that calling clear in VMC was a waste of EM radiation.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #102
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    If there is no fire (or in certain conditions even if there is), what are the obvious indications of a crash in very poor visibility?
    Think about ANY scenario whereby a plane can be so damaged that the crew is unable to communicate (either due to COMPLETE loss of power, destruction of ALL the equipment or grievous injury/death), yet is still blocking the runway. That will almost certainly be in pieces following a major crash. Even in poor visibility (RVR still ok to land) I think those are going to be hard to miss by ground operations. I'm not saying impossible, but HIGHLY unlikely. Again, I'm in favor of what you propose but I think this risk is still extremely remote.

    This was a relatively quiet accident where the a/c departed the runway and then crashed into a wall only hard enough and in just the right spot to knock out the batteries. That's easy for ground ops to miss in these RVR conditions. And it had to travel a good distance off the runway, well out of harms way, to find a wall to hit.

    2- There is no unsafe altitude for a go-around. Last minute wind gust, too long flare... you go around.
    You're not paying attention. While they are necessary in those cases, last minute go-arounds are more dangerous and only safe in the right hands, and there are many wrong hands out there, unpracticed hands and human factors, and the closer you are to the ground, the less margin for error. In my opinion, a go-around that cannot tolerate a 5-second delay AND an initial error in applying pitch or power (caught and corrected by CRM) is to be avoided whenever possible and especially when issuing late landing clearances. I don't want planes going down to 100' while still awaiting landing clearance.

    Remember a 747 crash not so long ago where go-around was called at 108', executed at 52' and almost certainly with some error involved...

    And remember, this is all in POOR visibility. As you said, if the visibility is good, a plane cleared to land but observing traffic ahead stalled on (or partially off) the runway will go-around anyway.

  3. #103
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I've been on a flight that went around due to separation issues just aeround that point. No big deal.
    When and where was this?

  4. #104
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    When and where was this?
    Weather too, if you don't mind.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #105
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    When and where was this?
    I think it was the Parkway Visual approach to JFK's 13L, just after crossing over Bennet Field . It was perfect daytime VMC. Probably under 1000'. It was more of an abandoned approach. There was a sudden and steep bank off to about 90° from the approach heading, gear and flaps came up and we went back out over the bay for another go at it. The pilot came on and announced that he had a separation issue with traffic ahead. At that point, it must have either been an aircraft on the runway or one coming in from the ILS approach for 13L or 13R.

  6. #106
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I think it was the Parkway Visual approach to JFK's 13L, just after crossing over Bennet Field . It was perfect daytime VMC. Probably under 1000'. It was more of an abandoned approach. There was a sudden and steep bank off to about 90° from the approach heading, gear and flaps came up and we went back out over the bay for another go at it. The pilot came on and announced that he had a separation issue with traffic ahead. At that point, it must have either been an aircraft on the runway or one coming in from the ILS approach for 13L or 13R.
    More likely someone either on the runway or ahead on the approach. In over four years of being based at JFK I never saw anyone fly the ILS to either 13L or R (you can probably figure out why).

    I would like to congratulate you on a veritable breakthrough. I believe this is the very first time you actually shared a specific flying experience. Even though you omitted the "when", I'm still somewhat impressed.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Evan, you are not being fair. You are comparing my proposal (that is not mine, it how it's done in most of the world) with an ideal situation, not with the alternate.

    So... Airplanes go around relatively frequently below DH/MDA because the plane ahead did not clear the runway in time, or the plane taking off did not expedite the take off as much as expected. I've been involved in both situations (*). I think that we will agree that a go around in that circumstances must be initiated, even if it's at low altitude. Do you want the plane being cleared to land at this point, even if they don't have of the last 2 thirds of the runway?

    If you want your company to have an SOP that, if the landing clearance have not been received or the runway has not been vacated by when the plane is at DH/MDA, a go-around must be initiated at that point, I will applaud that. Now, how is the pilot going to comply with that if they have already received landing clearance when they were #3 for landing and they don't have visibility of the airplanes ahead so he doesn't know if they vacated the runway or not? On the other hand, if the landing clearance was withheld until the runway is clear and no other planes are scheduled to occupy it, you can safely go-around at MDA/DH as per your SOP.

    PLUNA 707 landing at SAEZ circa 1992, low altitude go around due to airplane ahead did not vacate the runway.
    Piper Tomahawk landing at DOT. Went Around at low altitude because Arg Army CASA did not comply with their own request for an expedited take-off. CASA took off after I overflew it and almost hit me from behind/below.
    Both were severe VMC.

    --- 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 ---

  8. #108
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, you are not being fair. You are comparing my proposal (that is not mine, it how it's done in most of the world) with an ideal situation, not with the alternate.

    So... Airplanes go around relatively frequently below DH/MDA because the plane ahead did not clear the runway in time, or the plane taking off did not expedite the take off as much as expected. I've been involved in both situations (*). I think that we will agree that a go around in that circumstances must be initiated, even if it's at low altitude. Do you want the plane being cleared to land at this point, even if they don't have of the last 2 thirds of the runway?

    If you want your company to have an SOP that, if the landing clearance have not been received or the runway has not been vacated by when the plane is at DH/MDA, a go-around must be initiated at that point, I will applaud that. Now, how is the pilot going to comply with that if they have already received landing clearance when they were #3 for landing and they don't have visibility of the airplanes ahead so he doesn't know if they vacated the runway or not? On the other hand, if the landing clearance was withheld until the runway is clear and no other planes are scheduled to occupy it, you can safely go-around at MDA/DH as per your SOP.

    PLUNA 707 landing at SAEZ circa 1992, low altitude go around due to airplane ahead did not vacate the runway.
    Piper Tomahawk landing at DOT. Went Around at low altitude because Arg Army CASA did not comply with their own request for an expedited take-off. CASA took off after I overflew it and almost hit me from behind/below.
    Both were severe VMC.
    The only thing I disagree with here is the point at which a clearance must be either issued or a go-around must commence. I'm not saying we need to prohibit go-arounds below a 'safe altitude', I'm saying they should not become routine. I'm saying we must, as much as possible, keep pilots—and passengers—out of these accident-prone regimes, and go-around at altitudes that cannot tolerate error are one of them.

    So, in agreeing with you in general, I would just say establish a safe MAP beyond which no clearance can be accepted (which could be before DH/MDA depending on the type of approach).

    Maybe they could do a sort of 're-clearance on final' thing... You are initially only cleared to fly down to the MAP and go-around but ATC can issue a landing clearance at any time before then.

    But again, I have to point out that the issue of a preceding aircraft remaining on—or partially off—the runway without advising ATC is probably pretty frickin rare.

  9. #109
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...Piper Tomahawk landing at DOT. Went Around at low altitude because Arg Army CASA did not comply with their own request for an expedited take-off. CASA took off after I overflew it and almost hit me from behind/below...severe VMC.
    Lots of Swiss cheese here.

    Why did you:

    -stay on the runway heading in the path of the other AC?
    -not maintain visual contact?
    -not communicate with him and or ATC?

    Why did they:

    -take off with traffic down the runway?
    -not maintain visual contact with you?

    Why did ATC:

    -allow all of this?
    -their take off?
    -your continuation down field without a turn?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Off topic, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Lots of Swiss cheese here.

    Why did you:

    -stay on the runway heading in the path of the other AC?
    -not maintain visual contact?
    -not communicate with him and or ATC?
    I didn't do (or not-do) any of the above. That's why you have the "almost".

    Why did they:

    -take off with traffic down the runway?
    -not maintain visual contact with you?
    Because they were assholes. Really.

    Why did ATC:

    -allow all of this?
    -their take off?
    -your continuation down field without a turn?
    ATC's biggest mistake was, they should have cancelled EA's take-off clearance and instructed me to go around. (EA stands for Ejército Argentino, Argentine Army, all their call signs start with Echo Alfa)
    I was one step ahead of ATC going around and turning off runway heading.
    Another thing to take into account is that there was a lot of traffic. There were several planes ahead and behind me in the pattern and several planes lined up for take-off, and the tower was trying to alternate arriving and departing airplanes to use the single runway in this airport.

    EA: EA short of 34 ready for take-off
    LV (that's the N in Arg): (proactively before ATCs answer, seeing the potential conflict): LV turning to final for runway 34
    TWR: EA, are you ready for an immediate take-off?
    EA: EA ready for immediate take-off, runway 34.
    TWR: EA, cleared for immediate take-off.
    EA: EA cleared for immediate take-off. (lines up and stops)
    LV: (some seconds later) LV in final for 34.
    TWR: EA take off now
    EA: Taking off (but didn't move)
    LV: (some seconds later) LV in short final
    TWR: EA TAKE OFF NOW!!!!! (this is the point where ATC should have said: EA cancel take off, LV go around)
    LV: Don't bother, LV going around
    EA: Taking off (and starts to move, AFTER I CALLED GO AROUND YOU MTHFKR!!!!)
    LV: TWR, tell EA to look out for me, they will easily out-climb me (they were a CASA twin turboprop coming from repairs in this airport back to their base just a few miles away, so very light).
    TWR: EA, you have traffic above you, a Tomahawk going around.
    EA: [sound similar to crickets chirping in the background]
    Looking back behind/below my low wing I saw EA was closing up, I think they did not have me in sight at that point, I was too high above the horizon, probably in a line of sight that was above their windscreen upper edge. In hindsight, I think that they would not have crashed me but out climbed me crossing my wake behind me. But at that point I didn't feel comfortable negotiating airspace with them.
    LV: LV turning left, I will join a short downwind. (there were more planes in downwind; in hindsight, turning right, away from the pattern would have been safer)

    And I was a PIC with very low time TT and on-type by then. Probably around 70 hours (including the 43 of student pilot).

    --- 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 ---

  11. #111
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...Off topic...I didn't do (or not-do) any of the above...ATC's biggest mistake..:
    On topic since ATC falling a little short on traffic separation.

    Great story...glad YOU maintained visual separation.

    Also, JMO, you properly and diligently exercised you skills as a licensed pilot, including being the 'in-command-final-authority' responsible for a safe flight.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #112
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Evan, you are not being fair....how it's done in most of the world...ideal situation...Airplanes go around relatively frequently below DH/MDA because the plane ahead did not clear the runway in time...
    Most interesting discussion, including some role mix ups and divergent thoughts.

    I like 'Evan's fixation' on the DH...not that that is the last chance to go around, but that that is a GOOD time to make 'one formal decision' as to whether you should land or not.

    I also partly side with Evan that maybe this is a bit too rare to worry too much. Then again, this incident bugs me a bit...the landing plane continuing fat dumb and happy, and the tower continuing fat dumb and happy, and luckily someone was out running around the airport in an official, radio-equipped, pickup truck (and 'luckily', there are fatter separation standards for instrument operations).

    Yes, Gabe, they do need to retain the ability to make last-second go-arounds...which CAN be done (and which pilots should always be primed and able to do), but to Evan's point- it might be a good idea to try and avoid last second go-arounds when you can and deal with 'a clear runway questions' when you have a nice big buffer left...if you aren't sure at the DH, go around...then still be prepared for later go-arounds when Murphy throws you a big, totally-unexpected curve ball.

    You support your 'late clearance'...The more I think about it- I'm still back on the landing plane being required to call clear. I like that because:

    It adds a extra layer to confirm for the tower AND the landing plane that the runway is physically clear (separate from legal clearance).

    It adds SA / Empowerment to the landing plane to not blindly depend on the tower to check for physical clearance.

    I still argue that the official rest-of-the-world late clearance does NOT give the landing plane the same situational awareness as my outsider, ass-hat, parlour talk procedure.

    AND, this is still two very different discussions in VMC vs. IMC.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #113
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Most interesting discussion, including some role mix ups and divergent thoughts.
    I am ok with all of the above. just we would need to understand that "cleared to land" has a different meaning from other "cleared to..." and means "you are conditionally approved to land, the condition being that the plane in front of you calls clear of the runway".

    Ok, wait, I am changing my mind, because then "cleared to land" would have different meanings depending on whether there is another airplane cleared to land ahead of you, or a plane cleared to take off after you've been cleared to land, or.... Yes, the pilot should be aware (all these guys are on the same frequency), but...

    --- 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 ---

  14. #114
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...we would need to understand that "cleared to land" has a different meaning...
    Gabriel no habla Inglais.

    'Cleared' to land. A verb giving legal permission to use the runway.

    'Clear' to land. An adjective describing the runway as clear of obstructions.

    All jokes aside, 'Cleared' is more of a legal statement... sort of like 'cleared' for the approach. In some instances, you can proceed with all the motions with no approach clearance...

    A legal statement that may or may not have physical ramifications.

    Indeed, the ex US interpretations differ. I blame TeeVee
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #115
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I blame TeeVee

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •