Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big mess, close call

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

  • Big mess, close call

    A 737 receives take-off clearance and starts the take-of run.
    An helicopter mistakenly think that the take-off clearance is for them and takes off.
    The tower instruct the 737 to reject the take-off, what they do at high speed and stops 1650m down the runway, just short of the first high-speed exit.
    The tower instructs another 737 on final to go around, what they don't, they land instead, achieve taxi speed by 1400m, and vacate the RWY at a 90 degree exit just 50m behind the stopped 737.

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


    Shot off an airport surveillance camera, NH-1694 stationary, NU-610 still in the roll out:


    --- 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 ---

  • #2
    Okay that's it: from now on I'm walking everywhere.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by elaw View Post
      Okay that's it: from now on I'm walking everywhere.
      No foul

      But a serious deduction on style points.

      Even if they innocently missed the go around call from the tower the landing plane should have gone around of its own accord using the Mark IV passive radar at 300 to 800 nm wavelengths...
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone fancy a job with Japan Transoceanic. I hear there's going to be a vacancy !
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #5
          I can't understand why the helicopter wasn't ordered to take some action rather than the 737, given that it was the helicopter that was at fault, and that helicopters by their nature are able to hover, spin on the spot and ascend vertically - all of which could theoretically have got it out of the way - while 737s generally aren't able to do any of those.

          Slightly boggled too that apparently the second 737 captain says he saw the first stopped on the runway but decided that contrary to ATC's instructions, he had room to land behind it so did. So wasn't even a case of not understanding.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            the landing plane should have gone around of its own accord using the Mark IV passive radar at 300 to 800 nm wavelengths...
            You mean the System for Image Gathering and Highlighting of Targets?

            --- 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


            • #7
              Well, I generally oppose the over use of acronyms, but that would be it.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                I can't understand why the helicopter wasn't ordered to take some action rather than the 737, given that it was the helicopter that was at fault, and that helicopters by their nature are able to hover, spin on the spot and ascend vertically - all of which could theoretically have got it out of the way - while 737s generally aren't able to do any of those.
                I'd suggest because the controller felt he had 'control' of the 737 - the Heli, not so much.

                Remember the Helicopter is doing something that the controller is not expecting him to do, and wouldn't be able to guarantee that the heli would follow a subsequent instruction.

                Its a tough call in a very time critical space - he's doing well to tell anyone to do anything!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why didn't NH-1694 immediately vacate the runway?

                  Why would a sane pilot continue a landing with another plane stopped on the runway?

                  Why would the helo think "NH-1694 cleared for takeoff" meant them?

                  Why do these people get to fly?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    QUOTE=Evan / Response

                    Why didn't NH-1694 immediately vacate the runway?

                    Who said they weren't exiting expeditiously?

                    Why would a sane pilot continue a landing with another plane stopped on the runway?

                    Have you ever watched operations at a busy airport? Things can get amazingly close.

                    Why would the helo think "NH-1694 cleared for takeoff" meant them?

                    Shit happens (you haven't figured that out yet?)

                    Why do these people get to fly?

                    Maybe they excel at learning multiple complex procedures but fall short at broad obvious fundamentals like don't land if there's a plane on the runway and don't pull up relentlessly?
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Evan
                      Why didn't NH-1694 immediately vacate the runway?
                      Originally posted by 3WE
                      Who said they weren't exiting expeditiously?
                      The images. Both a/c are on the runway. NH-1694 is (according to the description) stopped.

                      If the tower gives the order "Stop!" Does this mean that the flight must literally stop and await instruction or does it mean reject and vacate the runway. I think, as many tower "stop" calls involve runway incursions or other traffic, that the pilots should get the plane off the runway asap.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        The images. Both a/c are on the runway. NH-1694 is (according to the description) stopped.

                        If the tower gives the order "Stop!" Does this mean that the flight must literally stop and await instruction or does it mean reject and vacate the runway. I think, as many tower "stop" calls involve runway incursions or other traffic, that the pilots should get the plane off the runway asap.
                        I can just imagine one of those NY local controllers...something along the lines, of "Oh Jesus, 1694- clear the runway immediately, he's landing behind you right now", I need full power...just take it on down to the end if you have to be ready to head for the grass..."

                        But indeed, serious deductions for style points here. Probably just improvised cowboy airmanship..."watch this Son, I used to make landings just like this at Midway without even thinking about it...plenty of room!"
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          But indeed, serious deductions for style points here. Probably just improvised cowboy airmanship..."watch this Son, I used to make landings just like this at Midway without even thinking about it...plenty of room!"
                          I think you're wrong. I think the pilot landing NU-610 assumed that the a/c on the runway would have vacated by the time he touched down. I doubt he intended to be the second plane on the same runway. I think a style point deduction also goes to the crew of NH-1694.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            I think you're wrong. I think the pilot landing NU-610 assumed that the a/c on the runway would have vacated by the time he touched down. I doubt he intended to be the second plane on the same runway.
                            Ok, I bet an expired, 10+ year old approach plate (of my choosing, you pay shipping), that I am right.

                            ...and being more serious: In my list of broadly applicable fundamentals is a rule that says "don't assume".

                            I'd also assume that the landing memory checklist has something to the effect that if the runway is not clear and you reach 50 feet? AGL, then you should almost always, (short of some sort of emergency or crazy terrain prohibiting a go-around) go around.
                            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
                              ...and being more serious: In my list of broadly applicable fundamentals is a rule that says "don't assume".

                              I'd also assume that the landing memory checklist has something to the effect that if the runway is not clear and you reach 50 feet? AGL, then you should almost always, (short of some sort of emergency or crazy terrain prohibiting a go-around) go around.
                              Well, you know I won't argue with that.

                              I also aware that SOP's for high speed RTO call for the parking brake to be set and taxi to be done only after the situation is 'stabilized' (brake temp, pax seated, etc.).

                              I'm wondering if this event demonstrates a need to reassess those procedures. Certainly, even if the a/c brakes are on fire and pax are running through the aisles, a gentle low speed turn-out is not going to make much difference but will get the thing out of harm's way. Stop on the turn-off or the taxiway, then stabilize. Just get it off the runway.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X