Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big mess, close call

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    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 can't believe that.
    I mean, he could have assumed that at one point, but he was flaring and actually touching down it is impossible that he kept assuming that the plane would have vacated by the time he touched down.

    I don't have a lot of hours but I do have my share of cases where I keep approaching EXPECTING that the plane would vacate the runway. That expectation ends the moment that you are about to touch down and the other plane is still on the runway. Full power and up we go.

    You can wait until the last second, but not one second longer than that.

    It very much seems that he saw the plane stopped on the runway, judged that he could land and stop behind him, decided to do it, and did it, all intentionally, just as the pilot reportedly declared himself.

    --- 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


    • #17
      That reminds me...I think I'll go back to a previous signature...
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.
        Under what situation would the instruction 'STOP' mean that you were likely to suffer from a event that hits you from behind? The instruction is designed to stop you hitting something in the direction you are going...

        I would be very hesitant to vacate a runway until I knew exactly what the problem was, especially from high speed. If the controller wants you off the runway fast, they'll tell you.

        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.
        In those conditions you want to be on the runway. There is better access for fire crews and safer conditions for evacuations. Some failures you don't know the condition of the aircraft steering, nor the ability to be able to brake another time. We don't block active runways for the hell of it Evan.

        It is entirely proper that a high speed rejected takeoff will result in a crew taking a few moments (not forever) to assess what they have before taxiing clear of the runway. If they've been told to stop, and not given an exit instruction, they may not know what the potential threat to the aircraft is.

        As for the landing aircraft - an additional thought is that the Captain may have thought the go-around was unsafe due to the presence of the departing helicopter, and knew that his required landing distance was shorter than the length available to the stopped aircraft. Not saying he should have landed, but a go-around into slower departing traffic is never fun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MCM View Post
          ...I would be very hesitant to vacate a runway until I knew exactly what the problem was, especially from high speed. If the controller wants you off the runway fast, they'll tell you...
          Interesting...

          ...I get it- the olden days, light a cigarette, take a few puffs, assess the situation, and don't do anything stupid to make things worse.

          ...On the other hand, the landing aircraft is supposed to have a super duper high right-of-way (only blimps and balloons, gliders and emergencies trump them)...

          ...their a$$ is out on a 100 ft tall limb going 140 knots, and if you can't "drive" ahead through a gentle curve at 20 mph and 0 ft AGL onto a nice patch of concrete where any other plane there is going a whopping 20 mph...

          ...seems like there's some obligation to get your a$$ off the big sacred critical landing pavement and onto the mundane, slow-paced pavement for the poor SOB on short final.

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

          Comment


          • #20
            ...and a go-around means raising the nose and losing sight of the helicopter.
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              ...and a go-around means raising the nose and losing sight of the helicopter.

              ...and why isn't there some procedure to keep helicopter departures from conflicting with aircraft operations...

              ...there's usually enough airspace to let them avoid the landing and departure paths.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Nothing, short of a serious emergency (like being on fire), justifies landing on a runway knowing that it is occupied by another vehicle.

                Nothing, short of an emergency or another serious safety concern, justifies continuing the approach and landing after the ATC told you to go around.

                It's not just common sense and good practice. It's the law. It is forbidden to land on a runway when there is another vehicle on it. It is mandatory to follow ATC instructions. And the PIC can deviate from all rules (including those two) if they judge that doing so is necessary for the safety of flight (they may be asked to justify it).

                I don't buy the story (by now at least) that this pilot:
                1- Was concerned of a potential conflict with the helicopter.
                2- Knew exactly the landing distance available behind the stopped plane.
                3- Gathered the performance charts to calculate the required landing distance given the airplane's weight, airport elevation, QNH and temperature.
                3- Found out that the required landing distance was safely shorter than the available one.
                4- Judged that landing behind the other plane, violating the two rules mentioned, was safer than going around as required by the regulations and instructed by the ATC.

                My impression is that the pilot just judged that landing behind the other plane was just safe enough and did it, without doing a real objective evaluation or considering the relative safety of each option.

                --- 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


                • #23
                  Its not far fetched at all for the pilot to know the landing distance.

                  On every landing we do, we calculate the landing distance required using the aircraft's weight, the actual environmental conditions, and the braking devices planned to be used. Most pilots consider this in terms of the runway, particularly in the context of where you will vacate the runway. If the stopped aircraft was beyond a particular taxiway, then its not unrealistic at all the Captain may have known that his required landing distance was less than that remaining to the stopped aircraft. Not saying he did, just that there are plenty of pilots out there who would know that information without having to get out the book on short final.

                  Similarly it isn't unrealistic that, on the day, with confusion as to the location of the departing helicopter, if the Captain thought he would be unable to make, and maintain, visual separation from that traffic, making it a more-risky option than to continue to land.

                  Of course, as Gabriel suggests, he may have done none of these things and simply landed because he wanted to. But being Japan, I'd have thought that relatively unlikely - they tend to be risk averse aviators who follow rules. We'll find out soon enough I guess!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MCM View Post
                    Its not far fetched at all for the pilot to know the landing distance.
                    With what margins? Does that allow for ground spoiler failure (and failure to deploy them manually), brake failure or reverser failure? Does it allow for a margin of pilot error, a bit of float? Does it allow for the unexpected?

                    I have to agree with Gabriel. A potential threat in the air in VMC is favorable to a certain threat on the runway. It's got to be either cleared or closed.

                    I understand why the current SOP is to stop and stabilze on the runway. What I am questioning is if the risks that are addressed in doing that are outweigh the risks presented in this (repeatable) scenario. Being stopped on an active runway knowing an aircraft behind you was on short final would make me want to at least steer it slowly off onto the high-speed turnout.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      ...and why isn't there some procedure to keep helicopter departures from conflicting with aircraft operations...

                      ...there's usually enough airspace to let them avoid the landing and departure paths.
                      This particular event interests me mainly because as my wife and I flew into Puerto Plata in February this year an EC145 lifted off from a helipad on our left hand side and took off across our landing runway.
                      That was the hardest braking that I have ever experienced in my life. Our pilot came off the brakes, I presume because the helicopter cleared our path and nothing was said.
                      Hopefully that chopper pilot was treated to a talking to.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        This particular event interests me mainly because as my wife and I flew into Puerto Plata in February this year an EC145 lifted off from a helipad on our left hand side and took off across our landing runway.
                        That was the hardest braking that I have ever experienced in my life. Our pilot came off the brakes, I presume because the helicopter cleared our path and nothing was said.
                        Hopefully that chopper pilot was treated to a talking to.
                        Yeah...I'm just not getting what the deal is...While I know that helicopters don't really like true vertical departures- and that speed is their friend too, with all the safety concerns and other procedures that go on, you'd think there'd be some way to climb out and stay the hell out of the way of the fixed wing aircraft????
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MCM View Post
                          Of course, as Gabriel suggests, he may have done none of these things and simply landed because he wanted to. But being Japan, I'd have thought that relatively unlikely - they tend to be risk averse aviators who follow rules. We'll find out soon enough I guess!
                          ...worse yet- as I think of about all of this, I think it's immaterial what he was thinking...

                          Even if he truly just "wanted" to go ahead and land, I'm thinking his only choice is to say, "I considered the copter a hazard and elected to land as an emergency procedure" and there's not much more that can be done or said.

                          I'm not 100% sure we could trust someone willing to make a questionable landing to tell the truth that "he just decided to avoid the hassle of a go around".
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            ...worse yet- as I think of about all of this, I think it's immaterial what he was thinking...

                            Even if he truly just "wanted" to go ahead and land, I'm thinking his only choice is to say, "I considered the copter a hazard and elected to land as an emergency procedure" and there's not much more that can be done or said.

                            I'm not 100% sure we could trust someone willing to make a questionable landing to tell the truth that "he just decided to avoid the hassle of a go around".
                            One word could have solved it:

                            - XYZ go around.
                            - Unable.

                            --- 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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              With what margins?
                              Good margins. The landing distance published in the airpane's manual, I don't remember exactly, but was something like:

                              The distance required to cross the runway threshold at 50 ft on a 3 degree path, land and stop the airplane without using reversers, multiplied by 1.67.

                              --- 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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Good margins. The landing distance published in the airpane's manual, I don't remember exactly, but was something like:

                                The distance required to cross the runway threshold at 50 ft on a 3 degree path, land and stop the airplane without using reversers, multiplied by 1.67.
                                How does that 1.67 factor sync with a lack of ground spoilers and/or brakes? Does it still leave a good margin?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X