Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this legal? Runway occupancy at AMS...

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

  • Is this legal? Runway occupancy at AMS...

    First 747 is clearly still clearing the runway after the 2nd touched down.


  • #2
    I don't think it is legal. The only situations that I know are legal (at least in Argentina) for 2 airplanes being in the same active runway at the same time is for an airplane crossing the active or taking position and holding behind an airplane that is taking off or landing.

    In this video, the first plane getting disabled on the runway after the 2nd plane touched down could have created a huge conflict.

    --- 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


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      ...'illegal'...
      Not sure man...

      I get the gross violation of pretty much everything we've ever seen commercially and were taught in the single-engine world.

      BUT

      The military seems to a lot of 'interesting' stuff with multiple aircraft on the runway at the same time...so I'm hard pressed to say "illegal"- and maybe this was some sort of military operation?

      Might be another one of those rules of thumb, or fairly strict 'Good Operating Practices', and Evan-blessed-written-procedures, without being specifically prohibited.

      And I also think one could do some techno/legal things with runway thresholds and pavement and official designations where the runway becomes a taxiway.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        One thing I know for sure, at any major airport in the U.K., that would result in an ATC instructed "Go Around" for the second aircraft and an "Expedite runway clearance" instruction to the first aircraft.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
          One thing I know for sure, at any major airport in the U.K., that would result in an ATC instructed "Go Around" for the second aircraft and an "Expedite runway clearance" instruction to the first aircraft.
          I think it's a mute point since even if the first a/c had vacated a few seconds earlier, the second a/c should have gone around just to avoid the wake turbulence.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            I think it's a mute point since even if the first a/c had vacated a few seconds earlier, the second a/c should have gone around just to avoid the wake turbulence.
            I agree 110%, but they were both Russian, Air Bridge Cargo aircraft so they make their own rules

            Comment


            • #7
              Is this legal? Runway occupancy at AUN...

              First 206 is clearly still clearing the runway after the 2nd touched down.

              Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.


              ...and the bigger question: Should John have gone around to avoid wake turbulence?

              (And, my original reply towards Gabriel...this was shown on US TV and I heard nothing of FAA actions...maybe it's not truly illegal, as much as a usually-strictly-followed-rule-of-thumb...and yes, from my fence-time at commercial airports with ATC, I have seen that pilots will skillfully push it to extremely close tolerances while never (never in my experience) touching the same designated, blessed pavement at the same time...including the occasional go-around when it didn't quite work out.)
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                It certainly seems closer than the wake turbulence minimum required distance .
                Having said that I'm currently operating a 777 into Lax regularly and being a non American i am always pleasantly suprised by the efficiency of ATC in the USA.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hugh View Post
                  It certainly seems closer than the wake turbulence minimum required distance.
                  I'm known for being off base, but there are two rules of thumb that make me question all this wake turbulence discussion.

                  1. Planes are generally 'tolerant' of wake turbulence from their own kind. It's more when little planes encounter wakes from big planes that the little plane cannot overcome the turbulence.

                  2. Given that wakes descend below the flight path, and with any sort of normal winds will move even further behind (and very often off to the side) from the flight path, It's very hard to encounter a wake...

                  ...it's usually the little plane taking off in a very short distance- while the big planes wake has moved back with "the headwind", or the little plane comes in at a lower altitude and crosses the wake.

                  Bottom line: (And this is AIM stuff), you would basically only encounter the other plane's wake if there was a light quartering tailwind OR if the trailing 747 was operating a good bit below the first one (and again, requires a very slight crosswind to keep one vortex right on the centerline)...

                  AND 172's generally don't worry about wake vortexes from 172s and 737's generally don't worry about wake vortexes from 737s...so do heavy jets really need to worry about heavy jets?

                  https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...ic_4-03-14.pdf (Fig 7-3-3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in particular)

                  PS: I acknowledge the regulations, but I am questioning if they are based on reality- Absolutely a delay for a small plane behind a big plane, but not so sure when it's the same plane- from a factual standpoint!
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Other than the first 747 being on a taxiway portion extending from the runway, I could not see how this is legal. (and I'm looking at Google Earth imagery of AMS right now, doesn't seem like there's any taxiways extending from runway ends.)

                    I fly at a GA airport that can get rather busy with student pilots and often times when I'm on short final and there's a plane yet to vacate the runway, I'll be instructed "traffic is more than 3,000ft down the runway, continue approach". But of course this 3,000ft rule is with light prop planes and not jetliners.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hongmng View Post
                      ...and often times when I'm on short final and there's a plane yet to vacate the runway, I'll be instructed "traffic is more than 3,000ft down the runway, continue approach". But of course this 3,000ft rule is with light prop planes and not jetliners...
                      I'm disappointed that this thread has no comments about exactly what is legal and what is 'just good operating practice'.

                      Most of us have witnessed extremely strict adherence that no two aircraft will be landing or taking off from the same runway at the same time, ever at all whatsoever. I think maybe once or twice, I heard instructions to an airliner to 'start your roll' followed a few seconds later by 'cleared for takeoff' when the other aircraft truly cleared. (That's not a touchdown with someone still on the runway, nor TECHNICALLY is it two 'flying operations at the same time', but it does support it potentially being 'illegal' to have two 'flying operations' touching the same strip of concrete at the same time.

                      Conversely, we have 'violations' pictured in the original video, AND the demonstration of Alaska FARs...Nothing super duper dangerous from the common sense standpoint and a 'violation of standard procedure'...but a violation of aviation law?

                      ...I might check the FAR's, but conversely, a simple- "don't touch the concrete at the same time lest ye be subject to enforcement action (with normal emergency over ride procedures being available)" can be deeply buried in legal-speak.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Impressive Parlour talk: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=439117

                        Unfortunately, it is takeoff focused and therefore ~50% off topic.
                        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
                          I'm disappointed that this thread has no comments about exactly what is legal and what is 'just good operating practice'.

                          Most of us have witnessed extremely strict adherence that no two aircraft will be landing or taking off from the same runway at the same time, ever at all whatsoever. I think maybe once or twice, I heard instructions to an airliner to 'start your roll' followed a few seconds later by 'cleared for takeoff' when the other aircraft truly cleared. (That's not a touchdown with someone still on the runway, nor TECHNICALLY is it two 'flying operations at the same time', but it does support it potentially being 'illegal' to have two 'flying operations' touching the same strip of concrete at the same time.

                          Conversely, we have 'violations' pictured in the original video, AND the demonstration of Alaska FARs...Nothing super duper dangerous from the common sense standpoint and a 'violation of standard procedure'...but a violation of aviation law?

                          ...I might check the FAR's, but conversely, a simple- "don't touch the concrete at the same time lest ye be subject to enforcement action (with normal emergency over ride procedures being available)" can be deeply buried in legal-speak.
                          The issue is separation and wake turbulence. If these aircraft both ended up occupying the runway for a moment (and the first one wasn't stopped there), then they were also too close in the air. A heavy following a heavy probably isn't going to get into dangerous roll excursions but it might end up as an engine strike or that sudden surge of vertical rate at the worst moment. And even with freight, we've seen what bounced landings can lead to...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            The issue is separation and wake turbulence. If these aircraft both ended up occupying the runway for a moment (and the first one wasn't stopped there), then they were also too close in the air. A heavy following a heavy probably isn't going to get into dangerous roll excursions but it might end up as an engine strike or that sudden surge of vertical rate at the worst moment. And even with freight, we've seen what bounced landings can lead to...
                            No Evan, all words matter. In fact, some words matter more...like maybe those words in the thread title.

                            The OP, Hongmng and I all discuss issues of two aircraft using the pavement simultaneously and 'improperly'. (It is 'legal' to taxi into position and hold with folks rolling downfield- but that's taxiing with fairly low risk) And I've witnessed ATC and pilots go to great pains with other-than-heavy jets to be sure that they didn't touch the runway with someone else using it for takeoff OR roll out...(Man that was fun to see in the olden days at Flyover...how close they could get...two planes literally 20 feet off the same runway, one landing, one departing!)


                            ...and I still maintain that we see no evidence here that wake turbulence caused the nice, firm landing nor any significant roll (yes we).
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X