Evanie's near-total ATC disaster, [i]there[/i]

[3WE]

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ ... index.html

My favorite part- giving the pilots SOME blame for saying "understand, sidestep", but not_"confirm". Cue the normal call for beatings, oversight, regulation, automation and screening...

Part of me says, "big nothing, SA wins".

Another part of me says, Ok, it seems that we missed more than one layer of Swiss cheese and should have caught this before a 300-ft overflight...that seems a little bit low.

Were the aeroplanies on different frequencies? Why does it seem like the landing plane didn't see the other plane taking the runway (perhaps they did and the crummy journalism doesn't realize it).

And finally, a reminder that ATC doesn't necessarily WATCH aeroplanies 100% of the time.

[Gabriel]

My favorite part- giving the pilots SOME blame for saying "understand, sidestep"

I know, right? It seems that the controller missed the "sidestep" part altogether, otherwise it would not matter much if it was preceded by a "understand", a "confirrm", or a "are you sure".

Were the aeroplanies on different frequencies?

Apparently they did since the departing EasyJet told the arriving United to go around.

Why does it seem like the landing plane didn't see the other plane taking

That was my thought too. Perhaps all happened more or less at the same time, the EasyJet rolling onto the runway when they noticed the conflict with the arriving United who in turn also noted it more or less at the same time and they started the go around more or less at the same time or shortly after EasyJet and ATC told United to go around.

[3WE]

A favorite from the 1970s when 12L was a little shorter at Flyover…

Southern 237, position and hold 12R.

Ozark 901 Clearfield to land, 12R

Southern 237, cleared for takeoff…Southern 237 cleared for takeoff…Southern 237, cleared for immediate takeoff…

Ok, Ozark 901, change your approach to 12L

It’s too late now!

Southern 237, you on? [mild ass chewing follows]

[Gabriel]

Those things don't happen in most of the world where you cannot clear an aircraft to land until the runway is clear and expected to remain clear.
You will not hear a "XYZ, runway 18, cleared to land. ABC, traffic is in a 3 miles final, cleared to take off", or...
"ABC, runway 18, cleared to land. XYZ, runway 18, cleared to land, you are number 2"

In both cases, the landing clearance for XYZ will be withheld until ATC has confirmation that ABC cleared the runway.

[3WE]

Quote = Gabriel: Blah Blah Blah...

I don't care how they do it, just so everyone knows what's going on and is on the same frequency.

Ozark 901, cleared to land, Southern 237 departing before your arrival....

[Gabriel]

Quote = Gabriel: Blah Blah Blah...

I don't care how they do it, just so everyone knows what's going on and is on the same frequency.

Ozark 901, cleared to land, Southern 237 departing before your arrival....

[Lightning strikes Southern 237 while rolling for take off at low speed in low visibility]
Captain: Abort
FO: Flyover tower, Southern 237 aborting take of. Tower, do you read?
Captain: Ozark 901 is on final, alert them.
FO: Ozark 901, this Southern 237, we aborted the take off, we are still on the runway, go around. Ozark, do you read? Flyover tower, transmitting blind, Southern 237 aborted the take off, we are still on the
[sound of impact]

[3WE]

Quote=Gabriel: More blah blah blah…

I repeat: “Just so everyone knows what’s going on.”

Yes, I had a VMC mindset.

Regarding IMC:

1. I THINK the rules change…I THINK landed aircraft report when clear of the runway if the tower can’t see.

2. The spacing between landings and takeoffs is markedly increased.

3. Indeed, we need the tower to monitor their ground radar- the New York MD-80 thing had some scary Swiss cheese alignment.

3. I saw a new acronym there: RICAS? (Runway incursion Collision Avoidance System)…. Why not, let a computer monitor where everyone is and give a nice depiction on the flat screen. (Did I say: As long as everyone knows what’s going on?)

4. Repeat from there:. I really see this getting automated somehow in the not-too-distant future. Not because Evan wants it but because I can’t choose how much water goes in the clothes washer and the wife’s car engine shuts off at stoplights…

[elaw]

3. I saw a new acronym there: RICAS? (Runway incursion Collision Avoidance System)…. Why not, let a computer monitor where everyone is and give a nice depiction on the flat screen. (Did I say: As long as everyone knows what’s going on?)

Oh... okay. But only as long as there's a CB someone can pull if the computer threatens to stall/spin/did_died the airport.

[3WE]

***I saw a new acronym there: RIMJOB***

Fixed.

Or, umm, RIMCAS

[3WE]

Double post about the general rule that landing traffic has the right of way…

And I don’t think they can plead too much ignorance- as you get into position you ain’t got NO view of the approach path.

Especially as I think back to the comment that the landing plane didn’t say “confirm”.

Also of note, is Flashcrash’s analysis (and Avheraldie information) that maybe the landing plane DIDN’T see the situation unfolding.

By the way, Gabriel, how’d the International cleared-to-land rule work out here?

[Gabriel]

By the way, Gabriel, how’d the International cleared-to-land rule work out here?

The international rule would not have made any difference in this case, as it didn't, since this happened in a place where the international rule is the rule (I believe). I was replying to your scenario where an airplane was intentionally cleared to land in a runway where another plane was about to be cleared for take-off.

[3WE]

By the way, Gabriel, how’d the International cleared-to-land rule work out here?

I was replying to your scenario where an airplane was intentionally cleared to land in a runway where another plane was about to be cleared for take-off.

Mild razz that you were inferring that America does it wrong…I get the differences, still not sure which is better (other than everyone trying to remain aware)

[Gabriel]

By the way, Gabriel, how’d the International cleared-to-land rule work out here?

I was replying to your scenario where an airplane was intentionally cleared to land in a runway where another plane was about to be cleared for take-off.

Mild razz that you were inferring that America does it wrong…I get the differences, still not sure which is better (other than everyone trying to remain aware)

Not right or wrong. America's approach is less robust, has one layer less of Swiss cheese, and hence it is less safe (although it has proven to be still quite safe... you know... as wrong take-off computation accidents that haven caused a big fatal accident yet). That is because America's approach has an extra layer of hope: The runway is expected to be clear by the time the arriving airplane lands. In the rest of the world, instead, to clear a plane to take off or land the runway has to be already clear and must be expected to remain clear (which means that there can no be no take offs, landings or -I think- crossing clearances issued after a plane has been cleared to land or take off until such airplane cleared the runway).