fedupbusdriver

O'hare approach: United xx, do you have the field in sight?

United xx: I do not, but my first officer does.

O'hare approach: United xx, your first officer is cleared the visual.

TonyC

Vmcl for a heavyweight MD-11 could result in overtake speeds upwards of 40 knots. In other words, it's not a given that they'll both be 250KIAS.







.

990Convair

Well, all I can say is there are plenty of anal-retentive aviators at our airline. My personal motto is to try and un-complicate things and if I can help you out in the tower by watching a Boeing blast off to the South, while we are heading West I am happy to help. I hope I speak for the majority, but these days I don't know.

I used to fly in and out of DFW before they had a boatload of runways. This was also when AA, DL, Eagle, and ASA made DFW one of the world's busiest airports. Our airline would land 17R with an AA or two holding short to cross downfield. No long after landing and when we felt it was appropriate, we'd tell the tower - "XX 412's at taxi speed". They would then give crossing clearance to the jets holding downfield, granted 4,000 feet or so ahead of us, but by the time we told them "taxi-speed", we were below 80kts. In our opinion it helped the tower, and that would come back to us one day and it usually did.

Adlerdriver

Perhaps a better time to notify the crew of your expectations would be prior to getting them airborne, when you need immediate compliance and response. If this is a frequent expectation of ATC, put it on ATIS like LAHSO, so they can let you know if they'll be unable.

Diplomatic refusal or not, ATC gave them the option of saying no and painted themselves into a corner when that's the answer they got.

I'm all for exercising options that allow us to expedite departures when it makes sense. There are pilots out there who refuse to accept visual approaches by "following traffic" because they don't want the shift in responsibility re: wake turb & separation off ATC and on to them. They'll probably be the minority that will stiff you on this kind of departure request. Therefore, you need to make plans for dealing with the 1% factor.

Busboy

Whew!!! An overtake upwards of 40kts? So, let's figure this out...

Aircraft # 1 takes off, gets say a minimum 2mile headstart, then you takeoff behind him and are climbing out at 170kts while he's accelerating to 250. So, now let's say he gains another mile. That makes his lead 3miles in front of you. But, you accelerate to 290, and with your 40kt overtake will catch up to him in 4.5 minutes. That will take you another 22 miles to catch up to him.

Bottom line...You're going to have to travel over 30 miles, and say 8-9 minutes(+/-) just to have any possibility of a collision. Doesn't seem real scary to me.

Having said all that...I think it might depend on if I'm trying to catch a D/H home on the other end.

MD11Fr8Dog

Then why the requirement/request to maintain visual contact at all? Big sky little airplane, right?

purple speed

I agree with the guys who don't think it's wise to accept responsibility to maintain visual separation if there is a chance that you can't see and avoid.

How about this? Instead of both aircraft using the same heading for departure, give them different headings. First aircraft-runway heading, second aircraft-runway heading plus 30 degrees, third aircraft-runway heading plus 60 degrees, fourth aircraft-runway heading....

Being able to turn at 400' (700' MSL in MEM) and fly a different heading than the guy in front of you would allow at least one guy in the cockpit to see the traffic for longer.

Busboy

Yeah, like golf...trees are 90% air. Just go for it.

Seriously, though...Without the visual/request option in VMC. I believe ATC would be required to radar separate us, as if we didn't have a window to look through, or like the WX was at mins. But, it is a request. And, if Tony isn't comfortable with it, that's his call. The rest of us can just sit there and whine a few more minutes in the Conga line.

TonyC

The amount of headstart would be another factor to consider in accepting a visual clearance. The original post stated, "rolls an MD11 or DC10 right behind the B727 doing the same thing." I've witnessed the clearance being given with what appears to me to be much less than 2 miles headstart, and the assumption here is, initially anyway, and certainly until achieving radar contact, the same heading. With the MD-11 using NADP2 (accelerating and cleaning up at 1,000' AGL), the closure is nothing to scoff at.

I don't like sitting in line any more than the next guy, but I really hate the paperwork involved with reporting a TA. A few seconds is a tiny sacrifice for safety.







.

Nitefrater

Sounds like that's exactly what happened: The Capt was unable or unwilling to accept or provide visual separation, and he told the tower. This seems in line with "your" expectations above, so why was the Chief Pilot involved? What was the plan if the Capt said, "No, I don't have him in sight."?

I'm with Tony... I don't see where an aircraft on the ground waiting for normal separation constitutes a "bind" that ATC needs the next pilot to fix.