Another "near miss" at AUS
02-09-2023, 05:37 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757/767 Capt
Posts: 642
The exact verbiage after Southwest informs tower “They’re ready” was SW fly heading 170, cleared to takeoff Rwy 18L, traffic is a heavy 767 3 mile final.” Then SW copies cleared for takeoff, COPY THE Traffic! Then FedEx responds, “Twr, Confirm FedEx call sign is cleared to land 18L?” Probably because the FedEx pilot is wondering WTF is going on down there, and why did Tower just clear another jet in front of me when I’ll be landing in one minute! So it’s sounds to me that Southwest accepted his takeoff clearance, even though he knew there was a 767 on 3 mile final, flying a Cat 3 approach! And SW still took the active, knowing how tight the spacing was. It’s Towers fault for clearing SW in front of FedEx…but why would SW taxi in very low visibility onto a runway where another jet is trying to land. This isn’t JFK, or Heathrow, it’s Austin Texas!
02-09-2023, 06:10 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,730
Originally Posted by rickair7777
They don't have the system where they can see the transponder? Most commercial airports do these days?
02-09-2023, 09:29 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,402
TWR was wrong to give take off clearance in this situation.
SWA crew should have had better SA in this situation. A 3 mile mile final for a 757 means maybe a minute and a half at the most. Rolling from a standing takeoff to lift off is about 45 seconds or so, to taxi into position and then commence take off is likely over a minute. Cutting it way to close in low vis.
SWA crew should have had better SA in this situation. A 3 mile mile final for a 757 means maybe a minute and a half at the most. Rolling from a standing takeoff to lift off is about 45 seconds or so, to taxi into position and then commence take off is likely over a minute. Cutting it way to close in low vis.
02-09-2023, 11:29 PM
#96
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,469
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Hence the tower's direction to FedEx after landing, "Report clear of the runway."
02-10-2023, 05:38 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by pangolin
Prior to SWA calling ready they didn’t know about FedEx. Once they called and were cleared they knew.
They obviously heard something since they keyed up right after tower stopped transmitting.
I don’t fly the 737 but on my plane FEDEX would have been on my screen 3 miles away.
02-10-2023, 11:17 AM
#99
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by pangolin
Prior to SWA calling ready they didn’t know about FedEx. Once they called and were cleared they knew.
02-13-2023, 04:25 AM
#100
On the 1st tee
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Anyone who hasn't been forgotten by a tower and left sitting is either woefully inexperienced, or lying.
While a turbine aircraft is expected to be ready to go upon reaching the end of the runway, and thus a call stating the aircraft is ready to go (or has reached the runway) is unnecessary (and sometimes inappropriate in busy locations), it's also commonly warranted. In areas of low visibility, one may argue, rightfully, that it's appropriate. If one is cleared to cross a runway enroute to another runway, it's not a bad idea to confirm the crossing clearance before entering that runway (something that might have prevented the recent incursion discussed here, that took place at JFK), as well as light up like a christmas tree. Ground surveillance radar may or may not "see," but assumptions are the mother of all ****ups, are they not?
Low visibility, nobody's going to see. It maybe that SWA was advised to report reaching (a common practice), or SWA may have elected to advise that they were holding short and ready (another common practice), but ultimately, that's all they did. They reported holding short of the runway. For a controller who cannot see the runway, that may be some comfort and useful information: it provides direct, first-hand information that the crew has verified they're not on the runwya, and that they're indeed holding short of the runway.
If I had a penny for every time I've been cleared onto a runway to takeoff, aircraft on a several-mile final, I'd have a lot of pennies. Many of them would be discolored and old-looking by now. A Cat III approach is a little different.
Reporting ready, or holding short isn't uncommon, and isn't unwarranted, given the lower visibility. We don't know if SWA was directed to do so. SWA did not request a takeoff clearance; they reported holding short. ("We're short of 18 left, we're ready"). That's it.
A twitter link was posted at the outset of the thread (post two); it draws incorrect conclusions and posts incorrect information, including attributing the abort call to the tower. That may have led to come confusion in posts in this thread. Another audio was posted, which condenses the time, and distorts the relationship of the calls, which may also lead to some inaccurate conclusions, and finally several posters have alluded to a near-miss (is there a "far miss?") of some 25-30', which is also false. The VASAviation radar overlay, as it transitions out of their animation (which is not to scale), shows the lowest transponder data for the FedEx airplane at 600' before it begins to climb again.
Given that the FedEx flight was on an ILS and descending on the glideslope, reaching 600' would not have occurred over the SWA flight over the runway, but well before the runway; the FedEx flight was climbing in a missed approach that was executed well before the runway, and while it did overtake the SWA flight, the altitude on the data tags for the SWA and FedEx flight show 1,000' of separation by the time both become visible, and at that time, FedEx was about 2,600', climbing and making a left turn, 90 degrees from the SWA course. That's based on the radar data, of course, and not the twitter animation with it's flight radar 24 ADS-B data (which appears to be false or at least very inaccurate).
It's worth noting that after the FedEx flight was vectored for a second approach and landed, the tower directed FedEx to report clear fo the runway, and FedEx subsequently did. This is notable in light of comments suggesting that SWA shouldn't have reported holding short. Tower was directing traffic to report clear, a reasonable action given low visibility. It's not unreasonable for SWA to have reported holding short.
While a turbine aircraft is expected to be ready to go upon reaching the end of the runway, and thus a call stating the aircraft is ready to go (or has reached the runway) is unnecessary (and sometimes inappropriate in busy locations), it's also commonly warranted. In areas of low visibility, one may argue, rightfully, that it's appropriate. If one is cleared to cross a runway enroute to another runway, it's not a bad idea to confirm the crossing clearance before entering that runway (something that might have prevented the recent incursion discussed here, that took place at JFK), as well as light up like a christmas tree. Ground surveillance radar may or may not "see," but assumptions are the mother of all ****ups, are they not?
Low visibility, nobody's going to see. It maybe that SWA was advised to report reaching (a common practice), or SWA may have elected to advise that they were holding short and ready (another common practice), but ultimately, that's all they did. They reported holding short of the runway. For a controller who cannot see the runway, that may be some comfort and useful information: it provides direct, first-hand information that the crew has verified they're not on the runwya, and that they're indeed holding short of the runway.
If I had a penny for every time I've been cleared onto a runway to takeoff, aircraft on a several-mile final, I'd have a lot of pennies. Many of them would be discolored and old-looking by now. A Cat III approach is a little different.
Reporting ready, or holding short isn't uncommon, and isn't unwarranted, given the lower visibility. We don't know if SWA was directed to do so. SWA did not request a takeoff clearance; they reported holding short. ("We're short of 18 left, we're ready"). That's it.
A twitter link was posted at the outset of the thread (post two); it draws incorrect conclusions and posts incorrect information, including attributing the abort call to the tower. That may have led to come confusion in posts in this thread. Another audio was posted, which condenses the time, and distorts the relationship of the calls, which may also lead to some inaccurate conclusions, and finally several posters have alluded to a near-miss (is there a "far miss?") of some 25-30', which is also false. The VASAviation radar overlay, as it transitions out of their animation (which is not to scale), shows the lowest transponder data for the FedEx airplane at 600' before it begins to climb again.
Given that the FedEx flight was on an ILS and descending on the glideslope, reaching 600' would not have occurred over the SWA flight over the runway, but well before the runway; the FedEx flight was climbing in a missed approach that was executed well before the runway, and while it did overtake the SWA flight, the altitude on the data tags for the SWA and FedEx flight show 1,000' of separation by the time both become visible, and at that time, FedEx was about 2,600', climbing and making a left turn, 90 degrees from the SWA course. That's based on the radar data, of course, and not the twitter animation with it's flight radar 24 ADS-B data (which appears to be false or at least very inaccurate).
It's worth noting that after the FedEx flight was vectored for a second approach and landed, the tower directed FedEx to report clear fo the runway, and FedEx subsequently did. This is notable in light of comments suggesting that SWA shouldn't have reported holding short. Tower was directing traffic to report clear, a reasonable action given low visibility. It's not unreasonable for SWA to have reported holding short.
Originally Posted by dera
600ft is 59ft AGL.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
