|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3586652)
I didn't hear SW request the TO, but it might have happened before that audio clip started.
Poor SA and ADM yes, but technically once cleared he owned the runway so ultimately it was ATC and FDXs problem. I'd guess the tower might get in trouble since he actually did not specify "no delay" and probably shouldn't have issued the clearance under those conditions. But pizza parties... old habits die hard. Yes SWA should have known not to delay. ATC may be in the habit of relying on SWA to not delay. 7110.65 3-7-5: Aircraft and vehicle access to the ILS critical area must be controlled to ensure the integrity of ILS course signals whenever the official weather observation is a ceiling of less than 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles. Unless the arriving aircraft has reported the runway in sight or is circling to land to another runway, do not authorize vehicles/aircraft to operate in or over the critical area, except as specified in subparagraph a1, whenever an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or the fix used in lieu of the OM. |
After watching the video I’d like to add, SWA culture is also at fault to a degree (I really like SWA). The pilot should never have requested a takeoff clearance right after hearing a clearance to land in that situation. I saw something not as close but the same situation in RNO, again it was SWA who got the takeoff clearance.
|
"Aircraft and vehicle access to the ILS critical area must be controlled to ensure the integrity of ILS course signals whenever the official weather observation is a ceiling of less than 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles. Unless the arriving aircraft has reported the runway in sight or is circling to land to another runway, do not authorize vehicles/aircraft to operate in or over the critical area, except as specified in subparagraph a1, whenever an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or the fix used in lieu of the OM."
Further in that same paragraph there are exceptions. Now I wouldn't have taken that TO clearance in that scenario I believe, and whether there are ILS critical areas on the taxiways doesn't matter - - - the runway is always an ILS critical area especially on a CAT III approach where the LOC signal is used for the rollout. |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 3586438)
Well, good for you.
Glad it’s always worked out, FOR YOU. |
Juan breaks it down well and explains where the critical areas are. In the comments ATC guy BN further explains the critical area and points some things I wasn’t aware of, example the localizer critical area doesn’t extend the entire length of the runway.
https://youtu.be/SvUOHa8n7aQ |
Originally Posted by Round Luggage
(Post 3586919)
After watching the video I’d like to add, SWA culture is also at fault to a degree (I really like SWA). The pilot should never have requested a takeoff clearance right after hearing a clearance to land in that situation. I saw something not as close but the same situation in RNO, again it was SWA who got the takeoff clearance.
I also didn't get that they were pushing for a TO clearance, they just advised "ready". Not strictly necessary but not really pushy either. Not the same as "can we get out before the guy on final?". |
Originally Posted by trip
(Post 3586969)
Juan breaks it down well and explains where the critical areas are. In the comments ATC guy BN further explains the critical area and points some things I wasn’t aware of, example the localizer critical area doesn’t extend the entire length of the runway.
https://youtu.be/SvUOHa8n7aQ |
Originally Posted by dera
(Post 3587105)
I was bored so I plotted it in Google Earth. The LOC critical area extends to halfway between taxiways G and J on runway 18L.
Don't know about whether position and hold on the numbers would violate the critical area, might be far enough away on a long runway but presumably a departure *would* bust it at some point on the takeoff roll. |
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3586392)
Better question……why did the SWA crew dick around so long after getting cleared to roll? They’re the ones who screwed up.
Maybe Engine Warmup/Runup time caused a delay? Or additional taxi time from behind the ILS hold short? Definitely not ****ting on the SWA crew… they were cleared for takeoff. Runway was theres. I probably wouldn’t reject a high speed takeoff for a random voice on the radio using the word “abort” either even if I heard it… In a loud 737 on takeoff I could see missing a non standard call pretty easily. In the same regard Im not ****ting the FedEx crew for taking their own go around at the last second and trying to get the SWA crew to abort the takeoff to avoid a midair over the runway… It’s easy to pick apart crews for what was clearly a near miss caused by ATC. I highly doubt that either crew intentionally did things to put themselves in danger. |
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
(Post 3586463)
If your'e doing a 30 second pre-takeoff run for nacelle thermal anti-ice, where else do you do that run? That thirty second run to warm the nacelles is best done just prior to brake release, and should be coordinated with the tower. There is no indication of a run-up requested or done here, however.
No such request was heard on the audio, and a crew would not/should not do a run on the runway without clearing that with the tower, first. It's clear that the southwest flight shouldn't have been released with the FedEx flight on a Cat III. It sounds, from the audio, like ATC was pushing runway utilization as tight as they could, which is setting up for something like this to occur. A call from an airplane going around should not be to the aircraft taking off to abort (reject: it's a Boeing). That's not a call to be made by the aircraft initiating a missed approach, and certainly not a call I'm aware of any training department or organization using as a standard. The only person who should have called to reject the takeoff with Southwest is one of two in the cockpit; otherwise the tower controller might have cancelled clearance, but certainly should not call for an "abort." The pilot of the FedEx airplane shouldn't be calling "abort," either. Fly the airplane you're in, not the other guy's aircraft. Better to go missed earlier than later, in this case, and they did. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands