Another "near miss" at AUS
02-06-2023, 11:42 AM
#61
7.27%
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Boeing
Posts: 543
Originally Posted by Round Luggage
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.
They reported ready reaching the runway.
02-06-2023, 11:42 AM
#62
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,470
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I don't see any ILS critical markings around 18L. In that case the regular hold-short lines are far enough away IIRC, and they are set pretty far back in the hold bay.
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.
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.
I'm not sure about the 737, the Boeing I fly requires a 30 second runup in those conditions. If that's the case with SWA, that was poor SA from them to accept the clearance and not mention it to tower.
Still, nothing explains why the tower wants to run the operation that tight when conditions are so low (on the second approach, RVR was 800 at TDZ).
02-06-2023, 12:33 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I don't see any ILS critical markings around 18L. In that case the regular hold-short lines are far enough away IIRC, and they are set pretty far back in the hold bay.
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.
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.
02-06-2023, 12:52 PM
#64
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by Nordhavn
I always thought the 30 second pre-takeoff run was for ice shedding?? I don't think the FX guy should be calling aborts like that either.
In a Boeing , one rejects a takeoff, and aborts an engine start.
02-06-2023, 02:24 PM
#65
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,470
Originally Posted by pangolin
Certainly line up would bust the glideslope critical area which is demarked on the other side and is arguably more critical than the loc.
02-06-2023, 02:28 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by dera
That's what I thought too but rather surprisingly, the G/S critical area does not always extend to the runway itself. Makes sense given that autoland does not follow GS after a certain point.
02-06-2023, 04:07 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 751
Just a statement of fact here. I’ve seen a lot comments about the possibility that SWA may have just switched over from ground and might not have known about FDX. That’s not true. In the takeoff clearance, the TWR Controller advised FDX was on a three mile final. Simple math tells you that’s about 90 seconds from touchdown at 120 knots. You could make the argument they were distracted or go-oriented, but not that they were not informed.
02-06-2023, 05:13 PM
#68
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,088
Originally Posted by Otterbox
Maybe SWA wasn’t on tower when FedEx was cleared to land?
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.
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.
02-06-2023, 06:14 PM
#69
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
Just a statement of fact here. I’ve seen a lot comments about the possibility that SWA may have just switched over from ground and might not have known about FDX. That’s not true. In the takeoff clearance, the TWR Controller advised FDX was on a three mile final. Simple math tells you that’s about 90 seconds from touchdown at 120 knots. You could make the argument they were distracted or go-oriented, but not that they were not informed.
02-06-2023, 10:07 PM
#70
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,470
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
My simple math says that the FedEx flight had better not have been flying the procedure at 120 knots, and also that a report of a "three mile final" doesn't necessarily mean the airplane is at 3.0 DME...it may be much closer. Certainly, however, SWA was informed of the traffic. Perhaps the tower controller thought SWA would be off a bit faster, given that their taxi speed is about five knots less than Vr.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
