USMCFLYR

Big chucks of metal anywhere on the runway can cause interference with the LOC signal - which is of course very important during a CAT III approach.

In addition - as the aircraft taking off down the way, breaks ground and continues to fly over the LOC antennas, there is certainly going to be interference, thus having an aircraft takeoff when another aircraft is using the LOC signal on a CAT III approach is probably not a good idea. I don't know the P121 world's rules on CAT III approaches and what indications on the approach may cause the call for a missed approach, but I do know how tight those CAT III LOC tolerances are and what little interference it takes to bust the structure tolerances in particular.

USMCFLYR

A variety of factors it sounds like for the additional time for a LIFR takeoff that I'm hearing about from other P121 pilots, but in regard to the bolded above - there is no ILS hold short line on the west side of RWY 18L.

Bo Darville

Sounds like everyone is agreed the TWR should not have cleared SWA for takeoff. But I don’t agree with the idea SWA now owns the runway, as mentioned and implied. FDX threw out a big clue to SWA confirming landing clearance at about 2DME.

Now I know we all have the clarity of hindsight but can anyone here honestly say, “yeah, I’d continue taking the runway with another plane at 2DME in low vis” especially if you need to conduct a run and/or standing takeoff? And if your answer is yes, what’s your limit?

Every pilot has an obligation to break the safety chain. In this case, the SWA crew might have already crossed the hold line when they realized something’s not right. Stop, radio tower, and let tower cancel FDX landing clearance.

Any pilot who tells themself, “tower cleared me so I own the runway” is absolutely correct…right up to the point of impact. No one ever owns any piece of pavement or airspace just because ATC says so.

-Bo

CoefficientX

I wasn’t there so no comment on who should have done what but this is a good learning moment for all of us to hone up our SA skills.

Fate is the hunter.

dmeg13021

How often does AUS deal with <Cat I conditions? Icing? How many times had tower cleared a SWA no problem with plane on final? Run up and ILS protection may not have even occurred to controller when previous 1000 takeoff clearances were day VMC.

JohnBurke

One hopes the controller is managing the flight that's happening now, rather than the one that happened takeoffs or landings ago.

Round Luggage

You can have your own opinion and it doesn’t have to agree with mine but they didn’t say what you said either, see the problem?

Vito

I’ll throw this out there for discussion. SouthWest’s call to Tower, stating “Southwest Holding short Rwy 18L , we’re ready” was totally unnecessary and One can argue was the catalyst of this entire incident.

Number One, Why make that call? Who cares?. It accomplished nothing except to clog up the Tower freq with unnecessary chatter while another aircraft is attempting to fly a Cat 3 approach.

Number 2, This call prompted the Tower controller to issue a dubious takeoff clearance, which, if the call was never made, the Takeoff clearance would never have been issued.

Number 3, it set up a situation where SW had to rush his takeoff roll, if he were even aware enough to realize how close FedEx was.
And this call possibly caused Tower, out of habit, to clear SW for takeoff, once Tower issued the takeoff clearance to SW, he may have realized he made a mistake, but Hoped, Southwest would make a quick takeoff and no harm no foul.

Sometimes, my F/O will call Tower to state we’re holding #1 for takeoff even though we both see there is arriving traffic on final. I will speak up now to remind them, a Holding #1 call is not necessary and serves no purpose most of the time.

Gspeed

I generally agree except in my experience smaller airport towers seem to wait for you to check in at the end of the runway while larger airports don’t (which likely includes AUS).

Broncofan

I was taking off out of AUS the day after this happened with low IFR. They asked us to report holding short of 18L. I assume this is what happened with SW as well.. Adding the “we are ready to go” might not have been necessary, but I would by no means call it the catalyst for the whole situation.