Another "near miss" at AUS
02-09-2023, 07:34 AM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Originally Posted by Vito
Spoiler
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.
02-09-2023, 07:41 AM
#82
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by pangolin
The call WAS necessary. The tower could not see southwest.
But I don't think it was an unreasonable call under the circumstances. I don't know how long they sat there, I'd probably call tower if I had been at the hold short for more than about a minute with no radio traffic on tower freq. Sometimes they're shooting the breeze, "on the landline", etc if it's a slow night.
It's still incumbent on tower to not clear a departure in front of an arrival who's too close given the conditions.
02-09-2023, 08:33 AM
#83
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
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.
02-09-2023, 10:10 AM
#84
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,469
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
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).
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).
02-09-2023, 11:01 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2022
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by 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.
They may or may not have the day off but you know the day after the Ts were crossed.
02-09-2023, 01:38 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757/767 Capt
Posts: 642
Just to be clear, the Southwest crew knew that FedEx was on “ shortish” final, flying a Cat 3 approach…why make the call? That’s all I’m saying..wait until FedEx lands first. The Twr controller is 100% wrong, SW is 85% wrong. But in my opinion, if SW doesn’t make that call, this wouldn’t be a discussion.
02-09-2023, 03:31 PM
#89
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,289
Originally Posted by pangolin
Sw did not know till after the call. That’s why.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
