It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency. All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me. Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however. A friend of mine used a very similar example to this demonstrating his attitude to risk at an interview for a major carrier recently. He passed.
It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency. All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me. Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
Sound thinking.
If it happened to me, I'd want to find out:
- Where and what the obstruction was.
- Whether the runway had been inspected/swept since, in case bits had come off the aircraft that came to an unscheduled halt.
- What minima were appropriate, e.g. if it was in front of the LOC array, an ILS probably isn't going to work.
- What landing / go-around performance was required.
- Was fire cover back to acceptable levels.
- As above, will there be issues for the next sector.
If the answers were satisfactory and the required aircraft performance came within the normal operating bracket in terms of safety margin, etc. then having discussed it with the rest of the crew and tech. management / performance if I could get hold of them, I'd have no hesitation to carry on to land or even commit to destination.
Penko, 9800 feet of runway is 3000 meters of runway not 3100 m +. And that's before the blockage. I hear what you're saying about common sense but it's thankless. Why take the risk - the company won't thank you. And if you screw up they will blame you. Where in the OMs does it say to do such a thing or imply that you have scope to think such a thing? This isn't an emergency or even nearly an abnormal. If in doubt, there's no doubt - go somewhere else. Of course it can be done but does it need to be in a fully serviceable aircraft that will have destination alternates with a flight time like that?
Wise words!
Penko, you really have got a grip of this one for some reason. Let it go and have a chill out, not everyone agrees with you, some do, some dont. But dont stand there stamping your feet hoping that repeatedly ramming home your opinion will get you your own way.
This thread should be titled "BA aircraft in entirley normal landing".
Reductions in declared distances happen all the time, as do temporary changes to obstacles as has been pointed out in this thread.
Remember the 777 that bellied out at LHR? That runway remained open, albeit to departing traffic only, with reduced TORA/ASDA.
The real unknown in this conversation is what happened to the disabled aircraft? Had their mishap only just happened? And critically, did this have an effect on the level of fire cover available?
You might have all the runway you need still available, and ATC might allow you to go for it, but if the fire cover is diminished by an incident in progress then you wouldn't be legal.
Look, this is an interesting and apparently very real scenario that deserves to be explored a bit better than 'bonkers, cowboys, divert!'. But that was the way this was heading yesterday, hence the stamping of my feet. Nowhere did I say my solution was the only solution, I was trying to get a meaningful discussion going, like we have now.
There is an old saying in aviation that the difference between the good captain and the poor captain is that the good captain knows what the book allows him to do and the poor captain knows only what the book stops him doing. If the reaction on this thread is to prevail that it is better to cover your a**e, put the passengers to massive inconvenience and cost the company many thousands in diversion costs - then I'm very sad for the future of aviation.
How many contributors to this have commanded big jets? If you haven't, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion; it's just that it doesn't carry as much weight* as those who have.
Easy! Landed in Chania, Greece with reduced runway as works going on at the landing end. Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC! No probs, whats the big deal? As long as there is enough tarmac to stop still!!
Easy! Landed in Chania, Greece with reduced runway as works going on at the landing end. Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC! No probs, whats the big deal? As long as there is enough tarmac to stop still!!
Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC! In the case we have no information to work with, in the case you site its already been made legal.
Quote:
Look, this is an interesting and apparently very real scenario that deserves to be explored a bit better than 'bonkers, cowboys, divert!'. But that was the way this was heading yesterday, hence the stamping of my feet. Nowhere did I say my solution was the only solution, I was trying to get a meaningful discussion going, like we have now.
Ok Look lets be honest here, I was mearly playing devils advocate, we actualyl dont know anything about this, or if it even occured. I have no problem landing on reduced distances and have done many times. I am mearly saying that you need the information avaialble to make the decision.
The Original post and I did search for a fair while and was unable to find anything does not provide any information to the overall situation at the field etc at the time. How much time elapsed between the 2 landings, what effects did it have on aerodrome coverage and facilities. What was the exact position of the aircraft.
Landing on reduced distance runways, reduced width due clearing or just narrow etc are normal parts of the every day job.
I make no suggestion in real terms (only tongue in cheek) that anyone was at fault. Indeed dont know if it even happened. I would however remind that everyone jumps to the conclusion it is legal, when we have no facts of what occured.
If the runway state is unknown, actual usable LDA unknown, and clearance heights etc etc etc unknown we cant really comment.
You can land a B738 in 900M according to the Max Manual case in the QRH but would you ??
PENKO, I agree with you that its perfectly acceptable to land on a runway that is reduced, but based on the original post I just decided to take the other stance to you :-)
So what was ATC's role in this (if there was a "this?").
Was the crew advised of the obstruction (outside of seeing it with their own eyes?). Were they cleared to land?
If cleared to land, it becomes a judgement call, not a legal question.
A plane blocking 1000 meters of a 3000m runway is no different than a 2000m runway with a plane (or hanger, or ocean) parked off the end. You check the numbers, procedures, and your experience, and decide if 2000 meters is enough. (Adjust numbers as needed if we ever find out the real situation).
Dear Expressbird, Tenerife is not one of the Azores islands. Tenerife where the KLM-Pan Am accident was, is one of the Canary Islands. Hope your'nt a pilot.
Not aware that this was a geography test, but you're correct and I apologise, was just making a point that two aircraft on the same runway, wherever in the World, for whatever reason, can be potentially dangerous. Of course aircraft land on published reduced runway lengths all the time, that's not the point, the reason for the reduction can be significant - or not. Decide at the time.
Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC! In the case we have no information to work with, in the case you site its already been made legal.
And then there is reality of flying in Africa... ACC has a long, into wind runway. ATC good, radar coverage, steady headwind almost 24 hours a day.
Would I divert to Lome, Lagos or Cotonou if a bizjet was sitting at the far end of this long runway? I doubt it... For starters, the weather seems to get progressively worse the further east you fly from ACC. Abidjan is a good alternate. However, it's time we captains use a little more common sense as this BA crew seems to have done! I'd probably do the same thing having weighed up the pros and cons!
Exsp33dbird - just how many things should we take as 'possibly' happening??? Maybe I should refuse to fly to Addis Abeba in a heavy 345 in 'case' the brakes fail. Believe me, with the lack of emergency overrun (ie huge drop off) this would bring tears to my eyes!!!!!!
unfortunately.
