Originally Posted by
waito
This was serious, a near miss with mostly blind participants. And avoidable.
I am curious about the findings regarding ATC and the Southwest Crew actions in LVP. And communication was substandard from all 3 of them. At some point they had little more than guessing who said what and who meant what.
And a crew that expects anybody else to know that they need >30s additional rwy time for runup? Serious?
A very good resume of the situation .
@ BFSGrad
Disappointing to see all the squabbling about “on the go” when this (non-standard) phrase likely had no impact on the incident. I think it very likely that all involved clearly heard “Fedex, on the go” and understood its meaning, improving situational awareness for both the local controller and SWA.
So you asume everybody understood the Fedex was going around because they were all 3 locals Americans. Are you sure the Fedex would have used another phraseology if the SW had been, say Aromexico or Virgin ? The poor pharsology , or lack of even , is what we discuss , and "on the go" was the most obvious one , but : " Abort" and "Negative" are as bad. if not worse.
Where I agree with you is that this "on te go" did not have a major effect on this incident , the controller lining up with someone on a CATIII approach , and the SW taking 20-30 second to start knowing that there is someone 3 miles out are the real causes and am sure will get them tea and biscuits a some point.
That said, going around over a take off with both aircraft remaining on cente line is a known loophole , well identified, but still out there despite many incidents worldwide. .