Originally Posted by
Herod
I picked up on that phrase as well. The captain saying to ATC "I assume that's not enough?" Effectively passing to ATC the decision on whether he has enough runway.
Well, CVR transcript will make an interesting reading, me thinks... Especially with some 'rumors' on CRM and attitude issues.
For me this transmission will explain a lot "yes tora is two two actually sorry tora is one two seven three meters i assume that's not enough"
* preceding comm's were: initial ATC taxi instruction to D6 / pilot reporting approaching D6 / ATC explicit line-up via D6 instruction
* "yes" as an answer to "are you familiar that you entered runway via D5" is a big fat lie, being caught red handed making a (excusable) mistake. But more importantly, this is the start of a continued "face loss" cover up, digging one's hole deeper and deeper
* "tora is two two actually..." continued face loss avoidance, reading on the spot some EFB data which clearly was not briefed beforehand. The only 22xx TORA on the airfield is D5 for the opposite runway (12R)
* "actually sorry tora is one two seven three meters" quickly correcting on the spot the reading of EFB data, and getting the correct 30L TORA (once more confirming this was NOT briefed before by the crew - as never planned on using D5)
* "i assume that's not enough" this is not passing on to ATC the decision of T/O rwy length required (which is of course totally and technically impossible). This is simply the mouth voicing what the startled brain concluded (and concluded correctly if I might add).
From there on, the hole digging continued. I wonder from that moment on, what exactly went on in the cockpit CRM wise, switching in a hurry from standard OPS, to short field OPS with a full pax load and (hopefully) a moderate fuel load.
EDIT: too many doubts about interpretation of ATC recording and who is transmitting what.
OK, I've put on my flak-vest now...so here we go.
In a way I somewhat agree with one much criticized poster, not that ATC has in any way any T/O rwy length responsibility nor authority, as long as there are no published restrictions on intersection use. (wouldn't be surprised to see in future some restrictions published on D5 intersection use - potentially dangerous for 30L and of no use in the 12R context.)
But ATC do has controlling responsibility and after at least 5 instructions/confirmations on D6, answering "YES" to "
are you familiar that you entered runway via D5" is a big NO, NO. Especially with traffic already lining/lined up via D7 as no. 2, this D5 confusion on the runway, delaying the release of the D7 traffic. If the response was "aah sorry, my mistake" and no other traffic near or on the rwy, then some patience and leniency would be in place. But with this smartass answer, "vacate rwy, taxi down A to D6 holding point as no. 2" would be in place. Nothing to do with hindsight, everything to do with smartass control.