Originally Posted by
Request Orbit
I’m not trying to pin down exact performance to the metre here. I’m talking about whether there’s enough examples out there that from the perspective of an ATCO, it would seem plausibly possible for the stated TORA to be achievable. Unless we’re also now expecting ATCOs to know what a pilots plannedflap and thrust settings are on top of everything else that’s been implied, they’re irrelevant to an ATCOs immediate expectation. If the pilot says they can make that, who are you to police it?
Originally Posted by
BoeingDriver99
Thought experiment; if ATC did everything correctly, do you think LYBE ATC would behave in the exact same way in the exact same scenario tomorrow with the benefit of the knowledge of this accident?
So may I (an interested non-aviation observer) please ask again the question that I asked earlier?
What I get from the discussion is this:
- If the relevant bit of the ATC recording on Reddit captures only what the controller was saying, rather than both sides of the conversation, then Tower called the aircraft to (a) attract its attention to the fact that it had entered at D5 (rather than D6 as earlier instructed), (b) pass the correct TORA (after starting to say, but not completing, an incorrect figure), (c) tell the aircraft to do its calculations, and (d) inform it that a backtrack to D6 was available if needed.
- The aircraft then seems to have told Tower that it was OK to start from D5 (because that seems to be what Tower repeated back).
- It's plausible that the aircraft could take off from D5, if it was set up correctly, even though that wouldn't be normal at this airport (but everyone already knew something had gone wrong, given the D5/D6 confusion).
In this situation, is it even open to ATC to refuse to clear the aircraft for take-off on the grounds that ATC doesn't believe that the pilots have correctly calculated their ability to safely take off?