NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I look at this incident is that everyone fu* ed ..up , some much more that others fully agree, but no one goes out of this mess as a hero.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France
Age: 62
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recalling a 777 in Munich skidded off the RWY while attempting a Cat3 in good weather, not announced to the tower. A BAe Avro was climbing out over the localizer, bending the beam.
Really ? going around right on top of a departing aircraft and not side stepping , or even attempting a few degrees off centreline ? ( supposing the FR24 tracks are accurate that is )
The way I look at this incident is that everyone fu* ed ..up , some much more that others fully agree, but no one goes out of this mess as a hero.
The way I look at this incident is that everyone fu* ed ..up , some much more that others fully agree, but no one goes out of this mess as a hero.
Not sure I agree that everyone f*cked up. This was clearly a controller error, exacerbated by poor awareness on the part of the departing aircraft crew. They should have declined the clearance with landing traffic at 3 miles in crap visibility! I can’t see any of itvis on the landing traffic.
Presumably the landing traffic was responding to TCAS advisories, commanding a climb. Crew are trained to achieve separation vertically and not make lateral inputs. They couldn‘t see and thats what they did.
Expanding on the info I provided in my post #149, here are some excerpts from the KLAX SMGCS plan (still can’t find the KAUS SMGCS plan online, but such a plan must exist).
Activation
SMGCS procedures shall be activated by LAX ATCT when any one RVR value per airport south and/or north complex is between 1200 feet to 500 feet.
ATC
When RVR values are 4000 feet or less, shall begin monitoring the Category II/III system remotely.
Broadcast on the ATIS that SMGCS operations are in effect.
Airport Ops
Continuously monitor all aircraft movement area lighting and signage.
Protect ILS RWY critical areas.
Aircraft Operators
Pilots conducting low visibility operations at LAX are required to have a copy of the low visibility taxi route chart.
Activation
SMGCS procedures shall be activated by LAX ATCT when any one RVR value per airport south and/or north complex is between 1200 feet to 500 feet.
ATC
When RVR values are 4000 feet or less, shall begin monitoring the Category II/III system remotely.
Broadcast on the ATIS that SMGCS operations are in effect.
Airport Ops
Continuously monitor all aircraft movement area lighting and signage.
Protect ILS RWY critical areas.
Aircraft Operators
Pilots conducting low visibility operations at LAX are required to have a copy of the low visibility taxi route chart.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to a lateral course change, that was for South-West when able, not the aircraft executing the GA as I understand it. Bear in mind that both crews would have been low and in cloud, not a time for a potential deviation from the protected area.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 19th Feb 2023 at 17:26.
Recalling a 777 in Munich skidded off the RWY while attempting a Cat3 in good weather, not announced to the tower. A BAe Avro was climbing out over the localizer, bending the beam.
It may be worth noting that Category III approval does not require autoland. Flight Dynamics (now Rockwell Collins) was granted Category IIIa approval for their HGS many years ago. FedEx 757 and 767 have a derivative of that HUD which is integrated with the same Kollsman camera that is/was used on FedEx MD-11/MD-10 HUD/EFVS. (same camera different HUD).
I will reiterate, that in the U.S. we don’t just “try” to fly a Cat 2/3 approach. As in Europe, the aircraft, aircrew, airport lighting, and navaids have to be certified to fly and operate in CAT 2/3 conditions. It really boils down to this. In the U.S. we don’t “announce LVP procedures” are in effect, The only announcement is if SMGCS procedures are in effect, and that’s only at airports that have a published SMGCS plan. There are many airports that have CAT2/3 approaches and no SMGCS plan, in that case we just land and taxi to the ramp via Ground control instructions. To summarize, In Europe, you announce LVP, in the U.S. we don’t, but everything else is the same.
Originally Posted by Chiefttp
I will reiterate, that in the U.S. we don’t just “try” to fly a Cat 2/3 approach. As in Europe, the aircraft, aircrew, airport lighting, and navaids have to be certified to fly and operate in CAT 2/3 conditions. It really boils down to this. In the U.S. we don’t “announce LVP procedures” are in effect, The only announcement is if SMGCS procedures are in effect, and that’s only at airports that have a published SMGCS plan. There are many airports that have CAT2/3 approaches and no SMGCS plan, in that case we just land and taxi to the ramp via Ground control instructions. To summarize, In Europe, you announce LVP, in the U.S. we don’t, but everything else is the same.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oslo
Age: 47
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will reiterate, that in the U.S. we don’t just “try” to fly a Cat 2/3 approach. As in Europe, the aircraft, aircrew, airport lighting, and navaids have to be certified to fly and operate in CAT 2/3 conditions. It really boils down to this. In the U.S. we don’t “announce LVP procedures” are in effect, The only announcement is if SMGCS procedures are in effect, and that’s only at airports that have a published SMGCS plan. There are many airports that have CAT2/3 approaches and no SMGCS plan, in that case we just land and taxi to the ramp via Ground control instructions. To summarize, In Europe, you announce LVP, in the U.S. we don’t, but everything else is the same.
Last edited by Nordic777; 20th Feb 2023 at 09:53.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Spornrad :
Recalling a 777 in Munich skidded off the RWY while attempting a Cat3 in good weather, not announced to the tower. A BAe Avro was climbing out over the localizer, bending the beam.
https://safetymatters.co.in/2020/04/...al-protection/
Only half a speed-brake
Only half a speed-brake
I wanted to assure you on a systematic level, not only phraseologies, you are not alone with the "safe coincidence" evaluation. Having said that, as another attempt at mediating, let's clearly support Chiefttp's "it was not luck but the prowess of FDX crew who avoided a disastrous outcome" as in "not divine providence, instead the hard-earned aviator skills of being ahead of 2 aeroplanes and a misfunctioning ATCO".
Now that the red-flag luck word is not to be used, I think he will understand the picture we are seeing. That after the line-up clearance, it was all toss of dice. One of the dice (what's the plural here?) was heavily loaded with ability and that is why it all remained in the incident category. The system shall have better defences than a crew going around because of traffic they cannot see (known unknown).
But what are those defences after a rouge line-up clearance that WE have, with all the declaratory LVPs in place and LVO announced on the airport's Instagram feed? If anyone says there would not be any such line-up clearance under LVO because LVPs specifically prohibit that == exactly what Chiefttp has been drumming about for 5 or so pages.
We have a box for everything.
My first reaction was exactly feeling the same pinch 'wtf you self-declare CAT III??'. Having listened to what's been explained multiple times, that was just the LVO box missing in my understanding.
While the US don't have that box they still have the tools from it (protection areas, separation standards) and by all known means the ATCO failed to use them in this instance. Him not using the tools is not because of the missing box (*).
See, in Europe possibly other places if the vis drops to 600 mtrs and the Airport+ATC cannot launch the LVP's for whatever reason (mx on the no-break power source, staffing, ....) the airport will be announced closed or explicitly restricted. Same as in the US. So when they are open and running in less than 1/2, the LVPs are understood to be in force. Minding the language here, not assumed to be but actually in force.
Funny, I am puzzled why they would go on and announce the A-SMGCS operation in the US. It's a tool the airport + ATC use to work under LVO and I don't need to be told. Through superfluous knowledge, I know it makes a hell lot of difference on the ground, but as a crew I must report RWY vacated anyway and they tell me where to go. Finding my way to the gate is the same hard work either way on the cockpit end.
Perfect point by the way, why better alignment of opinions is hopefully soon to arrive: Where I see no need to be told SMGCS is the play of the day, they don't understand why we keep insisting LVO must be announced. For exactly the same reason.
1) The box is not the same as the tools.
2) Boxes keep the tools aligned.
Shall we agree to agree on both statements, across the pond?
(*) = or is it, is it?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 20th Feb 2023 at 14:26.
Interesting DIBO. That fits.
Very poor awareness for the conditions by the controller and SW. Only the FedEx crew seemed to be on the right page.
The controller must have been having kittens when he realised how close it was all getting.
Very poor awareness for the conditions by the controller and SW. Only the FedEx crew seemed to be on the right page.
The controller must have been having kittens when he realised how close it was all getting.
Flight Detent,
This is a correct summation.
” While the US don't have that box they still have the tools from it (protection areas, separation standards) and by all known means the ATCO failed to use them in this instance. Him not using the tools is not because of the missing box (*).”
As far as your question about a SMGCS announcement. Remember the US has a lot of airports, and a lot of them have CAT2/3 capabilities. Airports with SMGCS plans are usually the larger airports. If the Visibilty is below a certain RVR threshold, AND the ATIS. Announces “SMGCS procedures in effect” the aircrew is expected to taxi via the SMGCS routings and procedures. If the airport has a CAT 2/3 approach, but no SMGCS routings, we just land and tower will give us taxi routings. I landed one morning in Spokane Washington in CAT3 conditions. As I stopped on the runway, the visibility was close to zero. Tower sent a “follow Me” truck out to my aircraft and we taxied to the ramp following the truck. That won’t happen at JFK or O’Hare, but in many smaller airports it’s not a big deal. I preface my comments with the fact that I fly night Freight and many times we are the only aircraft on the airfield at the time, one morning I landed at O’Hare, and after clearing the runway and checking in with Ground control, I asked for taxi instructions. He responded, “taxi anyway you want”, you’re the only aircraft moving on the airport right now!
This is a correct summation.
” While the US don't have that box they still have the tools from it (protection areas, separation standards) and by all known means the ATCO failed to use them in this instance. Him not using the tools is not because of the missing box (*).”
As far as your question about a SMGCS announcement. Remember the US has a lot of airports, and a lot of them have CAT2/3 capabilities. Airports with SMGCS plans are usually the larger airports. If the Visibilty is below a certain RVR threshold, AND the ATIS. Announces “SMGCS procedures in effect” the aircrew is expected to taxi via the SMGCS routings and procedures. If the airport has a CAT 2/3 approach, but no SMGCS routings, we just land and tower will give us taxi routings. I landed one morning in Spokane Washington in CAT3 conditions. As I stopped on the runway, the visibility was close to zero. Tower sent a “follow Me” truck out to my aircraft and we taxied to the ramp following the truck. That won’t happen at JFK or O’Hare, but in many smaller airports it’s not a big deal. I preface my comments with the fact that I fly night Freight and many times we are the only aircraft on the airfield at the time, one morning I landed at O’Hare, and after clearing the runway and checking in with Ground control, I asked for taxi instructions. He responded, “taxi anyway you want”, you’re the only aircraft moving on the airport right now!
ExDac,
Easier to type! I’m getting Carpel Tunnel syndrome typing SMGCS 10 times!
This incident will boil down to
1. What was going through the mind of the Tower Controller when he cleared Southwest to takeoff
2. How aware was the Southwest crew of FedEx’s location on the Cat III
approach
3. The Tower controller’s qualifications and employment history.
As an aside,
During my Air Force days, we had a mid-air collision between 2 C-141’s during a formation Air Refueling mission. There were robust and highly detailed procedures to choreograph the refueling of multiple aircraft with multiple tankers in a small slice of airspace. The midair collision was caused by one aircraft who didn’t follow the correct maneuver after he refueled possibly due to vertigo There was nothing wrong with the procedures, and we flew them successfully for decades, the accident was due to one airplane not following the procedure. After the accident, the Air Force made wholesale revisions to our formation air refueling procedures which made them more complex and less safe! An overreaction if there ever was one. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. CAT II/3.
procedures. If this accident occurred at LHR, and LVP was announced, and the Tower controller cleared a RyanAir 737 in front of a BA787 on 3 mile final, would you all be decrying a change of procedures is needed, or blame the Tower Controller?
Easier to type! I’m getting Carpel Tunnel syndrome typing SMGCS 10 times!
This incident will boil down to
1. What was going through the mind of the Tower Controller when he cleared Southwest to takeoff
2. How aware was the Southwest crew of FedEx’s location on the Cat III
approach3. The Tower controller’s qualifications and employment history.
As an aside,
During my Air Force days, we had a mid-air collision between 2 C-141’s during a formation Air Refueling mission. There were robust and highly detailed procedures to choreograph the refueling of multiple aircraft with multiple tankers in a small slice of airspace. The midair collision was caused by one aircraft who didn’t follow the correct maneuver after he refueled possibly due to vertigo There was nothing wrong with the procedures, and we flew them successfully for decades, the accident was due to one airplane not following the procedure. After the accident, the Air Force made wholesale revisions to our formation air refueling procedures which made them more complex and less safe! An overreaction if there ever was one. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. CAT II/3.
procedures. If this accident occurred at LHR, and LVP was announced, and the Tower controller cleared a RyanAir 737 in front of a BA787 on 3 mile final, would you all be decrying a change of procedures is needed, or blame the Tower Controller?
Last edited by Chiefttp; 20th Feb 2023 at 15:28.
Only half a speed-brake
Hi, some of my background: My first CAT operating base was one of the 2 proof-of-concept aerodromes for A-SMGCS in the Eurocontrol land, for many years. We never had any SMGCS routes and until now still don't.
Some of the other, much larger airports publish those (called 'lo-visibility taxi routes') but how much of that is linked to actual A-SMGCS or whether it is just another of the tools in the LVO box - I honestly don't know. BTW A-SMGCS here implies ground surveillance radar and ground vehicles equipped with transponders. You can actually see those on FR24 website!
Thus after landing I vacate via one of the LVO designated taxiways. Those would be centreline coded yellow-green, and then ATC tells me where to go. Whether or not that instruction follows a specific line on the dedicated lvp-taxi chart makes no difference. Most certainly I don't care to hear about A-SMGCS and it is neither a common nor required knowledge for our pilots to know what that is.
I have a strong suspicion the difference compared to US is a) that taxi is always under full ATC control b) owing to much smaller numbers, in general our airports are far better equipped.
=======
Now, about your LHR example, oh dear.
I completely understand what you mean, 100% agree. There will be a plethora of people explaining why that couldn't even happen, and that is all besides the (rather simple and benign) point you just made. Let's enjoy measuring the lengths people will go to misappropriate the content of your message.
Because after that the debate about the box itself and the benefits of having one cannot be avoided. LHR and UK ATS have very high-quality boxes.
I raise you ....
... Ryanair don't operate to LHR, as a loco they never would...
Some of the other, much larger airports publish those (called 'lo-visibility taxi routes') but how much of that is linked to actual A-SMGCS or whether it is just another of the tools in the LVO box - I honestly don't know. BTW A-SMGCS here implies ground surveillance radar and ground vehicles equipped with transponders. You can actually see those on FR24 website!
Thus after landing I vacate via one of the LVO designated taxiways. Those would be centreline coded yellow-green, and then ATC tells me where to go. Whether or not that instruction follows a specific line on the dedicated lvp-taxi chart makes no difference. Most certainly I don't care to hear about A-SMGCS and it is neither a common nor required knowledge for our pilots to know what that is.
I have a strong suspicion the difference compared to US is a) that taxi is always under full ATC control b) owing to much smaller numbers, in general our airports are far better equipped.
=======
Now, about your LHR example, oh dear.
I completely understand what you mean, 100% agree. There will be a plethora of people explaining why that couldn't even happen, and that is all besides the (rather simple and benign) point you just made. Let's enjoy measuring the lengths people will go to misappropriate the content of your message.Because after that the debate about the box itself and the benefits of having one cannot be avoided. LHR and UK ATS have very high-quality boxes.
I raise you ....
... Ryanair don't operate to LHR, as a loco they never would...
Last edited by FlightDetent; 20th Feb 2023 at 14:55.
ExDac,
Easier to type! I’m getting Carpel Tunnel syndrome typing SMGCS 10 times!
This incident will boil down to
1. What was going through the mind of the Tower Controller when he cleared Southwest to takeoff
2. How aware was the Southwest crew of FedEx’s location on the Cat III approach
3. The Tower controller’s qualifications and employment history.
As an aside,
During my Air Force days, we had a mid-air collision between 2 C-141’s during a formation Air Refueling mission. There were robust and highly detailed procedures to choreograph the refueling of multiple aircraft with multiple tankers in a small slice of airspace. The midair collision was caused by one aircraft who didn’t follow the correct maneuver after he refueled possibly due to vertigo There was nothing wrong with the procedures, and we flew them successfully for decades, the accident was due to one airplane not following the procedure. After the accident, the Air Force made wholesale revisions to our formation air refueling procedures which made them more complex and less safe! An overreaction if there ever was one. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. CAT II/3. procedures. If this accident occurred at LHR, and LVP was announced, and the Tower controller cleared a RyanAir 737 in front of a BA787 on 3 mile final, would all be decrying a change of procedures? or blame the Tower Controller?
Easier to type! I’m getting Carpel Tunnel syndrome typing SMGCS 10 times!
This incident will boil down to
1. What was going through the mind of the Tower Controller when he cleared Southwest to takeoff
2. How aware was the Southwest crew of FedEx’s location on the Cat III
approach3. The Tower controller’s qualifications and employment history.
As an aside,
During my Air Force days, we had a mid-air collision between 2 C-141’s during a formation Air Refueling mission. There were robust and highly detailed procedures to choreograph the refueling of multiple aircraft with multiple tankers in a small slice of airspace. The midair collision was caused by one aircraft who didn’t follow the correct maneuver after he refueled possibly due to vertigo There was nothing wrong with the procedures, and we flew them successfully for decades, the accident was due to one airplane not following the procedure. After the accident, the Air Force made wholesale revisions to our formation air refueling procedures which made them more complex and less safe! An overreaction if there ever was one. There is nothing wrong with the U.S. CAT II/3.
procedures. If this accident occurred at LHR, and LVP was announced, and the Tower controller cleared a RyanAir 737 in front of a BA787 on 3 mile final, would all be decrying a change of procedures? or blame the Tower Controller?