NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin

[ATC Watcher]

The videao posted by Blancolirio is once again extremely good at explaining things, focusing on the CAT3 protection area is a very good point as it proves that the line-up clearance should never have been given in the first place.
What amaze me here as in the JFK incident is that the phraeology is all gone all over the place.,where common US slang is replacing the official phraseology that was introduced just for that : to avoid ambiguities and confusions. and the US seem to go back to 1960s type of operations What is sad to see is that the young generation seems to pick up tehe bad habbits of the previous one. and I agree with Blancolirio finla reamark that we are getting one R/T transmission away from a major accident in the US if this is not rectified.

[bean]

Same controller; different incident. no blame on ATC this time but, Aus really need to tighten their act

You Tube

[olster]

The last video is interesting. The Virgin crew were evidently uptight about the SW pushing in front. However, in the context of US ops the uncontrolled ramps and ambiguous control authority has caused confusion for non based nationalities. JFK being a classic example. Personally I would have let it go and I speak as a Brit and long time ago ex VS. To be frank and in particular I found the questioning of the SW crew rather embarrassing. If you are going to operate into the continental North America you need to understand the local m.o. There is no point having an aeronautical equivalent of road rage just because the operation is different from Hounslow international.However the previous incident relevant to this thread is a shocker. Continued errors nearly leading to catastrophe. The loss of SA from ATC and SW is spectacularly alarming.

[Farmer106]

FedEx’s call of “on the go” is clear to me? It means he’s executing a go-around. It’s common terminology, perhaps a carryover from the US Military, because we said it every time we executed a go-around, curious what you would prefer he say? As far as an undisciplined culture, that’s your opinion. How’s the air at the heights you dwell in?

Why not stick to standard ICAO phraseology? Fedex XY going around?

[bean]

Originally Posted by olster

The last video is interesting. The Virgin crew were evidently uptight about the SW pushing in front. However, in the context of US ops the uncontrolled ramps and ambiguous control authority has caused confusion for non based nationalities. JFK being a classicum example. Personally I would have let it go and I speak as a Brit and long time ago ex VS. To be frank and in particular I found the questioning of the SW crew rather embarrassing. If you are going to operate into the continental North America you need to understand the local m.o. There is no point having an aeronautical equivalent of road rage just because the operation is different from Hounslow international.However the previous incident relevant to this thread is a shocker. Continued errors nearly leading to catastrophe. The loss of SA from ATC and SW is spectacularly alarming.

.When BA had their own terminal they always called for push on JFK ground.
All airliners on JFK ground call for taxi from their respective alleyway. Leaving it to ground crew to judge when to push in AUS is pathetic
This controller also appears to be half asleep in both videos.

[ApolloHeli]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

...FedEx’s call of “on the go” is clear to me? It means he’s executing a go-around. It’s common terminology, perhaps a carryover from the US Military, because we said it every time we executed a go-around, curious what you would prefer he say? ...

ICAO Standard Phraseology (See DOC 9432) states:

"4.8.3 In the event that the missed approach is initiated by the pilot, the phrase “GOING AROUND” shall be used."

There are no notified differences from ICAO Standards and Recognised Procedures in the U.S. AIP regarding this phraseology, therefore "on the go" is not an acceptable call.

[ATC Watcher]

FedEx’s call of “on the go” is clear to me. It means he’s executing a go-around. It’s common terminology, perhaps a carryover from the US Military

Well it is not clear to me as a European Controller and Pilot. This US terminology is prone to be misunderstood outside the US and Fedex does fly a lot outside the US.
Now listening to the 2nd tape between tthe Virgin and SW it looks like not only the Virgin but also the Air transport was not familiar with the local uncontrolled ramp practices , 2 a/c of of 4 on the frequency in a 3 min R/T sequence would indicate there is a problem that needs to be looked at I would say .

[waito]

Originally Posted by Farmer106

Why not stick to standard ICAO phraseology? Fedex XY going around?

Right. So simple.

go around as a coupled fixed term, understood by any Aviation pro. unambiguous.

going around: even contains info who performs it. The party transmitting it.
While this may not be the major contributing cause, it's quite easy to reintroduce. True Aviation English
​​

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by bean

.When BA had their own terminal they always called for push on JFK ground.
.

Must be honest I don't remember it that way (last there with BA just pre-Covid)...yes there was a least one gate where you had to call ground into addition to ramp because you infringed the inner on push, but other than that you pushed with solely company and then first spoke to ground for your clearance to exit the ramp...may be mis remembering, open to correction.

Only did AUS a couple of times, must admit I found the ramp set up a bit odd.

[bean]

Ok just going on vids

[Chiefttp]

Question for my English brethren, at one point, did you use the term “overshoot” to mean a “Go Around”?
I do believe that this incident, as well as the JFK near miss will place a new emphasis on standard and clearer communications.

Flight Detent,
You asked
, “f the airport was not running active LVPs, which is unclear, it would be interesting to know how the FDX came to declare a cat III approach.”.

With the prevailing visibility, the only option FedEx had was a Cat3 approach. Not sure what you mean by “active LVPs”. This may be another example of different procedures in different nations. For example I flew a 767 into Ontario California a month ago, and the visibility went from 2 miles to 1200 RVR…there wasn’t an announcement that Ontario was operating LVPs (I assume that means low visibility procedures) we just set up for the Cat 2/3 approach into Ontario and landed. If the airport has a Cat 2/3 approach then it’s assumed it’s working and operational and no official announcement needs to be made. They do announced if SMGGSs procedures are in effect because that will dictate our taxi routes and procedures on the ground..just curious.

[deltahotel]

I used ‘overshoot’ in the military, only ever heard ‘Go Around’ civilian and have no idea what uk mil uses now.

hth

edit to add that I think ‘go around’ was in/coming in when I left the RAF a very long time ago

[bean]

UK atc now say ""go around i say again go around; acknowledge
Much safer than US phraeseology

[seahawks]

ATC since 80’s.
UK did use overshoot when I started, think it changed to go-around late 80’s early 90’s.

[Chiefttp]

Bean,
I’ll just throw this out there,
If a Tower Controller states “Go Around, I say again Go Around”
My reply would be “Callsign xxx , On the Go” 40 years of using that phraseology, especially in the military, will be difficult to change, .

[bean]

England and America'; Two great countries seperated by a common language

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by seahawks

ATC since 80’s.
UK did use overshoot when I started, think it changed to go-around late 80’s early 90’s.

It was the mid eighties, I think, not long after I started: ironically, as I recall it, the change was driven because the "overshoot" term was ambiguous. It was sometimes used in the US to denote the area beyond the runway, so had caused confusion with someone trying to land "over" an obstruction on the runway, rather than break off the approach & climb away. As I recall it, "go around" was the preferred US term then, so it's strange that it's morphed into something else since, such that US aviators don't recognise it.

[Flch250]

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

Listening to the RT the tower controller seems strangely absent in the process. RVR given with T/O clearance was foggy but not yet CAT II/III ops. Nonetheless, especially without the benefit of ground radar that sounded super tight. What concerns me the most is that it's not the Tower controller who calls abort. Its the FedEx crew just before they call going around. I don't want to hang the atc out to dry but on the RT replay alone that is total dereliction of duty for me. I speak as a 20yr tower ATCO well used to low visibility ops.

That is what I heard too. Sounded to me the FedEx driver issued the go around command.
Never heard that before. You? Wonder how the guys with hot coffee on the ramp view that?

[lederhosen]

On some aircraft when set up for an automatic landing (for example the 737 in my experience) the autopilot has a tendency to trip out if an aircraft infringes the protected area when lining up. So you need more separation in low visibility operations. In Europe when LV procedures are declared it would be a clear controller error to let an aircraft line up and depart in this way in front of an autolanding aircraft.

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by lederhosen

In Europe when LV procedures are declared it would be a clear controller error to let an aircraft line up and depart in this way in front of an autolanding aircraft.

Indeed it would. But so is clearing an aircraft to land when the runway is still occupied. The controller here cleary applies the "Minimum Runway Occupancy Time - clear to land" procedure . In Europe in my time in LVP you had to wait until the preceeding has declared that the runway is clear ,and the more so when you have no ground radar to veryfy where aircraft.are, as it appears to be the case here in Austin. But maybe things changed in the meantime in the FAA procedures.