NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin
In the US, it is implied that when the wx is below 800/2 or vis is low enough for Cat2/3 ops we hold short at the Cat2 hold short line painted on the taxiway. Also, for informational purposes, in the US when you overshoot a runway, it means that you’re airborne and rolled out off of runway centerline. Again, this may be a carry over from Military ops. At every US Pilot training base’s there are usually 3 runways, one for T-38’s, another for T-37’s (or T-6’s nowadays) and a longer center runway for emergencies etc. it was drilled into us in Pilot training to never “Overshoot” your runway as it sets up a conflict with jets flying to the other two, not much different from Any large airport with parallel approaches. So overshoot means a failed airborne line-up with your intended landing runway. If you land and roll off the end of the runway that is called overrunning the runway, not overshooting it. I recently read a book about The RAF in the fifties. I noticed the use of many different words for the same object than what us Yanks use. Examples are Bonnet vs Hood for your car, wings vs fenders on cars , reheat vs afterburner, etc etc…my favorite is the pronunciation of Al-you-minium, vs A-loo-min-um. Or Jag-gwu-are vs Jag-gwar.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Only 30 years as a Mil ATCO in UK, so the concept of clearing an aircraft to land with an occupied runway ahead [especially in low-via conditions] strikes me as crazy. However, my experience of Civil operations is minimal. Your ball, play it as you will.
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. The two phrases that likely degraded situational awareness at a critical time were Fedex’s highly inappropriate “Southwest abort” and SWA’s “negative” with no identifier.
Curious to know what was the trigger for Fedex to go around. Visual on SWA? Intuition?
Curious to know what was the trigger for Fedex to go around. Visual on SWA? Intuition?
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The phraseology should be changed to "permission to land" as thats all you are getting.
I'm not sure I would agree with that - given that the controller didn't issue any instruction to SWA to stop / abort, the FedEx probably did the right thing in telling the SWA to abort thus preventing the SWA from continuing it's take off and climbing into the FedEx's path as it went around. Desperate measures...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I would agree with that - given that the controller didn't issue any instruction to SWA to stop / abort, the FedEx probably did the right thing in telling the SWA to abort thus preventing the SWA from continuing it's take off and climbing into the FedEx's path as it went around. Desperate measures...
To expect an ac to do a (possibly) high speed reject, based on another pilot’s command, when no runway hazard exists and the ac is capable of flying is not reasonable.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: us
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVRs??
Any word(s) yet on whether NTSB and/or FAA have obtained the CVR of either or both aircraft involved?
Recalling Air Canada 759 in San Francisco (2017), also a very close call, the CVR of the AC aircraft was not preserved, iirc, and some observers believed its contents would have aided the post-incident inquiry. (Wonder if FAA is going to issue a SAFO after this latest incident?)
Recalling Air Canada 759 in San Francisco (2017), also a very close call, the CVR of the AC aircraft was not preserved, iirc, and some observers believed its contents would have aided the post-incident inquiry. (Wonder if FAA is going to issue a SAFO after this latest incident?)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
If FedEx knows SW is right beneath them, and possibly will climb up into them, TURN AWAY. In imc conditions, you won’t turn into a Cessna on downwind or any other traffic. Just fly parallel to the runway, start a climb and call the tower for a better heading and altitude.
.
.
Not sure that one Captain telling another Captain what to do with his aircraft is a great idea either, tbh. ATC should have had a much firmer grip on the whole scenario from when the FedEx was c. 8 miles out and anticipated the potential scenario.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
@ 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.
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. .
Let’s face it, lining up an aircraft in Low Visibility Operations with another aircraft on 3 nm final is just dumb at the highest level and highly unusual. The RT calls are just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.