NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin
FedEx may have delayed his go-around to see if the razor thin spacing that Tower controller caused by issuing the take-off clearance to SW would work out. This happens often in VFR conditions, NEVER in Cat 3 conditions because……drumroll please………you can’t SEE the jet in front of you. The FedEx Captain knew the spacing with SouthWest was suspect, and from the subsequent conversation and confusion between tower and SW regarding where the SW jet’s position was in the takeoff sequence. At that point, The hairs on the back of the FedEx captain’s neck probably prompted him to Go-around. I’m not sure why he didn’t off-set from the runway centerline just to give himself an increased safety buffer from SW’s projected flight path. The Tower controller seems to have made a totally unnecessary error to expedite traffic flow, at a quiet airport, by issuing SW a takeoff clearance in CAT 3 conditions. The SW crew, if they knew that FedEx was on a 3 mile final should never have made the radio call to Twr that were holding short, ready to go. Tower thanking FedEx for his “Professionalism” was his attempt to hopefully avoid a report of the incident, and also perhaps, acknowledgment that FedEx saved the day, and averted a disaster. If the Southwest crew knew FedEx was on final, they should be having “Tea and biscuits” (as you Brits like to say) with their Chief Pilots and the FAA. I’m sure there will be no tea and biscuits for the Tower controller.
Originally Posted by Chiefttp
If the Southwest crew knew FedEx was on final...
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
SWA did acknowledge the traffic on final. In ATC’s takeoff clearance, tower says “traffic 3-mile final is a heavy 767.” Included in SWA’s takeoff clearance read back is “copy the traffic.”
“What were They/He Thinking” “Tea, no biscuits “ for all! Fed Ex, good SA.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like we mostly all agree. Overall picture looks clear and simple enough to me in this special case and its visibility restrictions.
Will FAA introduce changes? what's your guess?
Will FAA introduce changes? what's your guess?
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Home
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will FAA introduce changes?
I’ll throw this out there for discussion. SouthWest’s call to Tower, stating “Southwest Holding short Rwy 18L , we’re ready” was totally unnecessary and One can argue was the catalyst of this entire incident.
Number One, Why make that call? Who cares?. It accomplished nothing except to clog up the Tower freq with unnecessary chatter while another aircraft is attempting to fly a Cat 3 approach.
Number 2, This call prompted the Tower controller to issue a dubious takeoff clearance, which, if the call was never made, the Takeoff clearance would never have been issued.
Number 3, it set up a situation where SW had to rush his takeoff roll, if he were even aware enough to realize how close FedEx was.
And this call possibly caused Tower, out of habit, to clear SW for takeoff, once Tower issued the takeoff clearance to SW, he may have realized he made a mistake, but Hoped, Southwest would make a quick takeoff and no harm no foul.
Sometimes, my F/O will call Tower to state we’re holding #1 for takeoff even though we both see there is arriving traffic on final. I will speak up now to remind them, a Holding #1 call is not necessary and serves no purpose most of the time.
Number One, Why make that call? Who cares?. It accomplished nothing except to clog up the Tower freq with unnecessary chatter while another aircraft is attempting to fly a Cat 3 approach.
Number 2, This call prompted the Tower controller to issue a dubious takeoff clearance, which, if the call was never made, the Takeoff clearance would never have been issued.
Number 3, it set up a situation where SW had to rush his takeoff roll, if he were even aware enough to realize how close FedEx was.
And this call possibly caused Tower, out of habit, to clear SW for takeoff, once Tower issued the takeoff clearance to SW, he may have realized he made a mistake, but Hoped, Southwest would make a quick takeoff and no harm no foul.
Sometimes, my F/O will call Tower to state we’re holding #1 for takeoff even though we both see there is arriving traffic on final. I will speak up now to remind them, a Holding #1 call is not necessary and serves no purpose most of the time.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Fl
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s possible that:
1. Fedex assumed SWA aborted and that’s why Fedex flew straight ahead over the runway.
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call.
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation.
No one should have had to make these assumptions. There was unclear and non standard phraseology from all parties involved which led to confusion and a lack of clear control of the situation.
1. Fedex assumed SWA aborted and that’s why Fedex flew straight ahead over the runway.
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call.
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation.
No one should have had to make these assumptions. There was unclear and non standard phraseology from all parties involved which led to confusion and a lack of clear control of the situation.
Originally Posted by Chiefttp
I’ll throw this out there for discussion. SouthWest’s call to Tower, stating “Southwest Holding short Rwy 18L , we’re ready” was totally unnecessary and One can argue was the catalyst of this entire incident.
Number One, Why make that call? Who cares?. It accomplished nothing except to clog up the Tower freq with unnecessary chatter while another aircraft is attempting to fly a Cat 3 approach.
Number 2, This call prompted the Tower controller to issue a dubious takeoff clearance, which, if the call was never made, the Takeoff clearance would never have been issued.
Number 3, it set up a situation where SW had to rush his takeoff roll, if he were even aware enough to realize how close FedEx was.
And this call possibly caused Tower, out of habit, to clear SW for takeoff, once Tower issued the takeoff clearance to SW, he may have realized he made a mistake, but Hoped, Southwest would make a quick takeoff and no harm no foul.
Sometimes, my F/O will call Tower to state we’re holding #1 for takeoff even though we both see there is arriving traffic on final. I will speak up now to remind them, a Holding #1 call is not necessary and serves no purpose most of the time.
Number One, Why make that call? Who cares?. It accomplished nothing except to clog up the Tower freq with unnecessary chatter while another aircraft is attempting to fly a Cat 3 approach.
Number 2, This call prompted the Tower controller to issue a dubious takeoff clearance, which, if the call was never made, the Takeoff clearance would never have been issued.
Number 3, it set up a situation where SW had to rush his takeoff roll, if he were even aware enough to realize how close FedEx was.
And this call possibly caused Tower, out of habit, to clear SW for takeoff, once Tower issued the takeoff clearance to SW, he may have realized he made a mistake, but Hoped, Southwest would make a quick takeoff and no harm no foul.
Sometimes, my F/O will call Tower to state we’re holding #1 for takeoff even though we both see there is arriving traffic on final. I will speak up now to remind them, a Holding #1 call is not necessary and serves no purpose most of the time.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chiefttp
I’ll throw this out there for discussion. SouthWest’s call to Tower, stating “Southwest Holding short Rwy 18L , we’re ready” was totally unnecessary and...
Originally Posted by Mookiesurfs
It’s possible that:
1. Fedex assumed SWA aborted and that’s why Fedex flew straight ahead over the runway.
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call.
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation.
No one should have had to make these assumptions. There was unclear and non standard phraseology from all parties involved which led to confusion and a lack of clear control of the situation.
1. Fedex assumed SWA aborted and that’s why Fedex flew straight ahead over the runway.
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call.
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation.
No one should have had to make these assumptions. There was unclear and non standard phraseology from all parties involved which led to confusion and a lack of clear control of the situation.
1. Fedex assumed SWA aborted and that’s why Fedex flew straight ahead over the runway. ==> if FDX was not 100% confident about what was going on around them, they should at least have added to their 'is on the go', a clarification such as 'standard missed', 'climbing to xxx', 'sidestepping left',... which would have improved the SA of all involved
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call. ==> TWR understood the 'Southwest abort' as an action report from SWA and acknowledged it with a 'roger'. The subsequent 'negative' to TWR's 'turn right', could have been very usefully complemented with 'lifting off', 'too low', .... improving again the SA for all
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation. ==>Three assumptions in a row.... what else do we need for the Swiss cheese holes lining-up. Given the climb-out profile of SWA just after lift-off, they were pretty unsure what was going on above them, if you ask me
2. Tower assumed SWA aborted and that’s why they gave them a right turn instruction, typically a runway turn off call. ==> TWR understood the 'Southwest abort' as an action report from SWA and acknowledged it with a 'roger'. The subsequent 'negative' to TWR's 'turn right', could have been very usefully complemented with 'lifting off', 'too low', .... improving again the SA for all
3. SWA assumed Fedex went around and that Fedex knew SWA took off and that Fedex had made a sidestep maneuver for lateral separation. ==>Three assumptions in a row.... what else do we need for the Swiss cheese holes lining-up. Given the climb-out profile of SWA just after lift-off, they were pretty unsure what was going on above them, if you ask me
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
Is there no requirement in the US to tell Tower you are "ready"?
Originally Posted by waito
we all know it serves one purpose: rattling at the cage.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Fl
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
Indeed, was also my first reaction when I read that post (a bit flabbergasted) and attributed it to 'cultural' (EASA-FAA) difference, so I resisted replying until this 'cultural' difference is confirmed
so, this confirms my above reply, I think
so, this confirms my above reply, I think
Even in good vis the tower must be a ways away from the runways in some places. It is a year or two since I had a license and I was only in a bug smasher but I would always call on reaching the line or the end of the queue or how can you be identified ?. Admittedly we would not call again as number 1 if we had already identified as number 3 or 4. Perhaps that is what was meant.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: us
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirty five airports in the United States including Kahului and Providence have ASDE-X surface radar which would made the B737 exact position evident to the tower. Austin-Bergstrom does not have surface radar.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: us
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
Is there no requirement in the US to tell Tower you are "ready"?
However with 1/8 mile visibility and no surface radar, there was no way for the tower to observe that.
Originally Posted by sectordirector
FAA JO Order 7110.65 paragraph 3-9-10: note: "Turbine-powered aircraft may be considered ready for takeoff when they reach the runway unless they advise otherwise."
However with 1/8 mile visibility and no surface radar, there was no way for the tower to observe that.
However with 1/8 mile visibility and no surface radar, there was no way for the tower to observe that.
Originally Posted by sectordirector
However with 1/8 mile visibility and no surface radar, there was no way for the tower to observe that.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still Southwest Crew rattled the cage.
IIRC somewhere it's mentioned they weren't close to HP yet. And accepting jumping in front of a 3 nm final approach in low vis and knowing a static runup is due at takeoff, we can guess what their goal was:
Hitting the road.
Good discussion though what an honest "ready" means.
IIRC somewhere it's mentioned they weren't close to HP yet. And accepting jumping in front of a 3 nm final approach in low vis and knowing a static runup is due at takeoff, we can guess what their goal was:
Hitting the road.
Good discussion though what an honest "ready" means.
As it appears from the audio that these were the only aircraft of frequency at the time, what was the rush? Is SW one of those airlines that has tight schedules, and usually scoots off at high speed as soon as the opportunity arises? That might have influenced the controller's 'thinking' more than the impending arrival of the Fedex ... a sort of automatic reaction.
Not excusing the controller, just trying to get my head around "WTF was he thinking?".
Not excusing the controller, just trying to get my head around "WTF was he thinking?".
