Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin

Old 5th Feb 2023, 00:06
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: washington dc
Posts: 46
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NTSB to probe Fedex/Southwest close encounter at Austin

Landing Fedex and Southwest taking off at Austin
voyageur9 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 01:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 541
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Too close for comfort...

Note: the left turn by Fedex plane as depicted by the FR24 'playback' in bottom right corner of picture below, is overly exaggerated (it was still more or less in the centerline at the end of the rwy)


Vertical separation was already substantial by the end of the runway, but the flightpath of SWA708 (especially the RoC) moments after liftoff was kind of aah... interesting: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...wn708#2f136f25


Last edited by DIBO; 5th Feb 2023 at 09:39.
DIBO is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 01:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing FedEx cargo plane almost crashes into Southwest Airlines plane taxiing on run

Looks like a landing FedEx cargo plane almost crashed into Southwest Airlines plane taxiing on runway at Austin International Airport

https://twitter.com/IntelPointAlert/status/1622057477310144513

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDX1432

Last edited by JohnnyRocket; 5th Feb 2023 at 01:59.
JohnnyRocket is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 02:04
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,926
Received 391 Likes on 206 Posts
One comment says dense fog, whereas the link says "The incident occurred in poor visibility conditions".

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...as-2023-02-04/
megan is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 02:10
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,926
Received 391 Likes on 206 Posts
Weather reported as dense fog or poor visibility depending on source.
megan is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 08:47
  #6 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The traditional go around above a take off , the absolute nightmare of every Tower controller as you can only sit and watch. , nothing much you can do exept take a few degrees off centre line.when going around and then only if there is no parallel runway in there... Fog or no fog, makes no difference as both aircrfat cannot see ( and avoid) each other.in this configuration .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 10:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,812
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
FR24 data is disappointingly sparse - in particular there's a 27-second gap around the point where the SWA started to roll (not helped by FR24's built-in asynchronicity between position and velocity data).

The altitude plot for the FedEx (after adjusting for QNH and runway elevation) suggests that it came within a gnat's of the runway surface and may even have touched down during the GA. At that point (again subject to the above asynchronicity uncertainty) FR24 suggests the SWA was rolling at 85-90 kts and longitudinal separation was around 500'.

Usual FR24 caveats apply, probably even more so in this instance ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 10:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lander, WY, USA
Posts: 284
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Definitely low vis conditions:
Code:
KAUS 041247Z 00000KT 1/8SM R36R/1800V2400FT FZFG VV002 M01/M01 A3043 RMK AO2
Code:
KAUS 041218Z 00000KT 1/4SM R36R/1800V2400FT FZFG VV002 M01/M01 A3043 RMK AO2 T10061006
340drvr is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 12:05
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: washington dc
Posts: 46
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From FR24

https://twitter.com/i/status/1622067973111308288


Last edited by voyageur9; 5th Feb 2023 at 12:06. Reason: broken link
voyageur9 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 12:35
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: PA, USA
Age: 47
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fully realize SOP in the US is clear to land even when the runway is occupied, but how on earth do you give that clearance in zero visibility conditions?

Between this and JFK near miss, I think it’s time for the FAA to revisit some atc protocols.

(I believe JFK was entirely fault of AA pilots, but “NY style” atc didn’t help matters)
wd-15717 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 14:43
  #11 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wd-15717
Between this and JFK near miss, I think it’s time for the FAA to revisit some atc protocols.
(I believe JFK was entirely fault of AA pilots, but “NY style” atc didn’t help matters)
And what makes you think it is ATC at fault here ? Looking at the FR24 construction it looks like one is slowly lining up and take off ,( with or without clearance) with another on finals . Nothing much else . For all we know it could be Southwest who has to "revesit" something .

Most of the incidents like this I saw in my carreer were when a "ready for immediate departure?" request is being mishandled by the crew . If ATC played it too tight here , time will tell, but I wait to read or hear a time stamped tape before passing any judgement .
As to the go around procedure, with a take off below ,yes it is a well known loophole with no real solution . Most of the times it it solved as the go around goes above the departure ( like here) but there is no gauarantee, I saw once an A340 on a late go around continue descending and touch down the runway before going up again.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 14:59
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Clearing the 737 onto the runway with the 767 at 3nm in LVPs is cutting it very very tight....
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 15:11
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
And what makes you think it is ATC at fault here ?
After Fedex clears the runway after landing, tower says “you have our apologies, we appreciate your professionalism.”
BFSGrad is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 16:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting. I was departing 30 mins later. After much confusion from ground control on taxi out as to where everyone was, we had a 40 min hold for release time. We sat short 18L monitoring tower and shooting the breeze. Let me set it all up.
1) 18r is preferred departures in AUS in the am. No CL lights, so 1000rvr. All aircraft (well most) were requesting 18L, and ground seemed agitated.
2) There is no ground surveillance, so ground was often forgetting where each plane was. (Shocked in adsb age, there’s no low cost solution the could budget for.
3) due single runway and no ground radar, line-up-wait not utilized.
4) tower, at this time, seemed to be giving extra large spacing between departing and landing traffic. Like 10 miles. (Now I know why)

I commented on this to my FO, and said this could get messy if they tighten up arrivals/departures and someone rejected or misunderstood the immediate to clearance. I’m single rw ops, our expectation bias is line up and wait. Don’t know what took the Southwest so long as they always seem in a rush. Perhaps when he called ready, they weren’t quite, or even near the hold bars yet. Seems common for them to call ready 100m away from holding point. Tower would have no idea that they weren’t quite there yet.
jetpig32 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 16:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jetpig32
Interesting. I was departing 30 mins later. After much confusion from ground control on taxi out as to where everyone was, we had a 40 min hold for release time. We sat short 18L monitoring tower and shooting the breeze. Let me set it all up.
1) 18r is preferred departures in AUS in the am. No CL lights, so 1000rvr. All aircraft (well most) were requesting 18L, and ground seemed agitated.
2) There is no ground surveillance, so ground was often forgetting where each plane was. (Shocked in adsb age, there’s no low cost solution the could budget for.
3) due single runway and no ground radar, line-up-wait not utilized.
4) tower, at this time, seemed to be giving extra large spacing between departing and landing traffic. Like 10 miles. (Now I know why)

I commented on this to my FO, and said this could get messy if they tighten up arrivals/departures and someone rejected or misunderstood the immediate to clearance. I’m single rw ops, our expectation bias is line up and wait. Don’t know what took the Southwest so long as they always seem in a rush. Perhaps when he called ready, they weren’t quite, or even near the hold bars yet. Seems common for them to call ready 100m away from holding point. Tower would have no idea that they weren’t quite there yet.
I also wonder if the call of ‘rolling’ by SWA was a bit optimistic. Perhaps they were still turning on to active or otherwise not quite rolling yet.
MLHeliwrench is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 16:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
is there an audio? glad no crash!
fluglehrer is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 16:49
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Vlad the Impaler is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 16:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
And what makes you think it is ATC at fault here ? Looking at the FR24 construction it looks like one is slowly lining up and take off ,( with or without clearance) with another on finals . Nothing much else . For all we know it could be Southwest who has to "revesit" something .

Most of the incidents like this I saw in my carreer were when a "ready for immediate departure?" request is being mishandled by the crew . If ATC played it too tight here , time will tell, but I wait to read or hear a time stamped tape before passing any judgement .
You don't play it tight in Low Vis conditions. There are parameters to meet to ensure Cat 3 protection.
Take off roll must commence by inbound at X miles.. landing clearance received no later than X miles etc.
These are UK rules but I'm sure the FAA must have similar otherwise how do you safeguard Cat 3 operations?

(I don't know whether this incident was in Cat 3 conditions, but the safeguarding in Low Vis must offer protection of some sort).
mike current is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 18:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mike current
(I don't know whether this incident was in Cat 3 conditions, but the safeguarding in Low Vis must offer protection of some sort).
At the beginning of the recording, FedEx checks in as a Cat III arrival.
https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviati...sion/msg75658/
Zeffy is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2023, 18:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,812
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by MLHeliwrench
I also wonder if the call of ‘rolling’ by SWA was a bit optimistic. Perhaps they were still turning on to active or otherwise not quite rolling yet.
FR24 have now released (slightly) more granular data which provides more detail around the SWA's runway entry and line up.

The 737 appears to have been stationary for approximately 20 seconds between lining up and starting to roll (stated purely as a matter of record, no judgement implied).
DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.