Portland (KPDX) aka Austin 2.0
Pegase Driver
Thanks for the video DIBO but again missing essemtal transmissions and looks like again that the actual timing does not match the R/Ti and not the animation in the video. The 767 did not start taking off when the MD11 was 2 NM out, otherwise it would have worked., (hence the unanswered ( or unrecorded rersponse) question of the MD11) Looks like the 767 delayed its departure for some reason , anyway good outcome., good decsions made.
If something else wasn’t stated beforehand, and the snail-like pace of the (potentially) departing aircraft wasn’t exaggerated in the supplied video (when it was made clear in the audible coms that the landing aircraft was on a two mile final), one wonders why a “cleared for immediate departure/takeoff” clearance wasn’t issued to begin with, so that the departing aircraft could have rejected it prior to taking the active, were they not fully sorted for takeoff.
Hard to tell much from the recording above, but these things happen. It's certainly easier when everyone can see what's going on clearly. On the basis of the recording, maybe a bit more planning and information from the controller might have helped, as would, taking control when the plan, which was tight, obviously wasn't going to work. Maybe it happened but didn't make the recording, time - and the investigation - will tell. But on the face of it, it's not an Austin 2.0.
Quite a few differences from the KAUS incident:
Weather not a factor (good visibility, high clouds)
15 minutes before sunset (sun behind landing aircraft)
UPS 2974 started go around 20 seconds before crossing 10R threshold (ADS-B data)
UPS 2974 altitude in excess of 1000 ft upon crossing 10R threshold (ADS-B data)
UPS 2992 was LUAW status on 10R for in excess of 1.5 min prior to takeoff clearance
Other observations:
UPS2992 held at B1 cooling brakes and did not depart until 34 minutes after UPS2974 landed
UPS2974 asked for but did not receive explanation for UPS2992 departure delay
Rather than the approved “cancel takeoff clearance” ATC phraseology (used in the JFK incident), LC used “abort takeoff, abort takeoff” for UPS2992. However, 7110.65 does list “abort” in the pilot/controller glossary with “aborted takeoff” as an example
Weather not a factor (good visibility, high clouds)
15 minutes before sunset (sun behind landing aircraft)
UPS 2974 started go around 20 seconds before crossing 10R threshold (ADS-B data)
UPS 2974 altitude in excess of 1000 ft upon crossing 10R threshold (ADS-B data)
UPS 2992 was LUAW status on 10R for in excess of 1.5 min prior to takeoff clearance
Other observations:
UPS2992 held at B1 cooling brakes and did not depart until 34 minutes after UPS2974 landed
UPS2974 asked for but did not receive explanation for UPS2992 departure delay
Rather than the approved “cancel takeoff clearance” ATC phraseology (used in the JFK incident), LC used “abort takeoff, abort takeoff” for UPS2992. However, 7110.65 does list “abort” in the pilot/controller glossary with “aborted takeoff” as an example
The MD 11 really does get the hell out of there when going around , very impressive !
Any reason why UPS call sign is 5X since with VHF RT it can sound a lot like FedeX , They couldn't have got t close to their rivals if they had tried.
Any reason why UPS call sign is 5X since with VHF RT it can sound a lot like FedeX , They couldn't have got t close to their rivals if they had tried.
So did 2992 ever find out why he had to abort? Seemed close enough for tower to change things around... "UPS2974 asked for but did not receive explanation for UPS2992 departure delay..." When screwing up, better not to answer incriminating questions ?
Last edited by Concours77; 10th Mar 2023 at 04:51.
My goodness, a well and professionally handled situation and (for me - retired ATC) effectively a non event.
2992 should have heard the ATC go-around instruction to 2974 immediately after the ATC abort takeoff instruction leaving little doubt as to the reason for the canceled takeoff clearance.
Thread Starter
2992 should have heard the ATC go-around instruction to 2974 immediately after the ATC abort takeoff instruction leaving little doubt as to the reason for the canceled takeoff clearance.
EDIT: didn't realize video & audio were not in sync / the following is not relevant anymore
ATC : 72 seconds between issuing the line-up clearance and the T/O clearance (while mentioning the 2nm final traffic, ATC did not use the 'Immediate T/O' in his clearance)
2992: 18 seconds between receiving T/O clearance and start of T/O roll
°: not pointing fingers; in Austin, the departing traffic taking its time was only a contributory factor in the whole incident (pending the final NTSB report
)Last edited by DIBO; 10th Mar 2023 at 20:29.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An MD11 has one of the highest approach speeds of present day aircraft, the B767 Heavy doesn't move like a smaller aircraft so departure clearance with the inbound at 2nm not going to work!
I think the similarity here with Austin is that in both cases the LCs assumed that calling the landing aircraft’s distance on final was sufficient to prompt the departing aircraft to execute an expeditious takeoff. And in both cases, that didn’t happen. In contrast to the Austin event, both the PDX LC and 2974 were able to maintain good SA due to visual conditions.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a timing issue with the audio and visuals on the video. Tower starts to give exiting instructions when UPS2974's nosewheel is still in the air. Drawing timing conclusions elsewhere in the video may not be wise.
Thread Starter
