Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade
It is ATC's responsibility to deny the take off if no plane ever before took off from such a short distance(especially because he obviously didn't follow instructions to enter D6). You have thousands of airliners taking off from >2 km distance and then all of a sudden there is one trying to take off with only 1.3km left, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that something is way off.
It is ATC's responsibility to deny the take off if no plane ever before took off from such a short distance(especially because he obviously didn't follow instructions to enter D6). You have thousands of airliners taking off from >2 km distance and then all of a sudden there is one trying to take off with only 1.3km left, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that something is way off.
I don't have any agenda. I think pilots are absolutely and ultimately responsible (it seems FO was the PIC) and they should have also landed immediately without burning fuel (pure luck the wings/hydraulics were still operational after almost one hour airborne after hitting ground stuff) but the ATC should have reacted differently and send them back to where they originally were nstructed to be.
Can you not read? Ultimately it is NOT ATC's responsibility. Confirmed above by Herod who we regulars on here know is a retired commercial pilot. The crew should be aware of where they are. They were given more than adequate warning. End of.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DaveReidUK
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher And where did you get this info about " wrong intersection " ?
That much is clear from the ADS-B track.
That much is clear from the ADS-B track.
I don't have any agenda. I think pilots are absolutely and ultimately responsible (it seems FO was the PIC) and they should have also landed immediately without burning fuel (pure luck the wings/hydraulics were still operational after almost one hour airborne after hitting ground stuff) but the ATC should have reacted differently and send them back to where they originally were nstructed to be.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plowing the fields?
I would like to see pictures of the track of the aircraft on the ground. They finally had a positive rate of climb when they crossed the Autobahn at 50', and that is ~1500m past the end of the threshold. Very lucky to have got airborne 
I don't have any agenda. I think pilots are absolutely and ultimately responsible (it seems FO was the PIC) and they should have also landed immediately without burning fuel (pure luck the wings/hydraulics were still operational after almost one hour airborne after hitting ground stuff) but the ATC should have reacted differently and send them back to where they originally were nstructed to be.
As far as earlier comments about the aircraft built like a tank the runway lights are designed to be frangible to minimize damage if hit.
Sorry, but that "50 feet" figure is not borne out by the data.
I understood it to be Air Traffic Control not Air Traffic Conditional? ATC are within their rights to tell pilots to go around if they have the equipment to alert them. And to stop take-offs if the situation so requires. So why pick and choose when you can and cannot intervene?
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
I understood it to be Air Traffic Control not Air Traffic Conditional? ATC are within their rights to tell pilots to go around if they have the equipment to alert them. And to stop take-offs if the situation so requires. So why pick and choose when you can and cannot intervene?
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood it to be Air Traffic Control not Air Traffic Conditional? ATC are within their rights to tell pilots to go around if they have the equipment to alert them. And to stop take-offs if the situation so requires. So why pick and choose when you can and cannot intervene?
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
Ultimately pilots pay the price with their lives and ATC with their paperwork. This boils down to a pretty basic pilot error that could have been prevented by A) better pilots B) more assertive ATC.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they did request D5... woukd be interested to know what heading they had dialed... which runway they were expecting... any chance they've accidently prepared for the reciprocal and this is a gross error?
A 12R takeoff from D5 would give a 2266m TORA/TODA/ASDA, in fact not much different from a 30L takeoff from D6 (2349m)