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

Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade

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.

Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade

Old 19th Feb 2024, 10:48
  #21 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,157
Received 230 Likes on 69 Posts
Not only are ATC blameless, they get a "good show" for asking the captain. His decision.
Herod is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 10:48
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
AreOut is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 11:00
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by AreOut
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.
You obviously have an agenda. You also clearly indicate that you have absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about.
FUMR is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 11:05
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
AreOut is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 11:16
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
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.
FUMR is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 11:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
OK we are waiting ATC's here to say if they would or would not deny the takeoff if the pilot wants to perform it from the half of standard take off length.
AreOut is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 11:36
  #27 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,699
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by AreOut
It is ATC's responsibility to deny the take off if no plane ever before took off from such a short distance.
No it is not. Stop digging a bigger hole you are already in . You obviously do not know what you are talking about., and if you don't, then ask questions ,we'll be happy to answer you.

@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.
FR24 shows a take off from D5 not what was requested by the Crew.. I was told they are the ones that requested D5,. and the TWR Controller asked them to confirm and gave them the TORA. But I have not heard the R/T recording yet.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 12:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 83
Received 26 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by AreOut
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.
It's obvious by this statement you're not a pilot. ATC are not responsible for checking an aircraft's take off performance calculations. ATC wouldn't even have the data to be able to do it.
Hollywood1 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 12:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
ATC is responsible to see that something is way off, maybe the plane is hijacked, maybe the pilot is drugged or what not.
AreOut is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 12:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,041
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Did the crew specifically request D5 or did they make the wrong turn into D5?
PENKO is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 12:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
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 ​​​​​​

FiveGirlKit is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 12:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 66
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by AreOut
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.
The E195 can operate from 4000 feet if lightly loaded. It’s advertised takeoff requirement is 4700 with a full load of passengers and a 1+15 flight time. This one was somewhat heavy but ATC has no way of knowing an aircraft’s weight. The FO is never the PIC, not sure where you got that from.
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.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 13:13
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
"The FO is never the PIC,"

that's right, I mixed this with another report
AreOut is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 13:20
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,844
Received 213 Likes on 99 Posts
Originally Posted by FiveGirlKit
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 ​​​​​​
Sorry, but that "50 feet" figure is not borne out by the data.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 13:32
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 13:50
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 66
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
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.
So are you suggesting that ATC be made aware of the weight of each aircraft and run performance data to approve and tell the pilots how much runway they need?
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 13:58
  #37 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,699
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
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.
Gee, are you really a Boeing ATPL as your pseudo suggests ? We controllers do not " pick and choose" when to intervene, we follow the procedures we are trained on , just like you. Refusing or Canceling a take off clearance when a vehicle enters the runway is part of the procedures, but definitively not questioning the PIC TOW and TORA calculations. If the Embraer had been empty and carrying minimum fuel it would have made it ,, and controllers have no way or knowing these factors and make the calculations , this is the PIC area. , It is not about being "more assertive" it is about following established safety procedures. The PIC was, ( as I heard) asked by the controller to confirm his decision to use D5 and was given the TORA left in case he miscalculated. Apparently again , he confirmed.. His decision period. .( again waiting to hear the R/T to make sure what I was told is 100% correct)
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 14:02
  #38 (permalink)  
 
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?
JumpJumpJump is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 14:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,844
Received 213 Likes on 99 Posts
Originally Posted by JumpJumpJump
If they did request D5... would 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)
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2024, 14:46
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So this might not be a bad rabbit hole to go down.
JumpJumpJump 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.