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 21st Feb 2024, 10:04
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 91
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
As an aside; Iíve visited every tower in every airport Iíve even been based in to bring coffee, tea & biscuits to see things from their perspective. Iíve also been to Oceanic in two different FIRs. And attended TRUCE in NATS three times.

Iíve never seen an ATCO on the jumpseat to see it from our perspective. In more than 15 years of ops.
Itís not for want of trying, ask your airline what their specific process is when they get asked. A lot of them itís a straight ďwe donít do thatĒ, and even the ones that do might only offer a handful of slots on specific days every year. The demand far outstrips the supply.
Request Orbit is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:15
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Eh?

If things had turned out slightly differently & all lives were lost do you think the controller would have shrugged their shoulders & walked away feeling good about their actions, or do you think they may have wanted to try a bit harder?

Person falls into a waterway & is drowning, competent swimmer who could have saved them "it's not my responsibility".....
Another baseless argument!
FUMR is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:31
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 91
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As an approach controller there’s plenty of times I’ve seen an aircraft, having been given accurate distance from touchdown calls and free speed appear very high on the approach. I’ve re-iterated the distance from touchdown and asked if the pilot’s happy, and they’ve said yes. Most of these approaches end up (as far as I know) in an entirely normal landing. Very occasionally they go-around or ask - late - to be broken off and given more miles.

The logic being applied in this thread seems to be suggesting I should have re-positioned every single one of those approaches, because I didn’t feel comfortable and something could have give wrong and didn’t look right.

It’s not a jobsworth case of “not my job, not my responsibility”, it’s a case of me not being in the best position to make that call. I do not have the vast majority of the information to make that call. If you’re at 8,000 feet at 4 miles, that’s one thing, but if you’re at 5,800ft at 11 miles and want to give it a go, should I be stopping you?
Request Orbit is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:37
  #124 (permalink)  
Too mean to buy a long personal title
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,968
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Request Orbit
Iím not trying to pin down exact performance to the metre here. Iím talking about whether thereís enough examples out there that from the perspective of an ATCO, it would seem plausibly possible for the stated TORA to be achievable. Unless weíre also now expecting ATCOs to know what a pilots plannedflap and thrust settings are on top of everything else thatís been implied, theyíre irrelevant to an ATCOs immediate expectation. If the pilot says they can make that, who are you to police it?
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
Thought experiment; if ATC did everything correctly, do you think LYBE ATC would behave in the exact same way in the exact same scenario tomorrow with the benefit of the knowledge of this accident?
So may I (an interested non-aviation observer) please ask again the question that I asked earlier?

What I get from the discussion is this:
  • If the relevant bit of the ATC recording on Reddit captures only what the controller was saying, rather than both sides of the conversation, then Tower called the aircraft to (a) attract its attention to the fact that it had entered at D5 (rather than D6 as earlier instructed), (b) pass the correct TORA (after starting to say, but not completing, an incorrect figure), (c) tell the aircraft to do its calculations, and (d) inform it that a backtrack to D6 was available if needed.
  • The aircraft then seems to have told Tower that it was OK to start from D5 (because that seems to be what Tower repeated back).
  • It's plausible that the aircraft could take off from D5, if it was set up correctly, even though that wouldn't be normal at this airport (but everyone already knew something had gone wrong, given the D5/D6 confusion).
In this situation, is it even open to ATC to refuse to clear the aircraft for take-off on the grounds that ATC doesn't believe that the pilots have correctly calculated their ability to safely take off?
Globaliser is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:37
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 279
Received 82 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by FUMR
Another baseless argument!
Elaborate then?
Thrust Augmentation is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:43
  #126 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,699
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
This discussion is going nowhere , as some here have made up their minds regardless of the facts and are not prepared to accept them . .
It reminds me of this very friendly American couple visiting with us the grand Canyon a few years ago and arguing with me that "God made this " and when I mentioned that it was rather a few billions years of erosion , they turned very nasty ..

Intersections take off are performed everyday worldwide and if some choose not to do them , their decisions of course. Some airports have restrictions on them , some operators as well, An E195 requesting a take off with 1300m left is odd, but not impossible if light weight . so no reason to flatly refuse, just asking to confirm , if the PIC confirms it is fine , he knows his aircraft and the numbers , we don't . , that's it . This is how we work since the beginning of ATC in the 1920s.

Accusing the controller here with remarks like : " its not my job" or " its not my responsibility" or now " shrugged shoulders & walked away" is not only incorrect but insulting .: : and adding A380s and swimmers does not help your argumentation either . , Duty of care is entirely something else.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:52
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 82
Posts: 1,271
Received 57 Likes on 21 Posts
ATC Watcher is right. He knows his business far better than most of us here. I advise you all to listen to him.
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:57
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Elaborate then?
I will not elaborate on an analogy which is so way off the mark that it is completely ridiculous.
FUMR is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 10:58
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 279
Received 82 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Accusing the controller here with remarks like : " its not my job" or " its not my responsibility" or now " shrugged shoulders & walked away" is not only incorrect but insulting
For my part I'm not accusing anyone of anything & you are misinterpreting what I've said - ATC did a fine job in pointing out the possible issue.

Some seem to be suggesting that ATC should STFU, it's not their responsibility & that pilots know better. I'm only suggesting that anyone pointing out a potential issue should be considered
Thrust Augmentation is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:05
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
For my part I'm not accusing anyone of anything & you are misinterpreting what I've said - ATC did a fine job in pointing out the possible issue.

Some seem to be suggesting that ATC should STFU, it's not their responsibility & that pilots know better. I'm only suggesting that anyone pointing out a potential issue should be considered
Incorrect conclusion by you. ATC had a duty to confirm with the pilot if D5 was his intention, reminding him that it was not D6 and giving him TORA data. He did that. We are saying that there is a point when the controller (a non pilot) has to concede to the professional in the cockpit who is flying that aircraft day in day out.
FUMR is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:09
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 279
Received 82 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by FUMR
Incorrect conclusion by you. ATC had a duty to confirm with the pilot if D5 was his intention, reminding him that it was not D6 and giving him TORA data. He did that. We are saying that there is a point when the controller (a non pilot) has to concede to the professional in the cockpit who is flying that aircraft day in day out.
Point missed completely - again.............
Thrust Augmentation is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:16
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 91
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Some seem to be suggesting that ATC should STFU, it's not their responsibility & that pilots know better. I'm only suggesting that anyone pointing out a potential issue should be considered
No one in this thread had said ATC should say nothing. ATC most definitely (and correctly) did ďpoint out the potential issueĒ as you put it.
Request Orbit is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:16
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Eh?

If things had turned out slightly differently & all lives were lost do you think the controller would have shrugged their shoulders & walked away feeling good about their actions, or do you think they may have wanted to try a bit harder?

Person falls into a waterway & is drowning, competent swimmer who could have saved them "it's not my responsibility".....
More comparable & pertinent would be:

Person falls into a waterway & is drowning, competent swimmer sees this, asks if they need help, offers to throw them a life saving ring but the person who falls in says "No, it's ok, I can handle this, you carry on doing what you're doing...."
FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:23
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: EHEH
Posts: 543
Received 252 Likes on 78 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Point missed completely - again.............
No, not at all. Some of you just do not want to listen to professional comments made by qualified air traffic controllers and commercial pilots. For me this thread is now closed.
FUMR is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:27
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Request Orbit
Itís not for want of trying, ask your airline what their specific process is when they get asked. A lot of them itís a straight ďwe donít do thatĒ, and even the ones that do might only offer a handful of slots on specific days every year. The demand far outstrips the supply.
I agree and most airlines Iíve worked for are useless in accommodating this sharing of viewpoints. So what Iím gonna do about that is go bug my CP about that today and make it happen. I think often itís just a case of boring old logistics.

Back to the topic; ATC Watcher is clearly highly experienced but I also observe to be highly entrenched in their position. Which is understandable.

I think it would be interesting if ATC & PiCs could take a step towards the issue than away from it.
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 11:41
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 555
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Well, I'll throw in something more relevant and pilot related, hoping this ATC discussion settles and awaiting the Mod's brush to come along

Compare this London City E190 departure with the incident clip:


Given that Flaps 4 is the setting to be used for short field ops and at the same time it is the max. T/O flap setting, it seems that an incorrect flap setting was used on the incident E195

Last edited by DIBO; 21st Feb 2024 at 14:08.
DIBO is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 13:09
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
any ATCO giving take off clearance at TORA 1350 m on 3500 m runway should take its own part of the blame. And don't give me lectures on how CPT is ulitmately responsible for operation of an aircraft. ATCO has it own share of responsibilities in certain situations. There was NO operational or anyhow sound reasoning to allow take off at D5. They should order them to backtrack to at least D6. After decades of being ATCO on all positions (TWR, APP, ACC) I know what I'm talking about.
kontrolor is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 13:13
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Incorrect, indeed, but only on hindsight. Had they used the intended and normal intersection, it would have been perfectly fit for purpose.

When the performance calculator is fed with a TORA of 2349m (as is available out of D6 on LYBE30L), it will calculate exactly that and provide data accordingly: speeds, optimum flap setting and flex value. The computer is stupid and does not follow up on what the users do with its calculation results. To keep the calculation valid, it is obviously required to use said intersection or one providing a longer TORA. If, for whatever reason, one doesnīt and lines up via an intersection providing a km less TORA, the runway distance required in accordance with the calculations will remain the same but begin and end a km further down the runway. That there is a departure end of the runway, a localizer antenna, some lights, a highway, billboards, trees and so on within that kilometer now is not the computers problem and not known to it.

So what this picture comparison shows is that the calculation seems to have been made based on a longer TORA than what was found out of D5, while the crew on the EGLC departure shown used the numbers suited to their departure.

Now, ATC... Iīd dare to say that they are a service provider primarily and not there to second-guess any and all decisions by crews. If I request a runway or an intersection, Iīd consider him well within his rights if he trusts me that I have satisfied myself of my aircrafts performance being suitable to this request. Of course, he may well ask if something appears fishy to him, but Iīd not consider him obliged to do so. Consider tailwind: I have flown airliners with a limit at 10 kts, 15kts or even 20 kts. How is the controller to know each and every aircraft to this detail? If tailwind component is at or above 10kts, he may well advise of the component and ask whether that is acceptable to us. If I answer in the affirmative, this is based on the individual aircrafts limitations and technical status allowing this and also our takeoff/landing calculations resulting in legal and acceptable values - and with this, it becomes my responsibility to bear.
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 13:49
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 555
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Tu.114
Now, ATC... Iīd dare to say that they are a service provider primarily and not there to second-guess any and all decisions by crews. If I request a runway or an intersection,
But in this case it was clearly unintended by all parties to end-up on the rwy via D5. Even with the unreliable ATC recording, you can hear the (more faint) transmissions by ASL86C for D6, even the "AirSerbia eight six charlie approaching delta six, ready". Would you start making a fuzz, when the "service provider" ATC kicks you off the rwy, back on twy A towards D6? I presume you would accept ATC to be in its right to act upon your "proven" pilot deviation (regardless of available TORA).
Requesting an intersection departure (not published as 'prohibited'), of course is a totally different ballgame.
DIBO is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 14:13
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by FullMetalJackass
More comparable & pertinent would be:

Person falls into a waterway & is drowning, competent swimmer sees this, asks if they need help, offers to throw them a life saving ring but the person who falls in says "No, it's ok, I can handle this, you carry on doing what you're doing...."
And applying the rationale expressed in a previous post, if the person in the water ultimately drowns, the decision by the swimmer not to jump in and save a life is causal to the drowning.
BFSGrad 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.