Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade
As an aside; I’ve visited every tower in every airport I’ve even been based in to bring coffee, tea & biscuits to see things from their perspective. I’ve also been to Oceanic in two different FIRs. And attended TRUCE in NATS three times.
I’ve never seen an ATCO on the jumpseat to see it from our perspective. In more than 15 years of ops.
I’ve never seen an ATCO on the jumpseat to see it from our perspective. In more than 15 years of ops.
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".....
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".....
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?
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?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
I’m not trying to pin down exact performance to the metre here. I’m talking about whether there’s enough examples out there that from the perspective of an ATCO, it would seem plausibly possible for the stated TORA to be achievable. Unless we’re also now expecting ATCOs to know what a pilots plannedflap and thrust settings are on top of everything else that’s been implied, they’re irrelevant to an ATCOs immediate expectation. If the pilot says they can make that, who are you to police it?
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).
Pegase Driver
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.
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 right. He knows his business far better than most of us here. I advise you all to listen to him.
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
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
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.
No one in this thread had said ATC should say nothing. ATC most definitely (and correctly) did “point out the potential issue” as you put it.
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".....
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".....
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...."
It’s not for want of trying, ask your airline what their specific process is when they get asked. A lot of them it’s a straight “we don’t do that”, and even the ones that do might only offer a handful of slots on specific days every year. The demand far outstrips the supply.
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
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.
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 doesn´t 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... I´d 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, I´d 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 I´d 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.
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 doesn´t 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... I´d 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, I´d 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 I´d 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.
Requesting an intersection departure (not published as 'prohibited'), of course is a totally different ballgame.
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...."
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...."