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, 14:34
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 102
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
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.
I take the far more cynical view that the people left facilitating the requests donít see any immediate financial benefit of spending any time on it, but thanks for making the effort I canít imagine either the pilots or the ATCOs are against it.
Request Orbit is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 14:52
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 558
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
And while for some involved, their year was already ruined enough, potentially more serious bad news is coming their way...
The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, in cooperation with the police, have opened an investigation into the matter. ďThe police have been ordered to determine what happened on this occasion, as well as to potentially identify the responsible persons. It is necessary to check how this event unfolded, the damage to the plane, whether the passengers and crew were in danger at any time, as well as conduct interviews with employees of Air Traffic Control, the pilot and crewĒ, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said.
DIBO is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 14:53
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FUMR
Completely ridiculous statement! It certainly wasn't 100m was it. As I said, the pilots have the numbers not ATC. ATC have no idea of the aircraft's load or total weight. They can only ask if it is the pilot's intention to depart from D5, giving him the available distance left. That should be more than sufficient. It is NOT ATC's responsibility to fly the aeroplane.
How much ridicoulous would it be if you were on TWR and whole of your family were inside that short hop aircraft ?
Grunau Baby is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:19
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Seattle
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
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.
Yes that would be a causal factor. I assume you believe it not to be though. Not sure why?
BoeingDriver99 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:30
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
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.
what you are missing is this

Originally Posted by CVividasku

What most posters are missing, when they remind that ATC has no way of doing the perf calculations and that the ERJ could takeoff in only 1200m, what they are missing is that such takeoffs are planned properly from the cockpit preparation stage, at the gate. If the crew planned an intersection and they're trying to takeoff with half the runway missing, it's very different from a situation in which they plan the takeoff from the beginning on the shorter portion.
Also, we don't really have the proper timeframe in the recording, but it's likely the captain said they could takeoff from there very quickly. Whereas you need quite a long time to do a proper performance calculations...
so it's one thing requesting intersection at the gate and completely another having the plane configured for takeoff with 2300m runway left and then entering the runway at the wrong place so you have only 1300m left, I'm not familiar how much time it does take to reconfigure the T/O configuration on Embraer and recalculating everything but I am willing to bet it's not significantly less than just taxiing to D6
AreOut is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:31
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 28 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
Yes that would be a causal factor. I assume you believe it not to be though. Not sure why?
Because an action that might interrupt an accident sequence is not always causal to an accident if not performed.

A recurring problem with this discussion is the conflation of opportunity with responsibility.
BFSGrad is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:40
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
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.
Not in the slightest. If the person had been offered aid in the form of a life buoy but refused it, saying he was ok, then the fact that the passerby, able swimmer or not, moved along is understandable and by no means causal....

In this instance, ATC offered all the assistance they could - advising distance available and also offering a backtrack along the runway, yet the crew of the aircraft declined.
FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:41
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
Because an action that might interrupt an accident sequence is not always causal to an accident if not performed.

A recurring problem with this discussion is the conflation of opportunity with responsibility.
BFSGrad, I couldn't agree more, with one note - we are not talking about slight error, we are talking about taking off from one third of the 3500 m long runway. If I were in tower at that moment, no argument from the cockpit that 1300 m is enough would deter me from me ordering them to backtrack at least 1000 m. FMS calculations or no FMS calculations.
kontrolor is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:47
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
Yes that would be a causal factor. I assume you believe it not to be though. Not sure why?
If the person was clearly in distress and calling for help, I might agree if the risk to the competent swimmer was reasonable. However, if the person in the water was asked "are you ok, do you need assistance" and the answer is a clear "No, all is good, I'm fine", then how can you possibly say that the fact that no-one jumped into the water be "causal"?

The crew were advised they were at the wrong intersection. They were advised of the runway distance still available to them to takeoff. They were offered a backtrack to D6 to give them more space. The crew rejected that assistance. ATC can in no way be considered "causal" here....
FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:51
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
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.
But they wouldn't have been kicked off the runway. ATC told them - if required, you may backtrack to D6 - no departing the runway, just a 180į, a backtrack, another 180į.
FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 16:51
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 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...."
bad analogy, person falls into a waterway, is visibly confused by thinking a yellow rag is a life vest(which you very much doubt it is) and says no thank you I have a life vest, whereafter you say "oh OK then" instead of throwing another ring which can certainly do no harm even if the person was right
AreOut is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 17:40
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,920
Received 263 Likes on 125 Posts
How do you translate "when you're in a hole ..." into Serbian ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 18:10
  #153 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,719
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by DIBO
And while for some involved, their year was already ruined enough, potentially more serious bad news is coming their way.
.The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, in cooperation with the police, have opened an investigation into the matter. ďThe police have been ordered to determine what happened on this occasion, as well as to potentially identify the responsible persons. It is necessary to check how this event unfolded, the damage to the plane, whether the passengers and crew were in danger at any time, as well as conduct interviews with employees of Air Traffic Control, the pilot and crewĒ, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said..
I just hope the guys in this " Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade" are not reading some the posts on this thread to get some ideas to identify the " responsible persons" .. Serbian police interrogations are not known to be the most friendly in Europe.
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 18:18
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Serbian police in this case (and Public Prosecutor) will only determine is this a criminal act or not. The rest is on CINS (Serbian NTSB). They are not friendly to small criminals and similar, but this is different ball.
Cozmo_NS is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 18:38
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AreOut
bad analogy, person falls into a waterway, is visibly confused by thinking a yellow rag is a life vest(which you very much doubt it is) and says no thank you I have a life vest, whereafter you say "oh OK then" instead of throwing another ring which can certainly do no harm even if the person was right
"Visibly confused" - so now not only controllers in a tower supposed to be able to perform complex performance calculations of an aircraft from their seats in the tower - possibly by clairvoyantly knowing how much fuel the aircraft has onboard plus guesstimating how heavy it is by seeing how compressed the struts of the undercarriage are whilst noting the position of the flaps and positing how far the pilots will set the throttles, is that your next gem??? - but they are now supposed to be able to have the vision of superman by seeing that not one but TWO pilots, both with valid ATPL licences - are.... how did you put it????

Ah, yes, that's right.....
.
......visibly confused......

Talk about delusional..... *shakes head*

FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 18:55
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: France
Posts: 198
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Request Orbit
As an approach controller thereís plenty of times Iíve seen an aircraft, having been given accurate distance from touchdown calls and free speed appear very high on the approach. Iíve re-iterated the distance from touchdown and asked if the pilotís happy, and theyíve 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 didnít feel comfortable and something could have give wrong and didnít look right.

Itís not a jobsworth case of ďnot my job, not my responsibilityĒ, itís 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 youíre at 8,000 feet at 4 miles, thatís one thing, but if youíre at 5,800ft at 11 miles and want to give it a go, should I be stopping you?
Except the situations are very different. There is no real risk in being too high on approach, you might just go around..
However departing from a quarter of the available runway, whereas you planned to use twice that, with a jetliner full of passengers, is a bit stupid and very likely to lead to some damage.
CVividasku is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 19:00
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 41
Posts: 339
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FullMetalJackass
"Visibly confused" - so now not only controllers in a tower supposed to be able to perform complex performance calculations of an aircraft from their seats in the tower - possibly by clairvoyantly knowing how much fuel the aircraft has onboard plus guesstimating how heavy it is by seeing how compressed the struts of the undercarriage are whilst noting the position of the flaps and positing how far the pilots will set the throttles, is that your next gem??? - but they are now supposed to be able to have the vision of superman by seeing that not one but TWO pilots, both with valid ATPL licences - are.... how did you put it????

Ah, yes, that's right.....
.
......visibly confused......

Talk about delusional..... *shakes head*
you do realise that both those pilots with valid ATPL licences have missed the entrance to the runway by a whole kilometer? Mistakes happen to the best. That's why it is good to correct them, in this case "you have made the mistake please backtrack to D6" without any further discussion would have been appropriate.
AreOut is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 19:10
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 38
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AreOut
you do realise that both those pilots with valid ATPL licences have missed the entrance to the runway by a whole kilometer? Mistakes happen to the best. That's why it is good to correct them, in this case "you have made the mistake please backtrack to D6" without any further discussion would have been appropriate.
For what must be the twentieth time in this thread, how does someone in the tower know how much space is adequate for take off? It's not as if the controller has simply said: Cleared for take off. He's TOLD the crew that they are at D5 and not D6, the controller has given them the TODA available, he has ALSO questioned them whether that would be sufficient, he's also offered them the opportunity of turning around, backtracking up the runway to D6 in order to give them sufficient space without the crew losing their position as number one on the runway - what more could the controller do? Get out and fly the damned plane for them????

Ah, I see. Next you're going to demand that the pilots MUST supply their take off calculations, preferably in triplicate, to the controllers in the tower such that these can peruse and muse about the validity of these calculations? Or perhaps you'd like someone with a green shirt, similar to those seen on aircraft carriers, to hold up a box showing figures to the crew - only these numbers will show not the weight but the TODA and the crew needs to salute snappily to the guy in the green shirt before they ..... jesus, don't you see how ludicrous this is? How many times should a controller point out an error to flight crew before they accept they f*cked up.....

PS: I note you've not explained how a controller in a tower is supposed to identify the pilots in the cockpit are both "visibly confused" - yes, they've made a mistake, don't we all? But they've had it pointed out to them. They've understood it, they were offered to redo their take off calculations and, if necessary, backtrack along the runway yet STILL elected to take off from that intersection....

That isn't "visibly confused" - that would be simply negligent, in my eyes. "visibly confused" would be lining up the wrong way on D5, being told about facing the wrong way and responding that "it's ok, the sun rises in this direction....."

FullMetalJackass is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 19:33
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: NL
Posts: 573
Received 267 Likes on 88 Posts
FullMetalJackass you may have noticed that several of us have given up trying to explain the obvious to one or two posters. It's a lost cause!
FUMR is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2024, 20:11
  #160 (permalink)  
V_2
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
I think if the intersection had no published figures, then ATC would be partially responsible for what happened next as some keep insisting. But as D5 did have published figures, itís a valid takeoff point and ATC gave those figures to the crew it ends up being no different to any other intersection departure. Perhaps if English was either of their native language, they would have given a better hint to the crew, or the crew would have received it better. The report will clarify if thatís a factor. (The recording doesnít appear to have all the pilots coms.) Again Personally Iíd like to see them use their stop bars, but I accept outside the UK stop bar use is generally limited to low vis as someone pointed out to me here.

the photo above looks like Flap 1 selected. With approx 1200m at an average traffic load, flap 4 and full thrust would be required. Flap 1 with de-rated thrust at same average weight would require approx 2000m. (But that would be for an engine failure at v1, the ground roll element on two engines Iíd expect about 75% of those distances.)
V_2 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.