Air Serbia E195 runs into runway lights at Belgrade
I can’t imagine either the pilots or the ATCOs are against it.
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. “The 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 crew”, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said.
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Yes that would be a causal factor. I assume you believe it not to be though. Not sure why?
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 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...
A recurring problem with this discussion is the conflation of opportunity with responsibility.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the way to sea
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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....
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.
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...."
Pegase Driver
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. “The 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 crew”, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said..
.The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, in cooperation with the police, have opened an investigation into the matter. “The 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 crew”, the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said..
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.
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
Ah, yes, that's right.....
.
......visibly confused......
Talk about delusional..... *shakes head*
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?
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.
"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*
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.
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 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! 
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, it’s 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 that’s a factor. (The recording doesn’t appear to have all the pilots coms.) Again Personally I’d 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 I’d expect about 75% of those distances.)
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 I’d expect about 75% of those distances.)