In the US, it is implied that when the wx is below 800/2 or vis is low enough for Cat2/3 ops we hold short at the Cat2 hold short line painted on the taxiway. Also, for informational purposes, in the US when you overshoot a runway, it means that you’re airborne and rolled out off of runway centerline. Again, this may be a carry over from Military ops. At every US Pilot training base’s there are usually 3 runways, one for T-38’s, another for T-37’s (or T-6’s nowadays) and a longer center runway for emergencies etc. it was drilled into us in Pilot training to never “Overshoot” your runway as it sets up a conflict with jets flying to the other two, not much different from Any large airport with parallel approaches. So overshoot means a failed airborne line-up with your intended landing runway. If you land and roll off the end of the runway that is called overrunning the runway, not overshooting it. I recently read a book about The RAF in the fifties. I noticed the use of many different words for the same object than what us Yanks use. Examples are Bonnet vs Hood for your car, wings vs fenders on cars , reheat vs afterburner, etc etc…my favorite is the pronunciation of Al-you-minium, vs A-loo-min-um. Or Jag-gwu-are vs Jag-gwar.

Only 30 years as a Mil ATCO in UK, so the concept of clearing an aircraft to land with an occupied runway ahead [especially in low-via conditions] strikes me as crazy. However, my experience of Civil operations is minimal. Your ball, play it as you will.

Did not see this posted above



Other images

Back to entry level salary could drive changes, I say.

😋

​​​​​

Disappointing to see all the squabbling about “on the go” when this (non-standard) phrase likely had no impact on the incident. I think it very likely that all involved clearly heard “Fedex, on the go” and understood its meaning, improving situational awareness for both the local controller and SWA. The two phrases that likely degraded situational awareness at a critical time were Fedex’s highly inappropriate “Southwest abort” and SWA’s “negative” with no identifier.

Curious to know what was the trigger for Fedex to go around. Visual on SWA? Intuition?

This was serious, a near miss with mostly blind participants. And avoidable.

I am curious about the findings regarding ATC and the Southwest Crew actions in LVP. And communication was substandard from all 3 of them. At some point they had little more than guessing who said what and who meant what.

And a crew that expects anybody else to know that they need >30s additional rwy time for runup? Serious?

this is my recollection of JFK too, although it’s 8 years since I was last there.

It is indeed.
The phraseology should be changed to "permission to land" as thats all you are getting.

I'm not sure I would agree with that - given that the controller didn't issue any instruction to SWA to stop / abort, the FedEx probably did the right thing in telling the SWA to abort thus preventing the SWA from continuing it's take off and climbing into the FedEx's path as it went around. Desperate measures...

If FedEx knows SW is right beneath them, and possibly will climb up into them, TURN AWAY. In imc conditions, you won’t turn into a Cessna on downwind or any other traffic. Just fly parallel to the runway, start a climb and call the tower for a better heading and altitude.

To expect an ac to do a (possibly) high speed reject, based on another pilot’s command, when no runway hazard exists and the ac is capable of flying is not reasonable.

No doubt some serious training issues will be forced to surface.

As highlighted in post #63, The FedEx captain probably saw it all unfolding in the HUD/EFVS system (not installed on the F/O side)

Though, as I'm sure you're aware, he wasn't successful in doing so.

CVRs??
 

Any word(s) yet on whether NTSB and/or FAA have obtained the CVR of either or both aircraft involved?

Recalling Air Canada 759 in San Francisco (2017), also a very close call, the CVR of the AC aircraft was not preserved, iirc, and some observers believed its contents would have aided the post-incident inquiry. (Wonder if FAA is going to issue a SAFO after this latest incident?)

Which is why, in my former world, aircraft overhoot to the ‘dead side’ of the visual circuit. OK, big Civ airports don’t do that stuff, but just drilling down the centreline with somone seemingly taking off underneath you seems … err … hazardous?

Not sure that one Captain telling another Captain what to do with his aircraft is a great idea either, tbh. ATC should have had a much firmer grip on the whole scenario from when the FedEx was c. 8 miles out and anticipated the potential scenario.

A very good resume of the situation .
@ BFSGrad
So you asume everybody understood the Fedex was going around because they were all 3 locals Americans. Are you sure the Fedex would have used another phraseology if the SW had been, say Aromexico or Virgin ? The poor pharsology , or lack of even , is what we discuss , and "on the go" was the most obvious one , but : " Abort" and "Negative" are as bad. if not worse.
Where I agree with you is that this "on te go" did not have a major effect on this incident , the controller lining up with someone on a CATIII approach , and the SW taking 20-30 second to start knowing that there is someone 3 miles out are the real causes and am sure will get them tea and biscuits a some point.

That said, going around over a take off with both aircraft remaining on cente line is a known loophole , well identified, but still out there despite many incidents worldwide. .

Let’s face it, lining up an aircraft in Low Visibility Operations with another aircraft on 3 nm final is just dumb at the highest level and highly unusual. The RT calls are just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Are we sure about 3NM Final when Southwest passed the hold short position and entered the runway?

​​​​​​BTW, what are the current LVP regulations?

ATC told SW that FedEx was on 3NM final.