The data shows the first indication of altitude (50') at this position. The reading before this shows 0' well past the threshold.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a94d5437ba.jpg

Needs to be corrected for local QNH before anything sensible can come out of it.

Yes, with the added complication that a 0 alt on FR24 is anybody's guess.

I see that Avherald is also quoting "50 feet" - but then it has form for not understanding ADS-B data. :O

At that point, height AAL would have been approx 175-200 feet - still low enough to scare the motorists ...

If somebody tries it again I would think this controller (and His/Her peers) would be more assertive...Just sayin...And yes I tick most of the pilot boxes...:)

why? As has already been said by several posters (who also tick all the boxes) the controller is not the pilot. He does not have the pertinent take off data. If the crew sound sure of what they are doing it is NOT, repeat, NOT the controller's duty to instruct them how to fly the aeroplane. All the controller can do is ascertain if they really intend use D5 and as an extra measure give them the available distance remaining. I have read that this was done. A transcript will confirm if that was the case.

There is full ATC Recording (I cannot copy links), but it is on the reddit. Also there is a video from security camera. Tail strike as well. It is on twitter, username @Pedjijatar

For ATC google:

AS86C ATC Recording @ LYBE 18.02.2024.

https://x.com/Pedjijatar/status/1759...182783668?s=20Video

//x.com/Pedjijatar/status/1759660437182783668?s=20

ATC:

ATC

the ATC certainly knew the plane had PAX because it's a regular flight to Dusseldorf, the difference isn't a few meters but a kilometer, ATC may not be accountable for what happened but certainly morally responsible, some things are just clear without running any calculations

”A transcript will confirm if that was the case.“

not only did the controller tell them the remaining distance, he told them to stop and recalculate, and if they couldn’t make it from D5 cleared to backtrack to abeam D6.

i suspect having lined up at the wrong intersection, in haste the crew typed and searched for D5 into the EFB which spat out some numbers, but it went un-noticed that D5 was for 12R not 30L.

Shut up, for God's sake! So many professionals told you you are talking nonsense & you keep insisting.

https://x.com/Pedjijatar/status/1759...eu9KEV_hQ&s=09


rolling.

:eek:

So far,
crew missed d6 hp, reach d5, atc tried to correct ( three times), they have declared " able" , height was 0 ( zero) m a few hundred meters after end of runway, 15 m near oil station and bilbord at the highway- one low pass, one almost cfit at Avala hill east of the airfield,coupled with near air miss or so with another aircraft, land 40 kts higher than normal,without flaps...

what a shift!

I'm not an expert and I don't have much experience listening to ATC frequencies, but the exchange sounds like this to me:

• Tower: are you familiar that you entered runway via delta five intersection
• ASL86C: yes tora is two two actually sorry tora is one two seven three metres i assume that's [?not] enough
• Tower: ok calculate and call me if you need you can commence backtrack and line up abeam delta six

I have a question about ATC: If one assumes that the runway that an aircraft is to use for takeoff is clear, there is no conflicting traffic if it takes off now, and the pilot insists that the aircraft can take off from the intersection where it is, does ATC have the right to refuse to give a takeoff clearance on the basis that it looks like an odd place for the aircraft to start from?

"CAPS" and "repeat" was for emphasis and not intended to be considered disrespectful. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. The reason I felt the emphasis was needed was because it had already been mentioned not only by myself but by others too. I'd say that the transcript confirms that ATC did what was required of them.

of course, you can't go to the grass and say "I want a takeoff clearance from here", at least not if you don't have a very valid reason

You do give the most absurd examples in your attempts to save face and win a point.

I was asking about the aircraft being on the runway, not the grass. For context, in case anyone's missed it, there is a published TORA distance for takeoff on 30L from D5, so the airport clearly expects that some aircraft will do this.

If they had 40 passengers onboard we would not be discussing this. They had 130. We also know the distance they were flying but we don’t know the actual fuel load. They might have only fueled for the short flight or perhaps they were tankering and had far more fuel. The last thing we don’t know is the amount of cargo. It might have been 10,000 lbs or it might have been zero. ATC has no knowledge of any of the above to calculate takeoff distance.
I think you will also find that there is more involved than the intersection they picked. The aircraft should have flown with the distance available. The aircraft is capable of accelerating to V1 and stopping in 4700 feet with a full load of people and fuel for 500 miles. There are other factors involved. I suspect they had an incorrect takeoff power setting as well as the incorrect runway Intersection.