Liverpool runway incursion?

[Barnstorm]

I Was on the 11.05 easyjet flight EZY604 Belfast to Liverpool yesterday morning (06/06).
Pilot executed a touch, short landing run, and go.
During go-around the captain explained that there was a light aircraft still on the runway.
Anyone have any more details of what actually happened?

[reverserunlocked]

Might have been late vacating, or got lost looking for the turnoff. Happens quite a lot. Last year I stopped off at the spotter's park in MAN on a lovely sunny day for sniff of avgas and indulge the anorak in me and in the space of an hour there were 2 go-arounds due late vacating. Nothing unusual.

[BarTT]

If there was an aircraft late vacting, it would either be a land after or go around. Are you sure the aircraft touched down???

[westie]

Or the Captain could have been economic with the truth after seeing the end of the r/w coming up rather quickly and decided to get airborne again!

[Final 3 Greens]

As a light aircraft driver, let me give you one possible scenario...

Light aircraft approaching at 75mph, airliner approaching at 140 mph, catching up.

ATC are good at judging these things, so they work out that it should be okay, but advise airliner to expect late landing clearance.

For whatever reason, light aircraft occupies runway for longer than ATC assumed and they say "go around" to airliner, very late.

Airline crew respond per SOPs and wheels momentarily touch during go around manoeuvre.

What pax don't see is that airline chief pilot 9and accountant) are not best pleased with cost of go around :eek:

One reason why light aircraft pilots should always show consideration when operating in a mixed traffic environment and keep runway occupancy to a minimum.

[NigelOnDraft]

For whatever reason, light aircraft occupies runway for longer than ATC assumed and they say "go around" to airliner, very late.
Airline crew respond per SOPs and wheels momentarily touch during go around manoeuvreI would suggest that few airliner crews would leave a go-around to so late that they touched down whilst "awaiting landing clearance".
As hinted above, something does not add up about this story... an airliner touch and go with 1 on would imply to me something was wrong / someone got something wrong :rolleyes:

[potkettleblack]

Touching the wheels down on the runway during the go around would be more likely in low viz operations with lights not seen etc. Also much more likely with the heavys which clearly Easyjet don't have.

[BarTT]

Is Barnstorm anti Liverpool seeing his comments on Security on the Airlines and Airports page?

[AltFlaps]

This all sounds very unlikely ...

Most airline SOPs allow descent to 100/200 RA with traffic in sight, but no lower. Even if they had accepted a 'land after clearance', the idea of initiating a GA after a 'short landing run' is ridiculous.

On touchdown, the ground spoliers deploy automatically (Boeing or Airbus), and the SOP (on the Boeing at least) is to deploy thrust reversers (to idle) as the main wheels touch ...

The Boeing manual (and again I'm certain that Airbus will be the same) states very clearly that a GA SHOULD NOT be attempted once reverse thrust has been selected.

If things became so critical that the crew initiated a GA after and 'short landing run', then we should see this one investigated by the AAIB.

[ZeBedie]

ATC don't give "land after" unless there is enough room for the following aircraft to land without the first one vacating. I wonder whether land after clearances are even used at LPL? Perhaps a controller will clarify?

[d192049d]

LVLCHG...a little harsh in your tone mate! Dont forget your roots.....

[RAC/OPS]

LVLCHG: I wouldn't say we never give land after clearances at Liverpool. My experience is that some pilots refuse to accept them, so that is maybe why they seem to be rare. We give them all the time to GA, and I must say that a lot of airline go arounds are due to their getting too close to no. 1 when on a visual approach.
And by the way, aren't you supposed to report TCAS RA's to ATC? If you get them all the time, we should be swamped with reports, but we're not.

[Fly Through]

ATC initiated go around, maybe? If a light aircraft turns off the runway then stops for post landing checks before fully crossing the holding point, it constitutes an infringement hence late go around instruction. Remember a jet won't react instantly.

[Final 3 Greens]

I would suggest that few airliner crews would leave a go-around to so late that they touched down whilst "awaiting landing clearance".

Fair enough, you know your business and I'm an amateur.

BTW, fyi I was pax on a flight last year where a narrow body jet airliner touched down/went around in CAVOK conditions, so its not impossible, even if unusual.

[michaelknight]

I was based in LPL and I do remember LPL ATC giving 'land after' clearances maybe they have stopped it? But I did get them, I vividly remember a certain airline trickling off the end of 27 onto Charlie.

However, I would seriously doubt a crew would touch down with a land after clearance knowing the runway was blocked and then attempt a baulked landing. LPL ATC were on the ball when I was there and I'm sure they would have given the Ezy cres a heads up so the situation did not devlop that far.

Possibly a long float? Could have been a tailwind if it was 09 you were landing on coming from BFS?

MK

[WorkingHard]

LVLCHG you do seem to have a problem accepting the rights of others to exist. If you dont like mixing with the majority of airspace users (i.e. GA) then go away and do something else. MOST pilots, CAT pilots AND GA pilots, get along quite well within the existing rules and regulations.

[Empty Cruise]

No, LPL still use "Land after..."-clearances. Got one about a month ago after a Falcon 900 - we had reduced to minimum approach speed at 4NM, but that didn't really allow room for the Falcon to be down to taxi-speed around E and then rolling at a leisurely pace to D. He vacated at D - we were off at E :ugh:

[BAe 146-100]

Any idea on the GA a/c involved?

LPL certainly do give "land after" clearances, I have received them in the past - quite frequently when it is busy with GA movements for example on a Sat morning.

Possibly a long float? Could have been a tailwind if it was 09 you were landing on coming from BFS?

Nah, easterly wind all week.

146

[Sallymo]

So you get RA'S of light aircraft do you?
I'm a frequent visitor to lpl and I haven't seen on my TCAS height info of the light aircraft at lpl ( ie no mode c) therefore no RA possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[adverse-bump]

With all the WIP at lpl on the taxiways, go arounds are becoming the norm, I have seen at least one a day all week (from the jets) and more than i can remember with the vfr traffic.

land afters are given at lpl, I had one on tuesday and have heard plenty more.

as for a t+g in a a320 its seems strange, the only thing i can think of is a single engine bod did not back track the runway as per instructed ( have seen that this week as well, ac onto the runway at golf told to leave at echo, but turns round and tries to TO)

Nah, easterly wind all week

yesterday night they were using runway 27, with the wind sock showing a westly wind at about 10kts if I remember rightly.

As for getting RA's all the time! I refuse to believe it, RVR do alot of flying from lpl (40-50 movements a day at a guess) and only ONE of there light singles a/c has mode C. :confused:

[dagobert]

Hi guys

Its funny everybody knows an answer for everything......

Has anybody got a RA below 900 ft Radio height???? Then you should send your TCAS computer to repair....

To clarify the situation:

We got cleared to land after light aircraft vacating the RWY....which was not vacating on time (taxiways on repair and vacating at the end)

The G/A was initiated below "brake off height" and that's very common to touch the wheels during GA!!!

And just to clarify again there was no short run on the RWY! And if "G/A Trust" was set before touching down, so there where no spoilers!!!!!

Study the books more carefully man!!!

Cheers


Dagobert

[RoyHudd]

Study your spelling more carefully Dagobert! Spell-checker is not always dependable.

Confusion can easily happen with spelling mistakes like yours. (For "brake", read "break")

[BAe 146-100]

yesterday night they were using runway 27, with the wind sock showing a westly wind at about 10kts if I remember rightly.

Very strange you say that, the METAR shows NE/ENE winds for the whole of the duration of yesterday night/this morning.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/EGGP.html

9 AM (13) Jun 07 62 (17) 51 (11) 30.15 (1021) ENE 7
8 AM (12) Jun 07 60 (16) 51 (11) 30.18 (1022) NNE 6
7 AM (11) Jun 07 59 (15) 50 (10) 30.18 (1022) ENE 8
6 AM (10) Jun 07 59 (15) 50 (10) 30.18 (1022) ENE 7
5 AM (9) Jun 07 57 (14) 50 (10) 30.18 (1022) NE 7
4 AM (8) Jun 07 57 (14) 50 (10) 30.21 (1023) ENE 8
3 AM (7) Jun 07 55 (13) 48 (9) 30.21 (1023) NE 6
2 AM (6) Jun 07 53 (12) 48 (9) 30.18 (1022) ENE 8
1 AM (5) Jun 07 51 (11) 46 (8) 30.18 (1022) NE 7
Midnight (4) Jun 07 48 (9) 44 (7) 30.18 (1022) NE 3
11 PM (3) Jun 06 48 (9) 44 (7) 30.21 (1023) NE 7
10 PM (2) Jun 06 48 (9) 44 (7) 30.21 (1023) NE 8
9 PM (1) Jun 06 50 (10) 44 (7) 30.21 (1023) NE 8
8 PM (0) Jun 06 50 (10) 44 (7) 30.21 (1023) NE 6

146

[westie]

I have the answer............maybe EZY are trying to save even more money by combining a/c base training with line flying. Just think, one touch and go each sector and the 1179 is signed off!!

[adverse-bump]

I can assure you, regardless of what the METAR says there were westerly winds when I landed, according to the wind sock, which tends to be slighty more reliable than a METAR which I think is based on a average wind over x mins before the METAR is issued. (i may be wrong). but at some point there were westerlys, hence why they were using runway 27 at about 1650z when I landed.

[WorkingHard]

LVLCHG - I take back what I said. For such a straightforward apology you must be genuinely congratulated.

[ZeBedie]

The G/A was initiated below "brake off height" and that's very common to touch the wheels during GA!!!

At G/A from15' radalt, you'll touch the main gear on the r/w less than 50% of the time. You must have been bloody low.

[NigelOnDraft]

F3G Fair enough, you know your business and I'm an amateur.
BTW, fyi I was pax on a flight last year where a narrow body jet airliner touched down/went around in CAVOK conditions, so its not impossible, even if unusual.There is no issue with a "touch'n'go", whatever weather - there are numerous valid reasons. However, IMHO "awaiting landing clearance" is not one of them... "Late Landing Clearance" is a fine ATC call, but it will usually mean the runway is not clear (vacating / crossing traffic, runway inspection). This is not the time to try the 15' GA :ugh:
To clarify the situation:
We got cleared to land after light aircraft vacating the RWY....which was not vacating on time (taxiways on repair and vacating at the end)
The G/A was initiated below "brake off height" and that's very common to touch the wheels during GA!!!
And just to clarify again there was no short run on the RWY! And if "G/A Trust" was set before touching down, so there where no spoilers!!!!!If you were FC on that Flt, and you left a GA so late that you touched down, despite knowing traffic ahead had not confirmed vacated, or were, iaw with the procedures, visual with that traffic and content to land after with him on the runway, I am somewhat concerned... :sad:
IMHO, whilst a GA after selecting reverse is a no-no, accepting a "Land After" also = no GA option where a touchdown is / may be involved. IMHO of course ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

NoD

For the sake of clarity, I accepted what you said about late landing clearance being a unlikely cause of the incident and my second comment was really in response to potkettleblack's post.

[Nil further]

Alt FLaps

There is nothing in EZY's SOP's about not continuing below "100/200 RA with traffic in sight"

A Go Around is normal manoevre ,dont see what the fuss is about.The crew continued as long as they could and then made what they judged to be the safest course of action in the prevaililng circumstances .

If you were not on the flight deck at that time then you cant make the call now.Bottom line is the a/c landed safely after executing a normal manoevre ,even if the pax found it a bit strange ,even if the main gear baulked.

[westie]

I'm sorry but I find this all a bit wierd. In 20 years of professional flying I have carried out a few g/a's but never so low as my wheels came anywhere near the ground. The only exception being when carrying out a practice g/a in the sim in cat 3b conditions. Quite simply the decision should have been made a lot earlier in the approach. If it was in cavok conditions then both atc and the pilots had full view of what was happening and one of them should have taken a positive decision rather than leaving things so late.

[JW411]

Well, I have been flying for nearly 50 years and I certainly do not consider it normal to touch down during a GA.

Indeed, if we look at CAT II operations, I would not sign off any pilot who hit the runway in the process of making a GA from 100ft. You are assumed to lose 30ft in the process of making a GA from a precision approach so the limit is 70ft.

If this aircraft did really touch down then we must assume that the decision was made below 30ft. That is most definitely not normal.

[Nil further]

Having pondered Westie and JW411 comments , i think they are correct in as much as in an ideal world the decision should have been made earlier .However ....... could it be that the crew decision to accept the land after in the first place was reasonable but then replaced by a better decision to go around when either more information was available to them or someone other factor intruded .

That to my mind is the risk you take if you accept a land after clearance ,you are now accepting responsibility for the actions of another PIC . I generally refuse land after clearances as they are often used by controllers as a "get out of jail free card" when its all gone to a ball of chalk.

I witnessed a horrific land after the departing involving 2 FR aircraft at STN last year , that made up my mind !


ps, I know that all clear to land clearances are conditional , however the legal onus/emphasis is very different in a land after.

Rgards to all

[alibaba]

I have to agree with Nil Further. The right decision was made in the end.

The option to go around can be made at any point up to the selecting of the Thrust Reversers when you become committed to landing; spoiler deployment has nothing to with your decision really. While it might have been a late call in some people’s opinion, things do happen that might change a normal situation into something quite different.

Most airlines have a no blame policy surrounding go arounds or missed approaches so the decision to go around should be easy to make. Excuse the pun. :}

The call was to go around and that was probably the safest option. Second guessing when the crew made their decision doesn't help as they made the right decision at the end of the day. :ok:

On the point of main wheel touch down from a CAT 3 A/B approach. It has/will or can happen and this is perfectly normal from this type of approach. A CAT 2 is a different story!

[fmgc]

BTW, fyi I was pax on a flight last year where a narrow body jet airliner touched down/went around in CAVOK conditions, so its not impossible, even if unusual.

I did that last summer onto 33 at BHX, floated a bit too far for my liking so went around, touched the RWY whilst engines were spooling up, pretty much a non-event (was quite good fun though). Night, CALM, CAVOK.

Tower told me that just as I flared there was a bit of a tailwind, about 7kts, so I looped round to land on 15 in the end.

Apparently we only had to pay the one landing fee!!:}:}

[westie]

As I have said before, I can accept a main wheel t/d on g/a from a cat 3 a/b (not cat 2) approach. Also fmgc's comment re g/a from a float is a really good decision. We all get it wrong on occasions and taking the correct action when we do get it wrong is part of what has been instilled in us. What I cannot accept is a g/a, where the decision has been made so late in cavok conditions that the main wheels touched down. It might well have been the correct decision but either the pilots or atc need to take a look at themselves and ask whether the decision to g/a should have been made earlier?

[Few Cloudy]

Nigel and others who find this unlikely...

There is nothing wrong in the gear touching down during a go around. The system is designed for this (spoiler pick up etc) especially on a cat 111 aircraft.

Now put yourself in the position of the captain, who wants to give the passengers the best service. He knows about the other aircraft and gives him the maximum of chance to clear the RW. Finally he has to GA - possibly from abort height (15ft on the 320 - 20ft on the 737) which carries the possibility of a short touch. The point is that the GA has been instigated before the touch.

All perfectly believable and clear to me.

FC.

[NigelOnDraft]

FC...
We all have our opinions... but for the last time, and I'll try to be clearer:There is nothing wrong in the gear touching down during a go around.I believe there is if you have not met the conditions to be "cleared to land" e.g. if you are not cleared to land on a runway, and are awaiting such clearance (busy R/T?) and never receive it, I believe it wrong to GA so late you touch down...
He knows about the other aircraft and gives him the maximum of chance to clear the RW.We don't actually know (?) what type of clearance the aircraft had, if any? If it was a "land after" then 2 ac on the runway is acceptable. However, IMHO one needs to raise one's game now, and ensure one is on speed/on glide/little float to minimise your ground roll / chance of late GA.
As if with a lot of things, it is a "judgement" call... but the question is "risk management" and "what if's". A touch and go with another aircraft on the runway to me is unnecessarily risky, outside my training and performance knowledge. I have done a touch and go in an A320 where the GA was initiated prior touchdown. The ground roll was long and distance remaining small (OK it was ABZ!) and the spool up time is significant, and I really would not like to have another aircraft on the runway at the same time...
I think we've all said our piece, and more comment is probably futile without knowing more about this actual scenario. Debate is good though...;)

[Few Cloudy]

Sorry Nigel,

Don't agree - a touch or a narrow miss as a part of a GA comes to the same thing since the intent to GA is there and the GA has been initiated.

FC.

[NigelOnDraft]

FC... I could not quote a rule to challenge you at all... However, if there was an aircraft crossing the runway and your late GA / touch and go hit his tail :{

I'd be interested in an ATCO perspective on this... ;)

NoD

PS Remember the BMI A320 (321?) on 09R at LHR that the AAIB investigated after a BA 744 went around "close over it". The AAIB made the point that the dark coloured aircraft, on the threshold, without strobes (?) (I think BMI were using the Auto setting so they'd come on). In this case the approaching aircraft did see, at a latish stage I believe the aircraft on the runway and went around. However, ATC had not initiated a GA, nor cleared him to land. Following your logic, the 744, if he hadn't seen him, was entitled to continue to a tough and go with ~400 lives lost :{

[fmgc]

I would never want to judge another Captain's decision in an open forum and as the real facts don't seem to be clear, so I am not judging this decision, I feel comfortable saying the following:

If the reason for the GA was that the runway was not clear, I think that a GA that involves a touchdown is probably leaving it a bit too late.

[Few Cloudy]

Well sure, we are speculating of course.
Putting myself in the position of a commander who has ahead an aircraft slow to vacate (and I have been in that position a few times) I might estimate that the guy will be clear in time for me to get in. In this case the other ship is way down the runway, so a contact during GA is not on the cards.
If you are stabilised, have the scene in sight and can GA at the drop of a hat, why not continue to abort height?
Any other scenario, such as an incursion or other obstacle anywhere on the RW including an unexpected aircraft in TO position as described above, would of course be grounds for a GA straight away.
FC.

[Atcham Tower]

Film star salaries? You must be talking about Lassie ...

[Few Cloudy]

Single RW ops is quite a hard job for the ATC boys and girls - especially with increasing and mixed traffic, as Itdraz illustrates above. The Lassie salaries are well earned.
Things are cut increasingly fine - which doesn't mean dangerous - just means a GA is on the cards if a hiccough occurs.
The days of Liverpool flying club, the odd Manx Air twin and not much else are long over!
FC.