Double runway incursion at Okinawa

[Super VC-10]

ASN News » ANA Boeing 737-800 in serious double runway incursion incident at Okinawa Airport, Japan (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/06/03/ana-boeing-737-800-in-serious-double-runway-incursion-incident-at-okinawa-airport-japan/)

OK, the first one I understand, but the second? If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option? (note, I'm not criticizing anyone here, merely asking the question - no doubt there will be an investigation and I'm happy to wait for a transcript of the report in English).

[Dash8driver1312]

Double engine failures generally preclude a go-around on a twin-engined aircraft.

[Super VC-10]

Double engine failures generally preclude a go-around on a twin-engined aircraft.

Whilst that is true, it's not what happened here!

[West Coast]

Doubt it applies here, but a missed approach initiated inside the MAP may not clear terrain, thus hesitancy to do anything but land.

[vapilot2004]

This event sounds like either 'ear' trouble for 2 out of 3 captains or perhaps more likely, 'mouth' trouble for 1 out of 1 controller.

Not sure how tower communicates at OKA but all participants most likely are native Japanese speakers.

[Intruder]

If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option?
Can't think of one...

Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.


Doubt it applies here, but a missed approach initiated inside the MAP may not clear terrain, thus hesitancy to do anything but land.
Not even CLOSE to a valid reason! Terrain clearance criteria are based on one engine inop, so there is never a reason (that I can think of) to even THINK like that when both engines are running! You already have flying speed at the approach end threshold, and are at or below max landing weight. The conditions are WAY better than for initial takeoff!

[West Coast]

Go fly in the mountains, review a few IAPs and you're going to have an epiphany.

Read what I said again, starting the missed approach from inside the missed approach point on certain approaches. There are certain special IAPs JNU, ASE, EGE to name a few) that don't assure terrain clearance started inside the MAP.

[underfire]

Terrain clearance criteria are based on one engine inop

Sorry, but that is not correct. The public criteria is based on all engine gross/net climb performance.

Tailored criteria does account for OEI performance for missed, and even balked.

[Sailvi767]

You should have procedures for a rejected landing at terrain critical airports even if a engine fails. If not your airline has some serious safety issues. In general the procedures usually mirror the engine out departure procedure.

[West Coast]

We do, but often don't mirror the OEO procedure. They're proprietary procedures provided by our performance provider designed to extract the aircraft where there is no published procedure. To tie it back to the original question, I'd consider taking my lumps on the runway rather than a single engine extraction, at night and/or in WX.

[KABOY]

Few words describe this incident for the landing B737, lack of situational awareness/Airmanship. Listening on the radio and looking out the window, the Captain would have been aware of the highly dynamic situation at play.

Seeing an aircraft stopped on the runway doesnt need ATC to tell you to Go-Around. The ATC instruction should have been the last resort and it was still disregarded. Both approaches are over water, there are no terrain considerations, the missed approach will keep aircraft low (1500') due to the nearby American airbase.

[vapilot2004]

Radio issues aside, do we know what the RVR was?

[KABOY]

Looking at the video it would have been greater than 10km.

[vapilot2004]

Did not watch the video in the link earlier. Thank you KB. Now that I have, it is interesting to observe, despite the obvious risks of a collision, how much of a non-incident it "appears" to play out on video - the helo seems more potentially threatening than the following flight. All that aside, with daytime ops and visibility like that, it seems a bit odd that both transgressions occurred - radio difficulties or not.

Obviously there was a breakdown in comms. In trying to visualize what the landing aircraft saw, without knowing the intentions of the aircraft already on the runway, I see landing behind the better option compared to a GA over an aircraft that has the potential to become airborne and a rising threat below me.

[Daysleeper]

Nasty one from the look of it.

Watching the video a few times we don't know where the intruding Chinook had got to so the approaching aircraft could have been faced with go-around to a mid-air with the Chinook or take the landing against traffic you can see. Either way it's a judgement call and no one got hurt.

[ShotOne]

The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe.

[donotdespisethesnake]

Looking at the video it would have been greater than 10km.

The majority of the video appears to be a computer rendering, not CCTV. If it is a graphic artist's reconstruction, I would not read too much into it.

[TypeIV]

"The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe."

Finally a sensible comment.

In airmanship, quick decisions based on the big picture are essential. Humbleness is also a good quality which not many here demonstrate.

[SLFguy]

The majority of the video appears to be a computer rendering, not CCTV. If it is a graphic artist's reconstruction, I would not read too much into it.

Did we watch different videos?

[TypeIV]

Can't think of one...

Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.

Then let me give you a hint: A big powerful helicopter on the missed approach path with an unknown direction, when you are bank angle limited, and no TCAS in the world will save you.

[KABOY]

Runway direction is 18/36, helicopter was tracking from East to West. I don't see any conflict with a missed approach, the helicopter was well clear of the centreline by the time the other aircraft touched down. If you maintained some situational awareness, a small track correction would keep you clear of the helicopter's fligh path. A chinook is not going to change direction that rapidly.

I wouldnt have liked to be the ANA captain vacating the runway knowing another aircraft touched down behind me, against an ATC instruction.

[TypeIV]

Well, sitting here with a cup of coffee and being a judging keyboard astronaut is easy and comfortable for the ego when the facts and results are available in afterhand.

Having to take the decision in a split second where you might not even have been aware of the presence of a camouflaged helicopter is not as easy. Even though my eyesight is very good, when flying to military airfields I often struggle to establish a visual contact with camouflaged aircraft more than 2-3nm away, aspecially during a bright sunny day with a windshield full of mashed mosquitoes.

If you know the runway, your aircraft and distance to preceeding aircraft you have a pretty accurate estimate of where the aircraft will come to a rest. I would usually prefer going off the edge of the runway at jogging-speed rather than running the risk of a midair collision.

I agree that a missed approach usually is the safest option but when it's no longer a safe option you might have to use your judgement and skills rather than manuals written by lawyers to stay alive. Therefor I will not judge and criticize the airmen in question.

[beardy]

Type 1V, you may a good point about awareness, if he was aware of the Chinook, but couldn't see it then it's a really tough call. If he was unaware of the Chinook (ie didn't even know of its presence) and terrain was no issue then there is a real problem here.

[Intruder]

A camouflaged (matte painted) aircraft is actually easier to see against a bright sky (where it would be once the airplane descended to its altitude), as it initially appears as a 'black hole'. Also, a Chinook broadside is a LARGE aircraft, so it should not be too hard to see at 5 miles (much less 2!), especially if you are aware of the general area of the traffic.

Notwithstanding a couple 'way out there' scenarios (such as the mountainside airport), there is almost never a reason to fail to go around when so directed by tower.

In this particular situation, the helo was well out of collision range of the landing airplane; it would have only threatened the airplane taking off immediately after rotation. The tower made a good 'go around' call after the helo pilot misheard the takeoff clearance. The Captain of the landing aircraft made 2 significant errors: landing when another airplane was still stopped on the runway, and disregarding the tower's instructions. Each of those was a higher threat to his airplane than the helo or the terrain.

[West Coast]

Hardly far out there. It may not be a concern for you but it will be for me in just a few hours as it was for many others today as well. In a flatland scenario with nothing else complicating the situation, I would likely agree with you though

[Starbuck69]

Those unfamiliar with Naha may not be aware that Naha approach, tower, ground etc operate dual VHF/UHF frequencies down there, the P3s, F15s, T4s on UHF, the Chinooks I have heard on both, occasionally you will hear the tower transmitting a call on VHF whilst talking to a mil fighter on UHF but they actually transmitting on both, other times they will transmit on the designated frequency only. This could possibly have been another factor, not saying it was, just trying to make the picture in Naha clear, go arounds during the day by civilian airliners due to F15 formations not clearing the runway in time for example, is an everyday occurance here.

Work on a second runway has finally begun but that is still years away. With such an eclectic mix of traffic in Naha, Islanders to F15s, Chinooks to 777s, on the single runway with 2 busy US airbase's airspace surrounding Naha, ATC working multiple frequencies, PAR approaches throughout the day, it is slightly surprising more of this doesn't happen on a regular basis.

At the end of the day, everyone is still safe and now the JCAB and JGSDF will start their multiple inquiries and eventually something will come out.

[TypeIV]

especially if you are aware of the general area of the traffic.
That's a serious assertion, how do you know that he knew about the helo just taking off? If someone made an RTO due to a helicopter over the clearway and I didn't see it or know where it was going I would probably have done the same.

In this particular situation, the helo was well out of collision range of the landing airplane
Now, that's very easy to point out with facts in hand afterwards. How would the pilot know beforehand?

there is almost never a reason to fail to go around when so directed by tower.
I have colleagues who have been on final reserve fuel and I've had predictive windshear warnings beyond the runway in very mountaneous areas myself. A grass cutter not responding on his radio for example, would not get me going around in that situation (seen that too).

In this particular situation, the helo was well out of collision range of the landing airplane;
Again. This is difficult to know until the scenario is over. There's a chance that the only sight he got of the helo was the traffic advisory on his ND. If we weren't there to have the all facts ready, we shouldn't judge.

A camouflaged (matte painted)
Did you even watch the video?

[Intruder]

Yes, I watched the video.

I've also had the opportunity to engage multiple F-4s and F-14s with varying paint schemes. The matte painted airplanes were definitely easier to find in a bright sky.

If he had the helo on his ND, he either had an RA or did not. If he did, it would NOT have been a "Descend" advisory at that low an altitude. If he did not, he could have avoided it visually and/or via the TCAS display.

What we DO know was that the tower told him to go around, but he did not. There would have to be some extraordinary circumstances to validate that decision, and so far we have seen none.

OTOH, it IS possible he did not hear the go-around transmission. If so, he should still have gone around due to the airplane stopped on the runway.

[Capn Bloggs]

Much ado about nothing. There was very little chance of a midair with the angry palmtree and very little chance of an "up the bum" prang on the runway. :ok:

[ShotOne]

That's a pretty unreasonable position, Intruder; none of us know exactly where the Chinook was at the critical moment but the landing airline pilot was in a better position to make the call than the controller. It's entirely your speculation whether or not it appeared on his TCAS but even if it did it wouldn't guarantee he could avoid it.

[Intruder]

Again, with ALL else as speculation, we KNOW:

The controller called for a go around.

There was an airplane stopped on the runway.

WHY did the pilot land anyhow?!? I would have gone around with EITHER of the 2 conditions! To land with BOTH of the 2 conditions was unconscionable, save for extraordinary conditions. WHAT WERE THEY, if any? We won't know for sure until the investigation report comes out.

Personally, I suspect there were none...

[thwipt]

According to this report in the local press (http://ryukyushimpo.jp/news/storyid-243811-storytopic-1.html) (Japanese), the pilot of the JTA 737 claimed when debriefed that the controller called go around only after the plane had already touched down and applied reverse thrust, by which time it was not practical to comply.

[Flying Bagel]

I suppose it depends on where the JAL Transocean was when go-around was called. If it was a rejected landing scenario with heli traffic crossing the flight path, I can see how the pilots would have decided to stop. If the go-around call happened much farther back in the approach, perhaps it's another story altogether.

But there really isn't much to go on here is there. We don't even know if the landing aircraft got a TCAS RA. It's very hard to judge either way.

[vapilot2004]

OTOH, it IS possible he did not hear the go-around transmission.

That is what I would assume happened, unless the GA call came after the MAP.

If so, he should still have gone around due to the airplane stopped on the runway.

On the other hand...

I suppose it depends on where the JAL Transocean was when go-around was called. If it was a rejected landing scenario with heli traffic crossing the flight path, I can see how the pilots would have decided to stop. If the go-around call happened much farther back in the approach, perhaps it's another story altogether.


Agreed. In addition, relying on TCAS in place of visual contact for avoidance of an aircraft that can move rather quickly in all directions (helo) in terminal airspace seems riskier to me than landing behind an aircraft well down the runway, of which it may not have been known its intentions either.

[TypeIV]

If he had the helo on his ND, he either had an RA or did not. If he did, it would NOT have been a "Descend" advisory at that low an altitude. If he did not, he could have avoided it visually and/or via the TCAS display.

RAs are inhibited below 1000' and the accuracy of the TCAS, when used for determining the position of another AC is very bad. Therefor he couldn't have used the TCAS to avoid it. Even visually it would have been difficult since you are restricted to a bank angle of only 15 degrees and you might get the chinhook out of sight due to the big pitch up. Probably he didn't even see it at all and therefor decided not to go around.

What we DO know was that the tower told him to go around, but he did not. There would have to be some extraordinary circumstances to validate that decision, and so far we have seen none.
Unknown aircraft, potentially in the missed approach path, with an AT THE TIME unknown direction and intention, is an extraordinary circumstance. A midair collision is a possible outcome from such an extraordinary circumstance.

it IS possible he did not hear the go-around transmission. If so, he should still have gone around due to the airplane stopped on the runway.
We are pilots and not robots, we have to use our judgement and skills. If the tower's command is deemed unsafe, there is absolutely no problem for a captain to disregard the tower's command. It was as late as last evening that an approach controller told me to descend into the path of another aircraft coming head on 1000' below me.

WHY did the pilot land anyhow?!? I would have gone around with EITHER of the 2 conditions! To land with BOTH of the 2 conditions was unconscionable, save for extraordinary conditions. WHAT WERE THEY, if any?

A potential midair collision guaranteeing the death of all aboard from the information that might have been available at the point of decision making.

We won't know for sure until the investigation report comes out.

That's the reason why we should be more humble and not as fast when judging. After all everyone remains alive. If the track of the helo was different in combination with a GA, the outcome could have been much worse.

Personally, I suspect there were none...

I suspect that there were

[ShotOne]

+1 to all of that, type IV, on top of which, why are we judging the 737 pilot at all? None of his options were risk free. And why a complete of absence of judgement for the helo crew whose major lapse in professionalism and SA caused this. Even allowing for them mishearing the clearance, how could they not see two liveried twin engined airliners with all their lights heading for their intended flightpath?

[netstruggler]

Assuming the following aircraft was committed to touching down, how much runway would be needed for a go-around, compared to coming to a stop?

[mary meagher]

The Chinook took off across the runway WITHOUT CLEARANCE!

So the aircraft cleared to takeoff aborted the departure, it was still on the runway when the 737 landed behind it. Apparently ignoring the tower instruction to go around.

If the handling pilot of the landing 737 judged he could easily stop in the distance available with the aborted departure still on the runway, I think he may have used good sense. The aircraft on the runway is not going to reverse, after all. The helicopter, already behaving without clearance, could go up, down, sideways, or backwards! So the landing 737 could well have decided it is safer to land with enough room to stop rather than to chance a midair with an erratic Chinook in the way.

[Pace]

Any Pilot must be prepared to go around until they have a landing clearance! To ignore a go around call and to then land without a landing clearance I am not surprised that the Captain has been asked to explain himself.
a go around call cancels a landing clearance even if one has been given

To land a heavy jet thinking you can stop with another aircraft already on the runway is on a wing and a prayer and not based on any computed data.

How does the pilot judge the runway available? Going around the pilot could always break right or left if there is another aircraft airborne

[vapilot2004]

To land a heavy jet thinking you can stop with another aircraft already on the runway is on a wing and a prayer and not based on any computed data.

How does the pilot judge the runway available? Going around the pilot could always break right or left if there is another aircraft airborne

These are all good points, Pace, but I believe those wings and prayers might also be needed if the landing aircraft went around with difficult to spot/predict company in the vicinity: a.) helo changes direction, b.) a second, or more helos come up behind the first - unlike tankers and transports, small military aircraft are often not alone - and this at an airport known for incursions and complications between military, local forces, and commercial traffic, c.) the aircraft on the runway is not truly stopped and lifts off below where only TCAS can see.

It is a judgement call to be sure and the decision falls under the purview of the PIC in this situation. It will be interesting to see what truly transpired that day, have a look at the transcripts, and see what sort of if any action is taken.

[TypeIV]

Any Pilot must be prepared to go around until they have a landing clearance!

Not if going around is more dangerous than forcing a landing.

To ignore a go around call and to then land without a landing clearance I am not surprised that the Captain has been asked to explain himself.
a go around call cancels a landing clearance even if one has been given

Ignoring and disregarding are not always the same things. Controllers and pilots are humans. Our task is to bring the aircraft down in the most safe manner and not to follow orders to the detail. I know that there is a big cultural difference depending on our background but staying alive is a combination of following rules and procedures, but also to be able to think outside the box sensibly when the rules introduce new hazards.


To land a heavy jet thinking you can stop with another aircraft already on the runway is on a wing and a prayer and not based on any computed data.
I'll think about that next time I use my landing distance tables/software.

How does the pilot judge the runway available? Going around the pilot could always break right or left if there is another aircraft airborne

Easy, it's called airmanship, if you fly to an airfield with few runways, regularely, you will soon know the distance for each turn off by heart. If the aircraft is beyond an intersection 2000m down the runway, you know for sure that you will safely stop before the other aircraft, or steer off the runway at a low speed. Thats' in my opinion a much safer option than a midair collision.

If you know your aircraft, you do not even need your landing distance table to estimate your landing roll to within 200m accuracy. That's why we do autobrake max demonstrations during training to show how efficiently and smoothly the aircraft stops within the first 1100m of the runway. I have even used it in an emergency situation requiring a threshold speed of more than 195kts and it works just fine.

No you cannot break left or right. You are limited in bank angle and performance. Making a go around requires the PF to focus on his instruments and the handling of the plane while PM has to monitor him and retract flaps, gears, set speeds and remind PF of missing items in order to gain performance needed. If four eyes are kept looking outside for another unknown aircraft, performance may be even further limited since configuring and handling of the aircraft may be compromised. Forcing a performance limited aircraft will introduce much bigger hazards, aspecially when you are close to the ground.

[svhar]

Great post TypeIV. What I wanted to say.

[evansb]

Every one is okay... No body was hurt. Proof is in the pudding. Good night. Oh, by the way, fire and fine the Chinook pilot.

[zonoma]

Is this airport allowed to give "land after the departing" or landing clearances American style? If not, the JTA landed without a landing clearance as one would not have been issued until the ANA had departed. Even "land after the departing" has been breached so unless landing clearances are issued American style, I imagine the JTA crew are in for a bit of a grilling.

[Mungo Man]

In my experience at this port, ATC clear aircraft to land almost as soon as departing traffic has begun their take off roll. There is then a period of contradiction during the approach when you've been cleared to land but it would be questionable to land until you are certain the departing traffic is airborne. I strongly suspect the landing aircraft in this incident had already been cleared to land and was subsequently told to go-around but either missed the go-around call or dis-regarded it. ATC speak English with a very thick accent and can be very difficult to understand at Naha.

[dawgweed]

If the go around instruction is at point in the landing phase where the go around becomes a touch and go instead, at what point is it safer to land than to go around and possibly hitting the aircraft on the Runway?

[Intruder]

Just because you might touch down is NOT usually a reason to refuse a go-around. We get those situations quite often in the simulator, and touching down is NOT a criterion in a successful event.

Remember that in the case of a "balked landing" (the official term for a go-around with a touchdown) you are at flying speed immediately on touchdown, and the engines are already spooled up. With all engines operating, there is usually no concern about climbing out immediately. If you would consider a touch & go on the same runway, there is no reason to fear a balked landing.

[West Coast]

the official term for a go-around with a touchdown

Can you provide a reference for that?

Differs from what I learned?

[beardy]

FAR part 23 s3ction 77 describes the performance requirements in the event of balked landing as opposed to go around.
Similarly, Advisory Circular (AC) No. 700-016 - Transport Canada gives the definition of a balked landing as: A discontinued landing attempt. The term is often used in conjunction with aircraft configuration or performance assessment, as in “Balked landing climb gradient. Also see “Rejected Landing.”

ie not necessarily a missed approach.

[klunk49]

Mungo Man, you are correct. I was there 1 hour after it happened. Weather was no factor, visibility more than 25k, wind right down the runway at 10 knots. The Chinook made a mistake in departing, ANA had take off clearance, rejected T/O when told. Many times on final you are given "cleared to land RW 18, traffic rolling." JTA was between 600'-800' when given landing clearance. You have everything happening right in front of you, you hear T/O clearance cancelled , see big helicopter passing over runway left to right. Say your altitude is know 400', be the hero, call "going around" make slight left bank, parallel the runway,flap 15,gear up, level at 1000' feet, standby further instructions. There is no obstacles, also no reason to fly the exact missed approach procedure. They didn't get the "go around" clearance until touching down. Yes, too late then to go around, if in reverse. What do we all do when shooting approach to minimums, with landing clearance, and see nothing? We go around, don't we? ATC doesn't tell us to go around. Situational awareness missing, big time, by JTA crew. As Josey Wales said " This turned into a Missouri boat ride!"

[vector4fun]

Closest near collision I ever had in 31 yrs ATC was because a helo departed in the wrong direction and crossed an active runway. Missed a T-38 by feet, not yards or meters.

This incident wasn't even close in comparison.

[ShotOne]

"Situational awareness missing for the JTA crew?" He was situationally aware there was a big helicopter in front of him. I take issue with the earlier poster who said it was "on a predictable flightpath"; nobody except its crew predicted it would take off at all, still less fly across a busy international runway with no clearance. Lack of SA?.. Surely the helo pilot really ought to have seen two airliners heading his way??

[dawgweed]

"Just because you might touch down is NOT usually a reason to refuse a go-around. We get those situations quite often in the simulator, and touching down is NOT a criterion in a successful event.

Remember that in the case of a "balked landing" (the official term for a go-around with a touchdown) you are at flying speed immediately on touchdown, and the engines are already spooled up. With all engines operating, there is usually no concern about climbing out immediately. If you would consider a touch & go on the same runway, there is no reason to fear a balked landing."

I have witnessed several balked landings. Although probably at flying speed shortly after touching down, in this case the runway remaining might not be sufficient to miss an actual 40 foot obstacle (b737) only 5900 ft in front of you.

[Intruder]

Can you provide a reference for that?

Differs from what I learned?
Start with AC 120-91, par. 17.c.

AIM 5-4-21.h appears to extend the definition to any point after the MAP, thought the AC definition still uses the worst case -- landing at the end of the touchdown zone.

[Smudger]

IMHO the Chinook was bloody miles away albeit not where he was supposed to be.. non-event turned into a saga by the media again

[West Coast]

AIM 5-4-21.h appears to extend the definition to any point after the MAP, thought the AC definition still uses the worst case -- landing at the end of the touchdown zone.

My airline uses after MAP/DA/DH/DMDA. There's a significant difference between some of those points/heights/altitudes and the runway, especially at places that have long fly visual segments such as PAJN and KEGE.

PAJN RNAV (GPS) V RWY 08 (IAP) ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PAJN/IAP/RNAV+%28GPS%29+V+RWY+08)

The AC makes no mention of a go around initiated after touchdown that I see, though it doesn't preclude it or just about anything else. I would wager a more likely scenario described is a poorly planned, long landing that necessitated a go around while still airborne.

[Pace]

Just because you might touch down is NOT usually a reason to refuse a go-around. We get those situations quite often in the simulator, and touching down is NOT a criterion in a successful event.

Remember that in the case of a "balked landing" (the official term for a go-around with a touchdown) you are at flying speed immediately on touchdown, and the engines are already spooled up. With all engines operating, there is usually no concern about climbing out immediately. If you would consider a touch & go on the same runway, there is no reason to fear a balked landing.

I agree! Even after a landing clearance a go around negates that clearance.
It could be that a vehicle enters the runway at an intersection point meaning that to continue the landing would result in a collision.
A go around on touchdown is part of the training and not a big deal at relatively high speed.
Obviously the Captain has ultimate authority for the safety of the aircraft and PAX but ignoring or overriding a Go around instruction will mean he will have to explain himself after the event.

That explanation would determine whether his decision was correct or incorrect or in a grey area. He could face charges for ignoring an ATC instruction and if a collision occurred because of ignoring a go around instruction It would be hard to justify that decision .

[Pontius]

ignoring or overriding a Go around instruction will mean he will have to explain himself after the event.

There have been several references in this thread to the go-around instruction having been given after the reversers were deployed by the JTA 737 crew. If this is the case then all pontifications about going around after touchdown are irrelevant.

[Pace]

Pontius

In such a situation the Captain may go against the ATC instruction as he has ultimate responsibility for the aircraft and PAX. I am sure in that situation he would be justified in aborting a takeoff attempt.

It still comes down to the Captain having to justify his actions post the event?

[pattern_is_full]

IMHO the Chinook was bloody miles away albeit not where he was supposed to be.

Well, not really. The Chinook is still visible inside the airport boundaries in the video frame showing NU-610 on the ground and slowing, at AvHerald. Less than half a mile @ less than 500 feet (and less than that when the decision to continue the landing was made).

Incident: Japan TransOcean B734 at Okinawa on Jun 3rd 2015, continued landing onto occupied runway despite instruction to go around (http://avherald.com/h?article=48740a0c&opt=0)

For me, this incident highlights the dangers of assuming everything will go "right".

The controller cleared one plane to take off while another was on final approach, thinking there was adequate spacing. Which would have worked fine, assuming nothing went wrong. Unfortunately something did go wrong (and if it hadn't been the Chinook's mistaken takeoff, it could have been a bird ingestion or some other reason for a takeoff abort.) And suddenly the "adequate spacing" was no longer there.

The landing pilot assumed he had enough space and performance to slow and avoid the aircraft stopped on the runway. And indeed he did - with maximum braking effort (from the body language of the passengers describing the landing).

But suppose this was the day the reverse gate decided to jam, delaying the start of deceleration a few seconds?

Personally: If I were the landing pilot, the moment I heard the tower call "abort takeoff", I'd have been in high alert mode, with "probable go-around" in the front of my mind. Listening hard for an acknowledgment of the call, and looking hard to find the helo, and see what the aircraft on the runway was doing. I'd have kept my options open as long as possible.

This pilot used his command authority to do what he thought was best. In the event, his decision was not disastrous. He'll have to justify his decision to two entities - those who control his license, and those who control his paycheck. Their opinions are the only ones that will count.

[nomorecatering]

Lots of waffle on this thread. There is one cardinal rule that you should never break. You must never, ever, land on an occupied runway....period. It's that simple. A 737 as far as I know still has windows that enable you to look out and see aircraft on the runway, and those flappy things near the wingtips enable you to turn and avoid other airborne traffic......I think they are called ailerons.

yes I'm being facetious, but to think that a crew would land on an occupied runway, rather than a simple go around for traffic that is tracking roughly 90 deg to the centreline and getting further away, it would have only required a 10 deg heading change to the left.......no problem. It beggars belief that an airline captain would continue the landing.

[zonoma]

Who's responsibility is it to ensure that the runway is clear for landing having been given a "cleared to land, traffic rolling" instruction? There has always been issue with such instructions and surely this incident is as close as we would want to get for the safety of the instruction to be investigated. I will always be baffled how you can clear an aircraft (or several) to land on a runway that is not clear of traffic.

[Pace]

Zonoma

We cannot have it both ways :ok: One minute the argument is that this is all about the Captains superior judgement but a landing clearance with an aircraft still departing is ATC?

Surely a landing clearance with an aircraft rolling would mean the superior pilot would be on alert for the fact that something could disrupt that takeoff so he would still be in the go around mental mode.
Most situations are more likely to be a warning of a late landing clearance


At V1 there is a 99% chance the aircraft will takeoff regardless of a major problem so while the aircraft may still be on the runway it is committed to fly and travelling away from the direction of the landing aircraft. Aborting after V1 would probably mean the aircraft would have cleared the runway involuntarily :E Loss of directional control? it unlikely to end up on the runway. So both situations the aircraft would have gone off the end or into the fields.

I do not think the same attitude is there for aircraft which have landed and not yet cleared as that aircraft is relatively static and may not clear creating a high collision risk.

[cwatters]

Some posters appear to have missed post #32 by thwipt..

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/562438-double-runway-incursion-okinawa-2.html#post9001053

According to this report in the local press (Japanese), the pilot of the JTA 737 claimed when debriefed that the controller called go around only after the plane had already touched down and applied reverse thrust, by which time it was not practical to comply.

I suppose that makes the real question.. Why didn't they see the obstruction?

[deefer dog]

A non event that worked out just fine. My only observation here is the number of armchair quarter backs getting their knickers in a twist and spouting a lot of uninformed gossip about a situation that would clearly get them all hot and bothered. :ugh:

[BizJetJock]

You must never, ever, land on an occupied runway....period.
Err.... :mad:, I'm afraid
From UK CAP413 R/T manual, but similar to other places around the wold:
A landing aircraft may be permitted to touch down before a preceding landing aircraft has vacated the runway provided that:
1. the runway is long enough to allow safe separation between the
two aircraft and there is no evidence to indicate that braking may be
adversely affected;
2. it is during daylight hours;
3. the preceding landing aircraft is not required to backtrack in order to
vacate the runway;
4. the controller is satisfied that the landing aircraft will be able to see
the preceding aircraft which has landed, clearly and continuously,
until it has vacated the runway; and
5. the pilot of the following aircraft is warned. (Responsibility for
ensuring adequate separation rests with the pilot of the following
aircraft.
As used at such minor airports as Heathrow & Gatwick.

[Pace]

BJJ

1 and 5 are very relevant :E You are not suggesting that an aircraft can land with another aircraft taking an early turnoff maybe half way down the runway before it clears ?

[BizJetJock]

Well, that depends on the length of the runway and the types of aicraft involved!
I am not saying that is directly applies here; obviously the second aircraft was not warned by ATC by being given a "land after" clearance. I was merely pointing out that to say "You must never, ever, land on an occupied runway....period." is incorrect.
My view is that I do not have enough knowledge of the facts to form an opinion on whether it was a wise course of action, so I will leave it to the investigators who will go over it in fine detail to do so.

[deefer dog]

"A non event that worked out just fine. "

An event not worthy a discussion? Imagine yourself in command of anyone of the 3 a/c involved in this incident (or ATC), wouldn't you want to know just what caused the commanders to act the way they did?Yes, when the facts have been established. At this time though we don't have the ATC tapes, and there is even speculation that the go-around instruction was given after the aircraft had touched down.

Right now it is guesswork piled on top of speculation. But carry on as you wish....

[deefer dog]

1 and 5 are very relevant :E You are not suggesting that an aircraft can land with another aircraft taking an early turnoff maybe half way down the runway before it clears ?

Yes he is! I don't know what it's called nowadays but it used to be called a "land after" which may (in the UK, and other places) be issued if certain conditions exist.

Would I land after an aircraft I can see halfway down the the runway, while he was still vacating? Yes, if I knew I could stop before running into him, and if so cleared to do.

[Pace]

Yes, if I knew I could stop before running into him, and if so cleared to do.

That is the problem? If he has braked hard in a similar performance jet to make a turnoff and hasn't cleared you could have a brake or reverse thrust deployment fault and not stop.

There are many reasons why a jet you think is clearing ends up not clearing.
myself until his nose is in the taxiway and i can see he is moving out I wouldn't take anything for granted :{

I even had one who was asked to expedite and with the slant angle looked level with the turnoff and able to make a direct entry to the taxiway who infact was slightly past it and immediately executed a 180. It all looked good to me and i am sure to ATC too

One taking off isn't such a problem as its moving away from you and after reaching V1 he is going airborne regardless

[deefer dog]

Pace, sure there is nothing wrong with being cautious. So too are the UK CAA, but they do allow controllers to issue land after clearances, and give us pilots the option to accept them if we wish to. It's a matter of judgement really, but if you want to mitigate brake or reverse thrust deployment fault that is your judgement call.

I guess using that logic you would never consider landing on a short, almost limiting, field. (Wasn't there a thread on that subject lately?)

[Groucho]

"after reaching V1 he is going airborne regardless"

- aah! What colour glasses do you have? A little research on aborts would not go amiss, I feel.

As deefer says, keep away from runways that are 'a bit short' just in case.

[Pace]

DD

It depends on the level of risk you and your PAX are prepared to take?
There are guys who will operate in a jet out of very short runways. The sort of runway you will rotate on the numbers at the far end and thank God all was ok ?

I had an owner who wanted to base his jet aircraft in Thruxton I told him no but he insisted so I took it there running on fumes. 3 weeks later? Take it out again I did so on fumes but he was never going to go to Majorca with a full payload from there

[Yaw String]

If we are all so damned clever,on this forum,why do incidents/accidents still happen?
Remember,even a chicken can fly better than a man/woman!..ergo,we are out of our natural medium,and therefore,at risk from the moment we get airborne.

Ours is a profession often requiring quick assessment/reaction..Give a human a break!...not there on the day?,then you will not be in possession of all the relevant info/stimulus/instinct that helped the crew involved make a decision on a reasonable course of action....
Pause for coffee..and donning my tin helmet;)