View Full Version : Serious Incident: two Boeing 737 8AS aircraft, EI-EFF and EI-DHA, Dublin Airport, on

Sober Lark
24th Dec 2015, 16:40
Occurence date 8 March 2015. Report released today 24 Dec Serious Incident: two Boeing 737 8AS aircraft, EI-EFF and EI-DHA, Dublin Airport, on 8 March 2015: Report 2015-022 | AAIU.ie (http://www.aaiu.ie/node/878)

24th Dec 2015, 17:05
So an aircraft landed, just as the other was taking off....

Sober Lark
24th Dec 2015, 17:20
Yes, all went to plan hence the investigation?

24th Dec 2015, 18:47
So an aircraft landed, just as the other was taking off....

It says 1st a/c was airborne when 2nd a/c landed.

2nd a/c at 3.2nm. 1st a/c cleared for takeoff, I assume 'immediate takeoff' and I assume 1st a/c was asked in advance if they were ready. If all correct then that was a normal day at LGW when I used to fly there; even STN sometimes. It was clarified often with "continue expect late landing clearance". There was even, sometimes "one on, land after." Is that still allowed in EASA? Do the control freaks consider that is too much control/discretion/decision making given to the captain?

Una Due Tfc
24th Dec 2015, 19:15
The issue, as I understand it, is that the departure only got airborne before the arrival landed due luck, IE separation was not ensured by ATC. If the controller had done all this deliberately and the results were the same, there'd be no report and they'd be getting a pat on the back for efficient use of tarmac.

24th Dec 2015, 21:56
1st a/c cleared for takeoff, I assume 'immediate takeoff' and I assume 1st a/c was asked in advance if they were ready.

Correct so far - but the problem was the 1st a/c then proceeded to taxi part of the final distance to rwy at 5 kts - and was not actually ready due to not yet receiving "cabin secure" notification. They had just "hoped" they'd actually be ready when reaching the threshold.

When asked again if ready for immediate TO, and replying "negative," transmission was garbled and ATC heard "affirmative."

Airport surveillance system issued an alarm due to insufficient spacing - tower cancelled TO clearance, but that transmission was stepped on and 1st a/c did not hear it. But by that point, fastest way to get a/c 1 out of the way of landing a/c 2 was to proceed with the TO.

Issues were poor communications (situational and technical), and triggering the surveillance alarm made it a "official" event that therefore had to be investigated/explained.

I might fault the crew of a/c 1 for accepting an "immediate TO" clearance they were not really ready for. If you aren't ready - right now! - you shouldn't say you are.

But the radio problems closed off opportunities to rectify the situation before it became an "incident."

25th Dec 2015, 05:46
Pattern: thanks for that. If indeed 1st a/c accepted an immediate T/O and were not !00% ready that is the root cause and not professional. I would assume ATC said "traffic at 3.2nm are you ready immediate?" If so, and 1st a/c knew there was imminent landing traffic they should have been more cautious and not accepted.
"If there's doubt there is not doubt."
I can imagine that if the roles were reversed and the captain of the 1st a/c had in fact been in the 2nd and forced into a G/A there would have been some steam & choice words in his cockpit.
"It's better to a few minutes late than a few years early."

blind pew
25th Dec 2015, 08:38
Good to see the IAA are getting more professional after some internal changes.

A couple of years ago there were three serious incidents at Dublin including an aircraft landing over an unseen gang mower and an executive jet diving after take off to miss a crossing chopper. The latter incident was caused by misleading ATC com to the PPL who assumed the aircraft who he was cleared to cross behind was the landing one (terminology "rolling aircraft").
These incidents should have resulted in an overhaul as the two recent ground collisions have done.

I posted here after the channel 4 program on FR which led too the dismissal of John Goss who had criticized the authority; I was informed of a witch hunt at the following Gasci meeting to discover my identity.
A pure coincidence, I am sure, but I received a letter from the revenue investigation branch a month later.
Fortunately I'm not as stupid as whoever contacted them.
Glad that they appear to be getting their act together.

25th Dec 2015, 11:28
So ATC cleared an aircraft for takeoff but on second thought cancelled the clearance and told him/her to hold short but that message was stepped on.
Now instead of telling the departing a/c to hold position on the runway and instructing the landing one to go around he just "hoped" the departure would become airborne in time? I think that's the point.

Anyway, probably a hundred of similar situations happen at the major airports a day, be it deliberate and in full awareness of everyone....

Cows getting bigger
25th Dec 2015, 11:36
Dublin 28 is a serious accident waiting to happen. Proximity to Pier 4, Links 1&2, E taxiways, short taxi routes, single runway ops etc. How many ground collisions have they had in that area?

OK, this time it was something different with a classic 'ready-for-immediate' combined with a bit of the ubiquitous RT faff. They're probably quite fortunate that the landing Ryanair decided not to go-around. :sad:

25th Dec 2015, 12:09
The most salient part of the report....

At their closest point the aircraft were 807 metres apart; however the rate of closure was low. At this point, EI-EFF was past the intersection at TWY E5 accelerating past a speed of 138 kts, EI-DHA was approaching TWY E3 at 146 kts and decelerating (Graphic No. 1).

Now who hasn't 'been there, done that'...

Maybe the multiple 'garbled transmissions' needs investigating though.

25th Dec 2015, 15:03
Wouldn't a go-around have put the arriving aircraft into the same airspace as the departing aircraft?

ATC Watcher
25th Dec 2015, 15:36
Wouldn't a go-around have put the arriving aircraft into the same airspace as the departing aircraft?
Definitively, with that your chances of getting them together and not seing each other is very high.

From the full report :
Data provided {...} shows that the departing aircraft became airborne prior to the landing aircraft touching down.
In my years this would have never made an incident entry.

A storm in a glass of Guinness..

India Four Two
25th Dec 2015, 16:46
I was informed of a witch hunt at the following Gasci meeting to discover my identity.


Why would an Irish GA organisation be interested in finding out who you are?

26th Dec 2015, 11:11
Is it still the case in the USA that you get landing clearance well in advance? 20 years ago I was in JFK, Chicago, Orlando, Boston etc. It was common to come onto long finals No.5 and be given clearance to land. You were all flying instructed speeds for spacing. ATC was putting the decision onto the pilot. i.e. if the captain considers it safe to make a visual landing on the runway starring him in the face then it was his decision. From an ATC point of view there is no reason not to expect a landing. If you decide to GA, then you GA.
It was a very strange moment, coming from Europe, when it first happened to me. Later, I found one benefit of it when ATC tower was talking incessantly. You could not get a call in. because I already had 'clearance to land' as No.4 I just continued and landed on a clear runway. The spacing was such that the preceding a/c had vacated. I can see where single runway Ops could make this technique less than ideal, but giving the decision to the pilot has some merits in some circumstances.
I think there have some occurrences where ATC have called unnecessary GA's due traffic. I think that is where the incoming pilot has a strong overview of the situation, especially where the GA is an overlay of the SID. I do appreciate that some ATC's have local boundaries and may not have discretion. But then why?

handsome goafer
26th Dec 2015, 16:22
I thought that you should use'affirm' and ' negative' to help avoid such confusion

27th Dec 2015, 09:41
RAT 5, that is what happens at Paris CDG, but, I cannot recall landing in any other European airport where it is standard procedure.

Used to receive "behind the rolling/departing _ _ _ clear to land" particularly at busy single RW ops places like LGW, but, it doesn't seem to happen any more, so I assume rules have changed.

27th Dec 2015, 10:14
It makes me consider who is really making decisions & who is giving permission. In the USA scenario ATC gives permission to land IF the captain considers it safe to do so. The decision is the pilots'. The same should be true of GA's.
This concept is reinforced by this type of scenario: Heavy takes off. B737 is given line up & takeoff clearance. Captain of B737 rebukes ATC for not knowing they need 2 mins separation. ATC replies, correctly IMHO, "I didn't tell you to takeoff I cleared you to take off. It's your decision." I've heard this at UK airports.

Count of Monte Bisto
27th Dec 2015, 10:24
catplaystation - I believe the terminology exists for landing aircraft landing behind other landing aircraft only. The RT manual (CAP413) Sec 4-57 states:

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).


ATC: 'BIGJET 347, runway 28, land after the B737, wind calm'.
A/C: 'Land after the B737, BIGJET 347'.

I cannot find anywhere that says an aircraft will be cleared to land when there is an aircraft still taking-off.

27th Dec 2015, 17:00
Probably Alzheimers on my part . . . . . ;)

27th Dec 2015, 17:49
A Dog wags its tail. The tail don't wag the dog!

I remember once at CDG a few years ago hearing a large US transatlantic flight being cleared for take off, it was 09R, not that it matters.

Then ATC told them to stop.

'Negative, we're rolling' came the swift reply.

I said nothing, but "respect" formed briefly in my mind.:ok:

27th Dec 2015, 18:27
Count: CAP413 being an internal UK-specific document, does it count?