Coordination during Takeoff and G/A

[hamil]

A friend sent me a video about an incident in Sao Paulo (SBSP) / Brazil

Scenario:
- Operation on a critical and congested airport
- Wet runway
- A B737-800 is cleared to takeoff
- An A320 - about 3 NM on final - begins G/A procedure because of unstable approach
- TWR ATC informs B737 crew to abort the takeoff
- RTO starts below V1 but likely above 100 kt

Question: what's the recommended (or contingency?) procedure that should be followed if both airplanes are in the air - for example, A320 goes around at short final and B737 is at VR, or due performance B737 captain decides not to follow ATC instructions?

You Tube

[ahramin]

I've seen the situation you describe in YVR a couple times. Pretty sporty but at the end of the day all ATC needs to do is keep the planes apart. Turn the high one away from the low one, stop the climb on the low one, climb the high one above the low one, whatever works. The important thing is that they don't touch.

[mike current]

3 miles out is already 900 feet above threshold. Keep the missed approach a/c climbing and stop the climb on the departing one (unless the airport is surrounded by ridiculous terrain). Avoidance turns if and when required. Chances are, if initiated at 3 miles, it should be possible to even maintain standard separation.

It gets a bit more frantic if the go around is initiated inside 2 miles...

[B2N2]

I addition to the above, missed approach at 2000 fpm rate of climb would put the aircraft at 3000’ AGL in a minute.
Departing aircraft at 2000 fpm would be at 2000’ AGL in a minute giving you 1000’ separation.

Oversimplification yes.

“Aircraft One expedite climb and maintain (missed approach altitude) contact departure 126.8
Break,break
Aircraft Two rate of climb 2000fpm or less maintain (minimum vectoring altitude) contact departure 126.8”

Something like that.
Easy piecy lemon squeezy

[Del Prado]

It would be better if the go around procedure included a turn in order to segregate traffic.

[Lissart]

VMC or IMC? If former, there are other options. Reduced Separation in the Vicinity etc. (In the video, the visibility looks poor...) It all depends on just how tight it has got and what the circumstances are. If it has got TIGHT, then the controller should have updated everyone's situational awareness and have had a plan B based on local knowledge. Are "Land after the departing" criteria permitted? An unstable approach GA might be something that could catch the ATCO out as being unexpected. (But again,. was it gusty/cross winds/windshear around etc.) Always difficult to tell from a video but might seem that in this case controller made a sound judgement call. I'd be reluctant to give a shedload of extra non-standard instructions (rate of climb/turn etc) to a crew in a high workload situation handling a go around because of an unstable approach. Lots of variables depending on conditions, local procedures, circumstances etc.

[topdrop]

Where I worked, the missed approach and SID from RWY 15 were essentially the same - turn left to 030 - due terrain.
C208 airborne, SH360 missed approach from 300ft (due low cloud). The SH360, in cloud, sighted the C208 - missed by about 40ft. Dep cutoff distances were increased after that. Wasn't a good day, about an hour later a helicopter in marginal weather kept descending to maintain visual contact with the water, until he descended into the water - all survived.