Emergency traffic during blocked runway
 

Hello all, i have a question:

Suppose you have a runway 09-27, wind is 270/15 kt, runway in use 27.
You have two active traffic. One (B737) just landed and blown its 2 main tires and stopped at the
beginning of runway 09. While you called approach for the situation, he said that
he was supposed to call you because the other aircraft (a business jet) declared full emergency. One engine had shut down.
Its position is 40 NM north of aerodrome. Nearest aerodrome is 35 NM from the present position of emergency
aircraft.

1. As of its full emergency situation, Would you clear him to your aerodrome? If so which runway would you use?
2. Would you advise him to go for another aerodrome due your blocked runway?

Do you have another runway?

Even if you do, to what extent is the fire cover depleted (RFFS attending to the disabled B737), and is any remaining cover sufficient for the biz jet?

At the end of the day, you tell the Captain the situation and leave it up to them. If they have an uncontrolled fire on board or something then the crew might put it down on a taxiway.

If It's something less severe then they'll likely divert to another field rather than have to justify landing on an occupied runway or on a taxiway to the authorities.

Then It's still up to them what to do. It's up to us to try and facilitate and give them pertinent info. Nothing more. And a taxiway doesn't need to be parallel, just long enough. Maybe they'll divert to another airfield, maybe they'll go for reduced length on the blocked runway, maybe they'll go for a taxiway, or a park, or a beach, or road, or river. Not really our call

Agree with what has already been said. All we can do is inform the pilot and let them decide. At the end of the day, the captain is responsible for the safety of his aircraft. Air traffic controllers can never force pilots to do something they don't want to do. That said, an engine failure is not really a time critical event (unless there are other factors involved, such as a fire or low fuel). If one engine is still running, the aircraft should still be able to fly perfectly fine, so diverting to another field should be no problem at all.

This sounds like an oral board scenario question. Do NATS/ EU ANSPs still have oral boars as part of the rating/validation exams? I hope so, they were always great fun.

Offering a pilot perspective: one of the most hazardous things you can do in a transport aircraft is go to an aerodrome you've not landed at before (in over 50% of hull losses, one or both operating crew members are visiting the destination for the first time). Moreover, most (but not all) alternates are smaller airports than the destinations they serve, with shorter runways and less comprehensive facilities. Those factors would, in general, cause me to err towards landing on the 'blocked' runway. If it goes wrong, I can always steer off onto the grass. Giving me accurate information will be critical.

However, runway length, aircraft type, approach aids and weather will be critical. Say it's a 3,000 metre runway, a C525, with ILS and CAVOK, I'll press on for the blocked runway, knowing I'll use less than half of it. If it's an 1,800 metre runway, a Global, VOR approach in minimums, then it's a lot more risky and diverting will probably be better.

If this is an oral board question, may I also suggest that being very precise with terminology will stand you in good stead. A pilot can't 'declare a full emergency', thats the controller's job, based on a declaration of emergency (mayday) or urgency (pan pan) by the pilot. In this case, it's likely that 50% of power units on the biz-jet are u/s, which swings it to 'full emergency'. That said, one engine inoperative landings on modern aircraft are a non-event, and in fact, landing distances are usually not significantly lengthened (20% more perhaps, not 50%). Serious flap and brake problems (or the hydraulic problems they arise from) cause big increases in LDR, not engine trouble.

Finally, that 15 kt headwind is significant. During landing, kinetic energy is dissipated, and it's proportional to groundspeed, not airspeed, squared. So, considering this case non-dimensionally, touching down at 130 KIAS in still wind leaves (130 times 130=) 16,900 units to dissipate using reverse, brakes, etc. With a 15 kt headwind, it's (115 times 115=) 13,225, or only 78% of the energy. That's likely to make the whole thing a non-event - other than calling into question how the 737 got as far as the stop-end!