SAS - Air Lauda on collision course at Malpensa
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS - Air Lauda on collision course at Malpensa
SAS had to abort their T/O yesterday at Malpensa, due to an Air Lauda on the rwy !
Very few details in the paper.......?
Very few details in the paper.......?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few scattered information, but it sounds like is was due to ATC fault (the ATC Officer has been suspended).
It seemes that while the Lauda aicraft was crossing the runway (authorized to do so), the SAS aircraft aborted at about 20 kts (having been cleared for takeoff).
No other info
It seemes that while the Lauda aicraft was crossing the runway (authorized to do so), the SAS aircraft aborted at about 20 kts (having been cleared for takeoff).
No other info
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Italian TV reported that this is the not the first incident of the type as last year another close encounter had occurred.
Apparently, the current procedures are prone to failure as it would be too easy to discount these as incidents solely attributed to the controllers on the day.
My opinion, only based on limited experience I have at this airfield, would be that it would be better to use 35L for landings and 35R for takeoffs as from reading other runway incursion incidents, it would seem that vacating landing aircraft are more prone to crossing a parallel active than those preparing for takeoff.
Just my 2 euro cents...
Apparently, the current procedures are prone to failure as it would be too easy to discount these as incidents solely attributed to the controllers on the day.
My opinion, only based on limited experience I have at this airfield, would be that it would be better to use 35L for landings and 35R for takeoffs as from reading other runway incursion incidents, it would seem that vacating landing aircraft are more prone to crossing a parallel active than those preparing for takeoff.
Just my 2 euro cents...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<but it sounds like is was due to ATC fault (the ATC Officer has been suspended>>
Don't jump to conclusions. Air Traffic Controllers are automatically suspended after any incident wherever the blame lies.
Don't jump to conclusions. Air Traffic Controllers are automatically suspended after any incident wherever the blame lies.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inner Vs Outer for landing
320DRIVER
This theory was tested for LAX recently, and was found not to be valid. Read it at
http://ffc.arc.nasa.gov/about_us/tec...rs/runway.html
My opinion, only based on limited experience I have at this airfield, would be that it would be better to use 35L for landings and 35R for takeoffs as from reading other runway incursion incidents, it would seem that vacating landing aircraft are more prone to crossing a parallel active than those preparing for takeoff.
http://ffc.arc.nasa.gov/about_us/tec...rs/runway.html
