Near collision at Manchester due to distracted controller
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: United kingdom / The World
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distracted controller
Distracted controller RE: Manchester Airport Feb.04
"The controller stated that he had forgotten that he had given take off clearance to G-SMTJ (the Airbus) when he subsequently cleared EI-CJI (the Boeing) to cross the runway."
Only the reaction of the Air bus pilot saved the day,he aborted takeoff at just over 100MPH......Your comments please on his superb airmanship.
"The controller stated that he had forgotten that he had given take off clearance to G-SMTJ (the Airbus) when he subsequently cleared EI-CJI (the Boeing) to cross the runway."
Only the reaction of the Air bus pilot saved the day,he aborted takeoff at just over 100MPH......Your comments please on his superb airmanship.
Well done to the crew concerned!
Also bear in mind all the training provided by many during this pilot's career - airmanship is often taught by example.
Commiserations to the ATCO - anyone who has never made a mistake has never made anything.
Also interesting to compare this to some comments on the Manchester collision thread as to who is responsible (ultimately) for separation on the ground - I think this case proves the point!
Also bear in mind all the training provided by many during this pilot's career - airmanship is often taught by example.
Commiserations to the ATCO - anyone who has never made a mistake has never made anything.
Also interesting to compare this to some comments on the Manchester collision thread as to who is responsible (ultimately) for separation on the ground - I think this case proves the point!
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near miss at Manchester on the runway.
Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...er/4001197.stm
My Travel A321 and Ryanair 737
Coop & Bear
Thought the Middle East was risky!!
My Travel A321 and Ryanair 737
Coop & Bear
Thought the Middle East was risky!!
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The timing of the report could not have been worse, but Coopervane this refers to an event that happened a longtime ago (well it seems to be a longtime ago!!).
I think that you will find that it has already been refered to in the lengthy thread on the 'bump' last week.
I think that you will find that it has already been refered to in the lengthy thread on the 'bump' last week.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off thread, but would any ATCO care to comment on how much workload is created by the single access to T2 at EGCC? I have had a couple of interesting moments at the junction of Delta and November.
Whilst we're at it, anyone from MAPlc care to comment on who designed it and was it the same bloke who decided on the strength of concrete that would be required? Thought not.
Whilst we're at it, anyone from MAPlc care to comment on who designed it and was it the same bloke who decided on the strength of concrete that would be required? Thought not.
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
The AAIB bulletin is here :
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_032608.hcsp
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_032608.hcsp
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[mischief mode ON]Let's blame Ryanair anyway... 
[mischief mode OFF]
Additionally, the controller was aware that EI-CJI was clearing Runway_06R, was now ahead of the previously landed Boeing 737 and its operator was known to have a company culture of expeditious taxiing.
A review of the location indicated that G-SMTJ would have been visible as EI-CJI approached the crossing position. Although the commander of EI-CJI considered that he had looked to his left, this was not effective.
Additionally, the high ground speed (33 kt average) of EI-CJI may have made a late stop more difficult. Checks with the operating company of EI-CJI confirmed that the maximum ground speed whilst taxiing should be 30 kt. However, the flight crew had been requested to "Keep your speed up" and were complying with the ATC request. It may also be relevant that the Air 1 and Air 2 controllers were aware that the crews of the operating company of EI-CJI were expeditious on the ground.
[mischief mode OFF]
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry
Sorry chaps, didn't read the date on the news report/ It was reported on local radio as if it had happened yesterday. Good old media and fool me for believing it!
Coop & Bear
Coop & Bear
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Val d'Isere:
If you had bothered to read the report, you'd find that he stopped before the 737 had entered the runway; he heard the 737 being cleared to cross 06L, and stopped. He made the decision to stop based on this, and the fact that the 737 was now moving towards the runway at some considerable speed. Had he waited until the 737 had entered the runway, things probably would have been considerably worse.
This is called excellent situational-awareness, and yes, airmanship.
Ensuring that one's brain is loaded before shooting ones mouth off is highly advisable, especially on this forum.
fireflybob:
I agree wholeheartedly about training and airmanship. The A321 Captain involved is one of the best around, a very highly respected and common-sense Training Captain. He is, and always has been, a great exponent of Airmanship.
If you had bothered to read the report, you'd find that he stopped before the 737 had entered the runway; he heard the 737 being cleared to cross 06L, and stopped. He made the decision to stop based on this, and the fact that the 737 was now moving towards the runway at some considerable speed. Had he waited until the 737 had entered the runway, things probably would have been considerably worse.
This is called excellent situational-awareness, and yes, airmanship.
Ensuring that one's brain is loaded before shooting ones mouth off is highly advisable, especially on this forum.
fireflybob:
I agree wholeheartedly about training and airmanship. The A321 Captain involved is one of the best around, a very highly respected and common-sense Training Captain. He is, and always has been, a great exponent of Airmanship.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the real thing
ryanair pilots,who will be there to help you when the near miss becomes the real thing,just think of the latest collision at man.ryanair will not and that is for sure because it costs too much.
we your colleagues will be and to find out how,join the now large and ever increasing numbers of your brethern at www.repaweb.org .you will be astonished at the numbers and the amount of discussion.
remember,don't come crying after the event,have your say NOW!
we your colleagues will be and to find out how,join the now large and ever increasing numbers of your brethern at www.repaweb.org .you will be astonished at the numbers and the amount of discussion.
remember,don't come crying after the event,have your say NOW!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While not casting any opinions on the crew or operating company, I was wondering why the operators of EI-CJI didn't recover the CVR in the same manner as the operator of G-SMTJ, in order to assist the AAIB investigation further.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pprecious:
I quote from the report:
"There was no requirement for the CVR of either aircraft involved in the incident to be impounded but the CVR of G-SMTJ was recovered by the parent company and held for the AAIB. This proved useful in determining the relevant transmissions which could be heard by the crew of G-SMTJ."
As I understand it, this was a decision made jointly between the Captain and the Operators Flight Operations and Flight Safety Departments. Just as one would expect from an open and conscientious Flight Safety culture.
Can't comment about the other operator.
I quote from the report:
"There was no requirement for the CVR of either aircraft involved in the incident to be impounded but the CVR of G-SMTJ was recovered by the parent company and held for the AAIB. This proved useful in determining the relevant transmissions which could be heard by the crew of G-SMTJ."
As I understand it, this was a decision made jointly between the Captain and the Operators Flight Operations and Flight Safety Departments. Just as one would expect from an open and conscientious Flight Safety culture.
Can't comment about the other operator.
Last edited by fmgs; 12th Nov 2004 at 15:26.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never let facts get in the way of having a Ryanair Bash!
Here is a quote from the report;
"During his time on duty, he considered that the traffic was light to medium. He also confirmed that there were no visitors during the time of the incident and that he had not been distracted by any telephone calls"
So how did someone call this thred ..."due to distracted controller"
The waffle in the report about some NATS operatives thinking that this operator has a reputation for "expeditious" movement on the ground is no more than that - waffle and has no place in a factual report.
The average speed of the aircraft as calculated from factual evidence is one thing......but unless there is hard evidence that this happens at times other than when asked for by ATC then the AAIB should not get involved in mud slinging.
Regards,
DFC
Here is a quote from the report;
"During his time on duty, he considered that the traffic was light to medium. He also confirmed that there were no visitors during the time of the incident and that he had not been distracted by any telephone calls"
So how did someone call this thred ..."due to distracted controller"
The waffle in the report about some NATS operatives thinking that this operator has a reputation for "expeditious" movement on the ground is no more than that - waffle and has no place in a factual report.
The average speed of the aircraft as calculated from factual evidence is one thing......but unless there is hard evidence that this happens at times other than when asked for by ATC then the AAIB should not get involved in mud slinging.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I disagree. I read the AAIB bulletins carefully, and you will be surprised how many little bits of "waffle" (as you call them) they contain. I read them as sound airmanship "observations", and some I have not thought of previously, and modify my behaviour accordingly.
I work for an operator where airmanship is somewhat of a dirty word... we are all urged to make great efforts in certain directions, but constructive feedback between departments is not possible due to "politics". It is great when an AAIB report highlights a "point" - it can be used as an example, and for me anyway, fills in some of the holes that our operator chooses not to.
Read this report again. Apart from the dig at Ryanair's taxi speed (a reputation as well! justified?), that Ryanair may or may not take on board, the lesson is that ATC need to be careful of altering their SOPs to "accommodate" such practices (Lufty don't exactly hang around either). There are also digs about lights on for takeoff (Airtours.. were they on?), people changing to a frequency and transmitting before listening, and the failure of the Ryanair Captain to see the Airbus before he entered the runway (made all the more difficult by the speed at which he was taxing).
.....is no more than that - waffle and has no place in a factual report
I work for an operator where airmanship is somewhat of a dirty word... we are all urged to make great efforts in certain directions, but constructive feedback between departments is not possible due to "politics". It is great when an AAIB report highlights a "point" - it can be used as an example, and for me anyway, fills in some of the holes that our operator chooses not to.
Read this report again. Apart from the dig at Ryanair's taxi speed (a reputation as well! justified?), that Ryanair may or may not take on board, the lesson is that ATC need to be careful of altering their SOPs to "accommodate" such practices (Lufty don't exactly hang around either). There are also digs about lights on for takeoff (Airtours.. were they on?), people changing to a frequency and transmitting before listening, and the failure of the Ryanair Captain to see the Airbus before he entered the runway (made all the more difficult by the speed at which he was taxing).
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good old Nigel on Draft - always brings a degree of level headedness to all subjects. And put as succintely (sp?) and eloquently as ever.
Ryanair taxi speeds have been something of a frequent topic on these boards for a long time. Remember the STN incident of many years ago??
Ryanair taxi speeds have been something of a frequent topic on these boards for a long time. Remember the STN incident of many years ago??