Another very close ORD near hit.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting the landing clearance for the full length of 14R is probably standard procedure for Atlas to minimize their taxi time especially when the airport isn't that busy.
Freighters land near max gross landing weight much more often than do pax airplanes, so using a lot of runway is "ops normal". If it's a 747 Classic, there are also considerations of brake temperatures.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atlas can not do LAHSO. Good, now we don't need an Atlas ops manual to know that thanks to you. Did you ever study diplomacy? You must be a very wonderful pilot to have such a high opinion of yourself.
Intruder,
I am very sorry, I thought you were calling me zero zero because I was stupid. Looking back through the posts I see what you were saying. I see a lot of pilot slamming on this post and I think it keeps a lot of us on the defensive. Pilots like to be on the conservative side and sometimes aren't willing to express their real feelings because they will be criticisized for it.
An abort would have been interesting. Say the abort took the 737 through the 14R intersection, which it probably would have, would have they collided or not? We won't see the tapes for a while but thank goodness they continued the take off and nothing happened. This is not our procedure like someone insinuated in the US, this is what you do when an emergency happens and you do what you have to do to stay alive. These guys did the right thing and if that guy from Europe who said they should have aborted because that is the procedure in Europe would have been in the airplane, then God help him. We don't have a procedure for something like this, you just do whatever it takes to survive.
Intruder,
I am very sorry, I thought you were calling me zero zero because I was stupid. Looking back through the posts I see what you were saying. I see a lot of pilot slamming on this post and I think it keeps a lot of us on the defensive. Pilots like to be on the conservative side and sometimes aren't willing to express their real feelings because they will be criticisized for it.
An abort would have been interesting. Say the abort took the 737 through the 14R intersection, which it probably would have, would have they collided or not? We won't see the tapes for a while but thank goodness they continued the take off and nothing happened. This is not our procedure like someone insinuated in the US, this is what you do when an emergency happens and you do what you have to do to stay alive. These guys did the right thing and if that guy from Europe who said they should have aborted because that is the procedure in Europe would have been in the airplane, then God help him. We don't have a procedure for something like this, you just do whatever it takes to survive.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROFLMAO
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Intruder,
I am very sorry, I thought you were calling me zero zero because I was stupid.
I am very sorry, I thought you were calling me zero zero because I was stupid.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
An abort would have been interesting. Say the abort took the 737 through the 14R intersection, which it probably would have, would have they collided or not? We won't see the tapes for a while but thank goodness they continued the take off and nothing happened. This is not our procedure like someone insinuated in the US, this is what you do when an emergency happens and you do what you have to do to stay alive. These guys did the right thing and if that guy from Europe who said they should have aborted because that is the procedure in Europe would have been in the airplane, then God help him. We don't have a procedure for something like this, you just do whatever it takes to survive.
[My next 3 flights are to Boston, Chicago and LAX - luverly!]
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
Smugness? I think not and that if that is how you interpret it then I fear it is you that is being smug, not me.
By pointing out the places I fly to in the future (oh, and btw add to that list JFK, SEA and PHX in the next weeks), I merely emphasise my deep joy [sic] and heightened sense of alertness that I will endeavour to deploy whilst battling the hostile environment that is US airports.... and no, it is not incompetence of my part, it is a systemic problem with US ATC. The controllers do their utmost, the system lets them, us and our passengers run the 'risks' detailled above.
I choose to operate longhaul, flying to the US comes with the territory, I accept that and try to mitigate potential problems, but don't tell me I'm being smug when I point out defficiencies. The ability to accept criticism/observations is a basic requirement to improve performance, the US ATC system does not appear to react appropriately, imho.
Smugness? I think not and that if that is how you interpret it then I fear it is you that is being smug, not me.
By pointing out the places I fly to in the future (oh, and btw add to that list JFK, SEA and PHX in the next weeks), I merely emphasise my deep joy [sic] and heightened sense of alertness that I will endeavour to deploy whilst battling the hostile environment that is US airports.... and no, it is not incompetence of my part, it is a systemic problem with US ATC. The controllers do their utmost, the system lets them, us and our passengers run the 'risks' detailled above.
I choose to operate longhaul, flying to the US comes with the territory, I accept that and try to mitigate potential problems, but don't tell me I'm being smug when I point out defficiencies. The ability to accept criticism/observations is a basic requirement to improve performance, the US ATC system does not appear to react appropriately, imho.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am dismayed by the way our special friends operate. OK i suppose if you doing it that way day-in-day-out you eventually get used to it. I find that US ATC have absolutely NO idea of heavy jet performance or the way we fly these machines. Do you guys over there really enjoy all this. As an aside how do you find English ATC/airport ops?
Please don't take this as a US bashing post as it certainly isn't meant to be, i just want to add to the posts above that operating to the US is largely 8hrs of boredom followed by 20mins of sheer terror when given numerous runway changes at late notice...oh, and don't forget that luuurvly visual after a long tiring 2-crew flight to somewhere you have never flown to!!
Please don't take this as a US bashing post as it certainly isn't meant to be, i just want to add to the posts above that operating to the US is largely 8hrs of boredom followed by 20mins of sheer terror when given numerous runway changes at late notice...oh, and don't forget that luuurvly visual after a long tiring 2-crew flight to somewhere you have never flown to!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
A really well considered response. You are obviously happy to bury your head in the sand (or somewhere else suitably dark) to the defficiencies in the system you operate in (you are a pilot, aren't you?).
Your intellect in your response speaks volumes, thankfully not all of your colleagues are quite so arrogant as to your invincibilty.
A really well considered response. You are obviously happy to bury your head in the sand (or somewhere else suitably dark) to the defficiencies in the system you operate in (you are a pilot, aren't you?).
Your intellect in your response speaks volumes, thankfully not all of your colleagues are quite so arrogant as to your invincibilty.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From a slightly different perspective. I can't help finding it strange that in one breath ICAO is asking for ATS procedures to be subject to safety management processes and, in another, introducing Standards for LAHSO which has so many hazards that it's hard to see how any ATS agency can permit such procedures to be used! Oh well, that's aviation I guess.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USA and ICAO in the same sentence?
I visited Dallas last year with a view to understanding their methods for operating more than 2 parallel runways. I asked the boss about the apparent lack of ICAO standards and his response was, verbatim, "ICAO? We don't do ICAO here."
Here in lies the difficulty. In my view, ICAO hasn't moved on but continues to 'regulate' to the lowest common denominator. This has held back ATC procedures development and left those at the sharper end having to go it alone. Consequently there is no longer a universal standard and America stands out as high risk.
To efficiently operate Heathrow with triple parallels, flexibly but without huge numbers of runway crossings (themselves a safety concern) requires that new ATC prcedures be developed that are both safe and less restrictive than some of the current ones. A set of simple but very effective new procedure concepts were put before the UK regulator last year for comment and constructive review. At the regulator's request these concepts had been mathematically tested and then photographed on a high-tech simulator for comparison prior to submission. The testing/photographs demonstrated that even with significant technical failures, strong winds and human error, existing separation standards would not be breached. I now hear that the UK regulator has dismissed them because they are not ICAO, thereby throwing a very large spanner in the works of UK government policy.
In America where traffic pressures are so high, such a refusal would have left a gaping hole in their ATC system's capacity. They have felt it necessary to go it alone and, humbly I say it, I believe they have made mistakes in the process, exposing many to significantly higher risk than is prudent.
It seems to me that ICAO has to get with the programme and pioneer a new set of ATC standards that enhance capacity through the use of modern technologies. In doing so it would be more likely to encourage a universal standard and discourage those under most pressure from introducing procedures that are not fully thought through.
In the meantime an alert and 'in the picture' flightdeck is even more essential.
Point 4
I visited Dallas last year with a view to understanding their methods for operating more than 2 parallel runways. I asked the boss about the apparent lack of ICAO standards and his response was, verbatim, "ICAO? We don't do ICAO here."
Here in lies the difficulty. In my view, ICAO hasn't moved on but continues to 'regulate' to the lowest common denominator. This has held back ATC procedures development and left those at the sharper end having to go it alone. Consequently there is no longer a universal standard and America stands out as high risk.
To efficiently operate Heathrow with triple parallels, flexibly but without huge numbers of runway crossings (themselves a safety concern) requires that new ATC prcedures be developed that are both safe and less restrictive than some of the current ones. A set of simple but very effective new procedure concepts were put before the UK regulator last year for comment and constructive review. At the regulator's request these concepts had been mathematically tested and then photographed on a high-tech simulator for comparison prior to submission. The testing/photographs demonstrated that even with significant technical failures, strong winds and human error, existing separation standards would not be breached. I now hear that the UK regulator has dismissed them because they are not ICAO, thereby throwing a very large spanner in the works of UK government policy.
In America where traffic pressures are so high, such a refusal would have left a gaping hole in their ATC system's capacity. They have felt it necessary to go it alone and, humbly I say it, I believe they have made mistakes in the process, exposing many to significantly higher risk than is prudent.
It seems to me that ICAO has to get with the programme and pioneer a new set of ATC standards that enhance capacity through the use of modern technologies. In doing so it would be more likely to encourage a universal standard and discourage those under most pressure from introducing procedures that are not fully thought through.
In the meantime an alert and 'in the picture' flightdeck is even more essential.
Point 4
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nature of the beast
I think 120.4 makes some solid and sobering points.
But if we're talking about ORD specifically the problem is more complex.
In fact, it's the "complex" of runways that's the problem--not to mention the high level of traffic.
And all of the standardization and regulation in the world won't fix that.
Botton line: The design of the ORD runway complex is dangerous. It's not an efficient design and *everyone*, ATC and cockpit crew, are required to operate at the top of thier game.
Modern well designed airports with parallel runways and minimal crossings are a luxury.
We can either accept the challenges presented as professionals or we can stoop and resort to more name calling.
But if we're talking about ORD specifically the problem is more complex.
In fact, it's the "complex" of runways that's the problem--not to mention the high level of traffic.
And all of the standardization and regulation in the world won't fix that.
Botton line: The design of the ORD runway complex is dangerous. It's not an efficient design and *everyone*, ATC and cockpit crew, are required to operate at the top of thier game.
Modern well designed airports with parallel runways and minimal crossings are a luxury.
We can either accept the challenges presented as professionals or we can stoop and resort to more name calling.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 63
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero Zero,
You beat me to it!
ORD has such a mix of crossing runways and an absolutely obscene amount of traffic, that a well orchestrated plan is , i think, impossible to implement.
You must be on your game in ORD.
The airport ain't changin any time soon, and there is no where for the traffic to go. This is one of the biggest challenges we have in our industry. We have other very busy airports, but they are mostly parallel ops, except for maybe BOS.
You beat me to it!
ORD has such a mix of crossing runways and an absolutely obscene amount of traffic, that a well orchestrated plan is , i think, impossible to implement.
You must be on your game in ORD.
The airport ain't changin any time soon, and there is no where for the traffic to go. This is one of the biggest challenges we have in our industry. We have other very busy airports, but they are mostly parallel ops, except for maybe BOS.
All of you have made very valid points, influenced by your various aviation backgrounds and expectations.
Zero Zero reminded us of the ORD runway layout. As bad as it is, at least there are many fewer runways to be crossed, compared to Midway, Milwaukee, Atlanta and DFW. Never mind Boston! Oh, and let's not forget that an unsafe situation happened at DFW after ATC made the decision to park an MD-80 on runway 17R, in IMC! another plane mistakenly landed on 17R in low vis/darkness. Yes, those pilots made a serious mistake-but how could ATC decide to park an aircraft where both runways are so very close together, if at all? Ppruners-check the 10-9 airport diagram.
I've found over the years that ATC at O'Hare is excellent, especially with the huge challenges presented to all controllers. Many of our departures are after a fairly simple taxi route out to the intersection takeoff at runway 32L/T-10. One must never forget that at certain ATC facilities, especially on approach, a quick clearance from ATC is given with no time available for a 'read back': "turn to hdg 090. descend and maintain 5,000' " etc.
The overall system in the US seems to be designed for aircraft movement much more than providing the required time, all the while with so many blocked transmissions, for accurate "readbacks' and "hearbacks". The FAA's (former, they say) dual mandate was to promote aviation while ensuring safety. The managers push traffic flow to the limit and a bit beyond, knowing that the burden for safety rests on the shoulders of the individual controllers and pilots. Many ATC controllers are now beginning to retire, and they are the most experienced.
At LAX about nine years ago, SOCAL Approach controllers sometimes either had limited grasp of, or were not allowed to factor in, the problems with slowing a B-757 (or A-320?) while on the constant descent required to "fly" the CIVET Arrival. We once were given three runway changes and given an extra altitude/DME fix, which was NOT published on the arrival! On this very fast-paced constant descent, the Captain called for the landing gear at about 11,000' in an attempt to slow the beast down (somehow slow from about 194 down to 162 knots for landing flaps 30?). Having already grabbed the speedbrake handle many miles ago, we then feverishly pushed FMC/MCP/Execute buttons with our heads down as the only solution-except for breaking off the arrival, and appearing not to be able to hack it. Safe?
Much of the blame for problems might rest with the upper ranks of the FAA's traffic mgmt or flow control, or whatever they call themselves.
Complaints from foreign pilots about the US system have plenty of merit, and they use some version of aviation English with ATC at all of the foreign airports.
Unfortunately, US-based pilots have been stuck with this (in many places) over-saturated system since we began to fly and maybe many of us feel that there is no other way to operate-maybe subconsciously because we know that we have no choice. Some US pilots may feel defensive-I've often simply felt cynical and dismayed, even a bit despondent about any improvements at many larger airports
(I will avoid BOS and maybe LAX if I make it thru Bus training in the near future...even LGA/JFK for a while).
I will not jump on the patriotic bandwagon, however fashionable, on Pprune or anywhere else, and defend US ATC's (the FAA is the ultimate boss) overall system and style (mostly needed at the big airports, and enroute, anywhere between MKE and MIA, Beckley VOR [VA] and BOS), because we need many improvements. It is not necessarily the fault of the individual controllers-they are allowed to become full performance controllers based upon their training and observed compliance with operating procedures, are they not? Maybe either Congressional funding or the FAA's priorities, or both, have been to blame.
Whatever the excuses, this has gone on for decades, and it is a bit of an embarassment to me when foreign pilots fly through our skies. I am 100% sincere, no matter what my various areas of ignorance consist of.
Could it be that too many people go through the revolving door as FAA Administrator, and as a top-level political appointee, seeking another career ticket to be punched, that nobody is willing to criticize the system, or wants to allow other personnel to come to grips with it? It is complex, but if so, this type of career thinking allegedly also resulted in a large fraction of the tens of thousands of lives lost in Southeast Asia. Some FAA Administrators were neither commercial nor military pilots. One was a former Thunderbird pilot
who seemed to have achieved little, at best.
Zero Zero reminded us of the ORD runway layout. As bad as it is, at least there are many fewer runways to be crossed, compared to Midway, Milwaukee, Atlanta and DFW. Never mind Boston! Oh, and let's not forget that an unsafe situation happened at DFW after ATC made the decision to park an MD-80 on runway 17R, in IMC! another plane mistakenly landed on 17R in low vis/darkness. Yes, those pilots made a serious mistake-but how could ATC decide to park an aircraft where both runways are so very close together, if at all? Ppruners-check the 10-9 airport diagram.
I've found over the years that ATC at O'Hare is excellent, especially with the huge challenges presented to all controllers. Many of our departures are after a fairly simple taxi route out to the intersection takeoff at runway 32L/T-10. One must never forget that at certain ATC facilities, especially on approach, a quick clearance from ATC is given with no time available for a 'read back': "turn to hdg 090. descend and maintain 5,000' " etc.
The overall system in the US seems to be designed for aircraft movement much more than providing the required time, all the while with so many blocked transmissions, for accurate "readbacks' and "hearbacks". The FAA's (former, they say) dual mandate was to promote aviation while ensuring safety. The managers push traffic flow to the limit and a bit beyond, knowing that the burden for safety rests on the shoulders of the individual controllers and pilots. Many ATC controllers are now beginning to retire, and they are the most experienced.
At LAX about nine years ago, SOCAL Approach controllers sometimes either had limited grasp of, or were not allowed to factor in, the problems with slowing a B-757 (or A-320?) while on the constant descent required to "fly" the CIVET Arrival. We once were given three runway changes and given an extra altitude/DME fix, which was NOT published on the arrival! On this very fast-paced constant descent, the Captain called for the landing gear at about 11,000' in an attempt to slow the beast down (somehow slow from about 194 down to 162 knots for landing flaps 30?). Having already grabbed the speedbrake handle many miles ago, we then feverishly pushed FMC/MCP/Execute buttons with our heads down as the only solution-except for breaking off the arrival, and appearing not to be able to hack it. Safe?
Much of the blame for problems might rest with the upper ranks of the FAA's traffic mgmt or flow control, or whatever they call themselves.
Complaints from foreign pilots about the US system have plenty of merit, and they use some version of aviation English with ATC at all of the foreign airports.
Unfortunately, US-based pilots have been stuck with this (in many places) over-saturated system since we began to fly and maybe many of us feel that there is no other way to operate-maybe subconsciously because we know that we have no choice. Some US pilots may feel defensive-I've often simply felt cynical and dismayed, even a bit despondent about any improvements at many larger airports
(I will avoid BOS and maybe LAX if I make it thru Bus training in the near future...even LGA/JFK for a while).I will not jump on the patriotic bandwagon, however fashionable, on Pprune or anywhere else, and defend US ATC's (the FAA is the ultimate boss) overall system and style (mostly needed at the big airports, and enroute, anywhere between MKE and MIA, Beckley VOR [VA] and BOS), because we need many improvements. It is not necessarily the fault of the individual controllers-they are allowed to become full performance controllers based upon their training and observed compliance with operating procedures, are they not? Maybe either Congressional funding or the FAA's priorities, or both, have been to blame.
Whatever the excuses, this has gone on for decades, and it is a bit of an embarassment to me when foreign pilots fly through our skies. I am 100% sincere, no matter what my various areas of ignorance consist of.
Could it be that too many people go through the revolving door as FAA Administrator, and as a top-level political appointee, seeking another career ticket to be punched, that nobody is willing to criticize the system, or wants to allow other personnel to come to grips with it? It is complex, but if so, this type of career thinking allegedly also resulted in a large fraction of the tens of thousands of lives lost in Southeast Asia. Some FAA Administrators were neither commercial nor military pilots. One was a former Thunderbird pilot
who seemed to have achieved little, at best.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 31st Jul 2006 at 05:36.
Controversial, moi?
One must never forget that at certain ATC facilities, especially on approach, a quick clearance from ATC is given with no time available for a 'read back': "turn to hdg 090. descend and maintain 5,000' " etc.
How can that ever be considered a safe and satisfactory way to control air traffic?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.Mouse
I think you are absolutely right but workloads at that level are now common place in the LTMA too and we need to put our own house in order.
A TMA north bank friend of mine once had a Ryanair call him to say:
"Just to let you know London that about 5 minutes ago we had a TCAS RA but couldn't get in on the r/t; we've been up and are now back down and under your control."
A concern to all of us should surely be that ATC development isn't staying ahead of traffic growth. For example, the ESSEX sector in TC is now operating at traffic levels significantly outside the current airspace design. In 2004 a report indicated that a number of urgent changes were needed "...on the grounds of passenger safety." (direct quote) Nothing significant has been done because the Airspace Change Process here takes years to complete and the traffic has out grown it. A major airspace change to resolve the issues is planned for 2009, which means that by the time it is introduced the airspace will have been acknowledged to have been operating with a question mark over passenger safety for 5 years. We in the UK are in no position to be taking the moral high ground.
Point 4
I think you are absolutely right but workloads at that level are now common place in the LTMA too and we need to put our own house in order.
A TMA north bank friend of mine once had a Ryanair call him to say:
"Just to let you know London that about 5 minutes ago we had a TCAS RA but couldn't get in on the r/t; we've been up and are now back down and under your control."
A concern to all of us should surely be that ATC development isn't staying ahead of traffic growth. For example, the ESSEX sector in TC is now operating at traffic levels significantly outside the current airspace design. In 2004 a report indicated that a number of urgent changes were needed "...on the grounds of passenger safety." (direct quote) Nothing significant has been done because the Airspace Change Process here takes years to complete and the traffic has out grown it. A major airspace change to resolve the issues is planned for 2009, which means that by the time it is introduced the airspace will have been acknowledged to have been operating with a question mark over passenger safety for 5 years. We in the UK are in no position to be taking the moral high ground.
Point 4
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus salesrep around?
time to eliminate those bitty 737s and A32x's and put some A380's on twice a day between hubs, never mind these hourly departures LHR/MAN etc etc 8-)
or how about making A380 landing fee's less than bitty planes for the next decade??! And still only 2 crew at the front..
S
or how about making A380 landing fee's less than bitty planes for the next decade??! And still only 2 crew at the front..
S
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s a 3D animated reconstruction of the July incident on the NTSB website: LINK
At the time, it was estimated that the distance between the aircraft was about 300 feet. The distance between the 737’s gear and the top of the 747’s tailfin appears to be much less than that.
NTSB press release:
Citing a serious near collision of two aircraft in Chicago last July, the NTSB, at a public meeting (in November) called again for effective action by the FAA to counter the danger posed by potentially catastrophic runway collisions. This issue has been on the Board's list (of 'Most Wanted' changes) since it's inception in 1990.
The FAA completed action on a number of objectives to make ground operation of aircraft safer. However, these incidents continue to occur with alarming frequency. The FAA indicates that during fiscal year 2005 there were 327 incursions, and during 2006 there were 330.
A system introduced by the FAA provides warning to air traffic controllers, but not to the flight crews, a fact that severely reduces the amount of time that pilots have to react to an impending incursion.
Recommendation: Implement a safety system for ground movement that will ensure the safe movement of airplanes on the ground and provide direct warning capability to the flight crews.
Timeliness Classification: Unacceptable.
Apologies if this seems like a ‘spotter’ question, but I’m genuinely interested:
Some years ago (pre 9/11) I was fortunate to be allowed in the jumpseat for a landing at ORD. ATC offered a LAHSO but the Captain (BA) declined. Is that SOP for BA or Captain’s discretion?
I didn’t think of asking at the time.
(Edit) In case it's relevant, the aircraft was a 747 Classic.
At the time, it was estimated that the distance between the aircraft was about 300 feet. The distance between the 737’s gear and the top of the 747’s tailfin appears to be much less than that.
NTSB press release:
Citing a serious near collision of two aircraft in Chicago last July, the NTSB, at a public meeting (in November) called again for effective action by the FAA to counter the danger posed by potentially catastrophic runway collisions. This issue has been on the Board's list (of 'Most Wanted' changes) since it's inception in 1990.
The FAA completed action on a number of objectives to make ground operation of aircraft safer. However, these incidents continue to occur with alarming frequency. The FAA indicates that during fiscal year 2005 there were 327 incursions, and during 2006 there were 330.
A system introduced by the FAA provides warning to air traffic controllers, but not to the flight crews, a fact that severely reduces the amount of time that pilots have to react to an impending incursion.
Recommendation: Implement a safety system for ground movement that will ensure the safe movement of airplanes on the ground and provide direct warning capability to the flight crews.
Timeliness Classification: Unacceptable.
Apologies if this seems like a ‘spotter’ question, but I’m genuinely interested:
Some years ago (pre 9/11) I was fortunate to be allowed in the jumpseat for a landing at ORD. ATC offered a LAHSO but the Captain (BA) declined. Is that SOP for BA or Captain’s discretion?
I didn’t think of asking at the time.
(Edit) In case it's relevant, the aircraft was a 747 Classic.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 8th Jan 2007 at 21:16.