Close call at Kastrup/Copenhagen
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norway, Stavanger
Age: 44
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Close call at Kastrup/Copenhagen
The HCL (Danish AAIB) has recently released a preliminary report (in Danish) on a serious incident at Kastrup on 11 September 2006.
Cimber CRJ lined up while Sterling 737 was on short final. The 737 passed low over the CRJ and landed "long". Minimum distance was 10-15 m and 20 feet...
Scary reading...
English summary:
-Sterling executes a "hot" visual approach at night
-Cimber reports on taxiway/holding V2, but is actually on taxiway T (Cimber uses 1 min from T to V2)
-ATCO does not confirm Cimber's position report on the A-SGMCS
-ATCO does not use radar to check Sterling's distance from touch down
-ATCO instructs Cimber to line up while Sterling is on ca 2 NM final
-Sterling continues approach, despite not being stabilized according to company policy
-Sterling misses all R/T between ATC and Cimber
-Cimber does not check final approach sector visually before line up
-Sterling does not report short final (as instructed)
-ATCO does not use callsign when he (a bit late) tries to stop Cimber from lining up
-Sterling becomes aware of Cimber while they are passing threshold. Cimber was lining up via intersection 500 m further down the runway
-Sterling lands without landing clearance (they were not sure that they were cleared to land, but did not ask...)
-Single runway operations due to noise regulation...
Looking forward to the complete report...
Cimber CRJ lined up while Sterling 737 was on short final. The 737 passed low over the CRJ and landed "long". Minimum distance was 10-15 m and 20 feet...
Scary reading...
English summary:
-Sterling executes a "hot" visual approach at night
-Cimber reports on taxiway/holding V2, but is actually on taxiway T (Cimber uses 1 min from T to V2)
-ATCO does not confirm Cimber's position report on the A-SGMCS
-ATCO does not use radar to check Sterling's distance from touch down
-ATCO instructs Cimber to line up while Sterling is on ca 2 NM final
-Sterling continues approach, despite not being stabilized according to company policy
-Sterling misses all R/T between ATC and Cimber
-Cimber does not check final approach sector visually before line up
-Sterling does not report short final (as instructed)
-ATCO does not use callsign when he (a bit late) tries to stop Cimber from lining up
-Sterling becomes aware of Cimber while they are passing threshold. Cimber was lining up via intersection 500 m further down the runway
-Sterling lands without landing clearance (they were not sure that they were cleared to land, but did not ask...)
-Single runway operations due to noise regulation...
Looking forward to the complete report...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather shocking and it will be interesting, as you state, to see what the final report says in all the detail.
It might have been good that the regulation dark trousers were being worn for those at the sharp end.
It might have been good that the regulation dark trousers were being worn for those at the sharp end.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
If it's single runway due noise.... doesn't that exclude the option of a "hot visual"? Presumably it was 22L or 04R in use at night? IF, and I repeat, IF the above "facts" are true..... then some people have some serious questions to answer. 
This is a piece of cheese with numerous holes - and they very nearly lined up.
A4
This is a piece of cheese with numerous holes - and they very nearly lined up.
A4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norway, Stavanger
Age: 44
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Visual ccts. Despite over 10 years of flying commercially (8 years Airbus), I still approach visuals with great caution. A visual is great to save a couple of minutes, do a little hands on flying but it also offers you the opportunity make a complete 8alls up of the whole thing. A visual approach at night also throws up additional factors - particularly over water with no defined horizon (R/W 03 ACE for example.)
This incident (near accident) demonstrates how quickly things can change and how easily items get missed due to concentrating on trying to correct the approach - in this case critical RT calls.
Why didn't they go-around? I don't know. Loss of face? Get-in-itis? Tunnel vision? We've all been there - that slightly uncomfortable feeling as you're watching the other guy start to get a little hot'n'high.
When training, I stress to new FO's that if ever they find themselves in this situation and stability looks highly unlikely - GO AROUND or TELL the Captain to GO AROUND. At the best it's probably tea, no biscuits and trying to think of some good answers as to what on earth you thought you were both doing - at worst ......
To be unstable, BE AWARE OF ANOTHER A/C on or entering the R/W and continue to land over the other aircraft is very worrying.
Point of this post? Don't know really - it seems I'm stating the obvious - but if it gets a message across to some of the newer guys - great.
Fly safe,
A4
PS I recently witnessed a A320 of a large Spanish carrier fly a visual approach to IBZ 24. He was UNBELIEVEABLY high on the approach - TCAS indicated 2,300 at 3 miles. Now I know TCAS is not particularly accurate in azimuth but in this case it wasn't too far wrong. To our astonisment, the aircraft landed approximately half way down the runway........... Question. How do you get to the position of Captain, responsible for many lives etc and (a) Allow an approach to be flown like that in the first place? (b) Actually LAND off of it?
Be careful with visuals!
A4
This incident (near accident) demonstrates how quickly things can change and how easily items get missed due to concentrating on trying to correct the approach - in this case critical RT calls.
Why didn't they go-around? I don't know. Loss of face? Get-in-itis? Tunnel vision? We've all been there - that slightly uncomfortable feeling as you're watching the other guy start to get a little hot'n'high.
When training, I stress to new FO's that if ever they find themselves in this situation and stability looks highly unlikely - GO AROUND or TELL the Captain to GO AROUND. At the best it's probably tea, no biscuits and trying to think of some good answers as to what on earth you thought you were both doing - at worst ......
To be unstable, BE AWARE OF ANOTHER A/C on or entering the R/W and continue to land over the other aircraft is very worrying.
Point of this post? Don't know really - it seems I'm stating the obvious - but if it gets a message across to some of the newer guys - great.
Fly safe,
A4
PS I recently witnessed a A320 of a large Spanish carrier fly a visual approach to IBZ 24. He was UNBELIEVEABLY high on the approach - TCAS indicated 2,300 at 3 miles. Now I know TCAS is not particularly accurate in azimuth but in this case it wasn't too far wrong. To our astonisment, the aircraft landed approximately half way down the runway........... Question. How do you get to the position of Captain, responsible for many lives etc and (a) Allow an approach to be flown like that in the first place? (b) Actually LAND off of it?
Be careful with visuals!
A4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's 22R there is a displaced threshold. Good post A4. Always good to know your own limitations and be aware. As long as you're not following the procedures the burden is on your shoulders.
In general the danish ATC and the respective airlines are all very professional though Murphy always seem to play a role
In general the danish ATC and the respective airlines are all very professional though Murphy always seem to play a role
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this account is only half true, the Sterling crew should get a lot more than tea with or without biscuits - P45 comes to mind.
Scary account of that IBZ approach from A4. I presume you reported it to the airline concerned? His FDAP readout must have been interesting.
Another Spanish carrier did something similar in Shannon a few years back (F/O flying pilot!!) landed on its nose a few times and bent the aircraft big time on a day when everyone else diverted due to crosswinds.
Scary account of that IBZ approach from A4. I presume you reported it to the airline concerned? His FDAP readout must have been interesting.
Another Spanish carrier did something similar in Shannon a few years back (F/O flying pilot!!) landed on its nose a few times and bent the aircraft big time on a day when everyone else diverted due to crosswinds.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The Dunes
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Just to verify some things.
- First of all the runway in use was 22L which does not have a displaced threshold.
- Furthermore, the taxiway V2 from which the CRJ was about to enter the rwy from is located some 450-600 m. from threshold 22L and is not perpendicular to the runway thus only giving the CRJ crew a limited view of the final approach sector.
- From the time the CRJ crew checks in on tower frequency to the time of the incident, there is no communication between the Sterling aircraft and the tower, thereby giving no indication to the CRJ crew that there are other aircrafts on the frequency.
- The tower clears the CRJ to line up twice without considering how far the 737 is.
- The Sterling captain who is PF conducts a very unstabilized approach and disregards several conditions which should have led to a go around:
Just my personal opinion,
Horntail
Just to verify some things.
- First of all the runway in use was 22L which does not have a displaced threshold.
- Furthermore, the taxiway V2 from which the CRJ was about to enter the rwy from is located some 450-600 m. from threshold 22L and is not perpendicular to the runway thus only giving the CRJ crew a limited view of the final approach sector.
- From the time the CRJ crew checks in on tower frequency to the time of the incident, there is no communication between the Sterling aircraft and the tower, thereby giving no indication to the CRJ crew that there are other aircrafts on the frequency.
- The tower clears the CRJ to line up twice without considering how far the 737 is.
- The Sterling captain who is PF conducts a very unstabilized approach and disregards several conditions which should have led to a go around:
- Above target speed V2 + 20 at 1000' (indicated speed acc. to report is 189 kts. with Vref for landing 142 kts.)
- GPW at 200' due to not properly configured (flaps)
- They were not cleared to land
- They still decide to land even though they see the CRJ is about to enter the runway
Just my personal opinion,
Horntail
Last edited by Horntail; 14th Oct 2006 at 11:29.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Typical example of chain of errors.
And the Sterlings crew, mind set for landing, that`s always dangerous.
It can happen to anybody, but you should be able to wake up, at some point on approach (500, minimums, rwy treshold,...)
It`s definitely the reminder for all of us!
And the Sterlings crew, mind set for landing, that`s always dangerous.
It can happen to anybody, but you should be able to wake up, at some point on approach (500, minimums, rwy treshold,...)
It`s definitely the reminder for all of us!
The dude up front probably did not notice the airplane lining up at V2, because it was nighttime. It always astonishes me how difficult it can be to distinguish a large airplane from behind in the dark. Even when taxiing behind it at, say, 100 meters!
So not spotting an airplane at 600 meters while executing a "hot visual" does not surprise me.
But I agree that the "let's fly over the CRJ" sounds more like Congo than Copenhagen.
So not spotting an airplane at 600 meters while executing a "hot visual" does not surprise me.
But I agree that the "let's fly over the CRJ" sounds more like Congo than Copenhagen.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Futura incident at Shannon in 2000 was not due to a hot approach at night, or another aircraft being on the runway or ATCO misunderstanding. It was not tight, he just kept dropping below ILS
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SWE
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relaxjet, I donīt agree with you, this doesnīt happend to anybody.
Not stabilized at 200ī due to flaps... thatīs just to much.
As for not being able to see the CRJ, should we believe that they just were lucky to land half way down the runway, scary indeed.
Not stabilized at 200ī due to flaps... thatīs just to much.
As for not being able to see the CRJ, should we believe that they just were lucky to land half way down the runway, scary indeed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more facts:
Being only an amateur with PPL but having 42 year experience with danish language let me add a few things from the report:
- The Sterling was hot and high due to other traffic behind it.
- When the ATCO cleared the CRJ to line up he/she checked the position of the Sterling B737 visually. (but were probably not aware of its high speed)
- The ATCO had some troubles with the stopbar lights not responding as expected.
- The Sterling may have called short final, but there were some cross transmissions.
- The Sterling CAPT saw the CRJ stopping and decided to make a long landing touching down just before the 22L/30 intersection still having more than 2000 meters stopping distance.
He passed apprx. 20' above the CRJ
The drawing on page 8 in the AAIB report shows scenario.
RWY 22L is 3300 meters long - this could be a reason to continue the fast approach.
edit: New procedures has been established only allowing visual circuits when parallel runway operations are in use and extending the use of parallel runways.
- The Sterling was hot and high due to other traffic behind it.
- When the ATCO cleared the CRJ to line up he/she checked the position of the Sterling B737 visually. (but were probably not aware of its high speed)
- The ATCO had some troubles with the stopbar lights not responding as expected.
- The Sterling may have called short final, but there were some cross transmissions.
- The Sterling CAPT saw the CRJ stopping and decided to make a long landing touching down just before the 22L/30 intersection still having more than 2000 meters stopping distance.
He passed apprx. 20' above the CRJ
The drawing on page 8 in the AAIB report shows scenario.
RWY 22L is 3300 meters long - this could be a reason to continue the fast approach.
edit: New procedures has been established only allowing visual circuits when parallel runway operations are in use and extending the use of parallel runways.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was only one cross transmission mentioned in the report, which occured when the controller attempted to stop the Cimber CRJ from lining up.
As for the long landing - I personally think that is was a result of selecting Flap 30 at 200' with a speed of 157 knots - which must result in balooning the aircraft - maybe a 737 driver can comment on that.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK_CFI - you are right - just checked the report and the timeline.
By the time of the cross transmission the Sterling crew appearantly assumed/concluede they were cleared to land
Right - the Sterling FC thought it was stopping.
Certainly with the high speed (Vref + 15) it should not be that hard to extend the landing.
By the time of the cross transmission the Sterling crew appearantly assumed/concluede they were cleared to land
Right - the Sterling FC thought it was stopping.
Certainly with the high speed (Vref + 15) it should not be that hard to extend the landing.