Accident in LIN involving a SAS aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Always in the air
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that placing red and green lights on the taxiways can solve the problem in Linate. After this tragic accident, I hope that, the authorities will give the required funds to implement the necessary tasks.
Radar coverage can help, but, been the taxiways as they are, it is very difficult to prevent an accident as this one.
And fog is a very common phenomenon in Milan.
Radar coverage can help, but, been the taxiways as they are, it is very difficult to prevent an accident as this one.
And fog is a very common phenomenon in Milan.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Low Vis Ops, is it not mantatory to have an operating ground movements radar.......I appreciate the citation allegedly was in the wrong place but me thinks heads will roll in Milan ATC over this one. Condolences to all.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of ground radar would have been in the NOTAM's. With LVP's in force the ONLY way ATC will know where you are is by telling them AND by repeating your message to ATC until you receive an acknowledgement with no ambiguity in their reply. It is essential that you are pedantic about this.
Clearly the Cessna pilot had his transmission blocked and did not ensure they had a reply to that transmission, by repeating it. ATC also had an extremely relaxed attitude about the location of both aircraft as well.
Clearly the Cessna pilot had his transmission blocked and did not ensure they had a reply to that transmission, by repeating it. ATC also had an extremely relaxed attitude about the location of both aircraft as well.
"The INTRODUCER"
Aerovision,
I don't think there is much question that what happened is that the Citation pilot was using R6, which crosses 36 and becomes R2, instead of R5, which goes round the upwind end of the runway, as cleared. The question is 'why' and right now there is no obvious answer.
As a comment, I think there is a phenomenon at the moment by which relatively cheap, do-able solutions specifically to the runway incursion/alert issue are being shelved in the desire for all-singing, all-dancing surface surveillance systems. A classic case of the perfect driving out the good.
Worse still, smaller fields that will never be able to justify the full-up kit are not going to be able to get their hands on the runway incursion prevention kit that would be just the ticket for them.
I don't think there is much question that what happened is that the Citation pilot was using R6, which crosses 36 and becomes R2, instead of R5, which goes round the upwind end of the runway, as cleared. The question is 'why' and right now there is no obvious answer.
As a comment, I think there is a phenomenon at the moment by which relatively cheap, do-able solutions specifically to the runway incursion/alert issue are being shelved in the desire for all-singing, all-dancing surface surveillance systems. A classic case of the perfect driving out the good.
Worse still, smaller fields that will never be able to justify the full-up kit are not going to be able to get their hands on the runway incursion prevention kit that would be just the ticket for them.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Algy, Aisleman.
Yes, if the citation came off west apron the clearence would have been R5.
What stunnes me though is that when you leave west apron for R5 you go due north whilst if you go R6 you go south east.
One look at the chart and one at the compass would have done it.
Now, at the end of R6 there is a stop sign and flashing lights before you enter RWY 36R. So, the ATC tapes have the answer.
Who was talking to whom at that point or wasn't there any talking.
A pilots nightmare, you see it but can do nothing anymore.
Regards, AV
ps Algy, greetings to James B.
Yes, if the citation came off west apron the clearence would have been R5.
What stunnes me though is that when you leave west apron for R5 you go due north whilst if you go R6 you go south east.
One look at the chart and one at the compass would have done it.
Now, at the end of R6 there is a stop sign and flashing lights before you enter RWY 36R. So, the ATC tapes have the answer.
Who was talking to whom at that point or wasn't there any talking.
A pilots nightmare, you see it but can do nothing anymore.
Regards, AV
ps Algy, greetings to James B.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok KADS, your now at an airport that does not have ground radar because either it was never there anyway, was there and is U/S, or for some reason is inop. Vis is sufficent for aircraft to be landing and departing.
Do you now not Taxi?
Get real!
Of course I would like progress, who does not, but we live and work with what we have, and sadly mistakes still do happen.
Do you now not Taxi?
Get real!
Of course I would like progress, who does not, but we live and work with what we have, and sadly mistakes still do happen.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been in and out of a fair few Italian airports and I must say that imho their general ATC procedures are CRAP !
I.e. It's usually rushed, they apparently have little / no coordination between sectors, you're nearly always left high / fast, they seemingly (intentionally ?) speak to us using crap aviation English (unlike the Germans, Scandinavians, Low Countries, Spanish, French, etc)
Thus one leaves the UK and all is rosey until you get handed off by German / Swiss control to Padua (Northern Italy) - and how many times have we all taken a sharp intake of breath before keying the PTT to talk to them ? i.e. you mentally prepare yourself for the inevitable numerous instructions they'll give you in some non-standard sequence / rapid-fire manner, plus all the usual descend due traffic (as in Alitalia ? ) and / or being sent to some never-heard-before waypoint !
Also, imho, it just gets worse the nearer you get to the ground.
E.g. Your wheels have only just kissed the tarmac and the controller is straight on the mike and giving 'vacate runway next left at .... ' (usually impossible to make), 'cleared to cross xyz but hold short of.... ', coupled to 'change frequency to.... ', all the while whilst you've literally only just landed (i.e. the reversers aren't even deployed and they're saying all this stuff to you) - and it's usually once again in that rapid-fire semi intelligible (heavily accented / excited) manner - and they then have the nerve to be smarmy (e.g. they usually make the point by reading the instructions even faster then before) when you ask them to repeat what they said whilst you were landing the aircraft, albeit once you've finally slowed the beast enough to divert your attention to the last of the trilogy of 'Aviate / Navigate / Communicate'.
Bottom line is that if you'd 'blindly' described the above incident to me (or indeed / perhaps, most other Euro experienced pilots) and asked for a suggestion as to where was most likely ? I'd have said - and I'll wager, that many of us would similarly say - that it was Italy !
Please don't get me wrong, this is NOT meant to be some xenophobic rant but, imho, that this does not occur more often in Italy is almost amazing, but in any event it hopefully highlights that there's seemingly something about Italian ATC, and / or their training, and / or their infrastructure, and / or their investment, and / or the phrasiology they use, and / or their attitude, which needs to be addressed (imho)
Yep, I'll be first to admit that maybe what I've written above is not that palatable, but (as a pilot, who's regularly flown in / out of MXP, LIN, BLQ, BLO, BDS, VCE, CIA, NAP, etc) I still think that the above shoud (must) be mentioned.
RIP
I.e. It's usually rushed, they apparently have little / no coordination between sectors, you're nearly always left high / fast, they seemingly (intentionally ?) speak to us using crap aviation English (unlike the Germans, Scandinavians, Low Countries, Spanish, French, etc)
Thus one leaves the UK and all is rosey until you get handed off by German / Swiss control to Padua (Northern Italy) - and how many times have we all taken a sharp intake of breath before keying the PTT to talk to them ? i.e. you mentally prepare yourself for the inevitable numerous instructions they'll give you in some non-standard sequence / rapid-fire manner, plus all the usual descend due traffic (as in Alitalia ? ) and / or being sent to some never-heard-before waypoint !
Also, imho, it just gets worse the nearer you get to the ground.
E.g. Your wheels have only just kissed the tarmac and the controller is straight on the mike and giving 'vacate runway next left at .... ' (usually impossible to make), 'cleared to cross xyz but hold short of.... ', coupled to 'change frequency to.... ', all the while whilst you've literally only just landed (i.e. the reversers aren't even deployed and they're saying all this stuff to you) - and it's usually once again in that rapid-fire semi intelligible (heavily accented / excited) manner - and they then have the nerve to be smarmy (e.g. they usually make the point by reading the instructions even faster then before) when you ask them to repeat what they said whilst you were landing the aircraft, albeit once you've finally slowed the beast enough to divert your attention to the last of the trilogy of 'Aviate / Navigate / Communicate'.
Bottom line is that if you'd 'blindly' described the above incident to me (or indeed / perhaps, most other Euro experienced pilots) and asked for a suggestion as to where was most likely ? I'd have said - and I'll wager, that many of us would similarly say - that it was Italy !
Please don't get me wrong, this is NOT meant to be some xenophobic rant but, imho, that this does not occur more often in Italy is almost amazing, but in any event it hopefully highlights that there's seemingly something about Italian ATC, and / or their training, and / or their infrastructure, and / or their investment, and / or the phrasiology they use, and / or their attitude, which needs to be addressed (imho)
Yep, I'll be first to admit that maybe what I've written above is not that palatable, but (as a pilot, who's regularly flown in / out of MXP, LIN, BLQ, BLO, BDS, VCE, CIA, NAP, etc) I still think that the above shoud (must) be mentioned.
RIP
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Here
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mistrust in Management
Devils Advocate,
I register my vote of agreement with your statement. Some or all of this may or may not have been a factor in this latest disaster but nevertheless I believe your statement worthy.
Regards
Exeng
I register my vote of agreement with your statement. Some or all of this may or may not have been a factor in this latest disaster but nevertheless I believe your statement worthy.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At an airport that has a lot of LVP days and fog, why can't there be a backup ground radar installation? That way one could be in service while the other is being repaired or modified. It seems to me that at an airport such as this one, the standard aviation practice of redundancy could be applied to the ground radar system.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is everyone so hung up on ground radar ? There is allready a cheaper/simpler GPS based system invented ,ironically by a swede, but itīs implimentaion would mean finacial losses for the likes of Honeywell and Rockwell/Collins, UPS.......... I just answered it myself.
Lets face it, there is a $$ price on human life, and we all accept it silently.
RIP crew and pax.
Brgds
Doc
Lets face it, there is a $$ price on human life, and we all accept it silently.
RIP crew and pax.
Brgds
Doc
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, let's not join the choir crying for ground radar at all airports. That is what's happening in the Scandinavian press right now. SAS have recieved many critical questions like: "Why does SAS operate at airports where you know that the ground radar is not functioning", etc. When the Chief of Operations replies that SAS is operating at more A/Ds without ground radar than A/Ds with ground radar, without further explanation, the chaos is complete.
Ground radar is just an aid for getting more traffic into the air at LO VIS OPS! If the procedures are limiting the number of A/C on the manouvering area to one at a time, ground radar is not necessary from a safety point of view.
If the A/D is equipped with red stop bars, flashing lights, standard ICAO markings etc. etc., the number of A/C on the manouvering area may be increased, but still the procedures have to reflect the equipment at the airport.
What it boils down to is that I just can't believe that the poor German pilots would have taxied onto the active runway if the markings, lights, taxiway layout, ATC procedures and phraseology, etc, were meeting the high standards that we all take for granted.
If the responsibility rests solely on the German pilots, (as the Italian transport minister has stated), i.e. all ICAO/JAA procedures were followed at LIN, then I refuse to operate in low visibility before the procedures have been changed!
Demanding ground radar on all airports, no matter how small (as some journalists in the Scandinavian and Italian press are doing now), is plain out stupid. We could use that amount of money on other things that will be more effective on the general level of aviation safety.
Nick.
Sad and frustrated. 
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Nick Figaretto ]
Ground radar is just an aid for getting more traffic into the air at LO VIS OPS! If the procedures are limiting the number of A/C on the manouvering area to one at a time, ground radar is not necessary from a safety point of view.
If the A/D is equipped with red stop bars, flashing lights, standard ICAO markings etc. etc., the number of A/C on the manouvering area may be increased, but still the procedures have to reflect the equipment at the airport.
What it boils down to is that I just can't believe that the poor German pilots would have taxied onto the active runway if the markings, lights, taxiway layout, ATC procedures and phraseology, etc, were meeting the high standards that we all take for granted.
If the responsibility rests solely on the German pilots, (as the Italian transport minister has stated), i.e. all ICAO/JAA procedures were followed at LIN, then I refuse to operate in low visibility before the procedures have been changed!
Demanding ground radar on all airports, no matter how small (as some journalists in the Scandinavian and Italian press are doing now), is plain out stupid. We could use that amount of money on other things that will be more effective on the general level of aviation safety.
Nick.
Sad and frustrated.
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Nick Figaretto ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it has been confirmed that the citation was on R6 instead of R5 the following observations.
If ground movement radar had been available, the controller would have had 20-25 seconds to spot the error and take corrective action.
That is, if he kept looking at the screen after issuing taxi instructions.
Now there was no such facility available and thus there was no clue for ATC to know that the citation was not where he was supposed to be. But then, when they approached the stop sign and flaslights at the end of R6 the citation crew should have a clue that something was not right. They had to stop and talk. (ATC tape will reveal).
If they did not stop and talk and continued, then,....
Just my observation.
Regards
AV
If ground movement radar had been available, the controller would have had 20-25 seconds to spot the error and take corrective action.
That is, if he kept looking at the screen after issuing taxi instructions.
Now there was no such facility available and thus there was no clue for ATC to know that the citation was not where he was supposed to be. But then, when they approached the stop sign and flaslights at the end of R6 the citation crew should have a clue that something was not right. They had to stop and talk. (ATC tape will reveal).
If they did not stop and talk and continued, then,....
Just my observation.
Regards
AV
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: N55"32'0 E13"21'0
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paterbrat -
I don't understand where the scenario you gave me comes into the picture. Nowhere did I mention anything in contrary of what you're saying regarding that specific point. What I DO object to is the fact that a lot of people suffered and died that day and your reaction was, and I quote "Thats life.I am not trying to excuse it, just deal with it.", which to me, at that point, was a little premature of a reaction. Therefore my point was to not draw any conlusions, ie "accept the fact that accidents will always happen", until at least "the fires were put out" and a proper investigation had taken place.
Maybe the safety will be enhanced in the future by changing how we communicate our position in foggy or conditions, just to mention an example, which would thereby validate my former point, ie "to be able to make progress and continously enhance safety"
Nowhere did I mention anything about a ground radar, as you seem to imply...
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: KADS ]
I don't understand where the scenario you gave me comes into the picture. Nowhere did I mention anything in contrary of what you're saying regarding that specific point. What I DO object to is the fact that a lot of people suffered and died that day and your reaction was, and I quote "Thats life.I am not trying to excuse it, just deal with it.", which to me, at that point, was a little premature of a reaction. Therefore my point was to not draw any conlusions, ie "accept the fact that accidents will always happen", until at least "the fires were put out" and a proper investigation had taken place.
Maybe the safety will be enhanced in the future by changing how we communicate our position in foggy or conditions, just to mention an example, which would thereby validate my former point, ie "to be able to make progress and continously enhance safety"
Nowhere did I mention anything about a ground radar, as you seem to imply...
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: KADS ]
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The italians were very quick in blaming the german. Now one news agency claims that both aircraft had received runway clearance. That might explain why the italians are not releasing the tower tapes.
And not that itīs only the guys south of the Alps: The day of the accident a norwegian official said ĻThis could never happen here.Ļ Well, it allready did. Last year there was an incidence at OSL involving three SAS aircraft, with all three having received clearance to do what they were doing. Two of the aircraft had to take evasive action. To date I havenīt seen a transcript of the tower tapes, or a report of what actually happened.
And not that itīs only the guys south of the Alps: The day of the accident a norwegian official said ĻThis could never happen here.Ļ Well, it allready did. Last year there was an incidence at OSL involving three SAS aircraft, with all three having received clearance to do what they were doing. Two of the aircraft had to take evasive action. To date I havenīt seen a transcript of the tower tapes, or a report of what actually happened.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Basel CH
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly Devilīs Advocate ! Most folks on this trheat seem to go on and on about ground radars and stop bars, but the fundamental issue is how ATC uses these tools.
In addition to ground radar, ALL air traffic controllers should have at their disposal; a training in situational awareness, standard frasiology and the drive to promoting a safe environment. In Italy however, most controllers simply do not seem to care about the points mentioned above.
Therefore, no matter how many ground radars airports wil install, safety will NOT improve unless Italian ATC will become more efficient and disiplined in using the tools/procedures already available and common in the rest of Europe !
In addition to ground radar, ALL air traffic controllers should have at their disposal; a training in situational awareness, standard frasiology and the drive to promoting a safe environment. In Italy however, most controllers simply do not seem to care about the points mentioned above.
Therefore, no matter how many ground radars airports wil install, safety will NOT improve unless Italian ATC will become more efficient and disiplined in using the tools/procedures already available and common in the rest of Europe !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a passenger, the bit that worries me is the bit nobody appears to have mentioned.
So one plane hits another - fog, human error, whatever - **** happens.
But... why did *nobody* get out of this one? I'm unclear from the reports as to whether the SAS a/c was airborne when it struck the Cessna (or indeed whether it struck it at all), but for an airliner to burn *on the airfield* and for the fire service to fail to get *anybody* out is very worrying. What was their reaction time?
So one plane hits another - fog, human error, whatever - **** happens.
But... why did *nobody* get out of this one? I'm unclear from the reports as to whether the SAS a/c was airborne when it struck the Cessna (or indeed whether it struck it at all), but for an airliner to burn *on the airfield* and for the fire service to fail to get *anybody* out is very worrying. What was their reaction time?