Double runway incursion at Okinawa
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double runway incursion at Okinawa
ASN News » ANA Boeing 737-800 in serious double runway incursion incident at Okinawa Airport, Japan
OK, the first one I understand, but the second? If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option? (note, I'm not criticizing anyone here, merely asking the question - no doubt there will be an investigation and I'm happy to wait for a transcript of the report in English).
OK, the first one I understand, but the second? If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option? (note, I'm not criticizing anyone here, merely asking the question - no doubt there will be an investigation and I'm happy to wait for a transcript of the report in English).
Doubt it applies here, but a missed approach initiated inside the MAP may not clear terrain, thus hesitancy to do anything but land.
Last edited by West Coast; 3rd Jun 2015 at 21:49.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This event sounds like either 'ear' trouble for 2 out of 3 captains or perhaps more likely, 'mouth' trouble for 1 out of 1 controller.
Not sure how tower communicates at OKA but all participants most likely are native Japanese speakers.
Not sure how tower communicates at OKA but all participants most likely are native Japanese speakers.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option?
Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.
Doubt it applies here, but a missed approach initiated inside the MAP may not clear terrain, thus hesitancy to do anything but land.
Go fly in the mountains, review a few IAPs and you're going to have an epiphany.
Read what I said again, starting the missed approach from inside the missed approach point on certain approaches. There are certain special IAPs JNU, ASE, EGE to name a few) that don't assure terrain clearance started inside the MAP.
Read what I said again, starting the missed approach from inside the missed approach point on certain approaches. There are certain special IAPs JNU, ASE, EGE to name a few) that don't assure terrain clearance started inside the MAP.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrain clearance criteria are based on one engine inop
Tailored criteria does account for OEI performance for missed, and even balked.
You should have procedures for a rejected landing at terrain critical airports even if a engine fails. If not your airline has some serious safety issues. In general the procedures usually mirror the engine out departure procedure.
We do, but often don't mirror the OEO procedure. They're proprietary procedures provided by our performance provider designed to extract the aircraft where there is no published procedure. To tie it back to the original question, I'd consider taking my lumps on the runway rather than a single engine extraction, at night and/or in WX.
SItuational Awareness/ Airmanship
Few words describe this incident for the landing B737, lack of situational awareness/Airmanship. Listening on the radio and looking out the window, the Captain would have been aware of the highly dynamic situation at play.
Seeing an aircraft stopped on the runway doesnt need ATC to tell you to Go-Around. The ATC instruction should have been the last resort and it was still disregarded. Both approaches are over water, there are no terrain considerations, the missed approach will keep aircraft low (1500') due to the nearby American airbase.
Seeing an aircraft stopped on the runway doesnt need ATC to tell you to Go-Around. The ATC instruction should have been the last resort and it was still disregarded. Both approaches are over water, there are no terrain considerations, the missed approach will keep aircraft low (1500') due to the nearby American airbase.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did not watch the video in the link earlier. Thank you KB. Now that I have, it is interesting to observe, despite the obvious risks of a collision, how much of a non-incident it "appears" to play out on video - the helo seems more potentially threatening than the following flight. All that aside, with daytime ops and visibility like that, it seems a bit odd that both transgressions occurred - radio difficulties or not.
Obviously there was a breakdown in comms. In trying to visualize what the landing aircraft saw, without knowing the intentions of the aircraft already on the runway, I see landing behind the better option compared to a GA over an aircraft that has the potential to become airborne and a rising threat below me.
Obviously there was a breakdown in comms. In trying to visualize what the landing aircraft saw, without knowing the intentions of the aircraft already on the runway, I see landing behind the better option compared to a GA over an aircraft that has the potential to become airborne and a rising threat below me.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 4th Jun 2015 at 06:13.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nasty one from the look of it.
Watching the video a few times we don't know where the intruding Chinook had got to so the approaching aircraft could have been faced with go-around to a mid-air with the Chinook or take the landing against traffic you can see. Either way it's a judgement call and no one got hurt.
Watching the video a few times we don't know where the intruding Chinook had got to so the approaching aircraft could have been faced with go-around to a mid-air with the Chinook or take the landing against traffic you can see. Either way it's a judgement call and no one got hurt.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the video it would have been greater than 10km.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe."
Finally a sensible comment.
In airmanship, quick decisions based on the big picture are essential. Humbleness is also a good quality which not many here demonstrate.
Finally a sensible comment.
In airmanship, quick decisions based on the big picture are essential. Humbleness is also a good quality which not many here demonstrate.
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of the video appears to be a computer rendering, not CCTV. If it is a graphic artist's reconstruction, I would not read too much into it.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't think of one...
Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.
Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.