Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Qatar 77W at MIA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Qatar 77W at MIA

Old 24th Sep 2015, 15:13
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 198
Received 21 Likes on 12 Posts
Come on... Few years ago, a QR 777 made a landing on a closed runway by night on a visual approach in Osaka (ATC and markings quite not correct...)

The report is availble on Jap' NTSB.
It didn't land.

QATAR AIRWAYS
BOEING 777-300, A7BAE
ABOUT AN ALTITUDE OF 1,000 FT, 3.8 NM NORTHEAST OF
RUNWAY 24R, KANSAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, JAPAN
AT ABOUT 21:55 JST, AUGUST 30, 2010
netstruggler is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 15:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,816
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by wanabee777
So, in essence, both the FAA and NTSB will be investigating this incident but for different reasons.
No, the NTSB will carry out the investigation, after (or during) which they will make any Safety Recommendations that they consider appropriate, directed to the airline, manufacturer, regulator, etc.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 15:50
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the clarification.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 16:49
  #104 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DaveReidUK:

No, the NTSB will carry out the investigation, after (or during) which they will make any Safety Recommendations that they consider appropriate, directed to the airline, manufacturer, regulator, etc.
The FAA is involved in this one, too. But, for flight crew conduct of the flight; i.e., an enforcement investigation. Because it is a foreign crew if the FAA determines there was regulatory non-compliance they will forward it to the State Department for a diplomatic resolution.
aterpster is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 17:14
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, the NTSB will carry out the investigation, after (or during) which they will make any Safety Recommendations that they consider appropriate, directed to the airline, manufacturer, regulator, etc.
It's not so black-and-white.

The NTSB is a relatively small agency tasked to handle 1,500+ accidents and incidents each year. It just doesn't have the manpower to investigate each case by itself.

So when an accident or incident is serious but does not involve fatalities, the NTSB will routinely delegate the field investigation work to the FAA. I.e., the FAA will collect and take into custody all the evidence including photographs, any wreckage, CVR/FDR data, crew/witness interviews, etc., then forward them to the NTSB for final analysis and determination of Probable Cause.

Plus in this case, Qatar is a Part 129 carrier under supervision from an FAA International Field Office (IFO Frankfurt, until the end of the month).
peekay4 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 10:12
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,816
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by peekay4
The NTSB is a relatively small agency tasked to handle 1,500+ accidents and incidents each year. It just doesn't have the manpower to investigate each case by itself.

So when an accident or incident is serious but does not involve fatalities, the NTSB will routinely delegate the field investigation work to the FAA. I.e., the FAA will collect and take into custody all the evidence including photographs, any wreckage, CVR/FDR data, crew/witness interviews, etc., then forward them to the NTSB for final analysis and determination of Probable Cause.
Point taken.

Interestingly, the number of events handled annually by the NTSB has fallen steadily from around 3,500 per year in the early/mid 80s to fewer than 1,500 last year.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 10:53
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: MIA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Video Qatar B773 at Miami on Sep 15th 2015, struck approach lights on departure

On 24Sep15 local Miami TV station NBC6 posted a story and a video (poor quality at that) regarding this subject.

FAA Investigating 'Frightening Near-Miss' at Miami International Airport: Experts | NBC 6 South Florida

The reporter: Willard Shepard of NCB6 Miami & a USAF Lt. Colonel. Flew A-10's. Has 52 combat sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.

Willard Shepard | NBC 6 South Florida
onbiscaynebay is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 13:56
  #108 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
peekey:

So when an accident or incident is serious but does not involve fatalities, the NTSB will routinely delegate the field investigation work to the FAA.
True enough with light aircraft accidents. But, not with air carrier operations. The fact it is a foreign carrier has relevance to the FAA but not the NTSB. The location of an air carrier accident establishes NTSB jurisdiction.

I.e., the FAA will collect and take into custody all the evidence including photographs, any wreckage, CVR/FDR data, crew/witness interviews, etc., then forward them to the NTSB for final analysis and determination of Probable Cause.
That's a new one on me. The Board is not inclined to analyze work by FAA investigators unless they were assisting the NTSB investigators in the field. Further, the FAA has neither the facilities nor expertise to assess CVRs and FDR data. Finally, the Board does not issue probable causes when the FAA does an accident investigation.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 15:12
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Heaven
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel Fatigue

QR adopted changes to its FTL's about ULR and SLR flights. The crews for half the year do these 15+ hour flights (which used to be ULR) with less than 24 hours rest in the hotel and back to their base. This is followed usually by a trip east bound after minimum rest. Multiple west-east-/east west trips, less than 24 hours rest because they changed "their" definition of ULR Flights, and "factored" hours resulting in the crews working actually over 100 hours a month. Could fatigue/accumulated fatigue be a factor in this incident/accident?
babyjet787 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 15:39
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: An Airport Near You
Posts: 673
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could fatigue/accumulated fatigue be a factor in this incident/accident?
I would suggest highly likely. They're not known for their rostering skills.
360BakTrak is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 18:57
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's a new one on me. The Board is not inclined to analyze work by FAA investigators unless they were assisting the NTSB investigators in the field. Further, the FAA has neither the facilities nor expertise to assess CVRs and FDR data. Finally, the Board does not issue probable causes when the FAA does an accident investigation.
Nope. On delegated investigations, the FAA will conduct all fieldwork up to and including the preparation of the "Factual Report". This report is then passed on to the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge. The NTSB may then conduct analysis and determine the "Probable Cause."

49 CFR 831.2 Responsibility of Board.
"(a) Aviation.
(2) Certain aviation investigations may be conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pursuant to a “Request to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to Investigate Certain Aircraft Accidents,” effective February 10, 1977 ... but the Board determines the probable cause of such accidents or incidents.

Under no circumstances are aviation investigations where the portion of the investigation is so delegated to the FAA by the Board considered to be joint investigations in the sense of sharing responsibility. These investigations remain NTSB investigations."
peekay4 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 19:59
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterpster
That's a new one on me. The Board is not inclined to analyze work by FAA investigators unless they were assisting the NTSB investigators in the field. Further, the FAA has neither the facilities nor expertise to assess CVRs and FDR data. Finally, the Board does not issue probable causes when the FAA does an accident investigation.
This is not true. The NTSB regularly and routinely issues probable causes for accidents when the FAA does an accident investigation.

Look for this notice in the accident reports: "NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report."
Feathered is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 20:08
  #113 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never seen one of those.
aterpster is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 20:51
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
QR adopted changes to its FTL's about ULR and SLR flights. The crews for half the year do these 15+ hour flights (which used to be ULR) with less than 24 hours rest in the hotel and back to their base. This is followed usually by a trip east bound after minimum rest. Multiple west-east-/east west trips, less than 24 hours rest because they changed "their" definition of ULR Flights, and "factored" hours resulting in the crews working actually over 100 hours a month. Could fatigue/accumulated fatigue be a factor in this incident/accident?
2000 LT dep MIA is 0300 Doha Time. Flight arrives at 1700 so midnight Doha time. By time crew go off duty and in Hotel say 0200LT = Yikes rather you than me.
Twiglet1 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 22:10
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Airborne
Age: 63
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question:

Normal east departures from Miami are from 8R. Can anyone say if Qatar 77W requested RWY9? Also is it Qatar policy to request RWY 9 for departure because of its length?
What runway have previous or subsequent Qatar departures of this scheduled service used?
A 777 crew on a 14 hour flight would be well aware of runway required so for now I have to believe they thought they were entering RWY 9 for its full length.
dingy737 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 22:14
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the torpedo tube above!
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fatigue COULD be one of the causal factors in the crews using full length(temporary runway) take off figures for an intersection(T1) takeoff.

That however, still doesn't explain why four crew members CHOSE to use an intersection T1 takeoff instead of the full length. Was there ANY ATC subtle suggestion or pressure? And if not, then why?
It is simply not normal. And it begs an answer.
Flaperon777 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2015, 22:33
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Airborne
Age: 63
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Disoriented?

I am suggesting that if they were on Tango taxing for RWY 9 instead of RWY8R it was by request for the said purpose of using the longest Runway. If so, they would not THEN decide to to do an intersection departure.
From the runway diagram, when at T1 you have to turn left and enter the runway, there is nothing straight ahead... OR right , then a Left onto Sierra. If disoriented, T1 could appear like the entrance at "S" and that you have reached the start of Runway9. Disorientation seems to be a factor.
dingy737 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 02:45
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I am suggesting that if they were on Tango taxing for RWY 9 instead of RWY8R it was by request for the said purpose of using the longest Runway. If so, they would not THEN decide to to do an intersection departure.
From the runway diagram, when at T1 you have to turn left and enter the runway, there is nothing straight ahead... OR right , then a Left onto Sierra. If disoriented, T1 could appear like the entrance at "S" and that you have reached the start of Runway9. Disorientation seems to be a factor.
Have you listened to the tower tape on the link posted earlier?:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/km...2015-0030Z.mp3

24 seconds into the recording the tower explicitly clears QR 778 Heavy to line up and wait runway 9 at T1 and they acknowledge the clearance with a readback including T1.

At 1:38 on the recording QR 778 Heavy is cleared to takeoff runway 9, no mention of 'at T1' as I would expect from ATC and QR doesn't question it in the clearance readback.

From an FAA runway safety brochure:

ATC must state the name of the intersection to a pilot before a line up and wait instruction. You should question ATC if this does not happen.

Pilots should state that they are at an intersection when requesting a takeoff clearance. A controller must also state the name of the intersection when issuing a takeoff clearance.
From:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...s_Brochure.pdf

At the very least, if QR 778 did a runway verification callout, they would have two clues, the T1 sign and the lack of runway numbers to tell them they were not at S and the full length of runway 9.

But as you say, if for some reason they were taxiing on T, T1 could sure look like full length as T ended with a turn onto the runway at T1.

Fatigue COULD be one of the causal factors in the crews using full length(temporary runway) take off figures for an intersection(T1) takeoff.

That however, still doesn't explain why four crew members CHOSE to use an intersection T1 takeoff instead of the full length. Was there ANY ATC subtle suggestion or pressure? And if not, then why?
It is simply not normal. And it begs an answer.
I'm not too optimistic that the CVR recording was preserved but the ATC recording of the ground control conversation should give some insight into how they were cleared to line up at T1.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 04:48
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#T1 vs /T1......
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 05:12
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It does become intriguing when no one can answer why there were NO readbacks by either the controller or the crew to the takeoff clearance.

Also,

Normal east departures from Miami are from 8R. Can anyone say if Qatar 77W requested RWY9? Also is it Qatar policy to request RWY 9 for departure because of its length?
What runway have previous or subsequent Qatar departures of this scheduled service used?


Not sure about 8R, but if 9 was requested, they'd have to cross RWY 12-30 at some point. Any ATC tapes on that part? Also, 8R full length is in a totally different direction!

As for the last part, I asked the exact same question about 20 posts ago: what runways have they previously requested or used for that departure?

A lot of unanswered questions........
alexb757 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.