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 26th Sep 2015, 06:25
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,062
Of note - in the radio calls after takeoff, the crew sounds slightly behind the curve. Tower has to remind them of their departure heading 105. On the Departure tape, they fail to check in and Departure has to call them with "radar contact" and ask for their current altitude.

Sounds to me like they were shaken up just a bit, probably from seeing the runway end rushing at them and taking evasive action, not because they suspected a collision, necessarily.

Others have said it, but the cheese holes (in hindsight) are rather glaring:

- /T1-#T1 confusion
- Taxiway that dead-ends at T1
- nighttime
- "routine" radio calls on the ground, with neither ATC nor crew questioning the location and clearance, plus the missing bits Airbubba mentions.

My guess is the NTSB will have choice words to spread around among all the various parties, and while the cockpit crew are always on "the pointy end of the stick" in all senses of the phrase, in this case there were traps set for them not entirely of their own making.

Think paranoid. The Universe, with the help of Murphy, is always out to get you.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 06:25
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,865
#T1 vs /T1......
That explains how the takeoff performance got messed up.

But, did they originally request T1 do you think? Numbers looked good with the mistake, save a little time and fuel perhaps. Still, I can't think of many situations where I'd do that in a loaded widebody on a warm evening.

Or, for some reason did the ground controller ask them if they could take T1 for, say, a plane holding with a problem ahead on S? And they checked the EFB, made the #/ mistake and said OK?

I'm hoping the ground control recording will resolve some of these questions.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 07:12
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Originally Posted by airbubba
But, did they originally request T1 do you think? Numbers looked good with the mistake, save a little time and fuel perhaps. Still, I can't think of many situations where I'd do that in a loaded widebody on a warm evening.
Agree.....
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 18:14
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,865
This is a transcript of what I hear from the LiveATC recordings. Times are approximate, UTC.
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, the liveatc links will be gone after 30 days.

Of note - in the radio calls after takeoff, the crew sounds slightly behind the curve. Tower has to remind them of their departure heading 105. On the Departure tape, they fail to check in and Departure has to call them with "radar contact" and ask for their current altitude.

Sounds to me like they were shaken up just a bit, probably from seeing the runway end rushing at them and taking evasive action, not because they suspected a collision, necessarily.
They were originally filed for the VALLY 2 departure, I'm thinking it may have been changed by ATC to the MIAMI 3 departure to avoid a conflict with departures off 8R, there is no heading 105 on the VALLY 2.

The tower clearing them for takeoff with an assigned heading would be normal for the MIAMI 3 departure, it's 'Climb on assigned heading for RADAR vectors to assigned transition. MAINTAIN 5000', or assigned lower altitude. EXPECT filed altitude 10 minutes after departure.'

I would guess that they were on the PADUS transition since like the VALLY 2, it goes over JANUS intersection.

But you are right, whoever was on the radio for QR 778 was having a little trouble verbalizing, maybe even before the takeoff when they (possibly, it's hard for me to tell) said they were going to hold short of T1 on runway 09, think they meant hold short of runway 9 on T1.

And QR 778 later mistakenly readback the 16,000 climb clearance as 9,000. It was a busy frequency and even the controller had to correct himself on an earlier altitude clearance for QR 778.

As peekay4 points out, the recordings are scanning multiple frequencies so some of the transmissions are inevitably missed or truncated. This might explain why we don't hear QR 778 checking in with the departure controller.

It does appear that QR 778 and the tower both thought they were taxiing on S, not T from the radio transmissions. A landing aircraft was instructed to taxi behind QR on S as well.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 18:57
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trinidad
Age: 60
Posts: 31
Transcript

Thanks for the transcript . Therefore Airbubba post #125 sums it up.
The crew will know what occurred and the data to clarify any discrepancy is all available so the truth shall be revealed.
Out of curiosity i wonder:
1. Did they rotate at the planned Vr or by survival instinct in the red lights and what was that speed?
2. Did they apply max power at any stage?
3. Did the flight attendants or passengers hear or see anything and notify the crew?
4. Not a comment from the tower as " Are you OK?" Surely from their point of view it was visibly inches from disaster..

99.9999% of all my mistakes were as a result of at least one my top 5 reasons for error.
1. Haste
2. Complacency
3. Fatigue.
4. ignoring red flags, because of commercial,ATC pressure or Personal pride.
5. Mind set/ Situational awarness
dingy737 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 02:04
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 90
Repeat of my post on Sep19;

Qatar parks on the North side of the terminal in MIA. Most departures from there will use runway 8R which is 10506 feet or 3202 m long.
Only if too heavy for 8R will a crew spend the extra 15 minutes it takes to taxi to rwy 9 which is 13016 feet, 3967 m long.
It would not make sense to me to spend the extra time and fuel taxiing to the longer runway and then use an intersection that gives you less distance than would be available on the closest runway 8R.
viking767 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 03:44
  #127 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 1,490
. It would not make sense to me to spend the extra time and fuel taxiing to the longer runway and then use an intersection that gives you less distance than would be available on the closest runway 8R.
Unless there was a long conga line waiting for 08R departures.
If so 09 could be a short cut.
Even better, save more time doing an intersection T/O from 09.

Pure speculation of course, but can't see no better reason to do what they did.
TowerDog is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 19:13
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,011
1. I've been based in Miami. It isn't difficult to mistake T1 for the full length of the runway as you're making your way down taxiway T. Does QTR have a moving map display in the cockpit?

2. QTR will usually (but not always) depart runway 9. It's not at all uncommon to see a passenger widebody on a long flight request runway 9. It's a much longer taxi, and I've never heard anyone request T1.

3.Regarding the 105 heading, all departures are assigned a heading initially. Perhaps when departing late at night (after maybe 11pm), you'll fly the SID as published. However, it's typical to be vectored to join the SID. The 105 heading was probably given because of a need for separation with the traffic departing 8R, which is the primary departure runway.

I can easily spot the problem with #T1 and /T1
Check Airman is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 23:31
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 54
Posts: 205
Just saw an A320 accidentally depart from 12 KMIA intersection Q2. They continued to taxi down the runway as tower tried to get them to understand they were departing from an intersection. Finally around Z takeoff power was set. Nothing like pissing away 3,000 feet of concrete.
flyingchanges is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 23:52
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the torpedo tube above!
Posts: 116
The QR crew COULD NOT have calculated performance for T1 intersection take off. The EFB platform on board their aircraft would not LET them do it. Period.
It would say "No Intersection".
However it would quite definitely churn out figures for a #T1 departure. That is Temporary runway 09('Temporary' due earlier notams), but full length of runway 09.
They would therefore, at best, have performance figures for full length 09 and have taken off from T1 intersection, with full length assumed!

Having said that, we're they poorly informed of the phonetics of the EFB/OPT performance tool?
Would be my guess too.
Flaperon777 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2015, 22:27
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 370
Heard second hand there may be some CCTV footage of the event.


The description was it was dark, not much of a view of the aircraft, maybe some sparks flying as the approach lights were hit. No other real details.


Again, second hand info, but wouldn't surprise me that some partial footage exists. The nearby employee parking lot has cameras spaced about.


Not sure of the value anyway. GPS equipped aircraft should have better position info unless Hillary Clinton's crew is guarding the data
WhatsaLizad? is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 00:55
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,865
Heard second hand there may be some CCTV footage of the event.


The description was it was dark, not much of a view of the aircraft, maybe some sparks flying as the approach lights were hit. No other real details.


Again, second hand info, but wouldn't surprise me that some partial footage exists. The nearby employee parking lot has cameras spaced about.
The video is featured in this local news story posted earlier on this thread:

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

GPS equipped aircraft should have better position info unless Hillary Clinton's crew is guarding the data.
Well, it actually was Al Gore, inventor of the internet, who turned off GPS 'selective availability':

Gore announces improvements to civilian GPS system | chronicle.augusta.com
Airbubba is online now  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 02:43
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 370
Thanks Airbubba.


One of those hints that I'm flying too much and need to back off. Thankfully, I don't work for EK and can back down from 90+ hours to 60 with 10 days off in a row on my own terms to take a break.


I've also have the winning Powerball numbers from last week if you're interested
WhatsaLizad? is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 12:42
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 55
Posts: 402
Interesting video clip, red flash and all, but I'm curious about where the nav beacons are on the belly of a 777?
nacluv is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 12:19
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
I would have thought FAA, the airport authority and the mayor of MIA would all be in direct contact with Qatar ASAP and be DEMANDING an explanation as to how some of their property was damaged, and sending a repair bill. From the FAA's point of view it would be from a safety perspective to prevent any other 'pilot' making the same error. It may be that american TV does not have the same clout, contrary to their own beliefs, but the FAA could ban Qatar from US airspace if they refuse to answer and give a full and open explanation tout suite. After all they have the crew to ask what happened. I'm sure Qatar would have held a tea no biscuits meeting once the engineers had grounded the a/c and a replacement required. Has it been fixed yet?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 13:48
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,627
Originally Posted by RAT 5 View Post
Has it been fixed yet?
No, it hasn't flown since its arrival at Doha at the end of the incident flight.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 15:17
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
How about overshooting final into a parallel runway path , subsequent go around , busted altitude , by senior Captain a couple of years ago .. Stalled until .......nada , nada ...it's the middle ages/east . If they don't talk about it , it never happened .
Stone_cold is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 13:46
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 583
Yes, exactly. Someone posted earlier "We won't hear anything further" but the post was removed by the mods. and it doesn't matter if the drivers were ex-pats or locals or initial reports made it to the local press (heavily edited, no doubt). You cannot lose face if you don't show your face.
Landflap is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2015, 14:39
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Qatar
Posts: 89
So having had the NTSB and FAA here, you think there will be no report?


I beg to differ, but I guess time will tell.


I believe the original link is still there, just watched it.......pretty scary.
320goat is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2015, 13:54
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53 32′ 9.19″ N, 9 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 596
Update:

Incident: Qatar B773 at Miami on Sep 15th 2015, struck approach lights on departure

On Oct 18th 2015 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated an incident, the investigation was delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority of Qatar, the NTSB have assigned an accredited representative to assist the investigation.
ExDubai is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.