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, 06:21
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a transcript of what I hear from the LiveATC recordings. Times are approximate, UTC.

Unfortunately the recordings seem to interleave at least two different sectors/positions so some parts of the conversation are missing and/or garbled.

00:26 [QR-778] Good day, Qatari 778 Heavy on Sierra
00:26 [KMIA Tower] Qatari 778 Heavy, Roger

00:28 [QR-778] I'm able to take Tango 1 for departure, Runway 09

00:29 [QR-778] We hold short of Tango 1 on Runway 4, er 09, Qatari 778

00:30 [KMIA Tower] Qatari 778 Heavy, Runway 9, line up and wait at Tango 1
00:30 [QR-778] We uh line up and wait, at Tango 1, Runway 9, Qatari 778 Heavy

00:31 [KMIA Tower] Qatari 778 Heavy, Traffic on a one zero mile final
00:31 [QR-778] Copy, Qatari 778 Heavy

00:31 [KMIA Tower] Qatari 778 Heavy, turn right heading 105, runway 9, clear for takeoff
00:31 [QR-778] Right heading 105 after airborne, we're clear for takeoff runway 09, Qatari 778 Heavy

00:33 [KMIA Tower] Qatari 778 Heavy, contact departure, heading 105
00:33 [QR-778] (garbled) departure, with heading 105, Qatari 778 Heavy, bye bye

00:33 [KMIA Departure] Qatari 778 Heavy Miami Departure, Radar Contact, climb and maintain one six, uh, climb and maintain seven thousand say altitude leaving
00:34 [QR-778] (unintelligible) maintain seven thousand, Qatari 778 Heavy

00:35 [QR-778] And departure, Qatari 778 Heavy requesting speed uh two, 280 due performance
00:35 [KMIA Departure] Qatari 778 Heavy that's approved, fly heading 090, climb maintain 16000
00:35 [QR-778] (unintelligible) Copied, now heading 090, and we climb and maintain 9000 Qatari 778 Heavy
00:36 [KMIA Departure] Qatari 778 Heavy, (unintelligible) the altitude is one-six, sixteen thousand
00:36 [QR-778] Roger, one six thousand, sixteen thousand, Qatari 778 Heavy
peekay4 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 06:25
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,215
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
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
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
#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 offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 07:12
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 offline  
Old 26th Sep 2015, 18:57
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Airborne
Age: 63
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #128 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
. 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 offline  
Old 27th Sep 2015, 19:13
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: farmm intersection, our ranch
Age: 57
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the torpedo tube above!
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 411
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 offline  
Old 6th Oct 2015, 02:43
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 411
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North of Watford (Gap)
Age: 58
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 6th Oct 2015, 16:50
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Frightening Near-Miss'
Bla bla bla bla.

To quote George Carlin: "no, it was a NEAR-HIT!! When two planes collide it's a near-miss. Poof! Look...they nearly missed."

p.s. interesting that Qatar hasn't replied to emails from NBC6. Don't they have a public relations/media department?
LLuCCiFeR is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 12:19
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,744
Received 172 Likes on 84 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
Has it been fixed yet?
No, it hasn't flown since its arrival at Doha at the end of the incident flight.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2015, 15:17
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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  

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

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