Qatar 77W at MIA
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.
The report is availble on Jap' NTSB.
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
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peekey:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Heaven
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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."
"(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."
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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........
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........