KoreanAir ATC violation
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the AvHerald link posted by CCA, and assuming what is in there is correct , KE incursion is at G which is at the opposite end of the runway , the SQ T/O was rejected @145 Kts , so very close to VR and when rejected stopped 1500m before G.
Not nice , but hardly a near collision situation , even if they had let the SQ continue T/O.
Not nice , but hardly a near collision situation , even if they had let the SQ continue T/O.
And I don't suppose pilots are given to doing gentle rejected take offs either.
1500m sounds like a lot, but that would have shrunk quickly had anything gone wrong with either the RTO or, if they had proceeded with it, getting into the air. 1500m - that's about 22 seconds at 145 kts.
1500m sounds like a lot, but that would have shrunk quickly had anything gone wrong with either the RTO or, if they had proceeded with it, getting into the air. 1500m - that's about 22 seconds at 145 kts.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh???
If any ATC or FO shouts "stop immediately" of "reject t/o" ......you bet your sweet a.. I stop. We can talk about why - over a beer later.
Now...not knowing where you are, letting ATC turn you towards a mountain, is a different kind of fish, and you know it 8che
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I really have to ? If you took the time to read the two other posts I couldn't have made it clearer....
The Captains decisions have to be justifiable. Lining up because you feel like it isn't justifiable is it..(however many smiley faces you post to make it clever and funny)
If you (and a few others) took the time to read the other posts you might also have noticed I agreed completely that stopping was the right decision in this case. Of course it was !
The reason for jumping into this debate was because of the undercurrent of Post 13 by Phileas Fogg. We don't want Captains making decisions. ATC are in charge. An incredibly dangerous and illegal proposition.
I was never referring to this particular Korean incident. At initial face value my first post may look blunt and perhaps be taken the wrong way but it is the absolute essence of a command course. Yes of course you must have a very good reason not to follow an ATC instruction but as the buck stops with you by default that means every instruction to you is optional. This industry has a habit of biting badly if you stop asking questions and wander off into rabbit holes.
It absolutely clear..."The PIC has complete responsibility"
The point in general is that the last thing you want in the front left seat is someone who just does as their told and questions nothing. The good guys use everything at their disposal to improve the quality of the decision and question everything (including themselves). That's the entire concept of CRM. To improve the quality of the decision and what we refer to as "building resistance" to handle occasions outside of the books. That decision may require bravery, be unpopular or need serious lateral thinking. The decision however always rests on one set of shoulders and they are not sitting in an Air traffic control room, CAA office or directors board room.
The Captains decisions have to be justifiable. Lining up because you feel like it isn't justifiable is it..(however many smiley faces you post to make it clever and funny)
If you (and a few others) took the time to read the other posts you might also have noticed I agreed completely that stopping was the right decision in this case. Of course it was !
The reason for jumping into this debate was because of the undercurrent of Post 13 by Phileas Fogg. We don't want Captains making decisions. ATC are in charge. An incredibly dangerous and illegal proposition.
I was never referring to this particular Korean incident. At initial face value my first post may look blunt and perhaps be taken the wrong way but it is the absolute essence of a command course. Yes of course you must have a very good reason not to follow an ATC instruction but as the buck stops with you by default that means every instruction to you is optional. This industry has a habit of biting badly if you stop asking questions and wander off into rabbit holes.
It absolutely clear..."The PIC has complete responsibility"
The point in general is that the last thing you want in the front left seat is someone who just does as their told and questions nothing. The good guys use everything at their disposal to improve the quality of the decision and question everything (including themselves). That's the entire concept of CRM. To improve the quality of the decision and what we refer to as "building resistance" to handle occasions outside of the books. That decision may require bravery, be unpopular or need serious lateral thinking. The decision however always rests on one set of shoulders and they are not sitting in an Air traffic control room, CAA office or directors board room.
Last edited by 8che; 25th May 2016 at 20:17.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I'm astonished they could get up to 145 knots on a trans pacific flight on a 77W, stop, and still have 1500m of runway left!
Not doubting the numbers, it's incredible performance. I'd have imagined it being much closer from watching heavies taking off and using a fair bit of runway to get to Vr.
Not doubting the numbers, it's incredible performance. I'd have imagined it being much closer from watching heavies taking off and using a fair bit of runway to get to Vr.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8che
I think most would take issue with your statement that 'every instruction to you is optional'. Even though I understand your logic and argument your elucidation of the concept is too crude. One has to realize that ATC has the complete picture and that if they issue an instruction they do so with a better picture of the entire situation than you. Given that this is the situation you follow the instruction - you do not deviate from it unless there is an emergency. With regard to your final paragraph I think one word is enough - Tenerife.
I think most would take issue with your statement that 'every instruction to you is optional'. Even though I understand your logic and argument your elucidation of the concept is too crude. One has to realize that ATC has the complete picture and that if they issue an instruction they do so with a better picture of the entire situation than you. Given that this is the situation you follow the instruction - you do not deviate from it unless there is an emergency. With regard to your final paragraph I think one word is enough - Tenerife.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Carthusian, very well said. But as the saying goes , you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Bringing the discussion to the legal level. In the AIP I used to work with in my previous life , the rules are very clearly stated : in a controlled flight ,a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance unless he has received a new one or unless he is in an emergency situation requiring immediate action , in which case he must notify ATC to get an amended clearance.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.
We can debate as long as you wish, those are the rules we both , controllers and pilots have to work and live with in that particular airspace . I very much doubt that any airline will accept/allow that one of his crews deviate from this, because if they do and something goes wrong, the costs of the mess will fall on the airline insurance shoulders.
Bringing the discussion to the legal level. In the AIP I used to work with in my previous life , the rules are very clearly stated : in a controlled flight ,a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance unless he has received a new one or unless he is in an emergency situation requiring immediate action , in which case he must notify ATC to get an amended clearance.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.
We can debate as long as you wish, those are the rules we both , controllers and pilots have to work and live with in that particular airspace . I very much doubt that any airline will accept/allow that one of his crews deviate from this, because if they do and something goes wrong, the costs of the mess will fall on the airline insurance shoulders.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh - Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Whatever has happened to reading and comprehension? 8che is NOT saying that the PIC can do what he pleases. He's just saying that he has the ultimate decision on what is sensible and what isn't - because it's his life and the lives of his passengers on the line. So everybody that's criticising him - READ WHAT HE SAYS, not what you think he said.
Last edited by rob_ginger; 27th May 2016 at 09:27. Reason: seplling
Gender Faculty Specialist
Bringing the discussion to the legal level. In the AIP I used to work with in my previous life , the rules are very clearly stated : in a controlled flight ,a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance unless he has received a new one or unless he is in an emergency situation requiring immediate action , in which case he must notify ATC to get an amended clearance.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.
Now, I will stop if I can but if, in my judgement, I can't all you will get silence.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OLD C .
A little more than one word :
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 757-23APF A9C-DHL Überlingen , so it appears that ATC does not always have the entire picture , does it ? With ref to Tenerife , did anyone have the complete picture ? Your analogy is poor . However , you do state " you do not deviate unless there is an emergency " , which is 8che's point .
ATC W : these have never changed .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
An Emergency situation NEVER requires an amended clearance .
While 8che words are a little rough around the edges , they are fact and law . Whether it is wise to exclude any resource from the decision making process is another discussion entirely . That would have to be explained at a later date and not to ATC .
A little more than one word :
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 757-23APF A9C-DHL Überlingen , so it appears that ATC does not always have the entire picture , does it ? With ref to Tenerife , did anyone have the complete picture ? Your analogy is poor . However , you do state " you do not deviate unless there is an emergency " , which is 8che's point .
ATC W : these have never changed .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command
An Emergency situation NEVER requires an amended clearance .
While 8che words are a little rough around the edges , they are fact and law . Whether it is wise to exclude any resource from the decision making process is another discussion entirely . That would have to be explained at a later date and not to ATC .
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, glass of cold water everybody and a deep breath.
This discussion , as I understand it, did not start about who has final authority ( the PIC has we agree ) but about following or not an ATC instruction to stop or cancelling a Take off clearance . These are 2 different things.
Stone cold : When I work(ed) I did not look at Wikepedia but at my Ops Manual , which is based on the AIP of the FIR I operate(d)
Just checked, still there , google the AIP GERMANY , ENR 1.1-16. pilots guidance.
Chesty Morgan : Do not shoot the messenger I did not write this.
But in my 35 years experience as a controller , in a quite busy piece of airspace, I never , ever encountered anyone refusing to follow my instructions. Nor I have heard of one . So we are here debating about the sex of the angels ( French expression ). This does not happen in reality and neither it did in this case ( the SQ stopped as instructed )
Stone cold again : If you want to discuss ueberlingen read the official BFU report , not ASN...it will save you embarrassing yourself.
This discussion , as I understand it, did not start about who has final authority ( the PIC has we agree ) but about following or not an ATC instruction to stop or cancelling a Take off clearance . These are 2 different things.
Stone cold : When I work(ed) I did not look at Wikepedia but at my Ops Manual , which is based on the AIP of the FIR I operate(d)
Just checked, still there , google the AIP GERMANY , ENR 1.1-16. pilots guidance.
Chesty Morgan : Do not shoot the messenger I did not write this.
But in my 35 years experience as a controller , in a quite busy piece of airspace, I never , ever encountered anyone refusing to follow my instructions. Nor I have heard of one . So we are here debating about the sex of the angels ( French expression ). This does not happen in reality and neither it did in this case ( the SQ stopped as instructed )
Stone cold again : If you want to discuss ueberlingen read the official BFU report , not ASN...it will save you embarrassing yourself.
Gender Faculty Specialist
In other places, like Ops manuals, things like this are written.
Just a small part of the many pages of "Commander's Respnsibilities".
In an emergency situation, which requires immediate decision and action, he is to take any action he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such circumstances, he may deviate from rules, operational procedures and practices in the interests of safety.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
As you say Chesty, the captain can deviate from any rules in the interests of safety. If you consider it necessary to fly inverted under the Golden Gate, you are perfectly entitled to do so. However, you must expect to justify your actions subsequently. Those are the privileges and responsibilities of command. Anyone ignoring ATC instructions has the same requirement to justify. Back in the days when I was young enough to command an airliner, if ATC called "stop" (which they never did) or "Go around" (which they did several times), I always felt they knew better than me what was going on.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We agree that the Commander may deviate as necessary , whether it be a "Stop" or " Go around " . It may not be wise and I also mentioned that an explanation of such actions would be necessary .
A little condescending ATC W, but as various countries Airlaw are not readily at hand and are onerous to navigate I chose a simple route to refer to WIKI , which has some references which could have been referred to .
ATC , re : Uberlingen : quote from your BFU .
3.2 Causes .
The following immediate causes have been identified :
. the imminent separation infringement was not noticed by ATC in time . The instruction for the Tu154M to descend was given at a time when the prescribed separation to the B757-200 could not be assured anymore . End quote .
A rebuttal to the broad statement that Air Traffic control knows all . They obviously didn't know all here . So go ahead , embarrass me , I can take it .
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations Subpart A General 91.3 . Also if you wish ICAO Annex 2 also references this and I believe that Germany is a signatory .
A little condescending ATC W, but as various countries Airlaw are not readily at hand and are onerous to navigate I chose a simple route to refer to WIKI , which has some references which could have been referred to .
ATC , re : Uberlingen : quote from your BFU .
3.2 Causes .
The following immediate causes have been identified :
. the imminent separation infringement was not noticed by ATC in time . The instruction for the Tu154M to descend was given at a time when the prescribed separation to the B757-200 could not be assured anymore . End quote .
A rebuttal to the broad statement that Air Traffic control knows all . They obviously didn't know all here . So go ahead , embarrass me , I can take it .
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations Subpart A General 91.3 . Also if you wish ICAO Annex 2 also references this and I believe that Germany is a signatory .
Gender Faculty Specialist
As you say Chesty, the captain can deviate from any rules in the interests of safety. If you consider it necessary to fly inverted under the Golden Gate, you are perfectly entitled to do so. However, you must expect to justify your actions subsequently. Those are the privileges and responsibilities of command. Anyone ignoring ATC instructions has the same requirement to justify. Back in the days when I was young enough to command an airliner, if ATC called "stop" (which they never did) or "Go around" (which they did several times), I always felt they knew better than me what was going on.
I'm not sure, however, how ATC can know what's going on in each individual aircraft better than the individual commander of those aircraft.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stone cold, Apologies, yes I was a bit condescending I agree. Just when I see Wikipedia and Ueberlingen used to justify an argument I tend to get annoyed.
UEBERLINGEN was a total failure of nearly all the actors that day . So you can pick up an extract and use it to justify anything .Only if you follow the timeline and get the 13 consecutive failures that day you get to understand what Systemic failures are , and that night the system failed , Not an individual.
The Report quote you used in your reply is also biased because it refer to required separation ( 7NM instead or the normal 5 Nm because someone had turned off his main radar and he was working on the back up system ). The initial instruction given was more than enough to prevent a collision.
I send you a PM explaining the rest .
This is a little off topic
UEBERLINGEN was a total failure of nearly all the actors that day . So you can pick up an extract and use it to justify anything .Only if you follow the timeline and get the 13 consecutive failures that day you get to understand what Systemic failures are , and that night the system failed , Not an individual.
The Report quote you used in your reply is also biased because it refer to required separation ( 7NM instead or the normal 5 Nm because someone had turned off his main radar and he was working on the back up system ). The initial instruction given was more than enough to prevent a collision.
I send you a PM explaining the rest .
This is a little off topic
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't say the two individuals banging the "I'm in charge and you'd better not forget it" drum are impressing me with their attitude. ATC don't know the detail of what is going on in any cockpit, but they have a better overview (normally) of what is going on outside of it, and they don't issue instructions pointlessly. Of course the final decision rests with the pilots, especially the commander, allowing you to ignore an instruction that is dangerous, but that is about it - if you can't justify the refusal on safety grounds, then you will quite reasonably be in a world of trouble. Some ATC units are better than others and more error prone. Some are overzealous. But all need compliance unless they are endangering you. The bad ones also need tolerance or even sufferance, but not some arrogant buffoon ignoring their instructions.