Double runway incursion at Okinawa
 

ASN News » ANA Boeing 737-800 in serious double runway incursion incident at Okinawa Airport, Japan

OK, the first one I understand, but the second? If you are ordered to go-around by the tower just before landing, aren't there situations where a GA might not be the best option? (note, I'm not criticizing anyone here, merely asking the question - no doubt there will be an investigation and I'm happy to wait for a transcript of the report in English).

Double runway incursion at Okinawa
 

Double engine failures generally preclude a go-around on a twin-engined aircraft.

Whilst that is true, it's not what happened here!

Doubt it applies here, but a missed approach initiated inside the MAP may not clear terrain, thus hesitancy to do anything but land.

This event sounds like either 'ear' trouble for 2 out of 3 captains or perhaps more likely, 'mouth' trouble for 1 out of 1 controller.

Not sure how tower communicates at OKA but all participants most likely are native Japanese speakers.

Can't think of one...

Once flying, you have 3-dimensional maneuverability. When rolling down the runway which is already occupied by another airplane, you have few options.


Not even CLOSE to a valid reason! Terrain clearance criteria are based on one engine inop, so there is never a reason (that I can think of) to even THINK like that when both engines are running! You already have flying speed at the approach end threshold, and are at or below max landing weight. The conditions are WAY better than for initial takeoff!

Go fly in the mountains, review a few IAPs and you're going to have an epiphany.

Read what I said again, starting the missed approach from inside the missed approach point on certain approaches. There are certain special IAPs JNU, ASE, EGE to name a few) that don't assure terrain clearance started inside the MAP.

Sorry, but that is not correct. The public criteria is based on all engine gross/net climb performance.

Tailored criteria does account for OEI performance for missed, and even balked.

You should have procedures for a rejected landing at terrain critical airports even if a engine fails. If not your airline has some serious safety issues. In general the procedures usually mirror the engine out departure procedure.

We do, but often don't mirror the OEO procedure. They're proprietary procedures provided by our performance provider designed to extract the aircraft where there is no published procedure. To tie it back to the original question, I'd consider taking my lumps on the runway rather than a single engine extraction, at night and/or in WX.

SItuational Awareness/ Airmanship
 

Few words describe this incident for the landing B737, lack of situational awareness/Airmanship. Listening on the radio and looking out the window, the Captain would have been aware of the highly dynamic situation at play.

Seeing an aircraft stopped on the runway doesnt need ATC to tell you to Go-Around. The ATC instruction should have been the last resort and it was still disregarded. Both approaches are over water, there are no terrain considerations, the missed approach will keep aircraft low (1500') due to the nearby American airbase.

KABOY:
 

Radio issues aside, do we know what the RVR was?

Looking at the video it would have been greater than 10km.

Did not watch the video in the link earlier. Thank you KB. Now that I have, it is interesting to observe, despite the obvious risks of a collision, how much of a non-incident it "appears" to play out on video - the helo seems more potentially threatening than the following flight. All that aside, with daytime ops and visibility like that, it seems a bit odd that both transgressions occurred - radio difficulties or not.

Obviously there was a breakdown in comms. In trying to visualize what the landing aircraft saw, without knowing the intentions of the aircraft already on the runway, I see landing behind the better option compared to a GA over an aircraft that has the potential to become airborne and a rising threat below me.

Nasty one from the look of it.

Watching the video a few times we don't know where the intruding Chinook had got to so the approaching aircraft could have been faced with go-around to a mid-air with the Chinook or take the landing against traffic you can see. Either way it's a judgement call and no one got hurt.

The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe.

The majority of the video appears to be a computer rendering, not CCTV. If it is a graphic artist's reconstruction, I would not read too much into it.

"The landing 737 pilot had a tough call as a go around could well have resulted in a midair. Since he's alive to read this he made the right one! I'm surprised to see him facing criticism, particularly when there's not a word against the Chinook crew whose gross error caused this near catastrophe."

Finally a sensible comment.

In airmanship, quick decisions based on the big picture are essential. Humbleness is also a good quality which not many here demonstrate.

Did we watch different videos?

Then let me give you a hint: A big powerful helicopter on the missed approach path with an unknown direction, when you are bank angle limited, and no TCAS in the world will save you.