KoreanAir ATC violation
 

Korean Air KE929 has entered rwy without ATC clearance and SQ 9016 made RTO to avoid collision.
Due to RTO, SQ 9016(bound for SFO) had flat tires and had significant delay of 19 hours at incheon airport, Korea.

Did this occur around 0900Z on Thursday, 5 May 2016, perhaps?

Looks like Korean got airborne on time even if SQ had to get new tires.

Kudos to the Singapore Air pilots for averting that disaster!

https://i.imgur.com/nssWIA5.jpg

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-sing...sion-at-seoul/

Any truth that SQ was taxiing back for a second takeoff when the plugs began to melt?

CCA

Not true. The 77W had to replace those tires and it was delayed for 19 hours.

Was told that it was ATC that told SQ to abort T/O as KE passed over a red bar.
Not confirmed however.

I heard that the KE crew that caused this where not replaced and continued the flight to St Petersburg.

I can't read the Korean in the diagram posted above but I believe that this was the KE flight involved in the runway conflict:

Korean Air Lines Co. (KE) #929 05-May-2016 ICN / RKSI - LED / ULLI FlightAware

Out of interest, is there an official form of words for ATC to use in these circumstances?

The UK CAP413 here (PDF download link) details the phraseology to be used in Chapter 4, point 4.41 (page 18) and states:

I doubt they use CAP413 in Korea..........!

I find it interesting that the Military take a completely different approach.

Civil ATCO cancels clearance or instructs the pilot to stop immediately.
Mil ATCO cancels clearance or informs the pilot for him to decide.

I always thought that it was a/c captain that had the final say, if so, why the directive STOP IMMEDIATELY from ATC with no info as to why.

When I did ATC it was ATC in overall charge of an airfield and not 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc. aircraft commanders.

I dread to imagine 2 or more commanders realising there is a problem and both making conflicting decisions whereas ATC is in a position to make one decision upon behalf of everybody concerned.

Your Call, My Ass :)

Here's a snapshot from the ICAO Doc 9432 "Manual of Radiotelephony".

:ok:

Isn't it a bit like when you're on finals and PNF suddenly says "Go Around"? It's not something that would be said without good reason so the default is to do as instructed and sort out the reason why later. In this case the reason might have been apparent by looking out the front, assuming visibility was adequate but the extra second required to do that, identify the problem and then act might be the difference between a simple change of underwear and waking up the fire department.

If ATC had to give the reason for the instruction before the flight crew acted then the delay might be critical.

Precisely.

19 HR delay. Ridiculous on the part of SQ.

I thought my airline was bad and alienating the public with our delays. 19 hrs for tires. Either it had to be something larger or that company suffers from serious operational mis-management.

Damage assessment, source and supply possibly 12 new wheels, transport to Korea, ( 6 hours), and fix, 19 hours sounds fair to me, what is your gripe Geebz?

I thought there are agreements on technical support so damage assessment and a handling of AOG would take less than that. Maybe get the new tires from a source closer Singapore.

Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

I've read a few AIP's where they'll behead you and drop you in the sea if you don't follow instructions from ATC :)

And as has been stated above...better to adhere to the instructions of someone with the FULL knowledge of what is occurring on the maneuvering area and sort it out later. ATC KNOWS that you are in command. I know that the AIRFIELD is mine and you would be bloody foolish to disregard my instructions.

Teamwork.

8CHE - Not every instruction. By law, ATC instructions must be obeyed except in emergencies. As per 14 CFR 91.123 - Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions:

"Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.123

Though of course 14 CFR (aka FARs) only applies to the US.

YMMV.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment I have to disagree that you have "FULL" knowledge of what's going on on the MA - you can't see into the flight deck.

Would I still be foolish if I didn't stop above V1 when you ask me to?

Teamwork - you do the strategy, I'll do the tactics.

Really? I don't think so. As parabellum said, it would have taken some time to source a significant number of wheel units, plus time to move the aircraft, plus time to wait for the wheels to cool, plus time to change the wheels, etc, etc. By the time all that was done, the crew had probably run out of duty time to get to SFO, so off to the hotel for min rest before continuing. Not ridiculous at all.

Not to mention that since there are 180 transit pax with no home to go to, they were hopefully put up in hotels near the airport. When you have to round them all up after repairs, you're probably going to need to set a departure time that is quite conservative, and lets them get some rest as well.

Edit to say that there may have been some ICN-originating pax, have no idea how many

Just towing the A/C back, cooling brakes, deboarding, unloading etc could take some time. If more fuel uplift or even worse, defuelling before replacing tires was needed, the delay sounds fair to me as well.

As a pilot, if the ATC tells me to stop immediately, I can count on the reason being a runway incursion.
With speeds of up to 300 feet per second, a p1ss1ng contest of who's in charge would be the last thing on my mind :E

P1ss1ng contest ? I haven't for 1 second suggested it was wrong to follow ATC instruction in this case. My issue is the thought that some ATC's think they are in charge of aircraft. The point is that its always a choice for the Captain to follow ATC or not.

EPPY you must be a career FO......By international law the Captain has sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft period.

As per 14 CFR 91.123....... You have to be kidding.. So when ATC make a mistake and try and vector you into a mountain after departure because they forgot about a runway change, your just going to do what they say ??? When ATC use your callsign by mistake your just going to follow14 CFR 91.123 ??

A concerning lack of self preservation.

Umm! Yes but certainly some Australian ATC officers think other wise. Along with other rather set minded nations.

At the end of the day, all I want is to get to my days off without having to fill out paperwork and get the whole "tea no biscuits" chat, and I want to do everything in my power to help pilots do the same.

We all eff up, whether it be something relatively small like giving the wrong freq and spotting it in the read back-hear back or whatever to something larger. Thankfully one side of the conversation or the person plugged in next to me or other pilot up there with you spots our mistakes more often than not. We watch each other's backs, that's why it works.

Thanks to others for your support ...

It's some 37 years since I did ATC, so I don't take it personally any longer, but let's just make this clear 'bche' ... If there is an aircraft already on the active runway and I instruct you to perform a 'go around' then you do the damn hell as I tell you or you can foxtrot oscar to some type of Ryanair airfield that might accept your "I am god" type attitude!

Amen :)

Well its been 24 hours since I last commanded a wide body jet and you clearly are taking it personally, you can paint a warped picture of god like attitudes if you wish too but its a simple fact of international law and a fundamental basis of self preservation that the guy sat in the cockpit has the final say. There is only one person in command of an aeroplane and unlike ATC whatever decision the Captain takes he/she literally lives or dies by that decision.

Bula's post 14 says it all.

The fact you might get upset by our choice to follow instruction or not is frankly irrelevant to our decision making process and irrelevant to the law.

Yes we are team and both ATC and pilots get things wrong and hopefully catch each others mistakes but lets be crystal clear the buck always stops with the Captain both on a legal and mortal basis. Ultimately Captains have to sit down and justify every decision/action they take....if were lucky enough to be still be alive.

This is daft. It is teamwork. I don't know why the Skygods are at it. Who legally puts their legal risk on the line when they sign a DGR check/NOTOC/Loadsheet etc. Best pilots I know are the ones who say "What do you think"

This reminds me of the story of a Birdseed B747 on approach to LHR.

ATC had, more than once, asked the B747 to reduce it's speed and the B747 had complied, when ATC once more asked the B747 to reduce it's speed the somewhat pompous reply came back, something to the effect, "My dear chap, are you aware of the stalling speed of a B747?" ... As quick as anything the controller replied "No sir, but if you ask your First Officer I'm sure that he'll be able to tell you" :)

Please everybody. I am just sitting behind you. Maybe I am crammed in the aisle seat. I have no idea what is going on on the runway, I am just thinking of my nice vacation, visiting a dear friend. I have listened to your safety instructions and put my seat belt on. In the cupboard above my head lays a gift I made in pottery class, glazed in royal blue.

So have this in mind, if ATC hollers at you to STOP! RIGHT! NOW!

That is not the time, nor the place to rattle around how many stripes you have on your shoulders. I trust you to stop. I trust you to save my life. I know the dangers of runway collisions, but I trust you to adhere to the ATC emergency call. Because I want to visit my friend. And I am sure you as a pilot have your own friends you want to visit.

I don't care about your stripes. I care about my life, and yours - because you are the one responsible for mine in this situation. So just stop the plane if possible (have you reached V1 just do what's necessary to avoid trouble). Please. I beg you.

Well said, Snuggles. I see we have a few "Captain Americas" here...

Seriously, I find it hard to fathom a reason why one would not stop if ATC say "stop stop stop"? Above V1 would just about be it, technical malfunction with a go decision, tyre burst with no engine abnormal approaching V1.

I can quite honestly say during the task off roll I'm fairly task saturated , so to be able to perceive all elements to maintain complete airfield situational awareness is sometimes just not possible. I know my limits, though we sometimes need a little reminder that we are there when we reach them.

As PIC, my job is safety, which includes using all available resources. ATC being very high on the input level.

Those who are flouting the SkyGod concept need to realise the above, that the PIC has complete responsibility. In saying that, one would be selling tickets on themselves to not stop without true safety reasons that ATC may not be aware of.

Incident: Korean A332 at Seoul on May 5th 2016, runway incursion forces SQ-16 to reject takeoff