So the FO initially braked then the Capt elected to continue and some here think they weren't lucky...!!! Sounds like a shambles.

Classic Reason model stuff here. On a positive note, guess we know what's coming up in our sim recurrency in next 18 months.

Peekay, minor point regarding "punishment", at least in a Just Culture, re:
The carrier I work for (and many carriers I know), emphasize that training outside of the recurrent process, ("remedial"), is not considered punishment, it is considered proper corrective action which, in an accountable organization is a responsible action.

We don't know what went on in the cockpit of the A330 yet, and what we think should have happened doesn't explain the incident.

Punishment is, as you know, reserved for actions which are negligent, intentionally illegal or egregious.

Not 'lecturing' here by any means, as I know you know your stuff, but clarifying for others reading this who may not be operating in a Just Culture. The difference, which should be part of any SMS Manual and supported by both the airline's owner & its management, is an important one when trying to move from a blame-and-punish culture to a Just Culture.

You're right PJ2, I was loose with my terminology.

In FAA & Canadian parlance anyway, "enforcement action" is indeed punitive. As you mention, airlines and authorities could instead require additional training without being punitive. From the regulator side often that's accomplished by issuing an "administrative" Letter of Correction, e.g., under FAR 13.11, which isn't considered a legal enforcement action.

Having said that -- when I wrote my original response, in the back of my mind is knowledge that CAAs around the world have been "cracking down" on runway incursions and there is sentiment among CAAs that punitive enforcement actions may indeed be an appropriate response for the most serious incursion events.

In part this has been done to "raise the profile" (visibility) of runway incursion violations, i.e., to "send a message" to pilots and ATC that certain violations will not be lightly tolerated. I don't necessarily agree with this approach, just reporting what the trend has been over the past decade.

The US has had a couple of incidents where aircraft on intersecting runways have had one pass over the top of another during the 2000's.

June 9, 2005 in Boston between US Airways Flight 1170 (737) and Aer Lingus Flight 132 (A330), the pilots of US Air flight had to push forward on the control column to delay rotation as the EI had just taken off on the crossing runway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxRedCK_lWw

IIRC, the US Air crew received an award for their handing of the incident.

The following year in Chicago a landing Atlas cargo 747 had a departing Unitied 737 pass over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zBdtNVa8N0

Here's an NTSB list of incursions

http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/ru...yfactsheet.pdf

I used to operate into this airport and it always required a great deal of attention.

ATC talk very quickly and get impatient when you tell them to "Say again slowly"

Actually this would often be rewarded with an even faster and LOUDER reply which was of no use to anyone requiring further clarification, and more wasted time. The whole place is frustrating.

Remember a colleague telling me they had been cleared to cross 36R once at H4, no mention of the A330 going past the window, and then having given it a reasonable margin....it had now passed in front of them, being shouted at by ATC to expedite, the A330 hasn't even vacated 36R yet so they couldnt have given the aircraft on final ( about 5 miles ) clearance to land yet anyway :ugh:

Regularly told to change frequency before the gear is even up and then followed by umpteen step climbs, 900M, 1200m, 1500m, is just asking for mistakes.

Not surprised this incident happened at all, ATC need to slow down, stop shouting and be civil

Someone said China was going to be all english speaking by the end of 2017, any truth in that?

:rolleyes:

No chance. They were supposed to go all English in the early 2000's - they tried for a few days as I recall then back to square one. There is just not enough incentive/disincentives to make it happen.

Someone was paying attention at Helsinki though.

Incident: Finnair A321 at Helsinki on Oct 28th 2016, ATC operational error corrected by flight crew

Well , I would like to hear the R/T and actual instructions given to both aircraft before passing any form of judgement on this incident.

Jealous much? Non western pilot did a great job but all those trash waiting to pillory him.

If a western pilot had done the same you would be singing praises and waxing lyrical.

ATC watcher.
Most likely R/T would be in Chinese mainland operators operating on home turf.
Don't know if google translate converts aviation mandarin

Callicutt Kid : I was talking about the Helsinki incident posted by Super VC10.

In my humble opinion while the outcome was successful, an incident like this, or any other for that matter, should be a learning opportunity and not made into a epic hero story or otherwise. There were two outcomes possible; one favourable and the other catastrophic. It does seem at this juncture that at the point the Captain made his decision, either stopping or going would have been favourable as basic physics would demonstrate. However, should the decision to 'GO' or 'STOP' have been delayed, then the trajectory of these outcomes looks very much different. That is, STOPPING would result in loss of fewer lives simply based on the speed of possible impact. I'm sure none of this is lost on anyone. But again, let's learn from this and NOT REWARD/PUNISH pilots for this decision. It could possibly bias decisions in the wrong direction if it ever happened again.

China Eastern Captain Awarded 3 Million Yuan for Averting Collision in Shanghai

China Eastern Airlines has offered a reward of 3 million yuan to the captain whose quick thinking helped to avert a ground collision between two passenger planes at Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport.
http://pic.carnoc.com/file/161103/16110312213194.jpg

With an extra 400,000+ Euros in his pocket, the good captain may care just a little less about any second guessing of his actions.

Since each situation is unique regarding specific circumstances and timing, pilots will continue to make stop/go decisions based on their judgment regardless of whether or not they are rewarded or punished. It seems to me that the likely punishment for making the wrong decision would have been obvious in this case. I'm happy for him that it's a reward this time. I'm going to give the guy the benefit of any doubt by presuming that he might make the opposite decision next time if he feels the situation demands.

Enjoy your money and your life as reward for not crashing!

Well I hope he shares his new found fortune with his co-pilot!

Meanwhile Shanghai ATC gets raked over the coals by the CAAC...

Just shows how the old ways of this communist state still exist in this day and age.

CAAC Suspends Air Traffic Controllers for Near-Collision in Shanghai

Yes that has all the signs of a familiar old refrain for many of us. "You were there when something bad happened, so you are guilty". The typical worker response to such an environment is that from then on, they will do only exactly what they are told to do. That attitude is not what we're looking for from people with responsibility for operational safety. Been there, done that, not a good management philosophy.

Even if he wanted to stop?

The other danger with this hero/huge money reward is that some not-so sure guys in a similar situation in the future will try just that , to be a hero, and maybe try to imitate what is not imitable...Same effect as punishing : in both cases the total wrong thing to do if your aim is to improve safety..

As to sharing the money with his co-pilot, maybe he should better share it with the guy that trained him to evaluate the parameters and apply the best solution/decision .
Of Course a real " hero" would refuse the money arguing that he just did his job that day.:E

And Sully could have made Teterboro .. apparently most here think he should have given it a go...!!

Everything about this thread disturbs me. Its like a time warp back to the 1960's.

Disturbing indeed. Unlike at Western airlines where a comprehensive analysis will be done, in China since the outcome was no loss of lives then the decision must have been sound. Lucky yes, correct questionable. It reminds me of the Air Transat accident where the Captain was made out a hero for his dead-stick landing in the Azores. It was only after the final report did they realize that while it was indeed a successful outcome with skill intermixed with pure luck that the situation could have been avoided in the first place with proper fuel monitoring from the crew. FWIW: Accelerating an aircraft into a moving object gives me the jitters in a big way!

@CEA330Driver...

No crew interaction there... Just a one man show on the captain's part.