PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Almost a repeat of Tenerife at Shanghai! (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/585790-almost-repeat-tenerife-shanghai.html)

Super VC-10 16th Oct 2016 17:07

Almost a repeat of Tenerife at Shanghai!
 
But this time with Airbuses. An A320 managed to climb over an A330 which was on the runway at Shanghai. Could so easily have been a repeat of Tenerife. :}

Incident: China Eastern A333 at Shanghai on Oct 11th 2016, runway incursion forces departure to rotate early and climb over A333

pattern_is_full 16th Oct 2016 17:52

I have a feeling this will turn into a hamsterwheel like Sully on the Hudson - did he make the correct choice or not? The (preliminary) numbers seem to show that there was time and distance for an abort, but the crew did not have that info available - it was purely a question of visual judgement for them.

My gut tells me I would have gone for the abort, with a diversion into the grass if necessary (as speed dropped). But I wasn't there, and I don't know that that would have been the better choice, in the final analysis.

In any case, kudos to the A322 crew for sharp reactions, and remembering that you have to firewall the levers, not just the TOGA button.

Not enough info yet to determine why the A333 crew missed the "Stop!" calls and didn't notice the 322 was rolling.

Super VC-10 16th Oct 2016 17:57

The fact that there was no accident would suggest that the decision was correct. I wasn't there either and I'm not aircrew,so I'm not in a position to say whether or not aborting would also have been a correct choice.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR 16th Oct 2016 17:58

<<The aircraft, that had been previously cleared to cross runway 36L, was instructed to stop and hold short of runway 36L but did not react to the stop instruction.>>

I suppose he had his reasons......

DaveReidUK 16th Oct 2016 19:46

Several of the comments attributed to the media in the Avherald report seem to be a tad premature, pending any investigation:

"After the A330 crossed the hold short line tower called the A330 three times to stop, however, the crew did not listen." (well that's one of several possibilities)

"The CAAC are going to decide about punishments on Oct 17th."
(so much for Just Culture)

Octane 16th Oct 2016 22:13

Rotation was 17 knots below Vr, how would the aircraft have handled that, would it have "staggered" into flight? Sorry, novice question..

HundredPercentPlease 16th Oct 2016 22:25

Octane,

If the t/o was an improved climb t/o, then V1/Vr could be around 155 knots. If the performance calcs were done using TOGA, then V1/Vr could be around 130.

So...

If you are at 130 knots on an improved climb t/o, there's nothing stopping you shoving the levers forwards and performing a normal rotation and unstick. You can even do it without using TOGA, but you may not clear obstacles if you then had an engine failure and left the thrust at FLEX. Or you could just yank the stick back promptly and over do the rotation, and the machine will give you TOGA itself.

No idea, of course, what happened in this case.

A320ECAM 16th Oct 2016 22:33

If the A320 had rejected the takeoff instead of firewalling the throttles, the A330 would have been clear off the runway by the time the decelerating A320 would have reached the A330?

HundredPercentPlease 16th Oct 2016 22:57

Who knows? Who cares? We are trained to be go-minded above 100 knots - the A320 Captain made a quick, sound decision (knowing about improved climb performance) based on what he could see, and it worked.

peekay4 16th Oct 2016 23:26


If the A320 had rejected the takeoff instead of firewalling the throttles, the A330 would have been clear off the runway by the time the decelerating A320 would have reached the A330?
According to CAAC calculations had the A320 rejected takeoff it would have stopped 200 meters short of the H3 intersection where the A330 crossed.

Piltdown Man 16th Oct 2016 23:38

PK - with due respect, I think that is called hindsight. What happened was outside the books and an outside the books solution was applied. The only thing that is going wrong is the CAAC getting out the big stick.

Hotel Tango 16th Oct 2016 23:56

Yeah, I'm sure the crew had all the time in the world to calculate they could stop 200 meters short! :ugh::mad:

200 meters for God's sake. What sort of margin was that?!!!

bradandwhitney 17th Oct 2016 02:18

Anyone else on here also under the impression that PVG ATC is even more "interesting" than typical chinese RT? Especially early morning when TWR still does CLR and GND while traffic is picking up continuously.
I remember a little language incident (wrong taxi clearance) whereafter a British accent came on the air saying something along the lines of "...you need to use proper english or someone will be seriously f...ed" (he did drop the f-bomb! - rightfully so it seems).

peekay4 17th Oct 2016 03:53


PK - with due respect, I think that is called hindsight.
You're being presumptuous. No one is suggesting that the A320 pilots should have aborted. The CAAC calculated, if they HAD aborted, the A320 would have been able to stop in time. That is all.

Runway incursions are extremely serious and practically every CAA in the world will issue an enforcement action for the most severe incidents (so called "Class A" incursions -- those requiring extreme measures to avoid a collision).

In this case, it appears that an enforcement actions will be lodged at least against ATC personnel and possibly against the A330 pilots. The form of the action could be anything, starting with mandatory remedial training.


200 meters for God's sake. What sort of margin was that?!!!
A SkyWest / United Express CRJ had to abort takeoff at LAX a few years ago to avoid a G-V which crossed the runway despite a "hold short" instruction. They stopped within 100 meters from the G-V.

neila83 17th Oct 2016 04:26


Several of the comments attributed to the media in the Avherald report seem to be a tad premature, pending any investigation:

"After the A330 crossed the hold short line tower called the A330 three times to stop, however, the crew did not listen." (well that's one of several possibilities)

"The CAAC are going to decide about punishments on Oct 17th." (so much for Just Culture)
There seems to be confusion amongst a lot of pilots that just culture means pilots can do absolutely anything and out any number of people in danger, and never, ever face punishment. It doesn't at all.

Pilots do not have immunity from the law. If they have been genuinely negligent they should be punished, just like a bus driver, or a train driver, or a truck driver who falls asleep and derails a train.

It does mean establishing a difference between negligence and genuine, understandable mistakes. And encouraging pilots to report incidents. There is nothing to suggest that a response against teh pilots here, would be incompatible with just culture.

I am sure you accept that in every other industry there are people not up to the job. There are surely some in aviation too. Perhaps occasionaly an indicent like this reveals who some of them are before it's too late...

Dan Winterland 17th Oct 2016 05:01


In any case, kudos to the A322 crew for sharp reactions, and remembering that you have to firewall the levers, not just the TOGA button.
On FBW Airbus types, moving the TLs fully forward is the only way to select TOGA at any stage of the operation. Max thrust and correct flight modes in one easy action!

oleary 17th Oct 2016 07:22

Kudos ...
 
... to the 320 crew.

It is awesome easy for the armchair quarterbacks to tell us what we, "Should have done".

In a case like this the crew had to make a split second decision.

Good on ya guys and gals!

DaveReidUK 17th Oct 2016 07:31


Originally Posted by neila83 (Post 9543278)
Pilots do not have immunity from the law. If they have been genuinely negligent they should be punished, just like a bus driver, or a train driver, or a truck driver who falls asleep and derails a train

Yes, of course Just Culture and blanket immunity from prosecution are two different things.

My point was that any finding that the crew were "genuinely negligent" isn't for the media to establish, and certainly not in the first few days after the incident.

Likewise, I'd be very surprised if the CAAC was anywhere close to reaching a view yet on culpability or otherwise (particularly given that the A330's CVR recording was reportedly not preserved).

So talking of "punishment" at this early stage is ridiculous.

peekay4 17th Oct 2016 07:47


So talking of "punishment" at this early stage is ridiculous.
Not really. We're talking about the CAAC here (judge, jury & executioner). In China "punishments" are doled out swiftly, sometimes immediately after an incident.

E.g., just a few months ago when another China Eastern crew messed up an approach to Kangding (hitting the approach lights), the CAAC revoked the crew's pilot licenses for life, within a week of the incident, in part because they believed the crew tried to cover up what had happened.

If the CAAC believe that the A330 CVR had been deliberately erased, then I would not be surprised if similar action will be taken.

framer 17th Oct 2016 07:58

I agree 100% with oleary.
The 320 Captain had to make a big decision in a short space of time with only the info from his/her eyeballs and no prior assessment. They did and nobody was killed.
Good work.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.