- Reaction score
- 21,774
- Points
- 1,090
Warning: any aircrew viewing this will be terrified.
When pilots need new underwear
- Thread starter dapaterson
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
Should be out there. Check vasa aviation or liveatc.
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
Here is the audio. Does not sound like either of the pilots really saw anything.
irkutskicetruckers.com
ATC Recording of FDX1432 Go Around 2-5-23 Due to Slow WN708 - Irkutsk Ice Truckers
Currently being discussed on Airliners.net at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23660385#p23660385 FDX1432: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fx1432#2f133f40 WN708: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/wn708#2f136f25 Sourced from...
irkutskicetruckers.com
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
WN 708 needs to check his roof for tire marks…
Check the controller’s gitch for them, too.
- Reaction score
- 18,368
- Points
- 1,360
ATC should have given FedEx a continue, not clear him. Southwest should have gotten its IFR clearance before just positioning on the runway. If they were going to sit in the runway finger punching stuff into the FMS they should have declined the takeoff clearance from ATC and asked for a wait. Southwest also failed to comply with ATC’s abort order. FedEx guys were on the ball and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had their hands over the throttles even back when they were cleared. I don’t know what part of MANOPS could have permitted ATC to clear FedEx if Southwest wasn’t even on takeoff roll.Here is the audio. Does not sound like either of the pilots really saw anything.
ATC Recording of FDX1432 Go Around 2-5-23 Due to Slow WN708 - Irkutsk Ice Truckers
Currently being discussed on Airliners.net at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23660385#p23660385 FDX1432: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fx1432#2f133f40 WN708: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/wn708#2f136f25 Sourced from...
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
The landing clearance is laziness/complacency. I have seen it happen, periodically, in Canada where an aircraft on approach is given a landing clearance when the runway is still fouled by a departing aircraft during VFR conditions. It should never, ever happen IFR.
Southwest had no clearance to depart. They were clearly aborted by ATC. The swiss cheese very nearly lined up here. That must have been to see two large jets fly a Blue angels type routine down that runway for about 15 seconds until Fedex’s max effort climb started to re-establish separation. With 1/8NM vis, I wonder how much of this tower even saw?
Southwest had no clearance to depart. They were clearly aborted by ATC. The swiss cheese very nearly lined up here. That must have been to see two large jets fly a Blue angels type routine down that runway for about 15 seconds until Fedex’s max effort climb started to re-establish separation. With 1/8NM vis, I wonder how much of this tower even saw?
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
VASAviation has the animation up, in real time, with none of the radio silence snipped out.
To be fair to the Southwest crew, it's not uncommon to be cleared to depart via a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) prior to pushing back, only to be assigned a new heading / altitude with take off clearance. No FMS fiddling required in this example - select HDG mode and turn the knob.
I'm not familiar with the FAA ATC manual, but in my experience flying in the US, ATC does seem to issue landing clearances well before preceding traffic clears the runway, or departing traffic has started to roll, compared to Canadian ATC.
We recently had to go-around (tower initiated) after a departing aircraft became disabled after receiving their take off clearance. We had been cleared to land 3 miles back, while the other aircraft was lined up in position, waiting for their take off clearance.
Perhaps the FAA will re-evaluate permitting this practice.
In the video you posted, it sounds to me like Southwest was cleared for take off with heading and altitude assigned, unless I'm mistaken.
If the video captioning ia accurate, it's FedEx that calls for Southwest to abort, as they (FedEx) are going-around. If so, good SA on FedEx, realizing that they could potentially be flying a missed approach procedure and overtaking a departing aircraft beneath them. It sounds like this warning was too late, as Southwest was already committed to the take off.
From my comfortable armchair, I think this was ATC's mistake...
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
I agree. Juan Browne, on his channel (Blancoliro) makes the point that SW should never have been cleared onto the runway after ATC had just cleared an aircraft (Fedex) to conduct a Cat 3 ILS approach. You cannot put a vehicle into the ILS exclusion zone at that point. It is something I had not considered the first couple times I went through this scenario.
- Reaction score
- 21,774
- Points
- 1,090
If nothing else, this is excellent PD. Might be a good discussion in Cornwall.
- Reaction score
- 18,368
- Points
- 1,360
It sure sounded like a full To-Via-Maintain-Depart clearance being read to SW on the ATC tapes.
I’m not sure it was FX calling the abort. And hard to say whether SW was past V1. They were taking their time enough that ATC asked them what they were doing.
I agree here. SW was behind the power curve. FedEx crew was on the ball - solid crew well prepared and took expedient action to keep all safe.
It boggles my mind that ATC thought that trying to squeeze SW in for an expedited departure in front of FX 3nm back…one minute, twelve seconds from touchdown in 1/8mi visibility…was questionable at best, and were it not for the FedEx crew’s professionalism, would have been a disaster.
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
If you listen to the tape a couple of times, you can clearly tell it was the voice of the Capt of the Fedex who called SW to abort, not the tower controller.
That SW refused the abort should mean they were past V1 and committed to going flying. Risky, but if they had rejected, they may piled off the end of the runway.
Alot went wrong here, but alot also went right in the short strokes. Fedex seemed to have good SA (other than maybe not hitting the go around button as soon as SW taxiied onto the runway). It is difficult to make out from the tapes what the SW crew knew- I wonder if they even ever saw the 767?
That SW refused the abort should mean they were past V1 and committed to going flying. Risky, but if they had rejected, they may piled off the end of the runway.
Alot went wrong here, but alot also went right in the short strokes. Fedex seemed to have good SA (other than maybe not hitting the go around button as soon as SW taxiied onto the runway). It is difficult to make out from the tapes what the SW crew knew- I wonder if they even ever saw the 767?
- Reaction score
- 12,956
- Points
- 1,010
It would not have been good flying into a 767 wake turbulence on a no wind day, that close to the ground, no.
It was super foggy. Nobody saw shit. I saw photos of the airport and it was soup.
