Come on then, who was it?!

This is a forum for discussing General Aviation in Ireland

Moderator: mark

Pilot
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:39 pm

Post by Pilot »

Also, why would anybody in their right mind land towards the far end of the runway?? I know it was long but no use having most of it behind him!
That's not at all unusual at large airport, particularly busy ones.

When operating at Dublin, it was often necessary to land long so as to avoid the wake vortex of the preceeding aircraft.

cubpilot
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:38 am

Post by cubpilot »

it's good manners if you only need a few yards to land and your turnoff is a mile away to land long and not block the place whilst you taxi at walking pace. conversely if ATC has p..d you off.... like a man in Keel who had me fly an extra 10nm in a cub before setting me on finals 5 mile out. amazing how long into a 15 kt wind you can take to reach the threshold let alone turn off.

MCRO
Unverified User
Unverified User
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:50 am
Location: Boody Foreland
Contact:

Post by MCRO »

My point is very simply that, if, on approach, it is desirable, for some reason, to avoid an occupied threshold area, this is not a particularly difficult thing to achieve safely if you are landing an aircraft with a landing roll of about 160 m on a runway of 2,300 m

With cheer

Maurice

OnTheNumbers
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:09 pm
Location: Dublin
Contact:

Post by OnTheNumbers »

True, Maurice, it's not particular difficult but in this instance was a dangerous thing to be doing.

This was a non-standard chain of events. The A320 was being an airways clearance while on the runway with an aircraft landing overhead. It's not hard to see how a transmission mis-heard at that point could have set the A320 rolling.

Anyway, all's well that ends well and we've all learned an important lesson without anyone getting hurt.

David
OnTheNumbers
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.clearofcloud.ie
@clearofcloud on Twitter, Instagram

Bearcat
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:37 am

Post by Bearcat »

it was cowboy controlling in controlled airspace. I dont agree with kevin russells report re 50/50 vis a vee atc and pilot.

captain slow
Unverified User
Unverified User
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:09 am

Post by captain slow »

Yeah im with bearcat on this-it was cowboy controlling and god only knows what the controller was thinking never mind trying to achieve. I also dont agree that the pilots bear a 50% share of the blame maybe 10% max but having said that the final decision on anything is the PIC.

Whether or not this event was do-able(it obviously was) or how much space does a cessna need on a 2300m runway or whether the margin for safety was there or not is irrelevant. The instructions by the controller were illegal,had the potential for extreme risk and danger are something you here about in places like africa were atc is a full time cowboy experience and shouldnt have happened.

I would like to think i would have declined the landing clearance or gone around with a another plane of any size on the runway but it wasnt me sitiing there at that moment in time so i might have continued on and landed.

To be honest i think the a320 pilots were probably so confused and put off their stride by the obviously wacked RT they were hearing were obvioulsy so dumb-founded they didnt even reply but you bet your dollar that when they saw the cessna land over they reported it as soon as they got back to base.

Very good lesson to learn tho from someone else experience

Pilot
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:39 pm

Post by Pilot »

The A320 was being an airways clearance while on the runway with an aircraft landing overhead. It's not hard to see how a transmission mis-heard at that point could have set the A320 rolling.
My reading of the report suggests that the AL was backtracking rather than lined up. So extremely unlikely that the A320 would start it's take off run without a clearance.

Bearcat
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:37 am

Post by Bearcat »

so the 172 flew directly over the 320 as they were backtracking? wow....

hibby
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Sandyford, Dublin

Post by hibby »

The incident report (Synopsis) states that the airbus was "lined up and holding on rwy 27", and that the Cessna "over flew the stationary Airbus".

The airbus was not back-tracking on the runway at that time that the landing clearance was issued to the Cessna.

Bearcat
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:37 am

Post by Bearcat »

ta hib, bad controlling and in defence of the pilot.....many a GA pilot out there have very little exposure to controlled airspace on an on going basis and can feel obliged to follow ATC instructions. .....yah I know the mantra re your the pic etc but I think a valid point??

Pilot
Verified User
Verified User
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:39 pm

Post by Pilot »

Yes...there are two lines in the AAIB report, and it seems I read them incorrectly.

While an Airbus 320, EI-DVF, was lined up and holding on Runway (RWY) 27, a Cessna 172 was given permission to land on the same runway by the duty Air Traffic Controller.
ATC advised that he had him in sight and asked, “can you land long, traffic backtracking”, to which the Pilot replied “affirmative”. ATC, in turn, then advised EI-DVF of the Cessna landing long. EI-DVF did not comment on
I suppose what they are trying to say is that it was back tracking at the time ATC asked if he could do the landing, and it was lined up by the time the clearance was given.

My mistake. :oops:

MCRO
Unverified User
Unverified User
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:50 am
Location: Boody Foreland
Contact:

Post by MCRO »

Suggest the root of all this may have been six mins previously

The Cessna reported 4 miles out at 1,200 ft (QNH presumably)

Unless the weather East of the field was colossally better than the actual quoted in the report, - ovc 700 ft - conditions were clearly IMC at any height below 1,700 ft during the approach

I think one may take it that the report would have recorded any response by ATC to any request for a Special VFR operation - and so the operation may have become 'shaky' by the Rulebook long before any question of 'landing long' arose

With cheer

Maurice

Post Reply