U.S. investigates aborted FedEx landing in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway

[shemp]

U.S. investigates aborted FedEx landing in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway

Quote:

The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board are investigating an aborted landing in Austin, Texas, on Saturday morning by a FedEx cargo plane that had been set to land on a runway on which a Southwest Airlines jet was also cleared to depart from, the agencies said.

The two planes came close to colliding when the FedEx plane was forced to overfly the Southwest plane to avoid a crash, two sources briefed on the matter told Reuters.

“Shortly before the FedEx aircraft was due to land, the controller cleared Southwest Flight 708 to depart from the same runway,” the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

The NTSB separately said it was investigating “a possible runway incursion and overflight involving airplanes from Southwest Airlines and FedEx.”

The incident occurred in poor visibility conditions in Austin. The FAA said FedEx Express Flight 1432, a Boeing 767 cargo plane, which had departed from Memphis, was cleared to land on Runway 18-Left around 6:40 a.m. while the aircraft was several miles from the airport. The Southwest plane had not yet departed when the FedEx plane was nearing the runway.

“The pilot of the FedEx airplane discontinued the landing and initiated a climb out,” the FAA said.

It was not clear precisely how close the two airplanes came to colliding, but flight tracking website data suggested they came very close.

Flightradar24 will show you that it was pants ******** close:

https://twitter.com/jxlars/status/1622010477520764928

There are claims that air traffic control gave the pilot of the Southwest flight plenty of time to take off in advance of the FedEx landing but the pilot took too long to get going.

[TragicMonkey]

Doesn't the FedEx plane normally just throw itself into the front yard of the airport, landing anywhere from the porch to the bushes to a big mud puddle?

[theprestige]

I like how the headline calls out FedEx, even though the story seems to make it clear that it's Southwest that should have been called out. I guess Southwest must be one of CNBC's big advertisers.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I like how the headline calls out FedEx, even though the story seems to make it clear that it's Southwest that should have been called out. I guess Southwest must be one of CNBC's big advertisers.

Since the Southwest plane took off and continued its flight, would you prefer the headline "U.S. investigates unaborted Southwest takeoff in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway"?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

This is along the lines of "**** happens". Until everything is completely automated we'll have humans in the loop with both their failures and brilliant saves.

I have experienced a landing at Toronto International where on approach the pilot suddenly accelerated and banked away in an ascending turn to the right. He told us he had noticed there was an Air India plane in the process of taking off from the runway on which he was cleared to land. I actually saw it pulling up from the runway as our plane banked.

Quite scary at the time.

[bruto]

I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

This is along the lines of "**** happens". Until everything is completely automated we'll have humans in the loop with both their failures and brilliant saves.

And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.

Had to look it up. Bad news.

Quote:

Firstly, the software controlling the machine contained bugs which proved to be fatal. Secondly, the design of the machine relied on the controlling computer alone for safety. There were no hardware interlocks or supervisory circuits to ensure that software bugs couldn’t result in catastrophic failures.

https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/kill...the-therac-25/

[shemp]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.

Do I have to do everything for you?

https://twitter.com/haemaker/status/1622093320951566336

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I have experienced a landing at Toronto International where on approach the pilot suddenly accelerated and banked away in an ascending turn to the right. He told us he had noticed there was an Air India plane in the process of taking off from the runway on which he was cleared to land. I actually saw it pulling up from the runway as our plane banked.

I had a similar experience. The jet I was in did a sudden go-around. The pilot told us that it was "due to some other traffic in the area and sloppy air traffic controllering." The event was scary, but the obvious anxiety in his voice made it even more scarier.

I watch a lot of YouTube videos on airline accidents and near accidents. Interestingly, they make me feel more confident that flying is safe because they usually result from multiple unlikely things going wrong. In this case something went wrong, but something went right to avoid a tragedy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.

That is true but history does show improvement with automated processes as they are perfected. Look at elevators for example.

A snippet of automatic elevator history here:Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism

I'll go with an ex-chairman of BOAC who I remember being asked about 1955 or so if he would fly in a completely automated airliner said, "If it was proven to be safer that an piloted one, I certainly would".

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by shemp

U.S. investigates aborted FedEx landing in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway



Flightradar24 will show you that it was pants ******** close:

https://twitter.com/jxlars/status/1622010477520764928

Yup. That is what we call in the trade, a ******* near miss!!

[smartcooky]

The Fedex aircraft was on Cat 3 Autoland because of low RVR (visibility) due to foggy conditions (1400 ft) and mid-runway 600 ft. This changes everything.

There is not allowed to be an aircraft waiting to take of during ANY stage of Autoland because its presence so close to the ILS antennas can cause interference with the Localizer and Glideslope beams leading to erroneous approach angles.

One of my aircraft incident "go to guys", Juan Browne explains in detail...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

NOTE: It seems that the minimum separation at one point was about 150 ft. For reference, the wingspan of the Fedex is 156 feet, the Southwest 117 feet... so yeah, way too close for comfort!

[sarge]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The Fedex aircraft was on Cat 3 Autoland because of low RVR (visibility) due to foggy conditions (1400 ft) and mid-runway 600 ft. This changes everything.

There is not allowed to be an aircraft waiting to take of during ANY stage of Autoland because its presence so close to the ILS antennas can cause interference with the Localizer and Glideslope beams leading to erroneous approach angles.

One of my aircraft incident "go to guys", Juan Browne explains in detail...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

NOTE: It seems that the minimum separation at one point was about 150 ft. For reference, the wingspan of the Fedex is 156 feet, the Southwest 117 feet... so yeah, way too close for comfort!

In my experience, planes approaching a busy runway that have been IFR would be cleared for a visual approach so that simultaneous arrival/departures can continue, but with the departing planes being given a ‘without delay’ takeoff clearance. Under low ceiling or RVR conditions, the hold short area for the departing plane would be well short of the runway (again in my experience).

[Planigale]

Presumably the issue lies here?

Quote:

A voice reportedly from an air traffic control recording is heard warning: "Southwest abort. FedEx is on the go."

But the Southwest pilot was probably aware that aborting is a felony in Texas, he had to get out of state, Mexico is a common destination for those in Southern states wanting to abort.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by shemp

There are claims that air traffic control gave the pilot of the Southwest flight plenty of time to take off in advance of the FedEx landing but the pilot took too long to get going.

The Southwest plane did not do anything wrong. It took longer to take off than the controller was expecting, obviously; but when a plane has been cleared to take off it owns the runway for as long as it needs in order to get up safely. A plane on the runway can't see backwards, it has no way of knowing how close the approaching traffic is getting, and if the controller needed Southwest to expedite its takeoff then the controller needed to say that out loud because traffic separation is his whole job.

According to the professional pilot in the video smartcooky posted, FedEx was on a high-level controlled instrument landing and no plane should have been cleared to take off in front of it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.

The headline describes a problem, and names a specific entity in connection with that problem. I think it is bad editorial form, and mildly unfair, to connect the correct-acting entity with the problem, rather than the wrong-acting entity. People don't read articles as much as they form opinions from headlines and then move on to the next headline.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The Southwest plane did not do anything wrong. It took longer to take off than the controller was expecting, obviously; but when a plane has been cleared to take off it owns the runway for as long as it needs in order to get up safely. A plane on the runway can't see backwards, it has no way of knowing how close the approaching traffic is getting, and if the controller needed Southwest to expedite its takeoff then the controller needed to say that out loud because traffic separation is his whole job.

According to the professional pilot in the video smartcooky posted, FedEx was on a high-level controlled instrument landing and no plane should have been cleared to take off in front of it.

If a tower controller wants a plane to take off quickly, he will often ask if the pilot needs time for a run-up at the hold short line, and if the answer is no will clear the pilot for take off before the plane reaches the end of the taxiway and will give the clearance as “cleared for immediate take-off, no delay, traffic on x-mile final”. In this case, those instructions would not be appropriate for the type of approach the FedEx plane was already cleared for.

I see no way for this to land on anyone but the tower controller.


ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.

[TragicMonkey]

Seems to me the fault in these situations is with the air traffic controller, not either plane or airline, unless it can be proven the instructions were correctly given but not followed by the plane/s.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

That is true but history does show improvement with automated processes as they are perfected. Look at elevators for example.

A snippet of automatic elevator history here:Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism

I'll go with an ex-chairman of BOAC who I remember being asked about 1955 or so if he would fly in a completely automated airliner said, "If it was proven to be safer that an piloted one, I certainly would".

I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by sarge

In my experience, planes approaching a busy runway that have been IFR would be cleared for a visual approach so that simultaneous arrival/departures can continue, but with the departing planes being given a ‘without delay’ takeoff clearance. Under low ceiling or RVR conditions, the hold short area for the departing plane would be well short of the runway (again in my experience).

Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line. For example, here is the east end of Auckland Airport runway 23...



While an aircraft is on ILS approach in RVR conditions, taxiing aircraft are not permitted to proceed beyond the "ILS Critical Area" lines

[gnome]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?

I do not know if I will ever be willing to be a passenger on an airplane without a pilot supervising that is actually on the plane. Even if most of the time they do little or none of the actual steering.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line. For example, here is the east end of Auckland Airport runway 23...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/im22wkvm6h...L23L.png?raw=1

While an aircraft is on ILS approach in RVR conditions, taxiing aircraft are not permitted to proceed beyond the "ILS Critical Area" lines

All true…..but it is an important distinction that it isn’t up to a pilot to know not to proceed past or stop in an ILS Critical Area. It is the responsibility of a controller to give such an instruction. I haven’t listen to a recording of any of the ATC chatter, but I suspect that both the SW and the FedEx flights were in complete compliance with ATC instructions and required required environment procedures.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?

Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by sarge

ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.

Not only to recognize it on their own, but in this case the Fedex pilots asked a "you sure about this?" type of question. That should have set off all sorts of spidey-sense in the controller to check what's happening.

It's super hard when the controllers are right and professional and trying to stack things up correctly 99.999% of the time to be able to call them out when it's not. It can take a while to clear the "maybe it's me that's not sure what's happening" thoughts and know it's time to take action.

[shemp]

Air traffic controller has got to be one of the most thankless jobs in the world. You can be right 999,999 times out of a million, but that one time you screwed up is the only thing people are going to know about you.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by shemp

Air traffic controller has got to be one of the most thankless jobs in the world. You can be right 999,999 times out of a million, but that one time you screwed up is the only thing people are going to know about you.

"I built that bridge, but do they call me George the bridge builder? No. But if you **** one sheep..."

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.

That does not follow. A truly automated system would include an intelligent replacement both for the human pilot and for the human controller.

[dudalb]

I suspect a head or two will roll at the FAA over this.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by sarge

ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.

I can't verify this, but I've READ that Austin does not have ground radar and so wouldn't be able to tell the locations of planes on the taxiways and runways except visually. That would have been impossible at the time of the incident because visibility was 1/8-mile and the control tower probably couldn't see the runway.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.

Unless there is a fault. Either with the software, hardware, or radio signal. I've heard ATC comms where they told a plane over and over again instructions with no reply. Then heard from the pilot: we seemingly cannot hear you. What happens if an AI pilot system cannot communicate with the automated ATC system and there is no pilot on board?

[BowlOfRed]

Ground radar isn't exactly common, but it shouldn't matter here. That could be a thing when an aircraft is lost and not following controller instructions. But these planes were where the controller requested, following instructions.

If two planes in the air lose required separation, the terminal should throw up an alert. I don't know if that system has any ability to factor aircraft still on a runway.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I can't verify this, but I've READ that Austin does not have ground radar and so wouldn't be able to tell the locations of planes on the taxiways and runways except visually. That would have been impossible at the time of the incident because visibility was 1/8-mile and the control tower probably couldn't see the runway.

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

Ground radar isn't exactly common, but it shouldn't matter here. That could be a thing when an aircraft is lost and not following controller instructions. But these planes were where the controller requested, following instructions.

Wow, I would've assumed the vast majority of major airports* had ground radar. Kind of asking for an accident in dense fog without it. I'm not a pilot but I have successfully landed most planes in MS Flight Sim at several airports. And crashed them too...

*Austin has grown almost exponentially in the last few decades, I'd think they'd be considered major by now

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Unless there is a fault. Either with the software, hardware, or radio signal. I've heard ATC comms where they told a plane over and over again instructions with no reply. Then heard from the pilot: we seemingly cannot hear you. What happens if an AI pilot system cannot communicate with the automated ATC system and there is no pilot on board?

How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Wow, I would've assumed the vast majority of major airports* had ground radar. Kind of asking for an accident in dense fog without it. I'm not a pilot but I have successfully landed most planes in MS Flight Sim at several airports. And crashed them too...

*Austin has grown almost exponentially in the last few decades, I'd think they'd be considered major by now

It's new-ish (new for aviation). I think the 30 largest in the US either had it or were getting it (and that was several years ago). At many airports, fog that dense is rare, and the airport will close. So ground ops isn't as much of a problem.

Also, ground radar is just one piece. Other surface movement guidance technology is active lighting systems. You get big red lights at the stop way, and the controller can signal when they're ready for you to take the runway. So when everything is working, there's positive confirmation without the controller being able to see the aircraft.

No one piece is perfect. Ground radar gives more coverage and can alert a controller about problems, but it doesn't help guide pilots.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line.

Normally true, not sure it's a separate line in this case.

It looks like at Austin, the ILS glidescope antenna may be located east of runway. So aircraft approaching the runway from the west (as the Southwest jet was), are still somewhat separated from the signal.

Google maps doesn't show a separate ILS critical area marking on the west side (while one is quite visible on the east side). If that's correct, even during CatIII planes would go to the normal hold short line.

There should also be a sign marking it, but that's not visible on google maps.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.

Hmm...

TCAS usually says go up or go down, or go down faster or go up faster...

Not much use to a plane on the runway.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by novaphile

Hmm...

TCAS usually says go up or go down, or go down faster or go up faster...

Not much use to a plane on the runway.

If you're on the runway and you have a communication failure, you don't take off. I was just talking about "what does an AI do in a communication failure?" Fly as filed unless there's some reason not to. Pretty much the same as a human would do.

A human would have an option of landing VFR somewhere. But I can't remember any airliner in the US doing so due to comms failure. Permanent loss of comms doesn't seem to be a common failure.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

Not only to recognize it on their own, but in this case the Fedex pilots asked a "you sure about this?" type of question. That should have set off all sorts of spidey-sense in the controller to check what's happening.

It's super hard when the controllers are right and professional and trying to stack things up correctly 99.999% of the time to be able to call them out when it's not. It can take a while to clear the "maybe it's me that's not sure what's happening" thoughts and know it's time to take action.

Pilots with less experience may be reluctant to question a controller. ATPs are not. All pilots may be complacent however, and if you fly the same route often, you start to expect the next thing the controller is going to say. When I’m approaching FAY on the ILS 4 approach from the south, I expect to hear from approach “turn right heading 010, maintain 2300 until established, contact tower on 118.3, cleared for the ILS 4 approach”. If I hear anything else, it causes a little pause while I try to digest what was said.

Once, practicing approaches in VMC conditions, I was on a VOR approach that included a circle to land. The controller gave me circle instructions that made no sense at all. It took at least 7-8 seconds for me to digest what was said, formulate my ‘did you really mean…….” reply and transmit the question. The controller, to his credit, recognized his error and corrected it immediately.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by BowlOfRed

How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.

TCAS RA function is disabled on the ground (usually by the "weight on wheels" switches")... for obvious reasons.