Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Aviation Industry News and Discussion > International Industry


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27th May 2008, 01:49 PM
Greg McDonald Greg McDonald is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel C View Post
I hope my straight forward answer doesn't offend anyone...
HAhaha...good one
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29th May 2008, 06:25 PM
Mick M's Avatar
Mick M Mick M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Default

Toby,
in response to your somewhat daft and naiive belief that this runway incursion was not such a big deal I would like to take you back, way way back, to a little place called Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where in 1977 the world's worst airline disaster occurred because of a runway incursion. 683 people were killed when two 747's collided on the runway because of human error. Same as in this case, except we had a vehicle and an aircraft occupying the same active runway.

Given that a large laden aircraft, weighing 450 tonnes travelling at V1 takes a kilometre to stop in a RTO, the significance of any runway incursion can't be under estimated. And given that most runway incursions are caused by ignorance, geographic disorientation or communication errors it means at least one of those parties on the runway didn't even know the other one existed. So merely having controllers in the tower with surface movement radar is no guarantee of safety if an aircraft has commenced the takeoff roll.

Most vehicles on the airfield do not have tower comms as they are not required to operate outside the marked apron roads in the movement area, so even if the controllers spot an incursion, or a potential one on the SMR, there may be no way of alerting the offending driver. So any breach of the runway or taxiway can kill hundreds of people. So there is no such thing as a minor incursion. Every single incursion gets the full ATSB broom up the **** investigation because history shows on numerous occaisions that runway incursions are lethal.

And I'm sorry for calling you Toby, but goddam dammit you look so much like that guy in the West Wing!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29th May 2008, 07:41 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Default

I exaggerated my position to make a point and people have properly taken me to task. I was only trying to inject some balance into the discussion by pointing out that the a/c was holding and had the offending vehicle in sight. Yes it was a runway incursion and all runway incursions are dangerous. But it was not an incursion in front of an a/c which had commenced take off roll, and I feel that the thread title wrongly conveys that impression.

As I understand what happened, the Tenerife disaster (which was truly a tragic catastrophe) was caused by a combination of fog, a highly experienced but impatient KLM pilot who commenced his take off roll without clearance, and by a comms clash which prevented him hearing the Pan Am a/c advise him that they were still taxiing toward him on the active RWY looking for their exit. There's an order of magnitude discrepancy between that and the Indian runway incursion, but I accept that the latter could have had a much more serious outcome if the a/c had commenced its take off roll and the fact that it hadn't seems to have simply been fortuitous.

Thanks for the "Toby" moniker - hopefully it won't stick!
__________________
Philip
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 30th May 2008, 06:42 PM
Steve B. Steve B. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Adelaide - South Australia
Posts: 23
Default

Mick M.

Hi Mick,

I have always been somewhat troubled by calling the Tenerife accident a Runway Incursion. Unlike the Indian incident, ATC was aware that both aircraft were on the same RWY. The PanAm 747 was backtracking with a clearance to do so, and the KLM 747 lined up, with ATC approval, at the RWY threshold awaiting a take-off clearance. IIRC the PIC of the KLM 747 commenced take-off without a take-off clearance. There were of course other factors involved not the least being some communication problems, low visibility and ATC's lack of familiarity with what taxiways the PanAm 747 could use.

There was nothing unauthorised (except the KLM PIC taking off) about the aircraft being where they were. It is not uncommon to have two aircraft on a RWY at the same time.

Regards
Stephen
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement