Austin, TX Loss of Separation 4 Feb 2023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 фев 2023
- A VERY Close Call in foggy conditions!
LINKS:
Flightradar24: www.flightradar24.com/blog/nt...
Aviation Herald: avherald.com/h?article=504bc6...
ATC Audio: Twitter / 1622054756666540033
PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=529500...
Learning The Finer Points -10% OFF! www.learnthefinerpoints.com/g...
Theme: "Weightless" Aram Bedrosian
www.arambedrosian.com 
Наука
FedEx should have given the controller a number to call
YES!!!!
And the Southwest pilot too, so they could both hear some very politely spoken vulgarity. Not that I think FedEx would stoop that low... he seems far too much the professional for that.
BEST COMMENT LOL
Made me laugh..inspite of the seriousness .
I was thinking the very same thing !
whom do they hire?
FDX pilot here and I have flown FX1432 a hundred times if not more (local AUS guy). Several times CAT3 and EVSS approaches on 18L. Unbelievable this happened, but luckily the Capt in question is a superb pilot and a friend. Thanks for the analysis Juan.
Thankfully FDX had HUD/EVSS - if it was working - and they saw the 737. That’s probably why they called the abort.
Tell your friend he’s a hero. Truly. I hope FDX recognize his performance in some official way. He deserves it.
Yes, the captain might have seen the exhaust glows of the 737 rolling down the runway.
BZ to your buddy...
Too bad he can't tell Tower he has a number to call once he was safely on the ground. Excellent sit-awareness by your friend.
Air traffic controller here-
This incident has shook all of us to the core, this controller at AUS clearly is someone who should have never been certified to work. None of us can comprehend why he decided to launch the SWA with FDX on a 3 mi final, let alone in zero visibility conditions! To put it in perspective, even on a clear in a million day, to launch a jet before an arriving jet you better do so before the arrival hits 5 mile final! This AUS controller broke every rule in our book and it's a shame he is misrepresenting the rest of us.
To the FDX pilot you're a hero
When FedEx transmitted "Southwest abort" the controller thought that SWA was announcing that they were aborting their takeoff. When you here ATC casually say "Southwest 708 roger, you can turn right when able", he was giving them runway exiting instructions. He had no idea that SWA was rotating directly below FDX. Terrifying!!
And was the controller *sure* that the FedEx was going around? (Is "on the go" clear terminology?) As Juan said, tower had lost control of the situation
@@dougfraser77 (Is "on the go" clear terminology?) - It is a known fact of human physiology that when the adrenaline is soaring above "instant heart attack" levels, the ability to speak coherently is degraded.
@@KennethAGrimm Of course. My point is - did the controller know for sure that the FedEx was going around? Presumably he had no visual of what was happening, and clearly had no situational awareness for several seconds.
@@dougfraser77 Gotcha! I thought you were criticizing Fedex pilot. Thanks for the clarification.
@@KennethAGrimm 👍 No criticism from me - FedEx saved the day
21:39 "...and with the state of hiring practices and training today, and the relentless effort to do things faster, cheaper, and more efficiently, we're just one radio call away from having the biggest aviation disaster in history." Amen brother, and a huge *thank you* for your reporting on these incidents!
you got it right!....
@@rauldempaire5330 Yeah, whenever presented with "I want it faster, cheaper, and better" the answer is I can give you 2 out of 3.
who are they hiring ?
YES!👍👍👍
FAA procedures are inherently unsafe here, IMO. They rely on see and avoid, or being able to tell aircraft to go around. As soon as you clear two aircraft onto the same runway at the same time you're just a radio problem away from a possible collision.
ATC gives confirming runway clearances all the time. When ATC clears a plane to land as #2 behind another plane, that is a conflicting clearance. It relies on somebody noticing a conflict and avoiding it.
The safer process would be to clear one plane to land, and the next only fit the approach, and then issue the landing clearance when the first plane leaves the runway. Of course that requires spacing aircraft far enough apart to give the second clearance. This achieves positive control because the second plane will automatically go around if they don't get a clearance.
In this case it was a takeoff in conflict with a landing, which ATC also does all the time.
If you just issue one clearance at a time, then the pilots will automatically go around if you don't clear them, which is safer.
Being a FDX Employee, I appreciate how pissed Juan is..
Exactly! I'm sure my MD11 Captain friend and I will have a nice conversation about this on our next ride from CHSA to CAER.
Your statement at the end of the video "the relentless effort to do things faster, cheaper and more efficiently, we're just one radio call away from having the biggest aviation disaster in history" is very sobering and basically sums it up in a perfect way. This was a very close call. Thank you for all the very informative videos.
Sad to say, it's the same situation now in health care. Better, faster, cheaper. Pick any two.
@@tennesseered5861 hired more ATC pay better UPGRADE EQUIPMENT 2 stop catering to Shareholders for profits over safety.
Then They will blame it on pilots and really push fully autonomous aircraft.
@@jackhandyy if he was under training, then his instructor/supervisor is to blame, and there's a chance they could have rushed the 737 with the mindset he's describing. Regardless of this particular incident or the ATCO's status, the wake up call Juan makes to the industry holds true
@@jackhandyy Okay... Let's just GO (for argument's sake) with your assessment.
"This happened because it was a crappy controller that wasn't finished with training."
1. Then what the hell was a crappy controller without proper training even doing IN THE TOWER UNSUPERVISED???
-Where was the voice of a super, jumping on the net (taking his mic and phones away) to take control before things got this hairy... to tell Fedex to Go Around now, and let Southwest get clear... or SOMETHING... ANYTHING but "dead silence" while Fedex and Southwest were SCREWED.
2. HOW did someone think it was a good idea to let a "crappy controller" work in the Tower unsupervised (as he clearly was) without training???
3. WHY was he a crappy controller who hadn't finished training???
-Was he just a "non-give a shit" type who didn't do the training? OR was he trying and the training just that cheap, cheesy, and unpolished???
It's never just one thing... BUT if you're in a job to train people who routinely make split-second decisions that effect the lives of hundreds of people at a time, HOW THEN do you let someone through your class when they clearly DO NOT GIVE A SHIT???
If that's NOT the problem with the controller, himself... AND I can't see an instructor worth diddly letting it slide... THEN who's at fault for the utter lack of drills, training, coaching, and PRIDE in putting qualified people out with certifications because they're actually GOOD enough to not get anybody killed???
I know it's a high volume and a high bar. "Just don't get anybody killed."... BUT come on. Would YOU willingly train and release someone to a job like that without they at least LOOK like they know something about what the f*ck they're doing??? I won't let someone unsupervised on a damn TABLESAW if they don't at least act like they care about the job. It's too damn risky... Stupid sh*t gets people either killed or ruined for life in even just the carpentry business.
Negligence on a trainer or controller in the ATC is tantamount to mass murder... through reckless depraved indifference. I have to suggest that SEVERAL people f*cked up royal for this situation to get to this place without intervention of somekind... and they're ALL g** d*** lucky that Fedex pilot had his damn coffee and was paying friggin' attention.
As I understand it, there's no good reason for two commercial planes to get within 1000 feet of each other... EVER. I know damn well that nothing good's going to come of it if they do, and I don't even fly a plane bigger than a canoe (remotes withstanding)... ;o)
74-8 freight driver here, very sobering video w/ the CAT3 TO/GA. My FO and I were just talking about the Pan AM / KLM Tenerife disaster this week. Everyone in our industry please stay safe, very good explanation as always Juan.
When an experienced and always calm pilot like Juan suddenly raises his voice like this, it indicates that something is very very wrong and dangerous. This is a strong warning for all regulators and operators.
helmet fire!
👍
Bingo!
Heads need to roll and re-education needs to start immediately. Right after the commendation to the FedEx air crew.
@@aph757 Juan seems to be saying that the protocol exists and was violated. That is why he is so upset. That and not wanting to be the one who doesn't miss.
The protocol is DON'T PUT ANYTHING IN FRONT OF A CLASS C AUTOMATIC LANDING.
I don’t remember seeing Juan being so fired up before!
You can tell this kind of sh*t drives him crazy.
Someone could put him in a situation like this someday, I would be pissed too.
Imagine the Southwest passengers got a helluva scare with the sound of a 767 at TOGA power right above their heads for that long. Kudos Fedex crew. Rockstars.
When I was taking my pilot lessons I remember an ATC command of "clear for immediate takeoff" or "clear for take off NO delay". I knew exactly what that meant and if I couldn't smash that throttle in 2 seconds or less I would reject the clearance and HOLD for traffic. Do they do that anymore? I didn't heard that in this incident.
Exactly there was no urgency in the controller's voice and if he had asked SW to do an immediate takeoff they would have said no, they needed to do ice shedding or whatever other low visibility procedures.
Juan, a great analysis of the event. I'm a retired ACT who also currently instructs. (Experience at multiple high level towers). The Glide Slope and Localizer Critical Areas are required to be protected when weather falls below 800 foot ceiling and/or less than 2 miles visibility. Every airport I've worked at has had critical areas. Glide Slope critical areas go to the edge of the runway on the side the Glide slope is located. Localizer critical areas typically do not reach all the way to the approach end of the runway, in most cases could extend up to 2/3 of the length of the runway from the departure end. It is legal to depart, and an aircraft may be in either critical area as long as the arrival is not inside the final approach fix. A departure may roll through the localizer critical area on takeoff with an aircraft inside the FAF. A preceeding arrival may also rollout into the localizer critical area with a trailing arrival inside the FAF.
On takeoff, the departure must be rolling prior to an arrival reaching 2 mile final anticipating separation increasing to 3 miles as the arrival touches down. We call the rule "2 increasing to 3". This didn't have a chance of happening in this case, and we must also take aircraft performance into consideration, especially with a heavy that will fly a faster approach speed. Thankfully this all ended well and FedEx displayed exceptional situational awareness.
Thank you for all you do Juan.
Thanks for clarification. These help expedite movements which is why ATC work is so stressful, although here something went amiss in this horrible unbelievably close near miss.
Thanks for adding this to the discussion.
I was just about to type the same thing. Spot on.
Thank you very much for this explanation!
Why not just only issue one runway clearance at a time, and do away with "number two to land" and so on. Don't clear a plane to land until the previous one is gone. Then they'll just go around at decision height automatically.
Of course you would need to space them out more, which costs money. However that Air Canada flight that didn't get follow a go around message is the problem when you issue conflicting clearances. Once you give a clearance you can't be certain you can take it back.
The situational awareness in the Fedex cockpit was superb, and is the only reason this was not a horrific disaster with a lot of lives lost. I still cannot believe the tower cleared that SW 737 for takeoff when he did in these conditions.
I'm guessing it is because they do it all the time in nicer conditions, and assume that if there is an issue the radio will work. IMO it is an unsafe culture that prioritizes speed over safety. Just issue one clearance at a time. Heck, it would be easy to have a computer track the only plane cleared on a runway so the controller doesn't lose track.
That call at 15:27 is really fortunate - the cockpit was already primed to expect something wrong
Just because ATC clears you to do something that doesn’t mean you should automatically do it. Although ATC is primarily at fault the SWA crew should have refused the clearance with FedEx being so close
Cleared to take off with a incoming aircraft 3 miles out seems like someone's brain turned completely off or as said a very bad habit off jamming as much into a certain time frame.
Russian roulette
@@hapt122 Agreed. They were not at fault here. But they should have had the situational awareness to say, "..we'll wait here for him."
I'm amazed the controller would think three minutes was enough separation.
Three miles = one minute at 180mph approach speed.
@@gordonrichardson2972 The scary part is that three minutes is probably considered normal in the industry. I've seen six or eight planes on final, lined up to the horizon barely three minutes apart hundreds of times at night at Houston Intercontinental.
Juan-As a retired 777 Captain (United), I really appreciate your professional reviews of these incidents. And yes, a "helmet fire" is an appropriate response to this one!
AMEN!
What is a helmet fire.
@Josh L I would assume it's one very upset Fedx pilot who is do angry his helmet (military) is on fire from the heat. But that's a guess.
@@joshl6275 A, "helmet fire," is confusion, loss of situational awareness, inability to make a decision, or paralysis most often (but not always) due to being overwhelmed with information. Helmet fires can also be caused by lack of training, inexperience, emotional instability, or unsuitability for the job at hand.
@@nbt3663 You clearly had no idea what a, "helmet fire," is. I'm curious why, when you OBVIOUSLY had no idea what you were talking about, you felt compelled to make up a definition and misinform in response to the query. At least one person accepted your completely ridiculous explanation, and so you have misinformed someone who did not deserve it. Why? Why not wait for someone who actually knows what it is to answer, so that you and the person who asked can both be accurately informed?
Genuine question. I would deeply appreciate a response.
We can feel Juan Browne's frustration and struggle to keep calm and professional covering this close call. Excellent content and analysis.
He was having a PTSD event
Juan did a good job reporting this troubling incident and I don’t blame him for being outraged
he's always like everybody is so stupid
His rage is understandable. He can totally picture himself dying while doing his job perfectly, exactly as trained, and he and his passengers pay the price. ATC needs to get themselves straightened out before we're stacking bodies.
Those FedEx pilots should be given an award or at least a nice bonus. They saved the day. Everyone else seemed to be asleep at the wheel.
Can't believe how fast you got the data to the public. As a retired pilot I find it incredible that the standards of ATC have degraded to the level we are experiencing today. Great work
Glad that Juan has maintained or increased his standards!
As an ATC, I find nothing incredible about it. When I got hired we had 43 CPCs in my Area, currently we are at 26, with mandatory 6 day workweeks the majority of the year, the pressure to check people out is super high, even people that can barely do the job. My area has regularly washed out bad people that probably would have gotten checked out in other areas, it's dangerous.
The FAA started dumbing down ATC around the mid eighties. Add that to the power the controller's Union has, it is impossible to fire any trainee. Prior to 1981, you had to score 110 on the entrance exam to get hired in the Southern Region ( get a perfect score and have disabled veteran's preference). Of course the FAA isn't the only large company that has lowered its standards. SWA once required applicants to have a B737 type rating. Once upon a time, American only hired military pilots. I know a couple AAL captains that went from being a secretary, to Beech 1900 pilot to AAL pilot but they are beautiful.
NATCA has been promising to fix that since 1986 but I guess they are still busy protecting the week controllers.
As a licensed controller and a licensed pilot I can say, it usually takes 3 people to have their head up their a$$ for two airplanes to hit each other. It sounds like that's what was happening here.
SW should have declined the takeoff clearance. FedEx should have announced a go around almost immediately. As far as the controller goes. Well he amazed me by being able to talk clearly enough to give a takeoff clearance with his head so far up his behind. .
Wow this was super close! That FedEx crew really saved the day!
I have to say, I have never seen Juan so frustrated before. This really hit too close to home for him.
I believe Flightradar24 shows altitude as MSL when in flight but shows 0 when the aircraft is on the ground.
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.
Stuff like this can hit you unexpectedly hard when you least expect it. I’m an ACS/ramper over in the UK and after I heard about that US ramper that got ingested into a jet engine a few weeks back… well it made me much more wary when around jet engines. I find myself flicking my eyes from the red anti collision lights to the back of the engine if I’m approaching the aircraft from anywhere but the front. Jet blast is visible from a reasonable distance, and an engine that’s just been shut off normally has a tiny trickle of smoke coming from the far back of the metal part. It’s actually good as a second indicator that the engine is indeed shut down.
At the same time the APU sounds different to the engines so I listen for that too. If I’m approaching from the front I found myself just checking the swirly bit or the fan blades. It was subtle but I still noticed that I was taking that extra moment just to make sure. I’ve relaxed a bit more since, especially after the preliminary report showed it only happened because she didn’t heed the safety protocols. The ramp is almost safe if we follow the safety protocols and remain alert.
Enormous kudos to the Fedex crew for their amazing situational awareness. Since all happened on the same freq, I think they might have been using extra caution regarding the 737, too
Fortunately. That saved this day.
I'd like to hear the cockpit conversation. They felt like something wasn't right and were looking for him
@@joeg5414 - Indeed, I hope they pulled the CVR CB after landing so we also capture the data about what went right here.
And imagine this situation with the two aircraft speaking in a different language. Like in many countries.
@@fjp3305 I was thinking the same thing after I watched this.
Makes you realise how quickly these situations develop, with split second decision making being crucial to avoiding a potential catastrophe.....
Juan, I live right down the road from you in Elk Grove. Former USAF pilot and now Alaska pilot SFO based. 25 years of experience tells me your assessment of todays aviation turnover is absolutely correct and only seems to be getting worse. Seeing/hearing your frustration with listening to audio really emphasizes, my, and should be every professional aviators thoughts and emotions. We’re very fortunate this didn’t have a catastrophic outcome where procedural changes are written in blood. Superb analysis.
And now the industry is looking at hiring more female pilots so they'll be more diverse. Diversity over meritocracy when choosing pilots? Fatals coming soon.
Best aviation channel on YT. Thanks for the analysis.
Also lake level, spillway reconstruction, etc….
I'm glad you're fired up about this, Juan. I am too. This is absolutely unacceptable, period. FedEx was the only one who didn't sound entirely out to lunch with this exchange, and it saved 100+ lives. We, pilots, and ATC *need* to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Southwest pilot seemed entirely situationally unaware too. Not much traffic at AUS to begin with (smaller than Midway, Nashville and Tampa in PAX count) but especially at 5am they're likely the only 2 aircraft moving. Inexcusable to not be more aware. He may not have done anything wrong but he could have prevented this too and that should be the standard you're held to.
@@BChandl13 Longtime pro pilot here. When an aircraft is cleared for takeoff on a low-vis day when another aircraft is on a three mile final and dilly-dallies taking the runway and taking off, he/she is NOT AWARE! An aware pilot in that situation would have held short. A sloppy but a little bit aware pilot would have at least hurried his/her takeoff.
@@williampotter2098 Couldn't it be that the southwest pilot was still on ground freq the moment the landing clearance was given for the fedex aircraft and switched to tower afterwards
@@wouter141 tower told the southwest aircraft about the fedex heavy on a 3 mile final, and southwest replied "copy traffic"
@@wmupilot89 I’m not arguing that SWA seemed to demonstate poor SA, but the simple fact is that Southwest was issued a standard takeoff clearance. Without having been issued “cleared for immediate takeoff” or “expedite,” he was under no obligation to hurry. In my opinion, FedEx should have been sent around by ATC long before this ever became a conflict.
Hiring practices, indeed. In the present era of discounting merit.
Mayor pete, reporting for duty!
Plus a little affirmative action
Over at VAS I saw a comment that made my day:
“If that was me flying, I would have given the tower a number to call.”
Actually terrifying.....such a close call. I can't imagine what the flight crews are thinking right now...
they are thinking, where is the nearest underwear store.......
I think the crews are more scared now than it was in the cockpits.
@@vladimirfromukraine419 Yes, indeed.
I know being an ATC is a stressful job but it was literally blind luck that these two aircraft didn't collide. First an aircraft that crossed an active runway, now and ATC that put one in the crosshairs. It's like the US is begging for another Tenerife. FOR ONCE, LET'S LEARN FROM THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENS AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE LOSE THEIR LIVES. PLEASE!!!! Flight Crews: You hear takeoff clearances in these conditions, GO AROUND early, GO AROUND often. ATC: If you can't see what's happening outside, there's no way a flight crew is going to see it. Don't stack up landings and takeoffs this close together. EVER...
@@wizardmix it wasn't luck. It was great work from fedex even having the intelligence to tell southwest to abort their takeoff
You mentioned that the pilots, the aircraft, and the airport all have to be properly qualified for a Cat III autoland. Sounds like the controller also needs to be properly qualified. Kudos to the FedEx pilots for avoiding a really bad day for a lot of people.
Wonder if they can lose said qualification after something like this? Or have to go through mandatory (disciplinary) training?
@@DrewKap - Absolutely they can! Losses of separation are a big deal, some bigger than others. I can guarantee you THIS is a huge one. I’m a pilot not a controller (though I have friends who are or were), but as close as this came to being a repeat of SkyWest/USAirways at KLAX in 1991, this had BETTER be a big deal for the regulators.
How have things been going for them since Reagan's PATCO incident?
@@trendlinetracker3147 - The last 40+ years? I’d say the system has been working pretty well since we have both record levels of traffic and record levels of safety. Whether what’s occurred in the last couple of weeks is an anomaly or a warning remains to be seen, but we would be foolish to assume it’s merely an aberration.
@@DrewKap Oh yes, most definitely. It might be different in the US but here he probably wouldn’t be fired outright because it was an accident. (It has to be this way. If people were afraid of being fired for making mistakes and causing damage then they’d become too afraid to report it, which could kill a lot of people later.) He’d certainly be removed from duty, retrained and re tested but it’s equally likely that he might not be able to go back to that job given he almost killed hundreds of people in which case his employer would probably let him transfer to a different job in the airport.
42+ years ATC experience and still going… Very educational critique of this incident. During your audio critique I’d have to say the controller though SWA called an abort and was actually telling him to turn right when able meaning off the runway.
Helmet fire indeed!!! Great analysis Juan. As you mentioned, the rapid turnover and retirements will loom large in the future. I’ve been on 6 “Fini” flights of colleagues who are retiring out. My friend at my former carrier and your carrier completed his “Fini” flight into his base airport and got pulled for a random. There were several of us on the flight. Seemed like a cheap shot. He lives in the SMF area.
Juan knows this was a serious event.
Juan knows it could have been him in the cockpit.
First saw this on Victor's channel and was frankly stunned. Props to the FedEx crew, who seemed to be the only folk who knew what was actually going on.
What is more shocking, the controller took NO actions to fix his error, .
@@mikeramsey9747 Oh I'm sure he will take actions
@@mikeramsey9747 hey now, he apologized! 😂
@@brandonadams7837 "Would you like fries with that?"
Watching the VASAviation video I was on the edge of my seat after Southwest was given clearance and there was such a long delay in radio traffic. Fifty-three seconds after the SW pilot confirmed they were cleared to take off to ATC asking if they were rolling. No idea what the FedEx approach speed is but I knew they had to be covering that 3 miles quickly. Glad the FedEx crew was on top of their situational awareness game!
Coming in at 140 kt and SW rolling at half that
😱😱😱😱
Did this FedEx bird have the HUD installed? That may be what allowed the Capt to see the Southwest plane. I just retired from FedEx as an AMT and the HUD that these plans have is absolutely amazing. Uses an IR camera through a combiner to "see through" the fog.
N297FE does have HUD/EFVS installed.
I believe only 737’s of a certain type have HUD.
@@brentbeacham9691 All FedEx trunk aircraft, minus the A300, have HUD/EFVS installed. Not sure about the 737.
Is that video recorded for EFVS?
@@MyGoogleRUclips not that I am aware of. We install these systems straight after the planes are delivered from Everett.
Thanks for another great analysis, Juan. As a former UK mil controller, this makes me twitch. I've never been comfortable with what now seems to be common practice of clearing more than one aircraft to use the runway. During training over 30 years ago, I clearly remember "We don't do that any more, because Tenerife." Any clearance given was a guarantee of exclusive use of the runway.
Based on comments of aviation videos, it seems like only in the USA does this. I'm just a RUclips enthusiast, not a pilot. My eyes widened when I heard the ATC cleared SWA for takeoff with FDX about to land! I came to read the comments for more experienced reactions.
Yep, If I were a pilot on 3 mile CATIII final and get a landing clearance TWICE, I'd suppose the toweris 100% sure the runway *is and will stay empty* until my feet are on the ground.
It looks like things won't really change until we have another Tenerife. Very depressing thought.
That’s a good point and a critical term; ‘ exclusive use of the runway’
I came here to learn, so thanks for your comment.
Anticipated separation is used thousands of times a day in the United States without issue. UK rules wouldn't have prevented this.
Disgraceful controller performance!, lack of knowing and applying procedures, and loss of vertical separation between aircraft under his control. Shameful!
He sounded stoned, or incredibly fatigued.
There is likely a more complex reason for this that is not entirely on the controller.
@@Factory400 BS. Cat 3 and you're stacking flights like that? BULL
It's Criminal!
@@Factory400 As a controller, if you have an issue, personal or otherwise, you let it be known to your supervisor. You do not take a control position if you know you are not 100% into the task. Fine, other issues such as the backlog of traffic due to the weather, or whatever, you adjust your performance accordingly. No excuses.
I have ASAP’d situations like this so many times, and nothing has been done…
I have refused a takeoff clearance over this.
It’s insanely frustrating to see something like this happen after reporting incidents like this and warning the appropriate channels repeatedly.
I should also mention that I could count on one hand how many times in 10 years that I’ve been instructed to hold short of the ILS critical area.
May be interesting to note. Some airlines require a 737 to do 30 second 70%N1 run up in position under these temp and freezing fog conditions. That may have been the reason SW was delayed in the takeoff roll. Just a thought.
You bring up a good point. I believe my airlines temp limit is 3 degrees. I'm not sure if the Metars was accurate in this video or if Southwest uses a different temperature value. In either case, if you're going to do a run-up on the runway, though, you should tell ATC. I'm sure the tower would have cancelled their takeoff clearance.
A remnant of the Palm 90 crash into the Potomac River?
@@jimmbbo Totally different
If this is the case - the SouthWest crew knowing an aircraft was 3 miles from touchdown should have had the savy and decency to advise ATC that they were stopping on the runway.
@@normalchristian3963 yes, SW should have been instructed to do an immediate takeoff and then they should have refused it.
I think it's even worse for the ATC's situational awareness. I think the ATC thought it was SWA saying they were aborting and didn't realize it was the FDX crew calling that out on the go-around. I think the ATC was instructing SWA to turn at the next taxiway. SWA called "negative" as they were past V1. As you said in your video, it appears the ATC had no idea what SWA was doing or where he was.
That’s how I interpreted it as well.
@@bradcrosier1332 Agreed, that's how I heard it. "Turn right when able" sounds like a taxi instruction after an aborted takeoff. If Tower had been issuing a right turn after takeoff, it would most likely have included a heading, yes?
Exactly as I see it as well.
@@svyt Yeah, that's how I heard it as well, with the "Negative" from Southwest meaning that he couldn't vacate because he couldn't abort. "Unable to abort" would probably have been a more helpful call, but, given the situation they were dealing with at the time, I certainly won't fault the Southwest crew for not focusing on radio calls at that point. Seeing a 767 appear at most a few hundred feet above you as you're past V1 on a takeoff run cannot be a pleasant experience.
Yea he was telling SW to turn on next taxiway
I've long thought that the next "big one" would be due to someone fat-fingering their performance calculations, but frankly, this habit of clearing two (or more) aircraft to use the same concrete at the same time and hoping it all works is terrifying. I'm horrified that that's allowed to happen even in Cat-III conditions.
Amen, should only be allowed on clear sunny days.
@@biscuitag97 Even then, things can go wrong. What if that SWA 737 had an engine fire/failure (or whatever), rejected the take-off and had to stop on the runway.
@@grahamstevenson1740 That's a chilling thought. I have this awful feeling that tower would have canceled FedEx landing clearance after touchdown....
@@j_taylor, yeah... Or the radio might have failed for FedEx and/or frequency blocked. Whatever reason, you just don't clear anybody else on the runway in that weather.
@@grahamstevenson1740 Yes, indeed. It is gambling with the Fate.
Spot on Juan! As a retried B777 Check Captain, I agree with you. Thanks for the thorough CATIII auto land explanation. Your "Helmet Fire" was totally justified! This should have never happened, SW should have been ordered to Hold Short awaiting arrival traffic. It would have delayed their takeoff 3 to 5 minutes in low visibility and would have been the proper and safe decision.
As a retired Airline Pilot of some 30 years service, I find your analysis of these near misses fascinating. However surely the 737 Captain must take some culpability for lack of situational awareness and for accepting an illegal take off clearance. Twice in my career I have overridden a dangerous ATC clearance. We as individual Captain's are always ultimately responsible for the safety of our customers.
Agreed. That said, I don’t know that this takeoff clearance was illegal, per se. According to my ATC contacts, depending on the airport, even in cat III conditions they can push departures out like this.
@@ScreaminEmu How about with the Southwest pilot waiting an additional 30 seconds before executing his clearance?
@@ScreaminEmu that takeoff clearance was a violation of FAA order 7110.65 section 3-7-5 regarding ILS critical areas.
@@ScreaminEmu without trying to hijack Juan's post my background on Cat 3 Autoland goes back over 50 years. I was in the Blind Landing trials with Smiths Autoland system at RAE Bedford, and we did the First Autoland Cat 3 flying in the World with BEA on the Trident all that time ago. So when a Controller gives "cleared to land" to the 767 on a CAT3 approach it tells him that the whole sterile area including the Runway is Clear. Any subsequent clearance to put traffic in that zone is illegal.
@@r64g Yep, that weather was certainly below 800' ceiling & 2 miles vis...thanks for the 7110.65 reference.
I’m surprised the same tower controller was still on duty when FedEx came back on the second approach. He should have been relieved immediately and a supervised drug test.
Perhaps he was single coverage at that time of the morning. I wondered the same thing. Have to find out if AUS is FAA staffed or contract.
AUS is most definitely faa
@@kevinscoggin3286 - I was wondering about staffing as well. I went into Boca Raton a week or so ago on a beautiful VFR day in a Beechjet and had to go at the threshold because of a single engine Cessna that lingered on the runway on a landing with the option. It wasn’t a big deal as it was good VFR, _EXCEPT_ the tower (which was single staffed at the time) seemed somewhat oblivious to the lack of separation. If this is a trend, it’s a bad one.
Not a chance …
Thanx Juan , this kind of near miss is why I retired early as captain for the airlines ! I had a similar close call and it was a result of an inexperienced controller and pilot of the other aircraft involved ! One of to many situations and I ultimately retired early ! You can be the safest pilot in the industry and still be taken out by one mistake of the other guy ! Too many variables. Life is short enough even if you live to be a 100 ! Hang in there I don’t mean to scare people ! I just want people to know that when they climb on an aircraft they must know that sh- happens ! And to remember your the pilot in command of your own life when you climb on an aircraft ! Sincerely Captain Mark H Wirth
And very few watch the evacuation demo. Most crashes are survivable (by most, if not all, passengers) if they are situationally aware as well.
I can't believe how calm the Fedex Pilot stayed throughout this. So close to a major disaster.
Yea, I would have picked up a fine telling tower what I thought about them.
CVR will have what was said between radio transmissions. If CVR info was saved.
Simply put - The FedEx Pilots saved many lives! HUGE KUDOS to them!!!!
AUS tower can’t see aircraft on the ground. We did a CatIII auto-land this morning (Sun 5th) similar weather conditions, and the tower told us to advise them when we were clear of the runway 18L. Even on taxi in, ground kept asking us to report our position.
That was fascinating. In all my years at SMF, I never heard an aircraft give an order to another in place of the tower... and good for him as Tower really dropped the ball on this one.
There was an Easyjet A320 that ordered a UA B787 to go around in Paris because the UA was about to land while they were on the runway. In that case the UA was already in the process of doing so because they had seen the Easyjet as well.
@@ValNishino Yes that was the one where the local controller got his gauche and droite mixed up and the UA thought they were being instructed to undertake a side-step approach, something common in the US but which would raise a red flag in Europe.
Unfortunately I don't remember the exact details but the one where the landing aircraft lined up on the taxi way. I think it was the 2nd in line on the taxi way made the go around call.
@@Silverhks Way I remember it too.
@@Silverhks Yep this is was an Air Canada A320 at SFO. Search for "Air Canada A320 nearly lands on taxiway! | Close Call at SFO" by @vasaviation
takeoff clearance with little separation under CAT III conditions. WOW. Well done...
As always a great video. As a former air force pilot and current regulator, I really appreciate your content and methodical presentations. You don't talk down to anyone and your remain unbias and focused on facts as they are known. Everyone from total amateurs to professional aviators can follow along, learn and be informed. Thanks for your continued professionalism and enthusiasm towards aviation safety.
I wonder what the Southwest passengers thought of the sound of another plane approach from directly above
They wouldn't hear it over their own engines.
@@georgehaeh4856that’s good because I would have a heart attack😩
@@georgehaeh4856 If any of the passengers were like me, there had to be a couple looking out the window and seeing something suddenly flying very close overhead.
No windows in the ceiling.
I wonder if the tower controller heard "Southwest abort" and though that was the SWA pilot calling out a rejected takeoff? "Turn right when able" might have been intended to mean exit the runway to the right? And then the controller had to figure out SWA had actually taken off and hey maybe he should do something about this situation?
That's what I thought too because he didn't give a heading which made me think he was telling him to pull off the runway to the right. It would be interesting to know what speed the Southwest was traveling when the FedEx advised them to abort. We've seen cases where calls from other pilots have prevented disasters, the curt "Negative" didn't seem useful. Even with known go around flight paths I'd be uncomfortable taking off under another plane.
I think you're interpreting the audio correctly. Use of callsigns and facility ID are mandatory for a reason.
@@-Bill. - I agree, but assuming WN was somewhere between V1 and 100’, that’s not a time for a radio conversation - particularly if they recognized that FedEx was right over the top of them (which I’m guessing with TCAS they did - they were likely “threading the needle” vertically themselves.
Juan, your helmet fire was completely understandable. Thanks for another informative video. To think the 737 and 767 were less than one aircraft length apart in the fog...
Don't hold back there Juan, how do you really feel ? Honestly, I feel the same way. When I heard the ATC in real time I couldn't believe that the controller cleared that Southwest plane knowing that there was a 767 on final doing a CAT III landing. Also surprised the Southwest crew didn't question the clearance given the weather and knowing that a 767 was on approach. I mean, Austin isn't that busy of an airport to where the SW plane waiting about 5 minutes was going to hurt anything.
Couldn't agree more. Based on this analysis, the tower erred in clearing Fed Ex to land while also clearing SW for takeoff. And that set the stage for the near miss.
Austin is a busy airport. They are a level 9 tower, but working high level 10 or level 11 traffic.
@@tristan_fleming The term "busy" is subjective I guess. I see a busy airport as DFW or LAX, ATL, etc. Austin does have a number of flights, but in low visibility I think it is fine for a 737 to wait until another plane lands before going onto the runway and then get cleared for take-off once the runway is cleared. FYI, those busy airports listed above all do this. Once a landing aircraft is cleared to land on short final, that runway is theirs until they get the plane landed and turned off of the runway.
Juan, your measured, but frank explanations of these events is greatly appreciated. Like a great teacher or instructor you make your point while maintaining your cool. Unlike some other RUclipsrs, it’s never about you, but about lessons or knowledge to be learned. As a non-pilot, aviation enthusiast, I learn so much from your channel. I follow several channels DESPITE the host’s personality and demeanor. I follow you not only for the content, but also for your personality and integrity. 👍
I agree. Thanks very much for your comprehensive analysis.
Agreed! I’ve been following Juan since 2017. Top notch, spot on style of sharing info!
Thanks for reconstructing this incident. Otherwise potential lessons would disappear and no one would benefit.
Near misses are more common than many of us realize. This one didn’t make the news… but certainly could have.
Roughly 20 years ago or so, on a typical busy winter Monday morning at BOS, I was a passenger on the early ATL-BOS Delta flight on a B767 heavy, with every seat occupied. We were on a normal final to 33L. Having taken that flight every week for months, I knew very sound and vibration at each phase of flight.
As I watched us sink closer and closer to the water (the runway starts at the water), quite low and just short of the runway, suddenly I heard and felt the landing gear retracting! Instantly, we crossed the threshold as I heard the engines start to spool up. Rapidly. The acceleration force was greater than on takeoff… no doubt due the lighter fuel load and possibly a higher than normal throttle setting. As soon as the sink rate stopped and positive rate was achieved, we pitched up with purpose. The pilots were clawing for every foot of altitude they could get, and they obviously wanted it now.
Moments later, we crossed 22L. I was at a left side window looking down and saw another large jet cross below us… seemingly “close enough to touch”. A perfect t-bone collision if we hadn’t achieved just enough altitude to clear the other aircraft.
At pattern altitude, they pitched over to level and pulled back the throttles. The PIC got on the intercom and indicated that the crossing aircraft had not been cleared for takeoff and that they were filing a report immediately after they completed the flight. He was calm, but it was clear he had a lot of adrenaline and some choice words (unspoken to us) for the offending pilots.
Wow.
I was leaving Burlington we taxied to make left turn onto runway and then a plane was landing on the same runway we were just about to turn on to. I realized this then. We waited another 20 minutes as planes kept coming in for landing.
@@valerierodger7700 I think they meant that their near miss at Boston two decades ago hadn't made the news, not that this 2023 incident hadn't made the news, if that's what you were saying. They said "this one didn't make the news" as an introduction to their older story, not a comment on the recent incident. Threw me off for a second also. Googling "Boston Airport near miss" does bring up results, but seemingly not this incident, although I certainly wasn't exhaustive looking through those results.
@@valerierodger7700 could you share a link to an article? I googled it too and came up with nothing out of Boston except a near miss between two planes taking off, but not with one landing...
@@pete4082 I have started questioning most of these "same thing happened to me" type of accounts, especially if they cannot be verified, if they contain questionable claims, and also have a dramatization type of writing style. The OP alleges a very serious runway incursion, at least as bad as the recent JFK incursion, and yet as you discovered nothing is found about it online or in official reports, even though the pilot supposedly said he would file a report (which of course is normal procedure anyway). But the OP already tells us to expect this in their opening paragraph, _"This one didn’t make the news…"._ But why was it not in the news, since the pilot announced this extremely dangerous nearly fatal close-call to all of the passengers onboard a fully loaded _"with every seat occupied"_ 767?
That's actually the second oddity in the story, how likely is it that a pilot would get on the intercom and announce this level of detail to passengers about a near collision on the runway? And while still in the air, interrupting their go-around procedure to "vent" to the passengers. Not impossible, but it seems highly unlikely.
According to the story the pilot initiated go-around just before they reached the threshold of runway 33L at Boston Logan. TOGA (take-off/ go-around) is usually an automated procedure, initiated with a single button push on the throttle, and it will be at maximum thrust. And of course most landing aircraft are lighter than when they took off. The pitch-up is automatic, although the OP seems to imply that the pilot did a manual go-around and pitched up more sharply than normal. That would be very unusual, but of course not impossible if there was an impending collision.
But this leads to the next questionable statement, because according to the OP the go-around was initiated just before the plane crossed the threshold of the 10,083 foot runway. As expected the plane initially continued to sink for a moment as the engines spooled up, then as the engines reached maximum thrust and maximum pitch (as described by the OP) the plane would have begun climbing pretty quickly since it was by then essentially at takeoff speed and steep pitch. The intersection with runway 22L was right at the halfway point, about 5,000 feet down the runway. The 767 would have gained quite a bit of altitude by the time it reached the mid-point of the runway. How high it would have been is hard to estimate, but their description of the plane underneath them as being, "seemingly close enough to touch" seems likely to be an embellishment, or at best overdramatization. Not that the incident wouldn't be serious either way, but details like this can either add or subtract credibility from a story.
When I start getting suspicious about a story I usually start noticing common elements with other similar stories. I mentioned one of them which is the catchy writing style, with phrases like,
_"with every seat occupied"._ Not a detail most people would bother with when giving a first-hand account of a near-death experiences, but in this case it adds drama by implying how many people were endangered besides the OP. Of course the piece started out with an ominous warning to get our attention, _"Near misses are more common than many of us realize"._
_"I knew (e)very sound and vibration at each phase of flight."_ Most stories seem to include this type of add-on, apparently designed to add credibility.
_"As I watched us sink closer and closer to the water"._ Dramatic style
The dramatic description of the go-around, including dramatic language like, _"we pitched up with purpose. The pilots were clawing for every foot of altitude they could get, and they obviously wanted it now."_
And of course with any of these stories the convenient fact that the author was in a fortuitous position to see what was going on, in this case being in a left side window seat, looking down and seeing the offending airplane on the ground, "seemingly 'close enough to touch'". Not impossible, but again a common element. And finishing off with a flair, _"A perfect t-bone collision if we hadn’t achieved just enough altitude to clear the other aircraft."_
Contrary to what the OP claims, this type of close call as described is very rare. Yes we had two highly publicized incidents a few weeks apart, which itself is extremely rare. Of course just because someone has a dramatic writing style does not disprove their story. But when it's a sensational claim, with no way to verify it, and containing elements that while not impossible seem unlikely, I tend to toss it into the "probably didn't happen" bin.
Retired ATC here (GSP, CVG, COS, D01[Denver TRACON]). This indeed was a hideous near miss, and ATC was at fault, but maybe not for the reasons Juan stated. JO7110.65 paragraph 3-7-5 (ATC handbook) is where FAA’s rules for controllers specifically address ILS critical areas. There are two notable exceptions to protecting the localizer critical area when wx meets its requirements(the GS critical area is only on the GS antenna side of the runway): a preceding aircraft departing that or another runway, and an aircraft departing that or another runway. So as long as the departing aircraft will depart before the arriving aircraft arrives, the departing aircraft may “pass through” the critical area, even if the arrival is inside the OM. So under these wx conditions, if ATC is going to hold the departure until the arrival has landed, the departure must hold short of the ILS hold line. So the controller in this instance was technically in compliance with the critical area rule. Stay with me here. We now move into the IFR separation rule that was violated by ATC. 7110.65 par 5-8-4 states minimum radar separation between a departure and an arriving aircraft on the same runway: the departure aircraft must “commence takeoff roll” before the arrival is inside 2 mile final. I’m sure this is why the controller asked the departure if he was “on the roll”. I don’t believe AUS has ASDE, but I’m not sure about that. I’m guessing the controller had neither aircraft in sight, given the conditions. Good judgement would never allow making such a critical call when you can’t visually observe the departure aircraft commence the takeoff roll. In visual conditions the controller can provide visual separation between the two, but in this case the minimum radar separation was not ensured. Not even close. When the Fedex pilot transmitted “Southwest abort”, I believe the controller thought it was SWA calling his own abort, hence the “right turn (off the runway)when able” reply. The SWA crew would have been justified in refusing the takeoff clearance in this case. Of course then FDX would have to be sent around due to Critical area intrusion, but turns out he had to go around either way. Kudos to the FDX crew for their situational awareness and subsequent action.
I swear, with the current labour supply shortages and related problems in and around the US, the next aviation mass casualty is just a case of when, not if. The rules are written in blood. Safety must become top priority again for every pilot and other aviation safety worker (eg ATC, ground crews etc) and their employers must do their duty, on time, every time. Thank your for work, Juan.
Sorry, that costs money.
The upset in your voice about this incident is clear for all to hear.
You have to wonder what kind of Low Visibility Procedures they have in force at Austin that would allow this situation to arise or whether they were followed at all.
Fantastic analysis of the details of this incident. No WAY the WN airplane should have been cleared for takeoff with a cat 3 airplane on a three mile final!
Juan, I've been checking constantly for you comments on this incident. I could tell how disturbed you were from the totally preventable conflict that was most likely caused by the tower ATC. It does seems like we are testing fate nowadays. Let's hope FAA gets their act together and issues training and awareness directives to the airlines, airports and and everyone else involved in aviation safety. We don't need to see Scary Mary on CNN anytime soon!
FAA has been doing this routinely for decades for non-CatIII and IMO it is just as dangerous. There was an Air Canada fight that almost collided when given a conflicting clearance and not obeying a go around. It is possible the pilots never heard it - radio is not perfect. Better to just not issue a conflicting clearance in the first place and just land fewer planes per runway.
Yep, you could really see how upset Juan was over this. I'm not a pilot, but I know about the ILS critical areas, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Eventually, something is going to happen, and it's going to be bad... and they'll be super reactive.
Seeing a lot of close calls lately, and you can only get away with those for so long. Hope everyone gets their s together before some innocent families pay the price
I can tell you that a lot of the FAA types are "working" remote. I doubt many of them are on the ball like in pre-pandemic when they were working onsite.
Fate Is The Hunter.
Your detailed descriptions of the pilot’s responsibilities during such a landing was fascinating. More of this, please 🤘
FedEx is a great example of why you MUST have a human on the deck!
"Helmet Fire"... Juan, We could all see the emotion as you described this travesty of procedure and near calamity.
I've never heard the phrase before, but you can bet I will use it.
Thanks for the great job once again!
I was waiting for you to do a breakdown on this incident after reading about it on a news site.
Thanks again for your work bringing clarity to this near tragedy.
I am hoping someone was recording in the Southwest jet, can't imagine the roar of a 767 that close overhead.
Excellent situational awareness for the FedEx captain, I can not tell you how proud I am of you and your F/O. (Capt. Maddog, Ret.)
Better SA would have been the FedEx crew questioning the line up and take off clearance of an aircraft on a LoVis protected runway while they are only 3NM out!! I certainly would have been querying it!
@@AvroBus We actually did a G/A once when Delta announced they had crossed the ILS line. But, not being there, I hesitate to wonder what was going on in this crews brain,
What would be even more useful would be the CVR in the FedEx jet. Cat 3 auto lands are far and few between. I would guess we do more in the sim than the real world.
Which makes all of this a great teaching aid. Where have ALL of our safety upgrades come from over the decades? Pilots! (needless to say this tower operator will be moving to Nome). Blue skies.
I must say- you do a great job of plainly explaining everything so regular non-pilot folks like myself can not only understand, but understand the severity. Love the channel!
I believe the “negative” from southwest was to turning when able off the runway. I think the controller thought Southwest was who said abort and assumed they were aborting takeoff.
Yup, that's how I heard it too, that Tower thought it was Southwest declared an abort.
I bet the cockpit audio recordings from both planes is...interesting. I hope we are given the ability to hear it. Lol.
I've never been an ATP... and never been responsible for a plane load full of souls and never been under that type of scheduling pressure, but with poor conditions I would have thought, (using abundance of caution as PIC), Southwest would have chosen to hold short until FedEx had completed it's touchdown and could've been told to taxi into position and hold. Thanks so much for your insight Juan, really hoping NTSB can create a learning experience out of this.
I'm merely a piston pounder Baron pilot but when departing or arriving at airports I'm always trying my best to understand the situation, where I am, and who's around me. I have bailed on an approach and went around when a jet failed to exit fast enough and too close for comfort. Dam this was a close one...thx for posting.
3 mile final! Clear for take off with someone on a Cat III? Woah woah woah. What was that controller smoking!
In my country no traffic is allowed between the localizer antenna and the approaching plane when the approach is inside the 2 NM final to protect the ils signal in cat 3 conditions, moreover a departure prior a landing must be rolling by the time the landing is 4nm from the threshold. Also once a landing clearance is issued on a runway no one else can use that runway...
FedEx has a flir system to give infrared night vision to the pilots in these circumstances. They could accordingly probably see the situation a lot better than most other planes. Doesn’t make the controllers error less, but was why the FedEx could make the call out
I am surprised to see very little discussion of this, I first became aware after a comment on ATC Reddit.
The ship involved (N297FE) certainly does seem to have the FLIR sensor in its nose from photos of it online, if so, they may have had a crystal-clear view of the disaster they were being directed into!
@@AniRaptor2001 on the FedEx 767’s, the Capt’s position has a HUD with EFVS. The FedEx crew would have seen the whole situation developing. FedEx has HUD and EFVS on 777’s and MD11’s as well. Also had it on the MD10 fleet as well, but that fleet type has been retired in 2023.
Let's be grateful FED EX has better pilots, than they do truck drivers.. if any of you've seen the.. at least 3-4 semi's, that plowed through traffic on freeways the last few years in bad weather. That Southwest, + all on board need to be thanking God that FED EX crew was alert & well-trained. Wow.
Maybe they could equip their trucks with WX radar!
Our hair was on fire too Juan! 🤯 Very terrifying to watch this. What the heck was ATC thinking of clearing the SWA for takeoff? This could have been disastrous.
16:32 my understanding is that the tower assumes that the “Southwest Abort” call was coming from the SW pilot notifying tower of his decision to abort takeoff. Tower then replies “ok turn right when able” to the SW pilot telling him to turn off of the runway when able since he thinks he has just stopped his takeoff roll and is again taxiing.
Tower had zero clue of what he was seeing or hearing at that moment. Very frightening.
Everyone is afraid to talk about the elephant in the room. Quote: "With the state of hiring practices and training today..." Indeed. No one can predict the future but sadly, the near perfect safety record for CFR 121 aviation is likely nearing the end.
If the controller thought SW had aborted, then he should have called the go around for FEDEX
@@snowafrica the tower should have done LOTS of things he didn’t do.
@@skepticalobserver7484 very true
16:32 It sounds like what might have happened here is Fedex made their unconventional but justified abort request (to Southwest) and then made their go around call, Tower thought Southwest had made that call and had actually aborted, so Tower instructed Southwest to turn right off the runway. Then Southwest called unable, of course, because they had already reached V1 or rotated. Either way, Tower absolutely messed up bad.
What a dumpster fire, this could have been a massive, horrific disaster.
Pretty sure I recall Austin having an ASDE. the primary competency that failed was situational awareness on the part of the tower and the sWA crew. the Fed EX guys were sharp
you are correct we are one event away from a catastrophe
Thanks for the update Juan. That one hit a little too close to home, no wonder you are a bit pissed at someone putting a couple of planes in that situation. That ultra low visibility operations just leave no margin for a bad call or a misunderstanding, Tenerife proved that long ago and we don't need another one of them.
That was the first thought on my mind too when I saw how they actually overflew Southwest!!! How did a heavy 767 freighter manage to outclimb a nimble little 737?
The final 'kiss of death there' was the radios heterodyning, so the Pan Am never knew in advance of the KLM taking off. I've long thought a better radio system is required.
Yes, indeed. It could have easily turned into a similar disaster. Only the last slice of the Swiss Cheese has holded here the line.
@@grahamstevenson1740 I agree that it is crazy we're still using AM. However, only clearing one plane at a time would go a long way. It wouldn't fix the KLM crash though, as they took off without a clearance.
Actually, digital radio would help if the ATC computer could talk to the plane. Have the plane give a takeoff config alarm if you advance the throttles without receiving a clearance.
We do not know how much the 767 or 737 weighed, without that information we are left thinking both probably have at least 1800 feet/min being spun into the VS dial and some very certian N2 numbers by the company book. Without the timecode on the Radio calls, Best I can tell this was a simple speed, time, distance misjudgment by tower, the 767 flew the numbers programed into it programed into it a Top of Decent , the FedEx crew was working watch the machine process, the Southwest was walking it out on a cleared to them runway in the fog.
"Tower, possible ATC deviation, I've got a number for you to call when ready."
Hi Juan. Brilliant analysis as ever. As a UK based 787 Captain who has been flying to from the USA for 25 years I’ve never understood how we can be ‘cleared’ to land when there are either a/c ahead of us on approach and/or on the active runway. (xxxx Cleared to Land number 3)I know you will be very familiar with the tight R/T control regarding landing & take-off clearances in the UK, Europe and elsewhere. Can you advise why Landing Clearances are issued this way? Would be very pleased to understand the basis for the practice. Thank you for your erudition and excellent & timely presentations.
Swiss cheese model prevented by the quick thinking of the FedEx crew. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾This incident thankfully gives the relevant personnel the ability to investigate and improve the system without the loss of life or injury. Next time they may not be so lucky........
I was ATC at a USAF tower years ago. I wouldn’t have cleared a departure out with traffic on a 3 mile final on a VFR day.
Current ATC here and no one gets cleared with a jet 3 miles out!!
I can anticipate that the FedEx flight surgeon will ok their crew to maintain the schedule, just a formality. The South West crew will probably need more review. There may be a need to deep clean some cockpit upholstery.
Hey Juan, great job on this one! My career started at FDX in the 80’s when CAT III ops were new and this was our greatest fear, something on the ground you couldn’t see. This crew is to be commended! I’d like to know if the Captain saw the SW 737 in his HUD when he went around. The infra red camera displayed on the HUD worked great seeing through smoke ( big help in Delhi), but didn’t offer much help with water vapor. It’s possible that FedEx’s decision to put in these HUD’s might have made the difference in this situation. Big question, why was the runway protected area not protected?
atc thinks it does not matter!!. if swa had engine fail as fdx was touching down,........WOW that could have happened like US AIR at LAX years ago
Exactly !
Why was the Protected Area NOT Protected ?
You can expect this in some areas of the World , but in the USA ?
Kindest Regards
17:17 I saw an article today that said ~75’ of vertical separation at the point when Fedex arrested descent... Waaaayyy too close!
737 with 42’ tail as well…
Those of us in the back don’t always know of these near misses. Thanks for bringing them forward. It will take the voices of both aviation professionals of all stripes as well as the flying public to affect the changes needed to ensure safety.
I can guarantee you the SW passengers heard the 767 above them!
Kudos to the alert FedEx crew. Saved themselves and 150 others.
I live just North of Austin, Texas. I am not a pilot but love aviation. When I heard about this incident, I couldn't wait to get to this channel and get the breakdown of this incident. To the left of 18L is an observation area. I have been there many times so I am familiar with the area . I'm so glad the aircraft (as they say) did not touch. Thanks again for the breakdown. I enjoy the channel.
Austin Twr ,the most ragtag ,unprofessional Tower in the world.Not even in Africa they would do something like clearing for takeoff an aircraft while another aircraft is on a 3 mile final conducting a CATIII ILS approach on the same runway….
I came to this video from the VASAviation video on the same subject matter. I really want to know first exactly WHAT ATC was thinking and WHAT they were smoking when they cleared SW for takeoff when the Fedex aircraft wasn't just on short final, but was essentially crossing the runway threshold.
ATC cleared them to takeoff when Fedex was on a 3 mile final, but still they should’ve made Southwest wait and hold short of 18L. Poor decisions, also I’m not sure what took Southwest so long to takeoff. Knowing Fedex was on a 3 mile final, they should’ve turned and burned and gotten out of there
Indeed, a very good question.
In CATIII-Conditions this isn´t so easy to do - they had to roll from the Holding Line to the Centre Line = round about 30 seconds - and then run through an extended Checklist = round about 30 seconds => they simply needed round about a minute before they could started the Acceleration. And therefore they should have refused the Take-Off-Clearance.
I can here your frustration Juan. The tower controller needs more training. Thanks for sharing.
Tower needs to go back to uber
Jesus Christ that intro music gave me the shivers. Better than most news themes.
That Southwest pilot had some balls, throw the throttle all the way up and out run the 767 heavy landing on top of him. What a legend
If he had done it 50 seconds earlier when he was cleared for takeoff it would have been better😄 if you aren't able to roll within 10 seconds of being cleared you need to advise tower.
"This is your Captain speaking, rows 16 to 32 can now line up for the restrooms." "Thanks for flying with us today."