Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)  
User currently offlineDesh From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 237 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16508 times:

So I was At Gravelly Point today taking pictures - A US Airways A320 started taking position for take off as I heard a plane (I think its an RJ) coming in from behind me - now I was pretty sure that the plane on finals would be asked to go around. I had my camera ready to take that picture - but this is what ensued.


Big version: Width: 1508 Height: 1200 File size: 522kb
Still nothing


The US air A320 is behind the RJ - you can see the rudder and the wheels ...

Big version: Width: 1493 Height: 1182 File size: 530kb
Two planes on the same runway - almost

Big version: Width: 1440 Height: 1144 File size: 533kb
Left wheel down less than a fraction of second from wheels up





I could not tell (till I saw the last picture) if both planes were on the runway at the same time - but it could not have been more than a second between when I saw the A 320 rise and saw smoke from the RJ touch down - thats when I took the last pic - and as you can see the RJ isnt quite on the ground yet ...

I am wondering why the plane was not asked to go around ? It just seems that the ATC and the pilots (Atleast one of them) was cutting it too close to be safe - BTW both planes belonged to US airways ...


"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16411 times:

If spacing was adequate, it can be done. For light aircraft the spacing required is 3000 feet. I can't recall what it is for larger aircraft but I want to say something like 5000 feet separation. There are a few members on here who are ATC so maybe they can shed some light on this.


DMI
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16393 times:

I don't think ATC out here would be so Bold though.
In case of a Rejected T/O by the A320.The RJ had enough space to stop.
The Other way around [A320 Landing,RJ T/O] things would have been different.
Personally looked close.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineCVGpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 588 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16293 times:

- Desh, Hey nice pics good action. I don't know whats going on there because I wasn't there and there are a few good reasons this could be happening. I personally would not feel comfortable w/this departure and arrival for no real reason.  airplane   alert 


Globally Yours
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16059 times:

But what would've been in the case (it can happen 1 time in 1000000000) that the CRJ has braking problems and the A-320 (which looks more like a 767) had to reject take-off?

I doubt that it is unsafe I'll trust ATC that they know what they do.

Georg.


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15743 times:

This happens all the time all over the world at busy airports such as LGW.

The onus is on the pilot to accept what ATC ask, and as long as they are fully aware of the situation, then there really isn't any problem. Both a/c would have been aware of what was happening, and that CRJ would have had more than enough time to go around if the A320 was to reject take off - remember after V-1 they have to take off anyway so there is only a few seconds when they are less than V-1 when they could reject giving the CRJ ample time to apply power and go around. The landing a/c cannot land until they have been given clearance to land, and in a situation like this then ATC would normally advise the landing pilot to expect late landing clearence due to one departing ahead.

This would also not happen if the weather conditions did not permit the landing a/c to keep the departing a/c visual.

It would have been more dangerous if the CRJ went around, whilst the A320 was rolling rather than landing behind it.

It's not a big deal really.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15633 times:

Great pics for sure. There are specific runway separation requirements and I am sure they were adhered to, yeah for sure. With these type of aircraft in the operation pictured, something like the departure must be 6,000' from the threshold and airborne prior to the arrival crossing the threshold. Looks good to me, it's done all the time when landing and departing the same runway, so if the crew of either didn't accept this operation they may not ever leave or arrive!  Smile


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4760 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15609 times:

The A320 isn't an A320.

Looks more like a 737-3/400 to me!



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15512 times:

Great pictures for sure.

In the US there is a runway separation with the type of aircraft involved in these pictures that requires the departure to be 6,000' or more from the landing threshold and airborne prior to the arrival crossing the landing threshold, nothing to do with the lander being on the ground yet or not....this looks like they did exactly that!  Smile Should the crew of either of these 2 not accept the operation at a busy airport they might never get on the ground or in the air.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineDesh From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15376 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 7):
The A320 isn't an A320.

Looks more like a 737-3/400 to me

thanks for the replies guys - I am pretty sure that the T/o plane was not a 737 (I have a pic of the aircraft lining up) though I could be wrong with the Airbus classification...

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 5):
landing a/c to keep the departing a/c visual.

guess that is the key - thats where the guy in the cockpit (or flight deck) earn their dollars .....

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 6):
so if the crew of either didn't accept this operation they may not ever leave or arrive!

I see what you are saying - KDCA did get a bit crazy Sunday evening - planes lining up and touching down quite frequently - none that I saw were as close as this ...


Thanks all for their insights



"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15280 times:

Quoting Desh (Reply 9):
thanks for the replies guys - I am pretty sure that the T/o plane was not a 737 (I have a pic of the aircraft lining up) though I could be wrong with the Airbus classification...

very nice pics, and whatever the first a/c is it is a narrow body type, hard to say whether it is an A320 or a B737...looks more like a 73-type to me from behind but I don't think anyone can definitively say what it is...pretty ambiguous view of her ass!



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineZOTAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14882 times:

Stuff like this happens at SAN all the time. With only one runway, the controllers really have their work cut out for them.

User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4760 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14712 times:

Quoting Desh (Reply 9):
thanks for the replies guys - I am pretty sure that the T/o plane was not a 737 (I have a pic of the aircraft lining up) though I could be wrong with the Airbus classification...

let's see the lining-up pic - I'm still saying it's a 737, look at the wings and flaps.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2134 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14093 times:

Good photographs. By the way, at what time was the photograph taken -- it may help identify the specific flights (and settle the departing aircraft type issue). For example, on Sunday at about 18:00 EDT, USAir 432 (a 734) departed for PHL at about the same time as BlueStreak 2314 (CRJ) arrived.


The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineLindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 13816 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 4):
A-320 (which looks more like a 767) had to reject take-off?

Looks like B737-400

Quoting Desh (Reply 9):
I see what you are saying - KDCA did get a bit crazy Sunday evening - planes lining up and touching down quite frequently - none that I saw were as close as this ...

Desh, did you spend all your time at GP standing under the approach? It was bunch of us yesterday at DCA seating on the grass near GW parkway  Smile

Rafal


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 13471 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 4):
But what would've been in the case (it can happen 1 time in 1000000000) that the CRJ has braking problems and the A-320 (which looks more like a 767) had to reject take-off?

I doubt that it is unsafe I'll trust ATC that they know what they do.

Georg.

You trust ATC that much ... they've made mistakes on me before, I don't know. They're human, humans both make mistakes and thoughtfully do stupid things. What causes most plane crashes? PS - US A320's have winglets, a different tail, etc

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 7):
The A320 isn't an A320.

Looks more like a 737-3/400 to me!

Agreed.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12928 times:

If you think that was close go to LGA  Smile


But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlineLindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12868 times:

I forgot to add, there are no US Airways A320 flights to DCA on Saturday/Sunday.

Rafal


User currently offlineNW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12727 times:

Very common. According to FAA Handbook 7110.65 (air traffic control bible), the local controller (the tower position) is only required to separate aircraft on the runway. The wheels of the US mainline jet were off the ground before the CRJ's were on it. Adequate spacing was maintained and thus a runway incursion did not occur; therefore, no applicable regulations were broken.

As far as safety is concerned, according to FAR 91.3, "the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." It was the decision of the captains of the aircraft involve to determine if the situation was unsafe. Apparently they both deemed the situation as safe and proceeded to operate normally.


User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12443 times:

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 11):
Stuff like this happens at SAN all the time. With only one runway, the controllers really have their work cut out for them.

Yup! and I've ridden through more than one last minute go-round as a result!





SoCal


User currently offlineLayzhon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12231 times:

Quoting Lindy (Reply 17):

There absolutley is A320 service from DCA on Sat/Sun. x2 CLT among others. And also there is no way it could be a 767 they don't even fly them into DCA. Looks like a 737-400 or a A319 to me anyways.


User currently offlineLindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12010 times:

Quoting Layzhon (Reply 20):
There absolutley is A320 service from DCA on Sat/Sun. x2 CLT among others.

The only A320 serice out of DCA during daylight hours is FLL departure at 7am.
CLT is A321 on weekends (continuing to SFO).
I was yesterday at DCA from 12 noon until 7:30pm. I didn't see single US A320.

Rafal


User currently offlineMah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11701 times:

Yes a 737 indeed. Very nice pictures. Looks like an ERJ145 landing.

User currently offlineLayzhon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11627 times:

The only A320 serice out of DCA during daylight hours is FLL departure at 7am.
CLT is A321 on weekends (continuing to SFO).
I was yesterday at DCA from 12 noon until 7:30pm. I didn't see single US A320

DCA to CLT. one leaves at 720A and another at 1025A


User currently offlineDFW13L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11466 times:

This reminds me when I was at IAH, on the top of the Term A garage, watching a CO push, with my scanner on. This was before all the east-west parallels were built, so they were landing and departing 14L (yes 14L at the time). There would be an aircraft on the runway just landed but not turned of yet. They would say to an aircraft that was in position and hold, "Continental XXX, start a fast taxi down 14L, traffic on a one mile final" Then when the previous aircraft exited, "Cleared for takeoff" and it would be up just in time, just like these really interesting pictures.

Now with all the runways at IAH, it doesn't really happen anymore.


25 Post contains images Lindy : 1025A is A321, I was on this flight two weeks ago (even flew first time in US First class ) Rafal
26 Cbphoto : Yes...to me it definetly looks like a 737 from the back angle. I worked at the MSP tower for an entire summer, and saw this happen on more then one oc
27 Post contains images Desh : Yeah - I am sure these guys have some sort of contingency plan in their minds if either of those planes fail to accomplish what they intended to do -
28 RyGuy : At YYZ they do it all the time.. I actually have a video of it on my computer at school. I'll try to get it on here sometime.. Cheers RyGuy
29 Post contains images AirframeAS : It actually is a 737...the pylon on the #1 engine is a huge giveaway. Its thicker. Like I said, it IS a 737...the pylon....need I say more?!
30 Post contains images Desh : I ll take your word for it - note that the heat from the RJ's engines distorts the view of the plane in front of it - the shimmering (if thats the ri
31 Post contains images SlowBus : I saw separation like this in Prague, and it looked OK (actually the plane on takeoff belonged to OK ) It surely looks dramatic, but I personally like
32 Goodmanr : The engines look round...not a 737 but who knows
33 Jj : That looks like a 733... 734, don't know... but it most surely isn't an A320... Look at the wings, and the height of the tail... it's a boeing.
34 N766UA : It's a 737, the wing shape and flap canoe location give that away. -300 or -400 is anyones guess, but I'd say -400 because the painted area around the
35 TrnsWrld : awesome shots!!! Well I might as well take a stab at the planes to. As most have mentioned its VERY clear that is a 737-300/400. You can easily tell b
36 AviationAddict : I'm down at Gravelly Point almost everyday (I actually just got back a few minutes ago) and I have to say that this sort of thing happens down at DCA
37 Rivera319 : The PIC has the final decision, and it looks like he took the risk...what a brave man! I know i wouldn't go for it.
38 IAHFLYR : Not true....there are specific distance requirements and they are to be met prior to the arrival crossing the threshold which I am sure this operatio
39 Post contains images Pilotaydin : def a 737 I'm pretty sure i fly them
40 NW747-400 : Wake turbulence separation is required between aircraft as in measued in 1000's of feet. It is not the distance between the approaching aircraft and
41 Post contains images FLY2HMO : Definitely No way, that's a CRJ,probably a 200, ERJs don't have a bare metal exhaust cones, and it would look way skinnier than that. I've seen aircr
42 Redngold : I've seen this happen at CLE before, mostly prior to the opening of our new parallel. I'm sure we spotters have more anxiety over it than either pilot
43 Post contains images IAHFLYR : Sir I am not sure where you are getting your information from but I will tell you this, I work in the ATC field, tower and RADAR both, have for proba
44 Post contains images 2H4 : This particular example isn't one of them, but there are exceptions to that rule... 2H4
45 Flyboy36y : No, it is unquestionably not an ERJ because you can see winglets and distinctive flaps. It is a CRJ.
46 Blazingcessna : PIcs are not coming up now
47 Post contains images Redngold : Not to mention the distinctive engine casings, as FLY2HMO stated before: So who can tell us whether it's a -200 or a -700? [Edited 2006-04-04 03:53:1
48 Post contains images Desh : You guys are correct - - it is a 737 - I guess I had a brainfart while typing the original post - my apologies - here is the picture of the aircraft l
49 Desh : I had real high resolution ones uploaded - I removed the pics I had to accomodate these new ones ... gimme a few minutes I ll post them again ...
50 Post contains links and images Redngold : Compare wingtips in the shots: Pic #3 looks like an Airbus to me... the winglets extend above and below the wingtip. View Large View MediumPhoto ©
51 Post contains images Aircanada333 : This is an Airbus This is an Embraer Nice shots mate! Benjamin
52 B757capt : No pics guys, saying high Bandwith
53 Post contains images Desh : allright here are the original pics ... P.S.: Anet admins - can you help get the original pictures backup again ? thanks
54 2H4 : The original pics (and the new ones) are showing up fine for me... 2H4
55 Lindy : This is 200. US Airways Express (PSA) never ever brought -700 series to DCA. The only CRJ-700 at DCA at this time is American Eagle from ORD. ASA had
56 WestWing : Based on the times you stated, my guesses are as follows 1. The Midwest B717 is Flight 56 to MCI 2. The departing B734 is US Air 432 to PHL 3. The arr
57 Post contains images Desh : that sucks - for all the money I paid they couldnt add a self adjusting atomic clock and and ipod to this ? thats a good idea .... I ll do that as we
58 WestWing : On second thoughts, I am not sure about your camera being still on EST (thats why the EDIT, that replaced that with the Midwest comment).
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Maho Beach - Is This Dangerous? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 21:32:17 by Cumulus
TK To Unveil 3 New Planes This Week(Pics) posted Sun Dec 11 2005 16:16:18 by Gokmengs
Isn't This Dangerous? posted Mon Dec 15 2003 05:15:33 by Sovietjet
Isnt This The Best 757 Pic You Will Ever See? posted Mon Sep 8 2003 22:43:28 by EZYAirbus
Are You Allowed To Take Pics Inside The Terminal? posted Mon Jun 9 2003 22:04:31 by Olympic A-340
Isnt This Photo Great!? posted Thu Nov 29 2001 03:14:28 by Sushka
More Info About This Pics. posted Mon Jun 26 2006 22:12:44 by USADreamliner
Integral Stairs In Doors: Any Inside Pics? posted Fri Dec 2 2005 21:53:40 by A342
It's Pics Like This That Make Aviation Great! posted Wed Sep 14 2005 17:48:32 by NIKV69
First Outdoor Pics Of CSA A320! Inside Included! posted Fri Feb 25 2005 22:52:23 by Checo77