Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FLL Near Collision: DL 757 Touched Down  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12593 posts, RR: 34
Posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9123 times:

A report issued by the NTSB now says that the Delta 757 which VERY narrowly avoided a UAL A320 actually touched down before being asked by ATC to take off again; the tower asked the A320 to "stop, stop, stop" but it failed to do so.

Well done to the DL crew (and indeed ATC) for reacting so quickly; can't help wondering what kind of welcome the UAL crew got when they returned to ORD? Suspension?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19856220/

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9100 times:

Thanks god it was a 757....


PHX based
User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1098 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8992 times:

It seems to me its not the UA crew's fault? I dont know - I am confused on what happened!


Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8855 times:

Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 2):
It seems to me its not the UA crew's fault?

It is.

NTSB Identification: OPS07IA006A
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of DELTA AIRLINES INC DFW BASE MAINTENANCE
Incident occurred Wednesday, July 11, 2007 in Fort Lauderdale, FL
Aircraft: Boeing 757-232, registration: N6714Q
Injuries: 172 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 11, 2007, at 1437 Eastern daylight time a runway incursion occurred at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport, (FLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida between United (UAL) flight 1544, an A-320 and Delta Airlines (DAL) flight 1489, a Boeing 757. The incident occurred in day visual flight rules conditions, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,800 feet.

The FLL ground controller (GC) instructed UAL1544 to taxi to runway 9L via taxiway T7. As the flight was taxiing on taxiway D near runway 9L, the tower local controller (LC) noticed the airplane was going too fast to hold short of the runway. LC told the GC to tell UAL to stop. The GC said "UAL 1544 stop, stop, stop". The crew stopped on runway 9L, 30 feet from the centerline.

DAL1489 was inbound for landing on runway 9L when LC determined that UAL1544 was not going to hold short of the runway. LC instructed DAL1489 to go around. When the crew received the instruction, the main landing gear was on the ground. According to the crew statement, they noted the urgency in the controller's voice so they knew they had to get the aircraft airborne. FAA reported DAL1489 flew over UAL1544 by less than 100 feet.

According to the FAA, the UAL crew stated they missed the turn onto taxiway B.

FLL air traffic control tower is not equipped with either AMASS or ASDE-X. All airport lighting was functioning normally.


Source (For public use)

Taxiway Diagram



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8805 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 3):
the UAL crew stated they missed the turn onto taxiway B.



Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 2):
It seems to me its not the UA crew's fault? I dont know - I am confused on what happened!

In addition to missing a turn to a different taxiway, the UA crew when past a sign identifying the active runway and onto the active runway. They did stop immediately when the controller told them - but it was too late to avoid fouling the runway.

Those hold short marks are there for a reason. The UA crew basically ran a stop sign.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8685 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 4):
In addition to missing a turn to a different taxiway, the UA crew when past a sign identifying the active runway and onto the active runway. They did stop immediately when the controller told them - but it was too late to avoid fouling the runway.

Wow... talk about inattentiveness. I can understand unfamiliar airports perhaps being confusing, but one might expect a pilot unfamiliar with an airport to pay extra attention to his or her surroundings. With 10-mile visibility, it's not like they couldn't see the signs and pavement markings...


User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8623 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 3):
DAL1489 flew over UAL1544 by less than 100 feet.

Holy crap! Bet that was a terrifying and long 5-10 (or so) seconds for the United crew! Imagine being helpless sitting there watching the DL flight touchdown and then trying to take back off.
100 feet just ain't that much!

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8602 times:

Hold short lines are some of the most important paint marking on an airfields surface. Makes you wonder if there is a better way to identify boundary areas.

[Edited 2007-07-20 01:36:36]


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineMicstatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

Do they have wig wags at FLL?
.
.
.



S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
User currently offlineFreshlove1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

How in the world could they possibly screw that up in FLL. Those runways and taxi ways are not complicated at all.

User currently offlineIahflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7931 times:

Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 2):
It seems to me its not the UA crew's fault? I dont know - I am confused on what happened!

Seems pretty clear who was in error, unless a read back from UA on the taxi route was incorrect and not fixed by the ground controller immediately.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 5):
one might expect a pilot unfamiliar with an airport to pay extra attention to his or her surroundings

I'd sure like to think that is the case.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7851 times:

Quoting Micstatic (Reply 8):
Do they have wig wags at FLL?

What they don't have at FLL are two 7500 ft plus runways so these things don't happen. Its going to take a front page
frigup by a controller or pilot to get the FAA to get two runways there that commercial jets can use on a daily basis.
FLL has three runways but only one is of safe length to A320's or bigger. The other two are fine for EM120's or Citations.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7712 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 11):
What they don't have at FLL are two 7500 ft plus runways so these things don't happen

But that as we all know won't completely rule out the possibility of runway incursions, would certainly help.

I know this is an over used phrase but the entire avoiding runway incursions is a "team effort" and the entire team has to close the loop on the lack of attention issue.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 11):
What they don't have at FLL are two 7500 ft plus runways so these things don't happen.

How would two major air carrier runways have averted this? You'd still have aircraft taxiing to runway 9L regardless of the number of runways...

Hell, this could have easily been, for example, an aircraft simply taxiing from customs to one of the FBOs on the north side of the field...Irrelevant to airport capacity.

-----

Folks, let's not look into this any more than what it is...a simple Runway Incursion. It can happen at any airport, at any time of day, in any weather, under any conditions.

And it's up to us pilots to make sure it doesn't...Maintain situational awareness not just some of the time, but at ALL times!



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7185 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 11):
FLL has three runways but only one is of safe length to A320's or bigger.

At FLL, Rwy 9L/27R is 9000' X 150', very good for commerical aircraft. Rwy 9R/27L is 5276' X 100', good enough for aircraft the size of A-320s and B-737NGs and smaller., Rwy 13/31 is 6930' X 150', which is good enough for all commerical aircraft to land on.

Quoting Micstatic (Reply 8):
Do they have wig wags at FLL?

Since the UA crew missed the turn ont Twy B, the Rwy Hold Bar and Rwy Hold Position sign, what makes you think they would have noticed any wig wags?

BTW, the wig wags are for low visibility operations.


User currently offlineAA54Heavy From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6696 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
BTW, the wig wags are for low visibility operations.

Are wig-wags the flashing yellow lights (either embedded in the concrete along the intersection, or on either side of the runway entrance)?



Roger that, turning to our "other" left
User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2556 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6323 times:

It seems like there is a need for a positive control signal to alert the pilots that they are approaching a runway which they do not have clearance to cross or occupy. With all of the detection and sensor technology, it certainly has to be possible to create such a system, although it would be complex (and expensive) to design. I imagine that it could have the taxi route programmed into it and sound a warning message or tone if it senses that the aircraft would enter the prohibited area and record that data for later analysis.

Railroads have long since had that type of technology with their block signaling systems. The most basic form of this was the smashboard signal-back in the days when railroads used semaphore signals. The smashboard had a wooden blade that extended out far enough from the mast to strike either the smokestack or cab of the locomotive. These signals were primarily used to protect very dangerous points on the line, such as drawbridges. If the engineman overran the stop signal, it would strike the blade and break it off, making a loud noise in the process. The paint scrapes on the locomotive and the broken signal blade were proof enough of the offense, thus making the smashboard a warning that could not be defeated or covered up in the investigation.



"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6087 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Rwy 9R/27L is 5276' X 100', good enough for aircraft the size of A-320s and B-737NGs and smaller.

Thats not wide enough. Im pretty sure most airlines wouldnt allow that.


Wind permitting. Do they land on 13 and depart on 9L? That could move things along a little better.


User currently offlineNWA330Tony From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 3):
When the crew received the instruction, the main landing gear was on the ground. According to the crew statement, they noted the urgency in the controller's voice so they knew they had to get the aircraft airborne.

thats very scary stuff, hats off to that delta crew, easy to pull up into a very dangerous stall there! no room for error
as far as speed!


User currently offlineFlyingJHawk From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 89 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

One thing I find curious about the controller transcript is that they refer to the UAL plane as "UAL 1554." when the controller should have said "United 1554." Makes me wonder whether this transcript is accurate and if there isn't more to the story.

Also, it appears that Taxiway Delta crosses 9L about 3500' from the start of 9L. Assuming touchdown at about 1000' that would give only about less 2000' for Delta 1437 to hear the controller, understand the ATC instruction add power, pull up and clear the A320. Like someone else mentioned, thank goodness Delta 1437 was a 757.

Perhaps the controller should have just instructed Delta 1437 to "bolter! bolter!"

If indeed there was extreme negligence by the UA crew, it was surpassed by the piloting skills of the Delta A/C.


User currently offlineYellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5154 times:

Sometimes pilots are all too happy to have the power/thrust of the 757


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
At FLL, Rwy 9L/27R is 9000' X 150', very good for commerical aircraft. Rwy 9R/27L is 5276' X 100', good enough for aircraft the size of A-320s and B-737NGs and smaller., Rwy 13/31 is 6930' X 150', which is good enough for all commerical aircraft to land on.

9R-27L may be good enough for you to come and go on a regular basis but I'll take 9L-27R next time my A320 hits the concrete....
thankyouverymuch
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Quoting AA54Heavy (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
BTW, the wig wags are for low visibility operations.

Are wig-wags the flashing yellow lights (either embedded in the concrete along the intersection, or on either side of the runway entrance)?

That is correct. I don't know for sure, but would guess FLL has them since they get fog throughout the year.

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 21):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
At FLL, Rwy 9L/27R is 9000' X 150', very good for commerical aircraft. Rwy 9R/27L is 5276' X 100', good enough for aircraft the size of A-320s and B-737NGs and smaller., Rwy 13/31 is 6930' X 150', which is good enough for all commerical aircraft to land on.

9R-27L may be good enough for you to come and go on a regular basis but I'll take 9L-27R next time my A320 hits the concrete....

I am only saying the runway dementions would leagally allow airplanes of that size to use it. I have no idea if 9R/27L has enough pavement strenght to handle the weight of a B-737NG or A-320 series airplane.


User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4706 times:

That is just a breathtaking event.

Guys, figure out how many flights are happening every second in the US... or even better, in Florida.

This was clearly a mistake by the UA pilot, but it's a runway intrusion that might have caused a big accident. However, human beings are the ones that manage either the aircraft and the ATC. None of us are perfect and this can happen more often. Thank God they exist. Without them, none of this would be possible.

What we need is more attention, that's all

Cheers



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineChristopherwoo From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

What i really want to know is, How come the Delta crew didnt see the A320 on the Runway? and also, saying that, if the A320 was 30 ft from the centre line, would that even be on the runway? only just?

Chris


25 FlyingJHawk : First off, I don't think we can assume that the Delta crew did not see the United a/c since we have no transcripts from the CVR or ATC that details w
26 Cubastar : Doubt that he/she would have understood; incorrect communication. Proper is: "GO AROUND". Also, as all Naval Aviatiors know, a Bolter is when an airc
27 IAHFLYR : Since the United three letter ID for air traffic control purpose is UAL, and the transcriber of the tape was most likely an air traffic control quali
28 Litz : Block signaling is a fairly foolproof way to route trains around but it doesn't have any kind of positive control over the train itself. In (greatly
29 RFields5421 : It's not a transcript - it's a quote in a report. It may have been UAL or it may have been United. The heads-up call here goes to the controller who
30 Positiverate : And your point is? They also dont have those runways at DCA, SNA, SAN...
31 FlyingJHawk : I can't figure out if you are agreeing or disagreeing. Sounds like we stating the same thing in different ways.
32 Post contains images Queso : No shit! Either that or a Super Cub!
33 Isitsafenow : The discussion is FLL. You can bring up the other three if you wish. I go to FLL three times a year. I assume you go to the other three. Now you see
34 Positiverate : I go to FLL once a month. Again, your point is...? You don't need 2 7500' or greater runways to run a successful safe airport...
35 Post contains links and images KFLLCFII : I am only saying the runway dementions would leagally allow airplanes of that size to use it. I have no idea if 9R/27L has enough pavement strenght t
36 KcrwFlyer : Nimbys?
37 Post contains images KFLLCFII : Nimbys? A true understatement.
38 KcrwFlyer : Nimbys.... I guess your life is pretty bland when you have to complain about planes flying overhead. Is there a limited usage rule in place now, or is
39 Tugger : How did this get to be a talk about an airport and NIMBY's? There are plenty of equally bad airports that can be complained about. This is a crew erro
40 SEPilot : As others have mentioned, pilots are human beings and are prone to making mistakes. A great deal of effort has been expended to try and eliminate this
41 Post contains images IAHFLYR : Neither. Was only offering a thought. That is a great thing to have drilled into your head, as it is mine, however the reality of it is that you are
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...
Near Collision At TPE Runway 02-04-2007 posted Mon Feb 5 2007 00:29:18 by Vincewy
DL 757 Seating Question posted Fri Feb 2 2007 18:46:04 by Greg3322
British Airways 777 In Near Collision posted Sat Oct 21 2006 01:34:46 by Ge90110b1
Another Near Collision At LAX posted Fri Oct 6 2006 18:15:43 by Greg3322
Any Reviews Of The New F Class On DL 757's? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 08:30:58 by Avi8tir
Mesaba CRJ And C-130 Near Collision At SDF posted Fri Sep 22 2006 05:27:34 by Luvrsw
RIC Gets A DL 757 For November posted Sun Sep 17 2006 02:20:40 by Evan767
DL ATL-OKC Down To One Mainline A Day posted Mon Sep 11 2006 01:42:21 by Starstream707
DL 757 In "97" Scheme? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 03:40:25 by KSUpilot
DL 757 Serving PNS Starts Today... posted Fri Sep 1 2006 10:18:16 by Jmhluv2fly