Bdak From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13702 times:
I came across this video; it shows a BA jet at LCY powering up and beginning it's takeoff roll, only to abruptly abort and pull of the runway. A Swiss jet then lands on the same runway just seconds later. I was wondering if this was a near-miss, an air-traffic failure or something altogether less sinister"
LHRlocal From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13648 times:
Seems like he lined up when he maybe had been instructed to wait or hold short. Dont think there was much danger involved though, the Swiss would of been able to see the BA, they would of gone around on their own or been instructed to by the tower i would of thought if the BA hadn't of moved.
707437 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13642 times:
Yes if you look at the taxiway arrangement it looks like BA was lined up to TO westbound and then quickly went for the nearest turnoff, turned left, then looped back to do a normal takeoff. . .
Either he was given a bad instruction or ignored the correct instruction. . . if he would've held short for a few seconds longer he could've avoided this . . . Will need to get the tapes to assign blame to ATC or the pilot. . .
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17871 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13553 times:
My guess is that the BA plane was going to take off normally, but to abort right away for some reason, and was fortunate enough that the taxiway happened to be there. Had the problem happened further down, the pilot would have had to roll down to the turnoffs at the other end, and the LX plane would have had to go around.
If it was a case of the pilot screwing up, I don't think the BA plane would have been on the runway as long as it was - ATC would catch that. If it was a case of ATC screwing up by putting BA in position, why keep him there so long? There was plenty of time for him to get out. It took 35 seconds for the takeoff (once it happened), and while it would have been close, there was enough time for that between the time the BA plane started rolling on the first attempt and the time the LX plane crossed the runway threshold. I say that not knowing how UK ATC rules work, but it seems that there would have been adequate separation if BA had been able to continue the takeoff.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4315 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13497 times:
They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2361 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13212 times:
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4): They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
He probably called ready for takeoff when he wasn't. Got onto the runway still doing his takeoff checklist and then got told to get out.
Quoting Bdak (Thread starter): a BA jet at LCY powering up and beginning it's takeoff roll
He only spooled up to taxi off the runway. It was no where near takeoff power.
The Swiss on final had the Speedbird in sight so he would have initiated a go-around at decision height if the runway was not clear. No near miss here.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13038 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 6): Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4):
They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
He probably called ready for takeoff when he wasn't. Got onto the runway still doing his takeoff checklist and then got told to get out.
Something along these lines seems likely. I did the same once (was only my 4th or 5th lesson and not in a BAe 146!) got a wee bit over-confident and accepted a 'quick take-off' clearance from the tower before I was 100% through my checks and I wasn't quick enough, was asked to vacate the runway PDQ. My instructor wasn't too amused and I can't say I blame him.
Avi From Israel, joined Sep 2001, 899 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12746 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 6):
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4):
They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
He probably called ready for takeoff when he wasn't. Got onto the runway still doing his takeoff checklist and then got told to get out.
This is my guess too. It is easy to see that the BA pilot was doing "flight control check" while he was on the runway. ATC probably told him to get off the runway.
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 7213 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12704 times:
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4): They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
No. In that case, they would consider it as a runway incursion and ask Swiss to perform a go around, rather than B.A to abort its take off.
I think the BA abort take off has nothing to do with the Swiss landing.
With a normal take off run from the BA Avro, the Swiss would have land safely.
In any case, this is all you want but a "near miss".
JustPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 858 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12563 times:
Not a near miss... just look at the times... When the BA took off it took him 25 seconds to get airborne... Then look at the time the BA started his original takeoff and the time the Swiss landed, there is 45 seconds.. so had the BA taken off during his 1st attempt he would have cleared the runway 20 seconds before the Swiss landed.. thats enough time... He probably got instructed by ATC to vacate the runway.. if there had been any issue ATC would have instructed the Swiss to go around...
Flylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11579 times:
Near miss? If that was a near miss then just about every flight op on a sunny Saturday at our local non-towered airport is a near miss. Ok, I'm exaggerating but it looked like visual conditions and I'll bet the the ATC tapes would show that both pilots and the tower controller were on top of this the entire time with the Swiss pilots ready for their landing clearance to be rescinded at any second and prepared to do a go around if they were uncomfortable with the separation.
Just by looking at the proximity of the two aircraft it's clear that there was no real danger. The nose low approach angle of the 146 provided adequate visual awareness to the crew of the Swissair aircraft. I suppose distraction, tunnel vision, or something of the sort could have caused the crew not to notice the BA aircraft, but it's highly unlikely as it's hard not to notice an aircraft pulling on the runway in front of you.
Needless to say, I think it may be likely that the words "Standby/prepare for go-around" were uttered. As far as blame goes, it could have been anyone's fault. I've been cleared for take-off only to look out to clear the approach and watch an aircraft cross the fence, so human error (on anyone's part) could have been to blame. I'm sure the Swissair crew would not have hesitated to perform a go-around if necessary.
I've always thought it's interesting the way the Avro uses of the tail spoilers before landing. I can't imagine it interferes with airflow very much other than the obvious parasite drag. If I remember correctly, the Fokker 28, 50, and 100 all have the same design on the tail (and on the wings as does the Avro), but I can't ever recall seeing them deployed on approach. Anyone know?
[Edited 2009-02-22 09:39:24]
Regardless of the issue at hand, always analyze BOTH sides of a situation and ONLY THEN make an educated decision.
Olympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9690 times:
Quoting JustPlanes (Reply 10): look at the time the BA started his original takeoff
There was no "original takeoff". As has been stated before, the plane did not apply takeoff power. I have seen this happen more than once at YYZ - a plane being given clearance for immediate takeoff but not getting going fast enough, and being told to vacate the runway.
SuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 588 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9102 times:
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4): They might have cleared him for immediate departure, and he dawdled on the runway too long, so they cancelled his clearance, told him to exit, and let the Swiss land.
I agree. That is what I thought after watching the video as well. Especially with the rudder movement after being lined up. Figured he was still going through the checklist.
Just to be technical here, but it is a BA Connect plane. Isn't that different than British Airways? So it wouldn't be Speedbird or BA, correct? Just wondering. Not that it has anything to do with the subject.
And I also agree that I think he took too long to get rear in gear and was reason it was closer than need be.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18460 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 3795 times:
Quoting JETA1863 (Reply 12): I've always thought it's interesting the way the Avro uses of the tail spoilers before landing. I can't imagine it interferes with airflow very much other than the obvious parasite drag. If I remember correctly, the Fokker 28, 50, and 100 all have the same design on the tail (and on the wings as does the Avro), but I can't ever recall seeing them deployed on approach. Anyone know?
Not the Fokker 50. You probably meant Fokker 70 which also has the rear airbrakes. As a passenger on the Avro RJ, you can feel the braking effect when they are deployed on final approach which is when they are normally used. I would think they are always used during the steep approach to LCY, but I have seen them used on many other occasions.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 3524 times:
Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 16): Just to be technical here, but it is a BA Connect plane. Isn't that different than British Airways? So it wouldn't be Speedbird or BA, correct? Just wondering. Not that it has anything to do with the subject.
And I also agree that I think he took too long to get rear in gear and was reason it was closer than need be.
No it's BA aircraft despite the livery. BA, in it's continuing commitment to the wider UK , sold off BA Connect to FlyBe. They just haven't gotten round to removing the BA Connect titles. In the deal with FlyBe BA retained certain routes out of LCY.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 86 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 152 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2361 posts, 
He probably called ready for takeoff when he wasn't. Got onto the runway still doing his takeoff checklist and then got told to get out.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Israel, joined Sep 2001, 899 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 7213 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18460 posts, 
, sold off BA Connect to FlyBe. They just haven't gotten round to removing the BA Connect titles. In the deal with FlyBe BA retained certain routes out of LCY.
Printer friendly format 
