Ikarus
Topic Author
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 5:48 am

Hi

Noticed this great new shot in the database:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Colin Parker



Now, I am not a pilot or anything, but I was under the impression that no plane is allowed to land while another is still on the runway, or am I wrong? So is this photo actually depicting something which violates aviation regulations, or is the decision whether to land or not up to the pilots / controllers involved?

I know the two planes are far apart and there was never any real danger of a collision during the event depicted here. Just wondering about the legal issues...

Regards

Ikarus
 
fly_emirates
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:02 am

i used to fly to that aiport a lot as a flight attendant, and i hated it! how many times did we abort landing! it is so uncomfortable... aint i glad that they closed it
 
DFORD757
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 10:21 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:08 am

According to a book that I have, "Commercial aviation safety"...a near miss is -- an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which the possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft or an official report received from an aircrew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.

It is a little wordy, but I hope it helps!

DFORD757
 
User avatar
ATA L1011
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 6:47 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:08 am

It close, however the A320 had to incur alot of wake turbulence!
Treat others as you expect to be treated!
 
Ikarus
Topic Author
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:12 am

ATA L1011: I doubt it. The 747 was taking off, i.e. until rotation, it would not have produced any wake turbulence worth mentioning. The A320 was landing, therefore it wouldn't have noticed anything at all - unless they would have performed a go-around...

Dford757: So basically, this is no near-miss. Good to know. So it is a legal procedure, then?

Regards

Ikarus
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:28 am

Not a near miss but it IS a runway incursion. Nothing particularly dangerous about it unless the departing aircraft aborted and the arriving aircraft did a go-around, which seems not to have happened.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 6:40 am

I used to see similar events at BOS back in the days when the superb 16th floor observation room in the tower was open. During peak times, the aircraft taking off would still be on the concrete as the arriving plane smoked rubber.

I don't know if they were doing it on purpose, but I could have sworn landing pilots kept their aircraft above the concrete until they saw the departing flight clear.
 
DFORD757
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 10:21 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:10 am

Ikarus...

Like ThirtyEcho said, In the sense of a near miss, no, a runway incursion, yes. I think the controller did bust the distance needed between an aircraft an a heavy. I don't know what they are off the top of my head for here in the US...but I am sure it is different over in Asia.

DFORD757
 
fly_yhm
Posts: 1647
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 9:23 am

Something like this happened last week here at YHM between 2 Westjet aircraft one landed before the other one rotated.
Where will you spend eternity? He,s more real then you think!!!!!
 
flightsimfreak
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:36 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:36 am

George carlin does a good comedy/airline thingy... one thing he touches on is the term "Near miss..." He goes on to say that the correct term is "Near hit"... "(Jet sound, explosion... 'Hey look, they nearly missed...' ' Yeah, but they didn't (nerdy laugh)'"
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 5:17 pm

Flight International played on that near-hit theme ~20 years ago. They also said tha a missile should really be called a hittile.
 
Lucifer
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 7:22 pm

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:32 pm

This is fine if there is enough wind to 'blow' away the wake turbulance, and the landing aircraft has accepted a 'land after' request from the ATC. I have a couple of times landed with 'one on' - it depends how far down they are, and what your aircraft capabilities are.
 
Jeff G
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:56 am

RE: Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss?

Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:26 pm

Not a near miss, or even a runway incursion. If the two aircraft are separated on the runway by at least 6000 ft, it's a legal procedure. Not necessarily comfortable, but legal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], CANPILOT, Cipango, factsonly, lh346, Miguel1982, mildaiv, qf789, rbavfan, reidar76, SoJo, Someone83, SyeaphanR, TN486, tootallsd, User001, YYZatcboy, ZK-NBT and 263 guests