Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:09 pm

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
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:52 pm

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:56 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
CVGpilot
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:20 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:19 pm

- 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 
 
jorge1812
Posts: 2911
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:09 pm

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.
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:15 pm

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"
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:45 pm

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.
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3777
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:49 pm

The A320 isn't an A320.

Looks more like a 737-3/400 to me!
Some see lines, others see between the lines.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:08 am

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.
 
Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:56 am

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
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:11 am

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?
 
zotan
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:11 am

Stuff like this happens at SAN all the time. With only one runway, the controllers really have their work cut out for them.
 
Alitalia744
Posts: 3777
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 8:22 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:17 am

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.
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:36 am

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.
 
Lindy
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:46 am

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
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:01 am

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"
 
CM767
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:58 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:24 am

If you think that was close go to LGA  Smile
But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
 
Lindy
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:30 am

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

Rafal
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
 
NW747-400
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 4:42 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:33 am

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.
 
socalfive
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 5:37 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:46 am

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
 
layzhon
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:54 am

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.
"Rectum? Damn near killed 'em!"
 
Lindy
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:05 am

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
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
 
mah584jr
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:35 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:15 am

Yes a 737 indeed. Very nice pictures. Looks like an ERJ145 landing.
 
layzhon
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:19 am

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
"Rectum? Damn near killed 'em!"
 
DFW13L
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:22 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:24 am

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.
See, I knew American Eagle was first class all along!
 
Lindy
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:30 am

Quoting Layzhon (Reply 23):
another at 1025A

1025A is A321, I was on this flight two weeks ago (even flew first time in US First class  Smile )

Rafal
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:38 am

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 occasion. As long as the departing aircraft is more the 8000 ft(or there abouts) down the runway, and is commited for takeoff, then it is legal to have an aircraft close behind it on final. Also I bet the CRJ pilot was keeping it off the runway until the departing aircraft had left the runway. Because it was a regional jet the pilot was able to manage the spacing better, as opposed to a larger jet. Just some thoughts!!
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 10):
pretty ambiguous view of her ass!

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 11):
controllers really have their work cut out for them.

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 -

 bigthumbsup  for ATC !

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 12):
let's see the lining-up pic - I'm still saying it's a 737, look at the wings and flaps.

Pretty sure it was not a 737 - I will post the lining pic once I am home this evening . As I said before - I may have gotten the ABus classification wrong ..

Quoting Lindy (Reply 14):
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

Pretty much - did take a walk down to the railway bridge hoping to capture some sillotuttes against the setting sun - didnt get any since the planes - sun and I did not line up

Quoting CM767 (Reply 16):
If you think that was close go to LGA

any good plane spotting spots there ? Will keep that in mind when I do go there
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
 
RyGuy
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:10 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:44 am

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
From somewhere out there...
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:58 am

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

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

 checkmark  It actually is a 737...the pylon on the #1 engine is a huge giveaway. Its thicker.

Quoting Desh (Reply 27):
Pretty sure it was not a 737 - I will post the lining pic once I am home this evening . As I said before - I may have gotten the ABus classification wrong ..

Like I said, it IS a 737...the pylon....need I say more?!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:15 am

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 29):
Like I said, it IS a 737...the pylon....need I say more?!

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 right word), quite beautiful as it is, could throw a wrench in your observation of the thickness of whatever part your are looking at .. just my  twocents  as a photographer ...

Quoting RyGuy (Reply 28):
I actually have a video of it on my computer at school. I'll try to get it on here

video would be nice ... thanks
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
 
SlowBus
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:10 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:22 am

I saw separation like this in Prague, and it looked OK (actually the plane on takeoff belonged to OK Smile)
It surely looks dramatic, but I personally like aviation for this dramatic moments.
"Fly safely, son! Slow and low"
 
goodmanr
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:49 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:23 am

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

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

The engines look round...not a 737 but who knows
USAirways - Chairmans Gold
 
Jj
Posts: 1189
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:39 am

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.
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:49 am

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 emergency exits looks wider. That's definately a CRJ-200 landing, though.

And that's some darn good timing on the part of the controller!
This Website Censors Me
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:20 am

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 by the wing shape. Obviously not a 767 as those wings are nowehere near big enough to be any sort of widebody.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:28 am

Quoting Desh (Thread starter):

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'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 ALL THE TIME! I assume it's because of the funky approaches but departing and arriving aircraft are constantly cutting it close (within a few seconds of being on the runway at the same time). If you stay down at Gravelly point long enough you're bound to see at least one or two go-arounds or planes forced to perform sharp S-turns everyday. That being said, I've never been concerned with how close the aircraft get to each other, regardless of their proximity the ATC folks and the pilots always seem to be in complete control.
 
rivera319
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:34 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:49 am

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.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:10 am

Quoting NW747-400 (Reply 18):
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.

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 operation did!!!

Quoting DFW13L (Reply 24):
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

So it was you on top of the garage way back then huh!!! Yes we did use that phrase quite often back then but it all worked, probably why it is so hard to do these days around IAH since they NEVER land and depart on the same runway and more runways coming too!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:19 am

def a 737  Smile I'm pretty sure i fly them
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
NW747-400
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 4:42 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 38):
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 operation did!!!

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 the runway, but the distance beewen the approaching aircraft and departing aircraft. Aircraft operating under VFR and aircraft issued a visual approach must separate themselves in traffic patterns. Controllers will almost always issue conflict resolution instructions, but they are not required to do so. As long as 1 and only 1 aircraft is operating on a runway at a time, the controller is performing his or her job in accordance with required FAA procedures.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 7):
Looks more like a 737-3/400 to me!

Definitely

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 22):
Looks like an ERJ145 landing.

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 aircraft land like that pretty often, and I'm sure I've probably been in a plane while something like that happened. Did I notice it? No. Do I feel unsafe? Not at all.

 wave 
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:54 am

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.

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?

That TOGA push will probably do the trick! Better to go around in that situation. The two pilots should already be monitoring A.T.C. very closely. I've seen at least one instance in which the landing aircraft was only a few tens of feet above the ground, and already past the threshold, before the plane went back up for go-around. From my point of view, this guy just missed the vertical stabilizer of the Learjet on the runway by only a few feet. (Long story, not going to tell it in this thread - but it was the Learjet pilot's fault.)

Oh yeah... great pics! I hope they get added to the database just for fun! (NGH)

[Edited 2006-04-04 02:55:05]
Up, up and away!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:19 am

Quoting NW747-400 (Reply 40):
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 the runway, but the distance beewen the approaching aircraft and departing aircraft. Aircraft operating under VFR and aircraft issued a visual approach must separate themselves in traffic patterns. Controllers will almost always issue conflict resolution instructions, but they are not required to do so. As long as 1 and only 1 aircraft is operating on a runway at a time, the controller is performing his or her job in accordance with required FAA procedures.

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 probably as many if not more years as you've been alive......wake turbulence is not a factor in the pictures in this post, not at all, even though all aircraft create wake turb of some sort or another, the separation requirement is RUNWAY separation and runway separation period, nothing more, nothing less. So, unless you have around 39,000+ hours in a control tower, or even if you do, you might want to take a look into the .65 as you referred to it earlier and wander through the chapter on runway separation between arrivals and departures on the same runway, I think it is something like 3-10-3a(2)c! Hope this helps.  Smile
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:23 am




Quoting NW747-400 (Reply 40):
As long as 1 and only 1 aircraft is operating on a runway at a time, the controller is performing his or her job in accordance with required FAA procedures.

This particular example isn't one of them, but there are exceptions to that rule...  Wink




2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
flyboy36y
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:45 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:37 am

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 22):
ooks like an ERJ145 landing

No, it is unquestionably not an ERJ because you can see winglets and distinctive flaps. It is a CRJ.
 
BlazingCessna
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:17 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:43 am

PIcs are not coming up now
Flown on:722, 731, 732, 742, 752, 763, DC8, DC9, DC10, A300, A319, A320, A330, PIC on C172, PA28R, D55, A36, DC3
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting Flyboy36y (Reply 45):
No, it is unquestionably not an ERJ because you can see winglets and distinctive flaps. It is a CRJ.

Not to mention the distinctive engine casings, as FLY2HMO stated before:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 41):
ERJs don't have a bare metal exhaust cones,

So who can tell us whether it's a -200 or a -700?

[Edited 2006-04-04 03:53:18]
Up, up and away!
 
Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:07 am

You guys are correct -  footinmouth  - it is a 737 - I guess I had a brainfart while typing the original post - my apologies - here is the picture of the aircraft lining up and its clear its a 737 .....  duck   white 

Big version: Width: 800 Height: 532 File size: 79kb


I guess I confused that pic with this one which clearly shows that there was a US a319 @ DCA yesterday (Registration: N758US) - this guy sat at the end of the runway for quite sometime

Big version: Width: 800 Height: 532 File size: 83kb


also this one - could someone confirm if this is an Airbus or Emb please ?

Big version: Width: 800 Height: 532 File size: 38kb


Check the AC in the background - I am leaning towards that being an EMB but dont know for sure , this beautiful livery had all my attention then ...  hyper 

Big version: Width: 800 Height: 532 File size: 80kb



For those who were interested in times :

1. Aircraft lining with the runway : pic take @ 5:56:25
2. Pic #1 in original post : pic taken @ 5:56:57
3. Pic#2 in original post : pic taken @ 5:57:02
4. Pic#3 in original post : pic taken @ 5:57:03

The airbus shown above (N758US) was clicked at : 7:02:09
and the other one : 6:02:42

Disclaimer : Since the daylight changed yesterday I am not sure if my camera changed the time automatically - so all there time could be off by an hour ..
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
 
Desh
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Isnt This Dangerous (pics Inside)

Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting Blazingcessna (Reply 46):
PIcs are not coming up now

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 ...
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut