Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dalian Airport head-on near miss on runway, A319 and 737 stopped only 120ft apart

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dalian Airport head-on near miss on runway, A319 and 737 stopped only 120ft apart

    CAAC confirmed today that a serious runway incursion incident occurred on Apr 30 at night at Dalian Zhoushuizi International Airport between a China Southern Airlines A319 and Xiamen Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft. The two aircraft were both ready to depart and the A319 was initially in front of the 737. The 737 was instructed to follow the A319 onto the runway after the A319 has taken off. However, the 737 entered the runway at the wrong taxiway (E) whereas it was supposed to follow the A319 and enter the runway at taxiway A. When the 737 pilot found that he has entered the runway wrongly, he attempted to make a U-turn at the intersection of the runway and taxiway E to exit the runway from taxiway E. The tower apparently did not notice the situation and gave permission to the A319 to roll. The A319 pilots did not look ahead and started accelerating down the runway. The 737 pilot was reportedly to start yelling "Stop the take-off! Stop the take-off! You tell him to stop the take-off" to the tower. The speed of the A319 was 86 knots at that time and the pilot of the A319 brakes immediately. It took the A319 9 seconds and 600m to fully stop on the runway. It was only 40m (or 120ft) from the 737 head-to-head (implying that the 737 has completed about 270 degrees of its 360-degree U-turn to go back to the taxiway) on the runway the time it stopped.

    Xiamen Airlines said the 737 pilot was suspended pending investigation.


    From Ming Pao newspaper HongKong:

    內地民航局航空安全辦公室證實,4月30 日廈門航空與南方航空兩架飛機,在大連機場跑道險對頭相撞。

    民航總局表示,發生事故征候的原因正在調查之中。而廈門航空有關負責人表示,該飛機已經投入正常運營,但機師正在接受調查。

    有網民稱,4月30日晚間,南航A319(CZ6621)與廈門B737(MF8052)差點在跑道上發生重大事故。幸好機師當機立斷,避免了事故的發生。

    據該帖子描述稱,當天晚上,B737在A319后面滑行,控制台的指令是A319起飛後B737再進跑道,但B737搞錯了進跑道的入口,進了E(本來應該先進A),然後又沒有目視前機A319起飛。進入後發現錯了,打算掉頭從E脫離,此時控制台已經給A319發了起飛指令。

    B737發現搞錯了,準備脫離,但是來不及了,此時B737在無線電里狂喊「中斷起飛,中斷起飛,你讓他中斷起飛」。A319此時的時速已經達到86海里,馬上執行中斷,從收油門至完全停住用了近9秒時間,距離為600米。完全停住後,兩架飛機是對頭狀態。

    帖子聲稱「最後發現兩機的前輪距離不足40米」,而另外一個跟帖者則表示「兩機相距不過15米」。
    Next:
    None Planned


  • #2
    Glad to hear that they stopped the aircraft in time, saving crew, pax and aircraft.

    However, I'm sure the pucker-factor for the aircrew on both aircraft would have been huge. 120' is not a long way to be apart from such a near catastrophe, and it couldn't have seemed like much when you're looking out from your respective flightdeck as the distance closes.
    Terry
    Lurking at JP since the BA 777 at Heathrow and AD lost responsiveness to the throttles.
    How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Sherlock Holmes

    Comment


    • #3
      The similarities of this incident and the Tenerife disaster are uncanny. Fortunately this didn't end up the same.

      Comment


      • #4
        I loved this part

        the 737 has completed about 270 degrees of its 360-degree U-turn

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel
          I loved this part

          Huh, who knew that a u-turn would put you back at the exact same heading.

          Comment


          • #6
            While I understand that the pilot of the 737 was wrong (in that he made the mistake of not properly turning onto the correct taxi-way - and the he was suspended, but shouldn't the ATC be taking the blame for this one? I mean, they should have seen the incursion, no? How often do things like this happen? Are there any technologies in place to help this sittutation?
            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by thxcollins
              Huh, who knew that a u-turn would put you back at the exact same heading.
              That is too funny.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AA 1818
                While I understand that the pilot of the 737 was wrong (in that he made the mistake of not properly turning onto the correct taxi-way - and the he was suspended, but shouldn't the ATC be taking the blame for this one? I mean, they should have seen the incursion, no? How often do things like this happen? Are there any technologies in place to help this sittutation?
                No, the ATC shouldn't be taking the blame. And while the pilot was in the wrong for turning at the incorrect taxiway, that is a "run of the mill" human error. However, on realising that he had made a mistake and was on the active runway, he failed to report this immediately. If he had, then the ATC wouldn't have issued the takeoff clearance.

                He may also have been suspended for completing 270 degrees of a 360 degree U turn!
                ADCR
                Tongue tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AA 1818
                  While I understand that the pilot of the 737 was wrong (in that he made the mistake of not properly turning onto the correct taxi-way - and the he was suspended, but shouldn't the ATC be taking the blame for this one? I mean, they should have seen the incursion, no? How often do things like this happen? Are there any technologies in place to help this sittutation?
                  I would place blame on the pilot of the 319. If it's half decent VFR conditions you look the hell down the damn runway. As my old flight instructor said,"the tower merely makes suggestions. Trust no one,if at all possible verify yourself." It's saved my bacon b4 as even if everyones doin their job to the best of their abilities one garbled transmission is all it takes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bob12312357
                    I would place blame on the pilot of the 319. If it's half decent VFR conditions you look the hell down the damn runway. As my old flight instructor said,"the tower merely makes suggestions. Trust no one,if at all possible verify yourself." It's saved my bacon b4 as even if everyones doin their job to the best of their abilities one garbled transmission is all it takes.
                    So what from that article lead you to believe that the Airbus had enough forward visibility to see the 737 and make that wild assumption?
                    Anybody can fly a round airplane....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      thats quite a runway u turn! glad everyone was ok

                      yes i am a boeing fan, and i know thats a airbus, haha

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not only the U turn is BS. This part too:
                        The speed of the A319 was 86 knots at that time and the pilot of the A319 brakes immediately. It took the A319 9 seconds and 600m to fully stop on the runway.
                        600m (2000ft) is too much distance to stop from 86kts (100MPH).

                        If you don't belive it, just think who much would it take to stop your car at 100MPH. The plane would take about the same.

                        If you still don't believe it do a simple math: If the airplane had kept the 86kts it would have made less than 400m (1300ft) in the 9 seconds, or it would have taken more than 13 seconds to make the 600m. To make 600m in 9 seconds you need 130kts of AVERAGE speed, which means that, if they were braking, the initial speed should have been even greater than 130 to make an average of 130.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel
                          Not only the U turn is BS.
                          So the pilot was suspended because of a BS??

                          Originally posted by Gabriel
                          600m (2000ft) is too much distance to stop from 86kts (100MPH).

                          If you don't belive it, just think who much would it take to stop your car at 100MPH. The plane would take about the same.

                          If you still don't believe it do a simple math: If the airplane had kept the 86kts it would have made less than 400m (1300ft) in the 9 seconds, or it would have taken more than 13 seconds to make the 600m. To make 600m in 9 seconds you need 130kts of AVERAGE speed, which means that, if they were braking, the initial speed should have been even greater than 130 to make an average of 130.
                          You math is sound EXCEPT that you are assuming the braking action starts at the exact same nanosecond. Consider this: the plane is travelling at 86kts down the runway, and the tower tells the pilot to brake. The tower probably needs 2 or 3 seconds to finish the sentence then it takes the pilot may be another 2 seconds to react. The "brake immediately" term in the news report, I believe, is not a scientific term to actually mean that the pilot started braking at that nanosecond. And then, since there are apparently no blown tires, the A319 clearly did not reach its maximum braking capability.
                          Next:
                          None Planned

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CathayPacific
                            So the pilot was suspended because of a BS??

                            You math is sound EXCEPT that you are assuming the braking action starts at the exact same nanosecond. Consider this: the plane is travelling at 86kts down the runway, and the tower tells the pilot to brake. The tower probably needs 2 or 3 seconds to finish the sentence then it takes the pilot may be another 2 seconds to react. The "brake immediately" term in the news report, I believe, is not a scientific term to actually mean that the pilot started braking at that nanosecond. And then, since there are apparently no blown tires, the A319 clearly did not reach its maximum braking capability.
                            I didn't mean to offend you. You were just quting a news report.

                            Now, about the U turn I meant to make a joke about the 360deg U turn, not that the U turn didn't exist at all.

                            About the math, even if the airplane had kept accelerating for a couple of seconds it could have never reached a max speed fast enough to make an AVERAGE speed of 130kts including the accelerating and braking part. It would have taken some 4 seconds to go from 86 to 130, and the average would be still below 130 and would go even lower due to the braking period.

                            Besides, if the airplanes ended just une aircraft length appart I bet that maximum braking was used at least in a significant fraction od the braking process.

                            But again, nothing about you, we know the media gets it wrong more often than right.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CathayPacific
                              So the pilot was suspended because of a BS??


                              You math is sound EXCEPT that you are assuming the braking action starts at the exact same nanosecond. Consider this: the plane is travelling at 86kts down the runway, and the tower tells the pilot to brake. The tower probably needs 2 or 3 seconds to finish the sentence then it takes the pilot may be another 2 seconds to react. The "brake immediately" term in the news report, I believe, is not a scientific term to actually mean that the pilot started braking at that nanosecond. And then, since there are apparently no blown tires, the A319 clearly did not reach its maximum braking capability.
                              "Assuming" the anti-skid system is working correctly, there would be no blown tires from an 86 knot abort. Deflated tires are usually the result of heat generated by brake application and not stress alone. Tire deflation usually occurs after the abort is accomplished and the aircraft is stopped or taxing slowly. Heat from the brakes causes the fuse plugs to melt. The fuse plugs deflate the tire, preventing wheel / tire failure due to over pressures inside the tire caused by heat.

                              A tire normally inflated to 200 PSI on an ISA day could reach 300 psi at 150C.
                              Don
                              Standard practice for managers around the world:
                              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X