Can someone explain this to me RE: Irish Indo article.

ScouseMouse

Reading an article online that makes no sense to me. Is this badly written or is there something I am missing.

Basically, an EI jet about to depart, aborts on instruction from ATC, due to another landing plane doing a go around. It then misses its slot and leaves an hour late.

Link to indo here.

Why would a plane taking off, lose its slot, when ATC tells it to stop. Why delay an hour? (brake inspection maybe?)

Why did a go around prevent the take off?

Sorry if I am being a bit dopey, but I dont understand it.

Cheers

_vti

A slot isnt determined by ATC, its determined by the airport operator and a few other agencies. This is totally independent from ATC as ATC is just an organisation set up for the safe co-ordination of traffic.

If ATC gave a go-around instruction that made an airline miss its slot, it would be on the grounds of safety and nothing more.

In regards to the go-around, this would be a case of poor handling of the different departments in the ATC network ie. arrival / departure / tower etc. It may prevent a take off due to the path the airbourne aircraft needs to take (it might cause a safety issue if the aircraft were tracking straight ahead or converging into the climb out of a plane taking off)

Two possible reasons

1) depending on the point in the takeoff roll that it was stopped it might have been a high energy stop with lots of brake heat that needed a period of time to cool down.

Or/and

2) the stop caused the aircraft to miss its slot time with the CFMU (google it) and the next available time was an hour away.

Either way it was safe and a good call by ATC to prevent a piggy back go around.

_vti

_vti wrote: »

In regards to the go-around, this would be a case of poor handling of the different departments in the ATC network ie. arrival / departure / tower etc. It may prevent a take off due to the path the airbourne aircraft needs to take (it might cause a safety issue if the aircraft were tracking straight ahead or converging into the climb out of a plane taking off)

Poor handling ?! Considering the article said the landing traffic went around due to a technical reason, it's not poor handling in my eyes to prevent a departure from having a conflict with said traffic. In my eyes it was a safe call.

Chris_5339762

It was a flight to Heathrow that got delayed. Typically, for Heathrow, you request a landing slot before you even take off from Dublin. Given how busy that monstrosity of an airport is, an hour before another slot is not really all that much.

billie1b

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Poor handling ?! Considering the article said the landing traffic went around due to a technical reason, it's not poor handling in my eyes to prevent a departure from having a conflict with said traffic. In my eyes it was a safe call.

Listened to the ATC recording today, the WestJet states he went around due to traffic on the RWY

Jack1985

Lol, an aircraft performs a go around causing a departing aircraft to stop and it's a near miss? What's the Indo's agenda here? Pity the IAA didn't add to there statement to tell them where to go.

The only issue I see here is how they knew Alan Shatter was on the flight, unless he told them.

Jamie2k9

The Indo among others just copied the "credible" article which was published by the Sun today.

As for the hour delay most likely slot lost at LHR and it being peak hour ex DUB.

Had Alan Shatter not being on board, I wouldn't be writing this.

Jack1985

Just seen the Sun's headline "I nearly Shatter myself", Doesn't require much more investigation...

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

Just seen the Sun's headline "I nearly Shatter myself"" .. Doesn't require much more investigation...

True, it would have been better if they of said 'shattered' myself, better ring to it

Jack1985

billie1b wrote: »

True, it would have been better if they of said 'shattered' myself, better ring to it

"Snakes on a plane" wouldn't sound too shabby for him either

ANXIOUS

billie1b wrote: »

Listened to the ATC recording today, the WestJet states he went around due to traffic on the RWY

Do you remember what time approx?

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

"Snakes on a plane" wouldn't sound too shabby for him either

Don't plural it, im sure there were plenty of nice people on the plane.
Just 'snake on a plane' would do

Were you on it by any chance?

Jamie2k9

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Do you remember what time approx?

Between 6.30-7.00.

billie1b

Closer to 7, could be even a minute or 2 after 7

billie1b

billie1b wrote: »

Listened to the ATC recording today, the WestJet states he went around due to traffic on the RWY

Sorry I read the article and the IAA quote "Yesterday, Dublin Air Traffic Control instructed an Aer Lingus aircraft to abort its take off, when an incoming aircraft advised that it would perform a go around for technical reasons"

Must listen to the playback myself now

billie1b

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry I read the article and the IAA quote "Yesterday, Dublin Air Traffic Control instructed an Aer Lingus aircraft to abort its take off, when an incoming aircraft advised that it would perform a go around for technical reasons"

Must listen to the playback myself now

Now I am half deaf and ATC was busy so just incase I am wrong, I apologise now

billie1b

Ok had another quick listen, he mentions 'runway', stops then to relay back his ATC messages and the mentions 'just configuration', could of been a tech reason

bombs away

billie1b wrote: »

Ok had another quick listen, he mentions 'runway', stops then to relay back his ATC messages and the mentions 'just configuration', could of been a tech reason

Next time don't make assumptions without facts

Lapin

Incidents like this provide a good reason get that second runway built.

billie1b

bombs away wrote: »

Next time don't make assumptions without facts

Go fúck yourself!

lord lucan

billie1b wrote: »

Go fúck yourself!

Keep it civil please and attack the post not the poster.

billie1b

lord lucan wrote: »

Keep it civil please and attack the post not the poster.

Trust me, that is civil!

swimming in a sea

It was crazy with the rain yesterday in Dublin Airport, I was on the 7:10am to Gatwick and I think we took off at 8am, Every plane was losing time, as there was about a five minute wait between planes taking off, I think that was to let the spray settle from the last plane to take off.

On a side note, I came back through Heathrow and the Aerlingus move to Terminal2 is great, no big walk any more...

swimming in a sea

swimming in a sea wrote: »

It was crazy with the rain yesterday in Dublin Airport, I was on the 7:10am to Gatwick and I think we took off at 8am, Every plane was losing time, as there was about a five minute wait between planes taking off, I think that was to let the spray settle from the last plane to take off.

On a side note, I came back through Heathrow and the Aerlingus move to Terminal2 is great, no big walk any more...

Departure delays due to spray don't happen.

Growler!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Departure delays due to spray don't happen.

Very true, a Cat 11 capable aircraft can land in 300m visibility (RVR to be pedantic.) and take off with a 90m visual segment. Spray is not a problem:D

bombs away

billie1b wrote: »

Trust me, that is civil!

No idea on what planet that response would be considered civil

Seems rather immature to me, just like the conclusion you have appeared to jump to without having all the facts.

billie1b

bombs away wrote: »

No idea on what planet that response would be considered civil

Seems rather immature to me, just like the conclusion you have appeared to jump to without having all the facts.

Thanks, your pointless opinion really matters to me, I can sleep so much better now knowing you're getting a hard on for something I said may or may not have been said as fact. I even stated that I may have been wrong. Enjoy your keyboard and worthless life warrior, bet your mother is so proud!

billie1b

billie1b wrote: »

Now I am half deaf and ATC was busy so just incase I am wrong, I apologise now

Worth pointing this out again, he apologised quite early on.

billie1b

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Worth pointing this out again, he apologised quite early on.

Thanks man

andy_g

billie1b wrote: »

Thanks, your pointless opinion really matters to me, I can sleep so much better now knowing you're getting a hard on for something I said may or may not have been said as fact. I even stated that I may have been wrong. Enjoy your keyboard and worthless life warrior, bet your mother is so proud!

Even after an infraction you cant play by the rules, please have a week off to think about how you can play by the rules in future.

Bazzy

billie1b wrote: »

Thanks, your pointless opinion really matters to me, I can sleep so much better now knowing you're getting a hard on for something I said may or may not have been said as fact. I even stated that I may have been wrong. Enjoy your keyboard and worthless life warrior, bet your mother is so proud!

I have to concur it seems the statement of a keyboard warrior

andy_g

Bazzy wrote: »

I have to concur it seems the statement of a keyboard warrior

You may also have a week off.
You were warned before on the forum by a co mod for abuse, you have not learned and can have a week off to read the rules you signed up to.

Dublinflyer

The reality of this is that is was pretty much a non event, if a former minister was not on the flight it may not have even made the news, especially the front page. I have a feeling the sun's headline was more important to them rather than the story. We can all comment on what happened and why but the controller made a split second decision in order to keep everyone safe and as usual it was spot on. The main reason for the delay to the LHR flight was due to missing their slot, as someone pointed out earlier.

I also heard on the RT that the pilots 10-20 mins for brakes to cool down, I wasn't able to get a playback of the go around mech1s feed only came back with 25mins of a recording.

swimming in a sea

Deleted User wrote: »

Departure delays due to spray don't happen.

Any idea why there was such a long delay between the planes taking off?

Jack1985

Deleted User wrote: »

I also heard on the RT that the pilots 10-20 mins for brakes to cool down, I wasn't able to get a playback of the go around mech1s feed only came back with 25mins of a recording.

The aircraft returned to stand to have the brakes checked (Airbus recommends a brake cool down and check anywhere up to an hour depending on weights). This with the fact it was peak departure time at DUB and that it's slot was lost as a result of the RTO and RTG.

Any idea why there was such a long delay between the planes taking off?

The runway spray from aircraft may not have been causing the delays but the weather certainly was, there were a lot of delays to departures yesterday morning at DUB as a result of the WX.

Reoil

Jack1985 wrote: »

result of the WX.

Why not just type "weather"?

Dublinflyer

Reoil wrote: »

Why not just type "weather"?

when you work in the airport it's all about the acronyms. We have thousands of them!! My personal favorite is "something is U/S" :P

bombs away

The point I was trying to make which certain posters seem to have gotten very upset over is that forming uneducated opinions about what was essentially a non event is slightly worrying. It's these opinions that tabloid journalists will latch onto as fact and report as such.

I'm aware the original poster apologised if his opinion was wrong but to be honest if your not sure, you shouldn't post it in the first place. Incorrect information can be used by people to pursue a certain agenda.

The controller stopped the aircraft on the runway to prevent a piggy back with an aircraft going around, something both ATC and pilots are prepared and trained well for. Nothing more, nothing less and we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions.

suasdaguna2

Anyone know was it a high speed abandon or had the AL plane just began its T/O roll? Issuing rejected Take Off instructions by ATC to large passenger aircraft can certainly raise the "threat" stakes. I'd nearly prefer to see an immediate right turn 90degrees go around instruction to the lander and leave well enough alone with the aircraft taking off. Just my 2c

Jack1985

suasdaguna2 wrote: »

Anyone know was it a high speed abandon or had the AL plane just began its T/O roll? Issuing rejected Take Off instructions by ATC to large passenger aircraft can certainly raise the "threat" stakes. I'd nearly prefer to see an immediate right turn 90degrees go around instruction to the lander and leave well enough alone with the aircraft taking off. Just my 2c

Just passing 90kts they rejected, question if ATC issued the instruction to abandon the takeoff and you had passed V1, would I be right in saying you still have to commit to the takeoff?

And I agree I don't see why ATC didn't tell the WestJet to climb to the MAP altitude and turn left heading South, bear in mind during the time the "incident" occurred 34 was in use for departures as well.

Jack1985

Jack1985 wrote: »

Just passing 90kts they rejected, question if ATC issued the instruction to abandon the takeoff and you had passed V1, would I be right in saying you still have to commit to the takeoff?

And I agree I don't see why ATC didn't tell the WestJet to climb to the MAP altitude and turn left heading South, bear in mind during the time the "incident" occurred 34 was in use for departures as well.

Bear in mind 10 was in use and 34 wasn't being used either ;-)

What about local traffic ? Helis, turbo prop traffic either side of the go around. Jet2 in the UK now no longer allow turns in the go around, as a result Manchester have had to change their procedures when using the parallel runways to accomadate Jet2s company policy.

It was the Westjet that called the go around, ATC at that point had less than a minute to decide, react and initiate. The Westjet may already have been in the go around when they called the go around so ATC have less time to react. The ATCO probably reacted by looking the Airbus and saying he's not moving that quick that's my best option.

Stop second guessing the ATCO he made his choice and it was VERY safe, considering the weather he probably and the pilots probably wouldn't have been able to separate each other visually if they had gone into cloud. TCAS doesn't suggest a turn only climb or descent.

Growler!!!

Jack1985 wrote: »

Just passing 90kts they rejected, question if ATC issued the instruction to abandon the takeoff and you had passed V1, would I be right in saying you still have to commit to the takeoff?

V1 is your decision speed. Before V1 you can safely stop, after V1 you must continue.

In this case with a Wet runway, V1 is reduced to improve stopping distance.

Growler!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Bear in mind 10 was in use and 34 wasn't being used either ;-)

What about local traffic ? Helis, turbo prop traffic either side of the go around. Jet2 in the UK now no longer allow turns in the go around, as a result Manchester have had to change their procedures when using the parallel runways to accomadate Jet2s company policy.

I thought go around procedures were mandated by the airport.


Engine failure procedures are up to the individual airline.

Jack1985

Deleted User wrote: »

Bear in mind 10 was in use and 34 wasn't being used either ;-)

What about local traffic ? Helis, turbo prop traffic either side of the go around. Jet2 in the UK now no longer allow turns in the go around, as a result Manchester have had to change their procedures when using the parallel runways to accomadate Jet2s company policy.

It was the Westjet that called the go around, ATC at that point had less than a minute to decide, react and initiate. The Westjet may already have been in the go around when they called the go around so ATC have less time to react. The ATCO probably reacted by looking the Airbus and saying he's not moving that quick that's my best option.

Stop second guessing the ATCO he made his choice and it was VERY safe, considering the weather he probably and the pilots probably wouldn't have been able to separate each other visually if they had gone into cloud. TCAS doesn't suggest a turn only climb or descent.

Apologies, had assumed 28 was In use and usually 34 is nearly always in use to with an Easterly. Regards particular airline SOPs that is irrelevant, considering you know neither's. Particularly also in the US it's not un-heard of to get a heading on a G/A particularly at airports like BOS, JFK and in Canada at YYZ when the crosswind runway is in use.

Regards your point about local traffic, DUB APP usually try to keep the city clear of local tfc especially that early in the morning during peak DUB ops, and in bad weather I've heard regularly the TWR say for example from recollection, "climb to 3,000ft, turn right heading North now contact approach on.."

I am not second guessing the ATCO, so relax with statements like that, to me and others who are simply sharing a view. Regards TCAS, of course it doesn't show the trajectory but if you spent about 3 seconds looking at a target you'd know of it's rough heading. Also I'm sure you are aware TCAS will issue instructions if it knows the target is on the same trajectory/altitude initiating a conflict.

Anyway my point was I don't believe a reject should have been the immediate reaction, especially now knowing 34 wasn't in use and with a westerly configuration in operation. A simple instruction the the WestJet to head north and maintain the go around altitude shouldn't have been that hard, as the aircraft initiated the go around at 1,500ft. That's my view, I note you are on here less the two months so if you aren't capable of accepting others views I don't think you have quite grasped boards.ie yet.

andy_g

Jack play nice!

Jack1985

andy_g wrote: »

Jack play nice!

And where have I not been ???

LXFlyer

Can I just ask people nicely if you are posting acronyms, that you just put the full wording out first and then use the acronyms afterwards.

It's not fair on those of us with an interest but who maybe don't know what they mean, as it makes reading some of the posts here quite difficult!!

Remember - many people here will not work in the industry or be familiar with the terminology.

lxflyer

lxflyer wrote: »

Can I just ask people nicely if you are posting acronyms, that you just put the full wording out first and then use the acronyms afterwards.

It's not fair on those of us with an interest but who maybe don't know what they mean, as it makes reading some of the posts here quite difficult!!

Remember - many people here will not work in the industry or be familiar with the terminology.

Which ones ?

Try this if lost http://www.abbreviations.com/acronyms/AIRCRAFT

Growler!!!

I have to agree with GVHOT, the quickest way to learn the TLA's is to look them up.