multiple aircraft in history landed when they weren't attempting to, with typically catastrophic consequences. a landing attempt with a subsequent landing is clearly the superior option.
Erm nope less risky is a go around from landing aircraft, if take off aircraft aborts take off there is a catastrophic outcome
To go around you do not need to follow the runway out
That is how it works with light aircraft and I imagine commercial is not dissimilar, the investigation will reveal all
Agreed, have been in this situation a few times,generally send the one behind around, give traffic information to both, turn the outbound unless terrain prevents it, let the one going around follow the standard missed approach.
You can generally keep them both in sight and use reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome so don't lose separation (gets difficult if the weather's pish and there's low cloud).
Both aircraft will miss and a miss is as good as a mile
Edit: source-been an air traffic controller in tower and approach radar for most of my career
I have 7 years experience as a tower controller and stand by my initial take. Depending on where this happened, there may be no investigation as only one a/c had wheels on the runway at once. Don't get me wrong, this is less than ideal seperation here...
Happened in Mumbai yesterday. According to IndiGo, ATC failure.
>Simple Flying has contacted Air India and IndiGo regarding the near miss; with IndiGo responding:
>*"On Jun 8, 2024, IndiGo flight 6E 6053 from Indore was given landing clearance by ATC at Mumbai Airport. The Pilot in Command continued the approach and landing and followed ATC instructions. At IndiGo, passenger safety is paramount to us, and we have reported the incident as per procedure."*
https://simpleflying.com/indigo-airbus-a320neo-lands-close-air-india-a320neo-same-runway-mumbai/
Sources close to the airport's management confirmed the air traffic controller in charge at the time goes by the nickname "airfartpound95". Multiple hot air balloons were also spotted near the airport at the time.
That is horrific and wildly unsafe. Despite being given landing clearance by ATC, it is absolutely the Pilot in Commandâs decision whether to accept the landing clearance or to fly a go around manoeuvre. A dangerous and very poor choice to continue to land in this circumstance.
Would the pilot be able to alter their course in this situation? If they see the runway they're about to land on currently has another plane on it, do they have time to veer off without endangering other planes in the airspace?
Itâs a go around for the landing aircraft, and a revocation of takeoff clearance for the aircraft taking off. You could argue the aircraft taking off was already rolling too quick in this video to safely stop (hot breaks), but this should have been seen earlier than what we see in this video. This is clearly an ATC oops, which has been happening more often recently because theyâre trying to get more aircraft through the airports. However, pilots have the responsibility to fly the aircraft safely, and can disregard ATC directions at certain times, this being one of the times the landing aircraft should have seen the aircraft below rolling and immediately call for a go around.
Edit: Those times are emergency situations, which include formal mayday decs and situational pan-pans, TCAS alerts, and any other time the pilot believes following ATC instructions will put the aircraft in imminent danger. A âthey told meâ excuse wonât cut it in proceedings following the investigation of an incident, as the pilot has the responsibility to fly safely and the ultimate last say in doing so.
By the time they saw it, it had already rotated. You think they should have sped up towards the plane that would be occupying the same airspace as them? Stopping was obviously the right choice.
This was my question. If they pull up, they're now in the same spot as the plane taking off. If they change course (assuming that's physically possible) can they do so without endangering a third plane?
Absolutely not the right choice. My considerations:
By the time the front plane was rotating, the rear plane was flaring. Would have taken at least 30 seconds to enter the runway and push up to that speed. Moment the front plane would have been cleared for takeoff the one behind would have been about a mile and a half from threshold and would have been able to see plane taking the runway. Additionally, they'd be on the same frequency and would have heard the plane being cleared.
This was clearly a case of poorly trained pilots acting like passengers in their own plane. Do not let ATC put you in a bad spot. Go around, offset to the right, and keep the departing aircraft in right.
A late go-around maneuver in the immediate vicinity of a busy airport, with a plane already in rotation in front, might prove even more disastrous.
Of course both PICs should also be investigated for their share of responsibility but ultimately it's on ATC to have given ILS and clearance with such a minimal margin.
The generally accepted theoretical margin is 3 miles and 1000ft vertically (which usually matches a 2 minutes separation), but this margin is unapplicable on airports with dense traffic and limited runways. This is why ATC plays its margins on simultaneous takeoffs and landings rather than packing the skies which would be more dangerous.
Mumbai airport has two intersecting runways and handles an average of 980 flights per day. Considering a 6AM-10PM flight span this is barely enough to dispatch a constant flow on the two runways with a 2 minutes interval so obviously during the day this interval varies.
With that knowledge, it's perfectly understandable that the PIC decided to go on with ATC directives rather than risking a hasty and possibly unsanctioned late go-around. Pilots trust control to give them enough slack to land safely even on a packed airport, that's kind of ATC's job.
No. There is no such thing as a âlate go-aroundâ in controlled airports. ATC isnât in the tower playing âhope-for-the-best.â Sequencing and SOP takes go-arounds and touch-and-goes into account when issuing instructions. Especially at busy airports. If the departing aircraft needed to abort for any reason at all, this would have been incomprehensibly awful.
You mean to land when no collision risk is apparent? Iâm all for ensuring adequate separation but people seem to not understand if a plane rotating 1/2 down a runway, a high chance being beyond ASDA thus no risk to landing. Now if he did go around, that could end up more dangerous in this situation because itâll create MORE separation issues. Always better to be on the ground
Absolute garbage Iâm afraid. ASDA refers to a distance which is the Landing Distance Available LDA plus the Stop way beyond this. To be beyond the ASDA would be off the end of the runway. Back to your computer flight sim and itâs best youâre not a Pilot in Command.
Hard to say that it's ATC's fault.
Delhi and Mumbai are the largest airports of india. Delhi now has 4 working runways. And a new 3 runway airport is under construction within 100 miles. Mumbai, while having similar level of traffic, has only 1 runway. Mumbai Tower controllers have to handle 50+ movements per hour on a single runway during peak times. Sometimes, there are upto 10 aircrafts approaching the holding point for departures. The controller is always in a pressure to expedite the departures because everytime there's a delay, the controller is the one being questioned.
Technically Mumbai has *two* runways, the 09/27 main one and the 14/32 intersecting between T1 and T2. However it's true ATC has to deal with 35-55 movements per hour which is insane without a parallel runway, and that one is still in discussion and so far stalling, sadly.
Still ATC's responsibility as sequencing should not let two airplanes be that close, it's well beyond any security margin. However I do agree they're doing what they can and work in hazardous conditions, and it's ultimately an infrastructure problem with nearly 1K flights per day and that parallel runway still on paper for nearly fifteen years.
Since its shot on a telephoto lens it makes it look a lot closer than it really is. But even then i cant imagine that this is within the safety margins for what is allowed. ATC and the PIC should have som consequences for this
Totally depends on the airframes involved. The preceding aircraft must be 3000 feet away, 4500 feet away, or 6000 feet away depending on the category of each airframe.
Had to look that up, you are 100% correct, in the US at least. [https://www.faa.gov/air\_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc\_html/chap3\_section\_10.html](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_10.html)
Telephoto lens or not, you can calculate by the runway threshold markings that they were barely 7 seconds apart from each other.
At those speeds, thatâs insane.
Iâm a radar controller so Iâm not 100% familiar with tower ops, but if I recall the aircraft taking off has to be wheels up before the landing aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway.
3000 feet, 4500 feet, or 6000 feet of separation for same runway separation; also depends on the category of the aircraft. Of course, thats US regs and not ICAO or Malaysia specific.
Yeah it is highly discouraged to land as a plane is taking off cause the leading plane can have a last minute malfunction which could lead to an accident.
Though it is ATC that is at fault. Theyâre the ones that gives the green light.
That's the biggie there. If the arriving plane was going to execute a go-around maneuver, they should've done so prior to crossing the runway threshold.
Also, ATC should've recognized the problem, controlled the situation, and given go-around instructions. That's the better way to handle it. ATC can see the big picture, so their job is to say, "Go around the right side of the runway, climb and maintain 3,000." Then when it's safe, give them instructions and hand them off to the departure controller.
But honestly, busy airports are tough. One go-around can mess up the departure controller's traffic flow, which means they'll be pissed at the arrival controller. Plus ATC doesn't like issuing go-arounds for carriers, because it generates paperwork and can get them into trouble sometimes. Plus, the airlines get pissed.
But end of the day, safety should take priority. It clearly didn't here.
I wonder if the controller got any proximity warnings on his radar. At a certain speed, a plane is rendered flying, and the proximity warning system does not take that plane in account anymore.
We agree on that.
Clearly, this controller failed to properly control the situation. I've seen it before: controllers don't issue clear instructions, then HOPE it plays out safely.
In this situation, I've seen controllers fail to report traffic on final or fail to issue an "immediate takeoff" clearance, because the controller is used to a standard takeoff taking 60 seconds or so and gets complacent. But sometimes pilots will take their time, and the controller ends up wishing they'd have done things differently.
End of the day, poor job by this controller.
Former ATC here. We were taught that wake turbulence on the ground is a minimal risk. The wingtip vortices hit the ground and move away from the plane horizontally. But when a plane is still on the ground, like the departing plane was, there is no wake turbulence being generated.
There is "jet blast", which is more of an issue for a small plane taxiing behind a large plane. But this sort of procedure would have minimal wake turbulence risk. And the planes being similar weight classes, there would be minimal jet blast risk.
Tldr; wake turbulence and wingtip vortices not a factor when both planes are on the ground.
You're hearing about this because it's incredibly rare and counter to standard procedure. The trip to the airport is still statistically riskier, even if you're also flying on a Boeing. You'll be completely fine.
Damn. The pilot landing had no choice either. He couldn't throttle up to go a go-around as the other plane was ahead of him and going slower...
What could he have done other than "ooh shiiiii, land fast!"?
Former ATC here. We were taught that wake turbulence on the ground is a minimal risk. The wingtip vortices hit the ground and go away from the plane horizontally. But when a plane is still on the ground, like the departing plane was, there is no wake turbulence being generated.
There is "jet blast", which is more of an issue for a small plane taxiing behind a large plane. But this sort of procedure would have minimal wake turbulence risk. And the planes being similar weight classes, there would be minimal jet blast risk.
That is only true unless there is a slight crosswind cause that can leave one right on the runway.
And they only start on rotation.
But here are 2 medium aircraft, should never be a problem.
Over flaring: Normal flaring would be lifting the nose of the aircraft right before touchdown to reduce landing impact and bring the aircraft main gears to the ground first; in this case over flaring to keep the aircraft from touching the ground until the departing aircraft lifts off the ground.
Runway incursion: Unauthorized entry on a runway. You canât have a departing and arriving aircraft on a same runway at any time.
By over-flaring, the arriving pilot prevented the aircraft from touching the ground up until the departing aircraft leaves the ground. Doesnât make what happened in that case any saferâŚ
There are no rules from ICAO that allows a tower controller to do this.
The landing aircraft is not allowed to cross the threshold until the succeeding departure is 2400 metres down the runway AND airborne.
He did not have the distance nor was the departure airborne.
All in all, a shitty situation should the departure have to abort.
That is a dangerous move because of wind vortices. Certainly at least one pilot was in error or about to run out of fuel. The tower would not direct that.
My bad. I read the about whole thing after seeing so many posts about it. Got to know people were de-rostered because of it. It was smooth either ways.
At this airport this is not common, and is a mistake. But for airports like Heathrow you do often see planes landing and taking off in succession.
Remember that Heathrow is private owned and does care about making a profit. The more planes that land at the airport, the more landing fees they can charge.
Of course they still have to follow FDA regulations.
This situation right here is cutting it *very* close though. I wouldnât be surprised if fines were dished out.
Some mistakes in your comment - I think you imply âdo care about making a profitâ?
Also - maybe the biggest mistake - this doesnât happen. ATC is not run by the airport and is highly regulated.
I know thatâs why I said,
1. Itâs similar to this but no where near as close as this.
2. I said itâs regulated by FDA (I know itâs Americas, but I didnât know the British one)
They did not attempt to land, they did land.
They seemed to stick the landing as well
Every landing is done with the stick tho
Except planes with yokes. .
Or a wave đ
Not all crash landings
So it was a successful attempt?
How could they land without attempting to?
multiple aircraft in history landed when they weren't attempting to, with typically catastrophic consequences. a landing attempt with a subsequent landing is clearly the superior option.
Unintentional landings are just the worst
Yeah, but you usually don't have to put up with it for long.
Do or do not, there is no try
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Thats an absolute, are *you* the sith?
I may dabble in the dark side every now and then...
Every now and then? Not an absolute⌠sith⌠absolutes⌠not absolute, does not compute
The way it's titled makes it sound like they did not go through with the landing.
Well they did attempt, and they were successful.
It would have been riskier to put the power on and overshoot. They would have been over the departure end of the runway threshold at the same time.
Erm nope less risky is a go around from landing aircraft, if take off aircraft aborts take off there is a catastrophic outcome To go around you do not need to follow the runway out That is how it works with light aircraft and I imagine commercial is not dissimilar, the investigation will reveal all
Agreed, have been in this situation a few times,generally send the one behind around, give traffic information to both, turn the outbound unless terrain prevents it, let the one going around follow the standard missed approach. You can generally keep them both in sight and use reduced separation in the vicinity of the aerodrome so don't lose separation (gets difficult if the weather's pish and there's low cloud). Both aircraft will miss and a miss is as good as a mile Edit: source-been an air traffic controller in tower and approach radar for most of my career
I have 7 years experience as a tower controller and stand by my initial take. Depending on where this happened, there may be no investigation as only one a/c had wheels on the runway at once. Don't get me wrong, this is less than ideal seperation here...
This was Mumbai. Itâs quite busy but this was unusual.
It should be unusual đ
Agreed.
And pretty sure not accidentally, but on order by tower.
Move bitch get out da way
Happened in Mumbai yesterday. According to IndiGo, ATC failure. >Simple Flying has contacted Air India and IndiGo regarding the near miss; with IndiGo responding: >*"On Jun 8, 2024, IndiGo flight 6E 6053 from Indore was given landing clearance by ATC at Mumbai Airport. The Pilot in Command continued the approach and landing and followed ATC instructions. At IndiGo, passenger safety is paramount to us, and we have reported the incident as per procedure."* https://simpleflying.com/indigo-airbus-a320neo-lands-close-air-india-a320neo-same-runway-mumbai/
Sources close to the airport's management confirmed the air traffic controller in charge at the time goes by the nickname "airfartpound95". Multiple hot air balloons were also spotted near the airport at the time.
According to eyewitness testimony, said Hot Air Balloons seemed to defy the laws of physics, and proceeded to do verticals at 300 knots.
[Mandatory Gotlib](https://i.imgur.com/TFrEF4M.png)
ROGER DODGER
That is horrific and wildly unsafe. Despite being given landing clearance by ATC, it is absolutely the Pilot in Commandâs decision whether to accept the landing clearance or to fly a go around manoeuvre. A dangerous and very poor choice to continue to land in this circumstance.
Would the pilot be able to alter their course in this situation? If they see the runway they're about to land on currently has another plane on it, do they have time to veer off without endangering other planes in the airspace?
Itâs a go around for the landing aircraft, and a revocation of takeoff clearance for the aircraft taking off. You could argue the aircraft taking off was already rolling too quick in this video to safely stop (hot breaks), but this should have been seen earlier than what we see in this video. This is clearly an ATC oops, which has been happening more often recently because theyâre trying to get more aircraft through the airports. However, pilots have the responsibility to fly the aircraft safely, and can disregard ATC directions at certain times, this being one of the times the landing aircraft should have seen the aircraft below rolling and immediately call for a go around. Edit: Those times are emergency situations, which include formal mayday decs and situational pan-pans, TCAS alerts, and any other time the pilot believes following ATC instructions will put the aircraft in imminent danger. A âthey told meâ excuse wonât cut it in proceedings following the investigation of an incident, as the pilot has the responsibility to fly safely and the ultimate last say in doing so.
Go around. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-around
By the time they saw it, it had already rotated. You think they should have sped up towards the plane that would be occupying the same airspace as them? Stopping was obviously the right choice.
This was my question. If they pull up, they're now in the same spot as the plane taking off. If they change course (assuming that's physically possible) can they do so without endangering a third plane?
Not to mention wake turbulence. They're both the same weight class obviously, so the following plane would probably be fucked that close.
Absolutely not the right choice. My considerations: By the time the front plane was rotating, the rear plane was flaring. Would have taken at least 30 seconds to enter the runway and push up to that speed. Moment the front plane would have been cleared for takeoff the one behind would have been about a mile and a half from threshold and would have been able to see plane taking the runway. Additionally, they'd be on the same frequency and would have heard the plane being cleared. This was clearly a case of poorly trained pilots acting like passengers in their own plane. Do not let ATC put you in a bad spot. Go around, offset to the right, and keep the departing aircraft in right.
A late go-around maneuver in the immediate vicinity of a busy airport, with a plane already in rotation in front, might prove even more disastrous. Of course both PICs should also be investigated for their share of responsibility but ultimately it's on ATC to have given ILS and clearance with such a minimal margin. The generally accepted theoretical margin is 3 miles and 1000ft vertically (which usually matches a 2 minutes separation), but this margin is unapplicable on airports with dense traffic and limited runways. This is why ATC plays its margins on simultaneous takeoffs and landings rather than packing the skies which would be more dangerous. Mumbai airport has two intersecting runways and handles an average of 980 flights per day. Considering a 6AM-10PM flight span this is barely enough to dispatch a constant flow on the two runways with a 2 minutes interval so obviously during the day this interval varies. With that knowledge, it's perfectly understandable that the PIC decided to go on with ATC directives rather than risking a hasty and possibly unsanctioned late go-around. Pilots trust control to give them enough slack to land safely even on a packed airport, that's kind of ATC's job.
No. There is no such thing as a âlate go-aroundâ in controlled airports. ATC isnât in the tower playing âhope-for-the-best.â Sequencing and SOP takes go-arounds and touch-and-goes into account when issuing instructions. Especially at busy airports. If the departing aircraft needed to abort for any reason at all, this would have been incomprehensibly awful.
Agreed, this wasn't my suggestion I was replying to another redditor's hot take.
ATC obviously were hoping for the best if they let this happen lmao
You mean to land when no collision risk is apparent? Iâm all for ensuring adequate separation but people seem to not understand if a plane rotating 1/2 down a runway, a high chance being beyond ASDA thus no risk to landing. Now if he did go around, that could end up more dangerous in this situation because itâll create MORE separation issues. Always better to be on the ground
Absolute garbage Iâm afraid. ASDA refers to a distance which is the Landing Distance Available LDA plus the Stop way beyond this. To be beyond the ASDA would be off the end of the runway. Back to your computer flight sim and itâs best youâre not a Pilot in Command.
Hard to say that it's ATC's fault. Delhi and Mumbai are the largest airports of india. Delhi now has 4 working runways. And a new 3 runway airport is under construction within 100 miles. Mumbai, while having similar level of traffic, has only 1 runway. Mumbai Tower controllers have to handle 50+ movements per hour on a single runway during peak times. Sometimes, there are upto 10 aircrafts approaching the holding point for departures. The controller is always in a pressure to expedite the departures because everytime there's a delay, the controller is the one being questioned.
Technically Mumbai has *two* runways, the 09/27 main one and the 14/32 intersecting between T1 and T2. However it's true ATC has to deal with 35-55 movements per hour which is insane without a parallel runway, and that one is still in discussion and so far stalling, sadly. Still ATC's responsibility as sequencing should not let two airplanes be that close, it's well beyond any security margin. However I do agree they're doing what they can and work in hazardous conditions, and it's ultimately an infrastructure problem with nearly 1K flights per day and that parallel runway still on paper for nearly fifteen years.
ATC failure??...lol even then there was such a big plane in front of you in the run way you could see.
Since its shot on a telephoto lens it makes it look a lot closer than it really is. But even then i cant imagine that this is within the safety margins for what is allowed. ATC and the PIC should have som consequences for this
Regardless of distance, the idea is ideally not to have one plane touching down right as other is lifting off.
Totally depends on the airframes involved. The preceding aircraft must be 3000 feet away, 4500 feet away, or 6000 feet away depending on the category of each airframe.
Had to look that up, you are 100% correct, in the US at least. [https://www.faa.gov/air\_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc\_html/chap3\_section\_10.html](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_10.html)
Well, yeah. It's my job lol Edit: I know you couldn't have known that and people do spout random shit online but I couldn't resist being snarky
Good job bud!
I honestly expected to see that what you said was correct in some region of the world, didn't expect it to be the US heh
Telephoto lens or not, you can calculate by the runway threshold markings that they were barely 7 seconds apart from each other. At those speeds, thatâs insane.
Iâm a radar controller so Iâm not 100% familiar with tower ops, but if I recall the aircraft taking off has to be wheels up before the landing aircraft crosses the threshold of the runway.
3000 feet, 4500 feet, or 6000 feet of separation for same runway separation; also depends on the category of the aircraft. Of course, thats US regs and not ICAO or Malaysia specific.
Yeah Iâll just go back to my basementâŚglad this wasnât the ATC subreddit.
[Yes](https://i.imgur.com/AyxpyZs.jpeg)
The ATC was de-rostered by the civil aviation authority
Yeah it is highly discouraged to land as a plane is taking off cause the leading plane can have a last minute malfunction which could lead to an accident. Though it is ATC that is at fault. Theyâre the ones that gives the green light.
Yeah but jetwash...
Wingtip vortices anyone?
Not only that, if the plane that took off had to abandon their take-off for any reason, things would have been pretty ugly.
That's the biggie there. If the arriving plane was going to execute a go-around maneuver, they should've done so prior to crossing the runway threshold. Also, ATC should've recognized the problem, controlled the situation, and given go-around instructions. That's the better way to handle it. ATC can see the big picture, so their job is to say, "Go around the right side of the runway, climb and maintain 3,000." Then when it's safe, give them instructions and hand them off to the departure controller. But honestly, busy airports are tough. One go-around can mess up the departure controller's traffic flow, which means they'll be pissed at the arrival controller. Plus ATC doesn't like issuing go-arounds for carriers, because it generates paperwork and can get them into trouble sometimes. Plus, the airlines get pissed. But end of the day, safety should take priority. It clearly didn't here.
I wonder if the controller got any proximity warnings on his radar. At a certain speed, a plane is rendered flying, and the proximity warning system does not take that plane in account anymore.
The real biggie here is the controller should never have gotten into this situation in the first place...... never!
We agree on that. Clearly, this controller failed to properly control the situation. I've seen it before: controllers don't issue clear instructions, then HOPE it plays out safely. In this situation, I've seen controllers fail to report traffic on final or fail to issue an "immediate takeoff" clearance, because the controller is used to a standard takeoff taking 60 seconds or so and gets complacent. But sometimes pilots will take their time, and the controller ends up wishing they'd have done things differently. End of the day, poor job by this controller.
Former ATC here. We were taught that wake turbulence on the ground is a minimal risk. The wingtip vortices hit the ground and move away from the plane horizontally. But when a plane is still on the ground, like the departing plane was, there is no wake turbulence being generated. There is "jet blast", which is more of an issue for a small plane taxiing behind a large plane. But this sort of procedure would have minimal wake turbulence risk. And the planes being similar weight classes, there would be minimal jet blast risk. Tldr; wake turbulence and wingtip vortices not a factor when both planes are on the ground.
Not an issue at all in this case
Not an issue, thats why starts and landings change. More planes that fit in there then
Traveling tomorrow and I see aircraft videos like this. Great.
Have you heard of 9/11?
Reminds me of that tragedy
I walked through blood and bones that day...
Of darth plagueis the wise?
Iâve never heard of that one
I thought not, it's not a story the Jedi would tell you
Iâm pretty sure itâs called 7-11
You're right. I always get Slurpees and terrorism mixed up
You're hearing about this because it's incredibly rare and counter to standard procedure. The trip to the airport is still statistically riskier, even if you're also flying on a Boeing. You'll be completely fine.
I flew on a Boeing twice last month and I am ok for now
Recently two austronausts flew on Boeing to space and they are fine as well. So no worries.
where do i buy flight tickets to space?
Iâve been seeing a ton of ATC recordings of near misses.
I usually watch air disasters at the gate waiting for the plane. Bonus points if you take headphones out and turn up volume
Unless you're going to Shitdia, you're fine
Watching aircrash investigation on the flight is always fun!
This is all very well planned and coordinated. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Damn. The pilot landing had no choice either. He couldn't throttle up to go a go-around as the other plane was ahead of him and going slower... What could he have done other than "ooh shiiiii, land fast!"?
Nice nick lmao
Thanks - I feel like maybe I am more mature than that... until I realize that, no, no I am not. đ
Do go around and turn left or right a bit instead of flying along the runway?
10 seconds earlier, this video wouldâve been on crazyshit.com
You can ride my tail!
*Traffic Traffic Traffic*
Climb, climb now
They run a very tight schedule.
Arenât you landing in someone elseâs slip stream?
Former ATC here. We were taught that wake turbulence on the ground is a minimal risk. The wingtip vortices hit the ground and go away from the plane horizontally. But when a plane is still on the ground, like the departing plane was, there is no wake turbulence being generated. There is "jet blast", which is more of an issue for a small plane taxiing behind a large plane. But this sort of procedure would have minimal wake turbulence risk. And the planes being similar weight classes, there would be minimal jet blast risk.
That is only true unless there is a slight crosswind cause that can leave one right on the runway. And they only start on rotation. But here are 2 medium aircraft, should never be a problem.
I was wondering the same, that's why they wait for a bit after a plane has just taken off. This was extremely risky!
Honestly Iâm grateful that people are making a big deal of a situation that COULD have turned ugly. It means safety is taken very seriously.
Agree. Itâs under investigation as of now.
At least he was honking and flashing his brights
rofl
If Air India had attempted to take off there would have been fireworks
Who gave Ray Charles the air traffic control job?
Helen Keller did the shortlist and interviewing...
Lol at the landing pilot over-flaring to make sure they touch down without runway incursion.
Sorry whatâs that mean exactly?
Over flaring: Normal flaring would be lifting the nose of the aircraft right before touchdown to reduce landing impact and bring the aircraft main gears to the ground first; in this case over flaring to keep the aircraft from touching the ground until the departing aircraft lifts off the ground. Runway incursion: Unauthorized entry on a runway. You canât have a departing and arriving aircraft on a same runway at any time. By over-flaring, the arriving pilot prevented the aircraft from touching the ground up until the departing aircraft leaves the ground. Doesnât make what happened in that case any saferâŚ
Thank you.
Itâs a relay, they didnât get to give the baton to the frontrunner
There are no rules from ICAO that allows a tower controller to do this. The landing aircraft is not allowed to cross the threshold until the succeeding departure is 2400 metres down the runway AND airborne. He did not have the distance nor was the departure airborne. All in all, a shitty situation should the departure have to abort.
Travelling to the same airport in 2 days... Thanks for posting this đ .
lol it wonât be allowed to repeat this week at least.
I picture ACT telling Air India to GO GO GO GO GO GO 
Now THAT'S minimum separation
One of the last airplanes i flew took off seconds after i saw another plane in the window descending to land ob the same runway.
Hopefully ATC put emphasis on the âno delayâ part of their command.
ATC fuckup
Agree. Someoneâs gonna get fired for sure.
Still pretty cool
What a time saver tho. Is this minuscule risk not worth it?
No, too risky. Too many lives on the line for about 90 seconds saved if the plane in front has to abort.
I thought my sarcasm was thick enough.
Whoops!
Maybe there was some sort of problem and they had to land.
Thatâs possible. Nothing of that sort in official tweets as of now but the ongoing investigation might real more.
ATC needs to write down a phone number.
Someoneâs gonna be getting a number to callâŚand itâs not a pilot this time
Mentor pilot definitely gonna make a video on this.
Whoâs that?
Mentour pilot is a youtube channel... He makes videos on incidents like these.. Check him out.. Pretty Great videos.
Will do, thank you.
Vatsim be like
I dont want to fly anymore
Maximum efficency... just in time.
Interested to hear in the news about who got fired?
Investigation is on!
Having flown from that airport when I lived there, itâs scary this could have happened to us. Crazy, absolutely crazy
Donald Margolis lost another child.
Man thatâs a cut I wasnât expecting today
That is a dangerous move because of wind vortices. Certainly at least one pilot was in error or about to run out of fuel. The tower would not direct that.
Itâs under investigation and the airline has blamed the ATC in their official tweet.
Anyone can have a bad day. But in that profession, a bad day means somebody died.
Exactly
I love the term âhard landingâ
Drafting?
Thats just efficiency
Risky though!
Microsoft flight simulator
Rofl!
It actually is! MSFS2020 to be precise!
Oh!
they were cutting it close but i don't think this is very uncommon
Why would Boeing do this
It wasnât Boeing, I think the ATC made a mistake..
How all airports should be. Let's GO PEOPLE! Save time, save a dime, maybe a little risky, but I had to make this rhyme.
For people that don't know - IndiGo is like the Spirit/Frontier of India. They give zero fucks
Dude is just floating down the runway. Probably knows there's going to be a video so why not close the gap a little but more for added effect lol
Itâs a 15/20 second window to land and take off on any major airport runway.
Minimums: am I a joke to you?
Dei?
Mumbai.
"Attempted to land"....
Holidays traffic
Efficient use of runway time as long as everything works properly
No, too risky. Too many lives on the line for about 90 seconds saved if the plane in front has to abort.
You are right, safety first
Attempted? Nope, looks like they did it.
If it's on a Boeing, I ain't going
It's India
Mumbai, and?
Not surprising
Ya'll need to understand that people flying the plane and people sitting in ATC do this for a living. Shit was smooth.
Thereâs an ongoing investigation.. ATC apparently screwed up!
My bad. I read the about whole thing after seeing so many posts about it. Got to know people were de-rostered because of it. It was smooth either ways.
Where was the attempt?
India...\*FLUSH\*
At this airport this is not common, and is a mistake. But for airports like Heathrow you do often see planes landing and taking off in succession. Remember that Heathrow is private owned and does care about making a profit. The more planes that land at the airport, the more landing fees they can charge. Of course they still have to follow FDA regulations. This situation right here is cutting it *very* close though. I wouldnât be surprised if fines were dished out.
Some mistakes in your comment - I think you imply âdo care about making a profitâ? Also - maybe the biggest mistake - this doesnât happen. ATC is not run by the airport and is highly regulated.
I know thatâs why I said, 1. Itâs similar to this but no where near as close as this. 2. I said itâs regulated by FDA (I know itâs Americas, but I didnât know the British one)
ATC in the UK is operated by NATS which is a separate entity and regulated by the CAA
What does the Food and Drug Administration have to do with minimum separation and ATC operations?
I meant FAA, apologies.
/insert funny
Didnât seem that risky
I assume that's because you know next to nothing about aviation