Austin International Airport: near disaster

MFE said:
Anybody recognize this voice?

Click to expand...
I do, and not just from the previous video. Pretty sure I’ve actually met that controller when touring KAUS Tower (and TRACON). Great tour.

Sadly, I’d say my impression was consistent with comments in a previous post about the person.

Also, I gotta say I thought the SWA pilot in the video was a d!€k. (Same for the unidentified other voice)
 
Seems like a bigger place to have “uncontrolled ground”
 
Sure would be interesting to hear the SWA cockpit audio which makes me wonder: in a case like this is the cockpit voice recorder thingy pulled or dumped? If it did fly on to its destination would the audio most likely be overwritten?

Sorry if already mentioned - as much as the SWA pilots seemed perhaps "no big deal" - if they truly reached their rotate speed at least they didn't go against that training/procedure and end up massive fully fueled fireball 1000ft past the end of the runway only to have the FedEx flight end with a incredibly well managed emergency procedure and a normal landing after going around.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Also, I gotta say I thought the SWA pilot in the video was a d!€k. (Same for the unidentified other voice)
Click to expand...

[NSFW warning]
I mean, in fairness, it's just part of their indoc training. If they're not rolling coal, bashing Hyundais (I had no opinion of my incidental Hyundai ownership, now I love to drive my Hyundai to my SWA-plurality workplace) or getting sent to sensitivity training over the 3Gs, no 4th stripe for you. It's probably why upgrade takes 8 years. (too soon?) Surprised they haven't mandated cowboy boots, just like those soviet sub commanders over at the widget airline's politburo mandate that outsized hat wear indoors.
DcyPe.gif

:stirpot: :fingerwag:
 
Racerx said:
Fdx knew something was amiss when he asked to verify he was clear to land. They knew what SWA and AUS was oblivious to.

Fdx should send AUS the dry cleaning bill because they had to have crapped themselves seeing SWA.
Click to expand...

I wonder how the SWA crew felt all the way to Cancun knowing that they almost died,they had to know, that would have shook me to the core,
 
hindsight2020 said:
Surprised they haven't mandated cowboy boots, just like those soviet sub commanders over at the widget airline's politburo mandate that outsized hat wear indoors.
Click to expand...

Dear gawd… sprayed my coffee… hilarious!
 
hindsight2020 said:
[NSFW warning]
I mean, in fairness, it's just part of their indoc training. If they're not rolling coal, bashing Hyundais (I had no opinion of my incidental Hyundai ownership, now I love to drive my Hyundai to my SWA-plurality workplace) or getting sent to sensitivity training over the 3Gs, no 4th stripe for you. It's probably why upgrade takes 8 years. (too soon?) Surprised they haven't mandated cowboy boots, just like those soviet sub commanders over at the widget airline's politburo mandate that outsized hat wear indoors.
DcyPe.gif

:stirpot: :fingerwag:
Click to expand...
Pretty sure hats are optional at delta now.
 
Brother was telling me about a controller that they wanted to wash out years ago but were worried about the racism issue. Navy vet who had the preference points to get hired on a 5 year FAA contract. Been at the facility for 4 years and still not tower rated. One day while on LC position and my brother working CIC, he told him to put his book (Bible) up and concentrate on his traffic. He told my brother that he’s seen other students on position that were reading books. My brother told him that those students didn’t make the mistakes that he made. His angry reply, “I have the right to make mistakes!” And that’s the culture you have today penetrating a safety related job that should be concentrated on hiring the best vs meeting a quota.
 
Velocity173 said:
Brother was telling me about a controller that they wanted to wash out years ago but were worried about the racism issue. Navy vet who had the preference points to get hired on a 5 year FAA contract. Been at the facility for 4 years and still not tower rated. One day while on LC position and my brother working CIC, he told him to put his book (Bible) up and concentrate on his traffic. He told my brother that he’s seen other students on position that were reading books. My brother told him that those students didn’t make the mistakes that he made. His angry reply, “I have the right to make mistakes!” And that’s the culture you have today penetrating a safety related job that should be concentrated on hiring the best vs meeting a quota.
Click to expand...
"...5 year FAA contract..." Never heard of anything like that before. How does that 'contract' thing work?
 
luvflyin said:
"...5 year FAA contract..." Never heard of anything like that before. How does that 'contract' thing work?
Click to expand...

Never heard of it either. He said at the time (2012) they were giving 5 year contracts to former military controllers.
 
Has he been demoted to management. Kinda sounds like nothing will happen to him.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Has he been demoted to management. Kinda sounds like nothing will happen to him.
Click to expand...

Doubtful he goes into management. There is a saying though, those that can, control, those that can’t, work behind a desk.
 
In a office with no windows…
 
Paul is really good at setting the record straight:

This is the classic no good deed goes unpunished. His argument is that if FedEx may have saved the day by exercising good judgment on the go-around, they should have done better by exercising it earlier, in which case there would have been no loss of separation and no evening news stories. Judgment. And rendered after the fact, it’s always easier than doing it on the fly with seconds to decide.
Click to expand...
 
Domenick said:
Let no good deed go unpunished. Why the FedEx pilots lawyered up:
https://www.avweb.com/insider/austin-revisited-the-quest-for-heroes/
Click to expand...

I see issues with the earlier initiation of a landing abort and go around the writer could have expanded upon. The FedEx pilot's Spidey sense was already tingling; he had asked ATC for confirmation he was cleared to land.

When, after an apparent delay in initiation of his takeoff, around a minute that would have greatly reduced the separation between the 767 and the 737, the Southwest pilot announced he had belatedly begun to roll. I won't bother going back to get the exact timing from the tape, but within seconds the FedEx pilot made the radio call for the other aircraft to abort and announced he was on the go. I think while he had continued the approach prior to that instant, he was aware the situation could turn ugly; there's no doubt he was guarding the throttles.

The assertions made by the Aviation Web writer's "airline pilot friend of mine" can certainly be questioned. Making the call for an earlier go around may sound proper in retrospect. But the FedEx pilot had already displayed good situational awareness by questioning the controller about the landing clearance. Until the radio call by the Southwest pilot that he was rolling, the FedEx pilot had the belief there was adequate separation, and I believe an earlier go around could have introduced another set of safety issues and increased danger.

The weather conditions at the time were dismal. The 767 was on a Cat III approach, and had a landing clearance that had been verified as appropriate. He had no reason at that moment to suspect the 737 was not in fact executing its takeoff and likely airborne or very near it. Would it have been been advisable to abandon the precision approach at that time and fly a go around in those conditions, with another aircraft in close proximity and possibly airborne and executing maneuvers that could create a conflict between the two?

Secondly, the airline pilot friend feels the use of nonstandard phraseology and instructing the Southwest pilot to abort when he had no authority to do so was improper and ill-advised; he believes the pilot will be called to account for it, and presumably agrees that should occur.

This is post-event, almost smug, internet judgement at its worst. In a clearly dangerous situation that could have turned deadly in seconds, I'll give a pass to the FedEx pilot. His radio transmission was a desperate and critical attempt to avert a disaster.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
...Secondly, the airline pilot friend feels the use of nonstandard phraseology and instructing the Southwest pilot to abort when he had no authority to do so was improper and ill-advised; he believes the pilot will be called to account for it, and presumably agrees that should occur....
Click to expand...

That makes NO sense to me. 91.3(b) CLEARLY applied, and given the fast-moving situation, it doesn't sound like there was time to figure out what the standard phraseology was for requesting another pilot to abort his takeoff, if there even is such a thing.

"(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
 
Really good explanation of what happened from a airline pilot and a little bit about Southwest culture:

 
FPK1 said:
Really good explanation of what happened from a airline pilot and a little bit about Southwest culture:

Click to expand...

Video gives some clarity but I found it to be a bit disappointing. Twenty minutes to say (without trying to say it) that it's on the controller. Of course the controller didn't mean to do it but it's clear that he knew he was to blame as he actually apologies to FedEx for his screw up ...
 
Yeah not much information in that vid other than stating the obvious. 1) it’s on the controller and 2) there’s no standard as far as SWA taking the runway and rolling.

He brings up an important point which might very well be true though. The controller might have been anticipating a quicker response from SWA based on past experience. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve done the same thing when I did ATC but you gotta have a plan B when your original plan fails when the pilot does something unexpected. Clear SWA for takeoff but when you don’t get the rolling call by 2 miles, cancel the takeoff clearance.

This isn’t just a simple oh well it’s just a mental error on the part of the controller. This was not correcting an error that could’ve ended very badly if it weren’t for the SA on the part of Fedex.
 
I've watched a couple of his videos. I think his target audience is the flying public, and he seems to do a good job of calming people down and pointing out the different layers of safety that are built into the airline world. Or in other words, seems like a good guy. Not surprised he would take a while to explain it, and defends the pilots while giving a bit of an out for the controller.

Not defending the controller at all...just the 747 guy's presentation. He seems to be a nice balance to the uneducated gloom and doom of news people.
 
I was thinking about this near miss. I'm not sure if anyone posted this on this thread, it's way too much for me to read through right now, so forgive me if I'm reposting.

In the weeks prior to this near miss, KAUS had been using one runway for takeoff and one for landing. I honestly didn't even know they had stopped doing this. The local commercial pilots (smaller planes) were complaining because their FBOs are on the East side of the airport and they had to taxi to the West side to take off. The FedEx guys were complaining because they had to land on the East side, but they're based on the West side. The controllers responded that they didn't like it either, but it was an experiment the FAA was forcing them to do.

I'm wondering if the FAA will consider making this a permanent change going forward. Inconvenient, but pretty much eliminates the risk.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I was thinking about this near miss. I'm not sure if anyone posted this on this thread, it's way too much for me to read through right now, so forgive me if I'm reposting.

In the weeks prior to this near miss, KAUS had been using one runway for takeoff and one for landing. I honestly didn't even know they had stopped doing this. The local commercial pilots (smaller planes) were complaining because their FBOs are on the East side of the airport and they had to taxi to the West side to take off. The FedEx guys were complaining because they had to land on the East side, but they're based on the West side. The controllers responded that they didn't like it either, but it was an experiment the FAA was forcing them to do.

I'm wondering if the FAA will consider making this a permanent change going forward. Inconvenient, but pretty much eliminates the risk.
Click to expand...

I could see the complaint, and if traffic is slow I see no reason why the most convenient runway couldn't be used. But if traffic is getting heavy, it makes sense to use both parallels to their full potential, and separating departures and arrivals makes the most sense.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I could see the complaint, and if traffic is slow I see no reason why the most convenient runway couldn't be used. But if traffic is getting heavy, it makes sense to use both parallels to their full potential, and separating departures and arrivals makes the most sense.
Click to expand...
It seems like it would also make sense in low-visibility conditions.
 
The controller is clearly at fault. Certainly however the Southwest crew was a factor. Cleared to takeoff with traffic 3 miles out and taking 1:20 seconds to start rolling is a problem. The FedEx call about 25 seconds out should have scared the living hell out of the Southwest crew but there was no apparent reaction. The FedEx crew likely thought tower could see the SW aircraft position on ground radar not realizing they don’t have it at Austin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top