Near-Miss For UK Charter Airline | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.22.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.16.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-04.17.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-04.18.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.19.24

Sat, Dec 09, 2006

Near-Miss For UK Charter Airline

Aircraft Passes 56 Feet From Vehicle On Runway

A 737 operated by the UK's Excel Airways missed a vehicle on the runway it was using by only 56 feet according to an official report released Friday from the country's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).

The flight was departing Manchester bound for the Greek island of Kos with 190 passengers aboard in July 2003. The pilots were unaware the runway they were using was operating at a reduced length to allow for a team removing rubber deposits at the departure end.

The reports says the pilots couldn't see the opposite end of the runway because of a slight rise in the middle. It wasn't until the aircraft cleared the rise that the pilot saw the vehicles at the far end. By that time it was too late to abort the takeoff. The pilots believed they cleared the vehicles with a good margin.

The report found the crew were unaware of the reduced runway length available and irregularities with the way the airport and ATC handled disseminating information.

In fact, a day earlier, ATC directed three separate airliners to go around after clearing them to land on the same runway. When asked, none of the three crews were aware of the rubber-removal operation, or the reduced runway available. After telling the tower they couldn't accept a landing under the conditions, they were told to go around and assigned another runway.

AAIB says while the aircrew was clearly at fault, procedures for planning and managing future runway maintenance activities were altered to address concerns the agency expressed to both the operators of Manchester Airport and the National Air Traffic Service.

The primary cause of the near-disaster according to the AAIB was the flight crew did not realize the runway was operating at reduced length despite being in possession of a NOTAM concerning the work-in-progress, an ATIS broadcast relating to the work-in-progress and ATC passing information on the takeoff distance available.

FMI: www.aaib.dft.gov.uk

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.26.24): DETRESFA (Distress Phrase)

DETRESFA (Distress Phrase) The code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and i>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.26.24)

Aero Linx: The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) The International Association of Missionary Aviation (IAMA) is comprised of Mission organizations, flight sch>[...]

Airborne 04.22.24: Rotor X Worsens, Airport Fees 4 FNB?, USMC Drone Pilot

Also: EP Systems' Battery, Boeing SAF, Repeat TBM 960 Order, Japan Coast Guard H225 Buy Despite nearly 100 complaints totaling millions of dollars of potential fraud, combined with>[...]

Airborne 04.24.24: INTEGRAL E, Elixir USA, M700 RVSM

Also: Viasat-uAvionix, UL94 Fuel Investigation, AF Materiel Command, NTSB Safety Alert Norges Luftsportforbund chose Aura Aero's little 2-seater in electric trim for their next gli>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 04.23.24: UAVOS UVH 170, magni650 Engine, World eVTOL Directory

Also: Moya Delivery Drone, USMC Drone Pilot, Inversion RAY Reentry Vehicle, RapidFlight UAVOS has recently achieved a significant milestone in public safety and emergency services >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC