What on Earth is going on in Mumbai?
Thread Starter
What on Earth is going on in Mumbai?
IndiGo A320 touching down on runway 27 just seconds after Air India rotates shortly ahead of it. What’s going on here? Love to hear people’s thoughts and experiences.
Link here on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C79ynD7hKb3/?igsh=MWV3ZjJ1NWFvcThqYw==
The following 4 users liked this post by DaveReidUK:
The following 3 users liked this post by DIBO:
Possibly left at the discretion of the Indigo to continue or go around. I personally witnessed a very similar incident at Las Vegas a good many years ago. In that particular case the landing aircraft elected to go around just prior to touchdown as the departing was only just rotating. With the landing aircraft putting power on to go-around, separation was further reduced until it turned away. I photographed the event. Must see if I can find that slide. EDIT: Found it. It was at LAS in May 1987, featuring a departing (and heavy) Total Air L-1011 Tristar (N701TT) and a SWA B737.
Last edited by FUMR; 9th Jun 2024 at 10:51.
The following 3 users liked this post by FUMR:
The following 2 users liked this post by TCAS FAN:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,855
Received 156 Likes
on
72 Posts
O. M. G.
An Indigo Airbus A320-200N, registration VT-ISV performing flight 6E-5053 from Indore to Mumbai (India), was cleared to land on Mumbai's runway 27.
At the same time an Air India Airbus A320-200N, registration VT-RTS performing flight AI-657 from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram (India), was cleared to line up runway 27 and subsequently for takeoff.
[snip]
India's DGCA opened an investigation and de-rostered an Air Traffic Controller.
At the same time an Air India Airbus A320-200N, registration VT-RTS performing flight AI-657 from Mumbai to Thiruvananthapuram (India), was cleared to line up runway 27 and subsequently for takeoff.
[snip]
India's DGCA opened an investigation and de-rostered an Air Traffic Controller.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Finland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could the professionals of the forum (I'm not one) help me understand the thought/decision-making process of the landing crew? Judging by the photo, visibility seems OK – unlike, for instance the Fedex/SW Austin incident, so they must've been fully aware of the departing traffic. Apparently they must've considered it safer to land – being ready for a go-around, assumingly – rather than go around right away. Yet, what if the departing traffic had rejected?
Last edited by DeflatingVest; 10th Jun 2024 at 05:58. Reason: typo
Could the professionals of the forum (I'm not one) help me understand the thought/decision-making process of the landing crew? Judging by the photo, visibility seems OK – unlike, for instance the Fedex/SW Austin incident, so they must've been fully aware of the departing traffic. Apparently they must've considered it safer to land – being ready for a go-around, assumingly – rather than go around right away. Yet, what if the departing traffic had rejected?
It is likely that as soon as the landing crew saw the rotation they calculated that both the separation distance was increasing and RTO was off the table. Continuing would have been the safer option than a GA.
The following 5 users liked this post by Doors to Automatic:
The following 3 users liked this post by richardthethird:
A go around should have been made by the Indigo aircraft (probably after being called out by the tower) one or two nautical miles earlier. At the time of the start of the video, it was no longer an option as a go around would have made the situation worse by creating an airborne conflict.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Earth, where else?
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondering if the landing Indigo, did the long landing (outside the TDZ) on purpose in order to wait for the aircraft taking off to be airborne.
If so, it's even more dangerous!
If so, it's even more dangerous!
Pegase Driver
Basically the major factor ( not the only one ) as in Austin is again the same , a delayed take off.
Would be interested is listening to the R/T on that one to see if the controller used the word " expedite" and gave distance of the one on finals when issuing the T/O clearance.
The aircraft entered the runway at 00:44:18Z, was lined up with the runway centerline at 00:44:43Z and accelerated through 30 knots over ground at 00:45:14Z.
Same as with the FedEx/Southwest incident where the FedEx went around. Difference being they were in IMC.
Three parties at fault here.
ATC for their clearance with insufficient separation, the crew for lining up with insufficient separation and the crew not going around with <2 miles and and aircraft lining up.
The following 4 users liked this post by B2N2:
Basically the major factor ( not the only one ) as in Austin is again the same , a delayed take off.
Would be interested is listening to the R/T on that one to see if the controller used the word " expedite" and gave distance of the one on finals when issuing the T/O clearance.
Would be interested is listening to the R/T on that one to see if the controller used the word " expedite" and gave distance of the one on finals when issuing the T/O clearance.
Could the professionals of the forum (I'm not one) help me understand the thought/decision-making process of the landing crew? Judging by the photo, visibility seems OK – unlike, for instance the Fedex/SW Austin incident, so they must've been fully aware of the departing traffic. Apparently they must've considered it safer to land – being ready for a go-around, assumingly – rather than go around right away. Yet, what if the departing traffic had rejected?
The following users liked this post: