What on Earth is going on in Mumbai?

[CAVOKpilot]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/828x746/545c5a32_a0ee_45c1_b544_3b09b5b9f54b_495ba5cf33bce327dd4dbb3 f3be45313498f2a85.jpeg

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==

[DaveReidUK]

I thought for a moment I was looking at Gatwick ...

[DIBO]

Clearly 1000ft separation...
Vertical-horizontal.....tomayto-tomaahto :rolleyes:

[FUMR]

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.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/las_go_around_180587_tta_l1011_and_swa_b737_12bd91b64ae2dde7 65367e9dc64c48466057ea62.jpg

[TCAS FAN]

A case of “……..expect late landing clearance”?

[MPN11]

O. M. G.

[Propellerhead]

Can you get a land after clearance in India? The camera shortens the distance a lot I suspect.

[kiwi grey]

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.

AV Herald report here: https://avherald.com/h?article=519ac9a1&opt=0 (https://avherald.com/h?article=519ac9a1&opt=0)

[DeflatingVest]

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?

[chuboy]

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?

When you are visual and can easily judge the closing distance with the departing traffic, it may have been a judgement call that the likelihood of saving the day by going around and avoiding a crash on the runway in the event they rejected TO was much lower than exacerbating a dangerous situation by remaining in the air up the arse of them with a tower controller who had clearly lost situational awareness.

​​​

[Doors to Automatic]

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.

[richardthethird]

If you take the unnecessary hysteria out of the title and let pilots actually do what they do best, is there really anything to actually see here?

[procede]

If you take the unnecessary hysteria out of the title and let pilots actually do what they do best, is there really anything to actually see here?

It illustrates severely diminishing safety margins by ATC and the pilots in the Indigo aircraft.

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.

[EK380]

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!

[ATC Watcher]

Basically the major factor ( not the only one ) as in Austin is again the same , a delayed take off.
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.
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.

[B2N2]

If you take the unnecessary hysteria out of the title and let pilots actually do what they do best, is there really anything to actually see here?

Yea…there is.
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.

[jumpseater]

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 Avherald report indicates a landing clearance was given first, and then the takeoff clearance. If India works on the European sterile runway model (anyone know?) then this is a major controller error, possibly compounded by the departing crew acting on the takeoff clearance. If they use the US model of non sterile runway clearances then it does have a great deal of similarity to AUS.

[smith]

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?

Once the departing aircraft reaches V1 it is safe for the arriving aircraft to land.

[FUMR]

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.

I would suggest that no party was at "fault"! A situation developed and was safely handled. Only alarmists will want to see anything else!

[AirScotia]

Once the departing aircraft reaches V1 it is safe for the arriving aircraft to land.
How is the landing aircraft supposed to know that the departing aircraft has reached V1?

[MPN11]

Is it not "the departing aircraft hs crossed the upwind end of the runway"?

[Nil by mouth]

Would 'Wake Turbulence' affect the aircraft landing, especially if the aircraft taking off is heavy?

[Propellerhead]

Would 'Wake Turbulence' affect the aircraft landing, especially if the aircraft taking off is heavy?

no. Wake isn’t generated at a high level until the aircraft rotates, and it’s medium behind a medium.

Can’t tell when V1 is but once the aircraft rotates it is by definition above V1

[smith]

How is the landing aircraft supposed to know that the departing aircraft has reached V1?

I was being facetious

[mike current]

The point of non return for ATC is at 2 miles, maybe 1nm if you're really desperate. To let it develop to this stage means there is no "control" - the controller is just a spectator hoping for the best.

At least it wasn't in fog like Austin.

[B2N2]

The point of non return for ATC is at 2 miles, maybe 1nm if you're really desperate. To let it develop to this stage means there is no "control" - the controller is just a spectator hoping for the best.

At least it wasn't in fog like Austin.

Thank you.
Half the posters on this thread only fly heavy jets on Microsoft FS judging by their answers
:rolleyes:

[CAVOKpilot]

A handful of personal opinions here that follow the ‘no harm done’ mantra or similar. But here are my two pennies. There are still minimum separation criteria to maintain. If either of these aircraft experienced an abnormal situation ie rejected take-off or baulked landing then this could have ended rather different. Easy to look back at footage and see the aircraft ahead take off and think the threat is gone but as pilots you need to be ahead of the aircraft at all times. And in the case of the aircraft landing ahead, I can’t imagine the crew being ‘ahead’ of the aircraft by more than a second or two, if at all. Things would have been happening very fast in this scenario. If the aircraft ahead rejected, unless their comms were almost instantaneous then from the position of the landing aircraft it would have taken a few seconds - that they didn’t have - to establish that. With time and space comes options, and I think in this situation ATC and the crews here have whittled away their options to a razor thin margin which thankfully on the day was just enough.

[UnderASouthernSky]

And if the landing aircraft suddenly feels the needs to make a very late GA at around the point of its touchdown, what would the wake turbulence be like as it was climbing out, given how close behind the departing aircraft it would be?

[FUMR]

Thank you.
Half the posters on this thread only fly heavy jets on Microsoft FS judging by their answers
:rolleyes:

And Mike Current is considered an expert by you? Have we heard the ATC tapes? Do we know what was said? Was the Indigo given the option to make his own decision? Finally, this is India and not the UK. Perhaps different criteria exist.

[mike current]

And Mike Current is considered an expert by you? Have we heard the ATC tapes? Do we know what was said? Was the Indigo given the option to make his own decision? Finally, this is India and not the UK. Perhaps different criteria exist.

You're right. We don't have all the facts. On that basis, this whole thread has no reason to exist, not just my post.
As well as a large part of pprune.

[B2N2]

Finally, this is India and not the UK. Perhaps different criteria exist.

That’s not a perhaps that’s a certainty.
You can buy a job, pad your logbook and at random times burst out in coordinated song and dance.

Anyone who doesn’t see a problem with what occurred does not belong in a transport category aircraft.

[BonnieLass]

An update to this is that the ATC concerned with this has been suspended and an investigation launched.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/air-traffic-controller-suspended-after-planes-almost-collide-at-mumbai-airport

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/air-india-indigo-mumbai-airport-near-miss-planes-take-land-same-runway-4398921

[ATC Watcher]

An update to this is that the ATC concerned with this has been suspended and an investigation launched.1 (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/air-india-indigo-mumbai-airport-near-miss-planes-take-land-same-runway-4398921)

Suspending staff after an incident is standard safety procedure everywhere nowadays , it does not imply anything, It is just a safety precaution while the initial investigation is taking place. Journalists do not seem to have understood this.

[Teddy Robinson]

Hmm, I have seen this situation in many airports, UK, European and "third world".

In good VMC, on the flight deck you have a better view than the tower, and given "expect late landing clearance" everyone is aware of the game.
ATC sees the acceleration of the departure better than we do, if something is wrong from their perspective you get a "go around, fly heading XXX remain this frequency"

Meanwhile we have reduced to min APP, and are watching things unfold, the cockpit chatter is "expect a go around", and we inwardly prepare to fly a divergent heading to the right to keep the departure on the left, and await further.

Once the other guy rotates he is gone.
This might just be the perspective held by people who spent thousands of hours mixing it with all kinds of traffic at a GA airfield in the UK, but I also worked in the tower and saw the other side,

In the airline world, I have never heard a "Land after the departing" clearance anywhere in 25 years of line operations.

Fly safe TR

[Smokey23]

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.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/las_go_around_180587_tta_l1011_and_swa_b737_12bd91b64ae2dde7 65367e9dc64c48466057ea62.jpg

Wow! Where's all the casinos? :}

[JanetFlight]

To be very honest i've seen lots of similar scenarios like these here in Portugal and Spain, let alone USA.
Nothing in this video is out of this world!
Peace

[galaxy flyer]

I suspect the landing aircraft had about the right spacing when turned over to tower, probably on the tight side but okay. Now, either the departure was the quickest off the mark, maybe tower delayed the the line-up or cleared transmission by a few seconds, maybe the Indigo on final didn’t slow right to Vref or let the speed get a little fast. You are still trying to land after the BOM delays and a go around will just make the pattern worse. So, finally at a mile going around will involve a while ‘mother set of considerations, so you make it work. Seen it happen many times, perhaps not as close. Well, except for the time we did an impromptu four-ship break up on final.

[FUMR]

Smokey 23

And no parallel runway either!