Air carrier X takeoff on occupied runway had less than standard separation with dc-9 takeoff on same runway. System error.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	261870
Time
Date	199401
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : msp
State Reference	MN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 13500 flight time type : 6000
ASRS Report	261870
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	conflict : ground less severe non adherence : published procedure non adherence : required legal separation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 5000
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Error

Narrative:

Air carrier X - # 1 for takeoff, the tower asked us if we would accept an immediate departure, we said yes. We were cleared into position on runway 29L behind a departing dc-9. Tower then said, keep the dc-9 ahead in sight cleared for immediate takeoff. There was another aircraft on short final for our runway (approximately 2-3 mi final). We began our takeoff roll with preceding dc-9 still on the runway. We were thinking, as I am sure the tower was thinking, that he would be airborne shortly. The preceding dc-9 was evidently heavy because he did not become airborne until we had reached 90 KTS. Separation with the dc-9 ahead was not the problem, we had him in sight. However, if the preceding dc-9 had aborted, it would have been uncomfortable. I do not believe a takeoff clearance should be issued until the preceding aircraft has taken off. As for my part. I am going to be very suspicious of being placed in this position with an aircraft on the runway and one on short final. Better to slow it down and wait for a bigger takeoff slot.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X TKOF ON OCCUPIED RWY HAD LTSS WITH DC-9 TKOF ON SAME RWY. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: ACR X - # 1 FOR TKOF, THE TWR ASKED US IF WE WOULD ACCEPT AN IMMEDIATE DEP, WE SAID YES. WE WERE CLRED INTO POS ON RWY 29L BEHIND A DEPARTING DC-9. TWR THEN SAID, KEEP THE DC-9 AHEAD IN SIGHT CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF. THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT ON SHORT FINAL FOR OUR RWY (APPROX 2-3 MI FINAL). WE BEGAN OUR TKOF ROLL WITH PRECEDING DC-9 STILL ON THE RWY. WE WERE THINKING, AS I AM SURE THE TWR WAS THINKING, THAT HE WOULD BE AIRBORNE SHORTLY. THE PRECEDING DC-9 WAS EVIDENTLY HVY BECAUSE HE DID NOT BECOME AIRBORNE UNTIL WE HAD REACHED 90 KTS. SEPARATION WITH THE DC-9 AHEAD WAS NOT THE PROB, WE HAD HIM IN SIGHT. HOWEVER, IF THE PRECEDING DC-9 HAD ABORTED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE. I DO NOT BELIEVE A TKOF CLRNC SHOULD BE ISSUED UNTIL THE PRECEDING ACFT HAS TAKEN OFF. AS FOR MY PART. I AM GOING TO BE VERY SUSPICIOUS OF BEING PLACED IN THIS POS WITH AN ACFT ON THE RWY AND ONE ON SHORT FINAL. BETTER TO SLOW IT DOWN AND WAIT FOR A BIGGER TKOF SLOT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.