Rischio di collisione in pista

[Maxx]

http://avherald.com/h?article=495ba02e&opt=0

[Lampo 13]

Diciamo che il 737 abbia toccato a 300 mt dalla testata pista, vuole dire che ha evitato il 319 dopo 400/500 metri di "ruote a terra"... avranno avuto ancora almeno una 80ina di kts
Se la sono vista veramente brutta!

[Maxx]

Con rischio non solo di sbatterci contro, ma anche di rompere i carrelli e far finire l’aereo chissà dove, magari con principio di incendio e via dicendo. Non penso che in quel momento abbiano pensato alla resistenza del carrello a quella velocità, ma solo a salvare la pelle!

[SuperMau]

Dando un'occhiata ai commenti, si puo' veramente gridare al miracolo...e alle capacita' di guida alla Schumacher dei piloti Korean..

Calculating from the fact that runway width is 60m and wingspan of 738 is 36m, A319 had to be completely on the runway, not just a bit past stop line. 60m - 15m (distance of R 738 wingtip from edge of runway if it went completely to left edge) -10m makes 35 meters. That is the length of 319, so if what is written in report is true, A319 was completely on runway ..

.

[JT8D]

Secondo gli ultimi aggiornamenti, sembra che l'hanno evitato per soli 3 metri... !!

"On Apr 13th 2016 China's Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) confirmed the occurrence stating that the minimum distance between wing tip of the Boeing and the nose of the A319 had been only 3 meters. China Southern initially did not report essential information and tried to avoid answering all the key questions to explain the occurrence, it also turned out the cockpit voice recorder was deleted. Only after further querying the airline came up with an explanation of the events stating the crew misunderstood an ATC instruction. The CAAC added, that there had been 21 occurrences of runway incursions in the recent 15 months in China, 4 of which were caused by China Southern (editorial note: none of which came into public knowledge following a drastic change of CAAC policy in about 2011 stopping public disclosure of occurrences and even removing information up to 2011 still present on their website up to 2015)".

(http://avherald.com/h?article=495ba02e&opt=0)

Paolo

[MartaP]

....apperò.....

"China Southern initially did not report essential information and tried to avoid answering all the key questions to explain the occurrence, it also turned out the cockpit voice recorder was deleted. "

..non è grave, questo atteggiamento ??

The CAAC ( China's Civil Aviation Authority) added that there had been 21 occurrences of runway incursions in the recent 15 months in China, 4 of which were caused by China Southern (editorial note: none of which came into public knowledge following a drastic change of CAAC policy in 2011 about stopping public disclosure of occurrences and even removing information up to 2011 still present on their website up to 2015)".

[Fabio Airbus]

Sarò prevenuto, ma io di piloti e linee del Sudest non è che mi fidi tanto.

[JT8D]

Rilasciato il final report, la cui sintesi potete leggere qui:

http://avherald.com/h?article=495ba02e&opt=0

"On Mar 27th 2018 South Korea's ARAIB released their final report in Korean concluding the probable cause of the serious incident was:

The crew of China Southern Airlines B-6039 mistook the clearance "Runway 24R, taxi via B3" as clearance to enter the runway at B3 and proceed to the take off position while the clearance actually meant: taxi to runway 24R via B3, hold short of runway 24R. The aircraft thus entered the runway without clearance while HL7786 was just landing on the runway.

Contributing factors were:

- Ground Control did not issue a hold short, holding point or end point in the taxi instruction to B-6039

- China Southern Airlines' training of ground control procedures and ground control procedures' language was insufficient".

Paolo