I just arrived into EGLL as UAL358. The controller working TWR and Ground (LCL/GND/FD as we refer to those positions here in the US), lined up a RYR as I was less than 3nm final for 27R. The aircraft was then cleared for immediate takeoff as I was 1.6nm from touchdown. This is insanely tight, and so, I was issued a go-around, as my wheels were touching down, and my speed brakes deploying. A go-around was not possible or more safe and (if I was exercising my rights as PIC in the real world) would’ve unabled the controller had I seen the option to do so in the replies. The RYR was a few thousand feet in front of me and accelerating. I had already set Autobrakes to Medium, and switched them to MAX upon setting the nose wheel down. Touchdown was at 134 KIAS.
As a recently retired real-world controller of 31 years, to include 4 Control Tower Operator licenses: At that point, you just take the runway separation error, file a safety action report, and learn from the mistakes. No punitive action would be taken as it certainly wasn’t negligence or malicious.
Sending aircraft around on runway heading, while an aircraft is departing directly in front of them isn’t the smartest idea. Both aircraft are going to accelerate and potentially exacerbate the problem already caused.
Was this on Expert or Training server? If you can figure out who the controller was from your replay, I would send them a private message.
In this scenario, I likely would have gone around on a 300-320 heading to avoid conflict with departure and called the g/a to ATC.
I typically operate EGLL with a dedicated departure and arrival runway for operational advantage, as it establishes a directional taxi flow and allows for steady departure and arrival flow rates with reduced risk of conflict. I only open both runways to arrivals when inbound volume becomes excessively high.
A go around on runway heading creates an even worse scenario, similar to what happened in Austin with a FedEx 767 on a 3 mile final and Southwest 737 holding short 18L. WN was cleared for takeoff (no immediate of expedite) and was slow to roll.
This was in light traffic and tower was unable to see the runway due to low vis with 1/8sm visibility, a runway RVR of 1800 ft in FZFG with VV002.
FedEx spotted the WN 737 in low visibility at 150 feet AGL and executed a go around. WN should have had its takeoff clearance cancelled but continued to roll. At the very least, go around traffic needs a diverging trajectory. While we can’t issue a specific heading or altitude for aircraft on the go, a right traffic instruction would have been preferable.
Your feedback is spot on for the scenario you described and appreciate you sharing this with community in a manner that creates a learning opportunity.
It’s my pleasure to help. It was on the Expert server.
As far as the AUS incident goes, you are preaching to the choir! I do remember who it was but, I’ll send you a private message to avoid outing them.
I was surprised they were landing and departing both runways, as the few times I’ve visited EGLL it was as your described. One side for the arrivals, one side for the departures.
Even 5 seconds earlier, and I could’ve executed the go-around. My mains were literally on the runway, and the speed brakes had deployed. At that point, unless the aircraft is going to absolutely strike another aircraft, vehicle or object: I’m not going airborne again in that situation.
I agree that any divergent heading would’ve been advisable given that any assigned heading to be immediately flown remains clear of obstructions, (not a problem on IF, lol).
My point here is that the decision-making process to initiate the go-around was way too slow. If the departing aircraft hasn’t started rolling by 1.5nm-2nm, just initiate the go-around then, there’s nothing wrong initiating a go-around that far out when operating at what really amounts to single-runway operations. I’m sure that it is I that is preaching to the choir now! HAHA.
Sometimes such mistakes happen, which is a sad situation. If you received a VIO from IFATC, you can contact @appeals and appeal with your evidence. If you have not received a VIO, you can contact the IFATC there via DMs and explain their mistakes. They will be happy to listen to you.
Update!: I’ve spoken with the controller via DM, and they were very gracious in their message. I really enjoy this community, flying with all of you, and the interaction today reinforces all of those good vibes!
Didn’t you initiate TOGA power and do a touch and go or were you too slow. What aircraft were you flying, at 134 KIAS some aircraft can still get airborne again especially the smaller ones like the B737 or A320. If you were in a heavy then it depends on weight and your judgment.
Well a B772 which is what UAL operates in some routes to LHR can be able to get airborne if he initiated 109% N1 from 134 KIAS anyways. I’m guessing any other UAL wide body in the simulator can do that in normal conditions because the aircraft in this simulator are very overpowered.
I had one finger on the autobrake button to set it to max as the trailing aircraft was in fairly close behind me, and the other on the rudder to “kick the rudder” out on short final to line up the nose wheel. Maybe that would be a good addition for future mods… a dedicated “TOGA” button.
I had one finger on the autobrake button to set it to max as the trailing aircraft was in fairly close behind me, and the other on the rudder to “kick the rudder” out on short final to line up the nose wheel. Maybe that would be a good addition for future mods… a dedicated “TOGA” button.
I’m fairly coordinated but, not that coordinated to get a 3rd finger on another button to get that thing airborne after touching down! HAHA
Ah okay, I guess an experience is a learning one. Next time if something like this happens the realistic thing to do would be to go around as I’m sure you know. From my experience in landings there’s no need to set the auto brakes to MAX upon landing, just use the manual brakes which is on the rudder control you just need to drag your finger down.
I was thinking something similar as well, the limitations of ATC instructions here reared their proverbial head here.
As a controller, I’ve already discussed the issues/consequences that arose from running the squeeze play and as a CTO, given the position of the preceding departing traffic; I’m letting the succeeding aircraft land. It was much closer, (i.e. FDX-SWA at AUS: Yes, the succeeding aircraft is going around, 100%). It’s all situational, and I feel fortunate to have experienced so many different scenarios.
My takeaway from this as a “pilot” from this end?: I’ll keep a thumb on the throttle, and thumb on the A/P disconnect!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
BTW: I love this civil discussion this has sparked!
Better yet, hand fly the approach. It’ll be easier to initiate a go around if needed especially at busy airports where there are a lot of immature pilots around. That’s what I do but luckily I haven’t had to do a go around as much.