 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
First officer reported he was concerned with an ATC procedure at hnl that he felt could lead to an unsafe conflict if a go-around was required.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1351910 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201604 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | HNL.Airport |
| State Reference | HI |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Landing |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict |
Narrative:
Landing on 8L via the channel. Traffic was also landing 4L (originally assigned to 4R I think) arriving from over ford island. They passed over the first 2;000 feet of 8L while on a downwind/base to 4L at +500 feet from us (as shown on TCAS) just as we crossed the threshold of 8L. If we'd have had to initiate a go around anywhere between 400 feet and the runway; and started climbing; we would have been in direct conflict with the aircraft landing on the 4s.ATC failed to sequence traffic to both runways. We had a hold short (of 4L clearance) so there was no issue at the other end of the runway; but ATC allowed the timing to be such that both aircraft were at the approach end of 8L at the same time.after landing; I questioned ground as to what altitude traffic should cross 8L when on a downwind/base for the 4s and he said 800 feet. This traffic was clearly lower than that as we were less than 100 feet and the TCAS target showed +500 feet.ATC needs to find a way to deconflict traffic over the approach end of 8L. As long as the traffic landing on 8L doesn't have to go around; there is no problem with the 4s traffic being there; but if the 8L traffic ever had to go around; there could potentially be a problem. I know this is normal procedure for hnl but it seems like a large safety hole.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: First Officer reported he was concerned with an ATC procedure at HNL that he felt could lead to an unsafe conflict if a go-around was required.
Narrative: Landing on 8L via the channel. Traffic was also landing 4L (originally assigned to 4R I think) arriving from over Ford Island. They passed over the first 2;000 feet of 8L while on a downwind/base to 4L at +500 feet from us (as shown on TCAS) just as we crossed the threshold of 8L. If we'd have had to initiate a go around anywhere between 400 feet and the runway; and started climbing; we would have been in direct conflict with the aircraft landing on the 4s.ATC failed to sequence traffic to both runways. We had a hold short (of 4L clearance) so there was no issue at the other end of the runway; but ATC allowed the timing to be such that both aircraft were at the approach end of 8L at the same time.After landing; I questioned ground as to what altitude traffic should cross 8L when on a downwind/base for the 4s and he said 800 feet. This traffic was clearly lower than that as we were less than 100 feet and the TCAS target showed +500 feet.ATC needs to find a way to deconflict traffic over the approach end of 8L. As long as the traffic landing on 8L doesn't have to go around; there is no problem with the 4s traffic being there; but if the 8L traffic ever had to go around; there could potentially be a problem. I know this is normal procedure for HNL but it seems like a large safety hole.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.