[itwasntme]

Flew in directly from South Dakota and landed at KIAL
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...ro-india-2021/

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Flew in directly from South Dakota and landed at KIAL
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Disp...ro-india-2021/

Did it fly non stop and/or without inflight refueling?

[vijai]

My application to FR24 and Flightaware have been rejected twice and now I'm planning on hosting tracker myself. I'm stuck at buying a RTL-SDR dongle and everything that comes up on amazon are about 4 times higher than actual prices. Is there someone here who used to host one but don't anymore? If so, I'm interested in getting the receiver used.

[BoneCollector]

It's Christmas time and Santa is on its way.

Flightradar does this every year.

[itwasntme]

The new media frenzy

6E246



6E455

[sagarpadaki]

Did not quite understand what exactly happened between the two Indigo flights from the news reports. They seem to be more hype than stating what actually happened. Is it that both flights took off one after the other and ended up in a collision path( Rear ending kind of scenario). The ATC detected this in the nick of time and asked one of them to turn right and another to turn left?

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Did not quite understand what exactly happened between the two Indigo flights from the news reports.

Nopes, both took off parallely side-by-side in the same direction at almost the same moment. Again, since both were heading to the east, i.e. BBS & CCU, both would have normally turned in the same direction as well.

It is alleged that ATC tried to cover up the matter as well

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Nopes, both took off parallely side-by-side in the same direction at almost the same moment. Again, since both were heading to the east, i.e. BBS & CCU, both would have normally turned in the same direction as well.

It is alleged that ATC tried to cover up the matter as well

Ahh. Parallel runway scenario did not occur to me. Looks like worst case scenario played out. Two aircrafts heading to destination in the same geographical area, taking off at almost same time parallel to each other.

If ATC tried to cover up, any clue on how the info leaked out?

Anyway, All is well that ends well.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Again, since both were heading to the east, i.e. BBS & CCU, both would have normally turned in the same direction as well.

Exactly, and this would have taken both pilots by surprise during the turn and would have caused a big disaster. Not sure who deserves the bashing in this case. It was a major goof up. This also deserves a thread of its own IMO.

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Ahh. Parallel runway scenario did not occur to me. Looks like worst case scenario played out. Two aircrafts heading to destination in the same geographical area, taking off at almost same time parallel to each other.

Sequence of events was simple:

• Main controller decides to switch from dual runway to single runway ops previous to which North runway was being used for take off and south for landing.
• By this time, there is already one aircraft heading to south runway which is a looong taxi if one hasnt been through this already.
• South runway controller either isnt told about this or has missed this communication and clears the aircraft for take off
• North runway which has now been declared as single runway for both arrival and departure
• Another aircraft cleared for north runway departure

Somehow, the timing is like both of them took off together. But to me its very shocking that such a lapse could occur. And what boggles me further is why this switch frequently from single runway to dual and so on. I guess someone here can throw some light and correct me. Why on earth cant they have two runways operational with a constant assignment of take off and landing? I understand that if there is something pressing, then one of the runways can be shut. And IIRC, both runways now have been upgraded to CAT3b landing hence there is no question of switching runways due to visibility.

Still, ever since the south runway opened and north was upgraded, the usage pattern keeps changing. This has become pretty annoying especially when the south runway is used for eastward departure. It adds more than ten minutes to the taxi time. Similar to when South runway is used for landing in westward direction. Both need to be avoided but the authorities dont act that way. Of course I am dumb when it comes to the technical reason behind this, but just seeing this arrangement logically, it doesnt make any sense to me.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by audioholic

...why this switch frequently from single runway to dual and so on...

Not an expert by any means, but the two runways reportedly aren't far enough apart to be used in parallel concurrently, so operations are still dependent on creating minimum prescribed time/distance separation between aircraft. There may also be flight path restrictions owing to the proximity to Yelahanka AFB (guessing on this aspect).

There might have been land acquisition constraints forcing their hand on the configuration, and two operational runways are still better than one, but it's not optimal.

If the domestic and international terminals get their own runways in the future, this is going to become a traffic bottleneck. How apt for Bangalore

P.S. No aviation operations expertise, open to correction from someone more knowledgeable.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Not an expert by any means, but the two runways reportedly aren't far enough apart to be used in parallel concurrently, so operations are still dependent on creating minimum prescribed time/distance separation between aircraft. .

I think you haven't understood the concept completely in the first place. Let me explain again. Parallel operations are allowed where one runway is used for take off and the other for landing. What is not allowed is parallel take offs or landings at the same time which was never the intended purpose for building the south runway at BLR. Very few airports in the world actually have this and need such an arrangement. For the rest, having dedicated runways for take off and landing solves their needs to a huge extent.

I am mentioning of the switching between single and dual runway operations every day. In the peak hours, both runways are used and then once the traffic reduces or maybe during shift change, it is ramped down to single runway operations. This itself is a messy affair and what was a cause of the whole incident.

And sorry to say, there is no aspect of land acquisition issues and its relation to runway separation for the SPR. The SPR has built on land that was already a part of the Airport property from before and was built in time to support the steep growth in traffic at BLR. If not for Covid, we would have had these two runways being continuously used round the clock and in all weather conditions which is why after the opening of the SPR, the North runway was also upgraded over six months.

The actual land acquisition issue lies with a second North parallel runway which was proposed in the pre-covid era. This runway would have razed a village and hence faced some opposition. After covid hit, I think they shelved this plan. But with the existing two runways, it has been planned well and has more than sufficient separation to allow dual runway operations barring parallel take off and landing, which was exactly against which this incident occurred.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by audioholic

...

I am mentioning of the switching between single and dual runway operations every day. In the peak hours, both runways are used and then once the traffic reduces or maybe during shift change, it is ramped down to single runway operations. This itself is a messy affair and what was a cause of the whole incident...

Thanks, very helpful.

Follow-up question, and one for the aviation experts.

News reports indicate a communication gap between 'north' & 'south' tower. Is that wording meant to imply ATC staff handling traffic on each of the runways, or are there two actual control towers that manage the runways independently while coordinating with each other?

If the latter, what's the advantage of the setup over having a unified control tower?

[TSIboy]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Exactly, and this would have taken both pilots by surprise during the turn and would have caused a big disaster. Not sure who deserves the bashing in this case. It was a major goof up. This also deserves a thread of its own IMO.
[*]South runway controller either isnt told about this or has missed this communication and clears the aircraft for take off[*]North runway which has now been declared as single runway for both arrival and departure[*]Another aircraft cleared for north runway departure[/list]Somehow, the timing is like both of them took off together. But to me its very shocking that such a lapse could occur. And what boggles me further is why this switch frequently from single runway to dual and so on. I guess someone here can throw some light and correct me. Why on earth cant they have two runways operational with a constant assignment of take off and landing? I understand that if there is something pressing, then one of the runways can be shut. And IIRC, both runways now have been upgraded to CAT3b landing hence there is no question of switching runways due to visibility.

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

They seem to be more hype than stating what actually happened.

Quite over sensationalized, typical of our media. Though this incident was very serious!

From what I’ve seen, standard instrument departure for both the runways in this case 09R(south) & 09L(north) share a common waypoint ahead of the north runway. The SID 09R calls for a left turn to join the same path as 09L after takeoff to head to the previously mentioned waypoint, probably why parallel takeoffs are not done here. In this incident, that left turn could have potentially caused a disaster. Pilots who have flown out this airport please add in.

The Swiss cheese theory working out with a happy ending in this case, even with the ATC & crew not realizing their mistake, both the aircrafts are equipped with TCAS which would have already seen this coming and given out advisories to crews of both AC to avoid a collision. The ATC made a BIG mistake for sure, but the crew should also have checked their clearance, I believe the frequency is the same and they would have heard the other crew getting their clearance as well(?) or maybe they dint catch that with the similar iFly callsigns(?) we have to wait for the DGCA report on this.

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

If ATC tried to cover up, any clue on how the info leaked out?

From an article about this from Hindustan Times…

The DGCA further said the incident was not recorded in any logbook, nor was it reported by the Airports Authority of India (AAI).

If it was not reported by both crews or ATC, the aircraft must have snitched on them Airbus planes won’t let you do anything not normal like exceeding speeds, abnormal pitch/bank or any other unusual attitudes without it being reported via the datalink to operator(?) airbus pilots on this forum can give some more info please. If there was a TCAS advisory in this incident could it have been reported by the aircraft to ops? again Airbus pilots please jump in.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Is that wording meant to imply ATC staff handling traffic on each of the runways, or are there two actual control towers that manage the runways independently while coordinating with each other?

Never flown into Bengaluru but I don’t think they have two towers there. It should imply two controllers for each runway as is the case. An airport this size usually different controllers handling delivery, ground, takeoff/landing and whatever comes afterwards. All handing off aircrafts to each other in their sequence. Extremely fun to watch!

[itwasntme]

A nice catch although it was too hazy to get a good look.

[itwasntme]

BOM & NCR folks will laugh but this is a rare sight for BLR: 3 widebodies (B77W, B77L, B788) consecutively:



EDIT: Closely followed by a B763 with only a DH8D in the middle: