Two planes almost collide on runway at Barcelona airport

[love2fly14]

Not sure if this has been posted,
http://viralrapid.com/two-planes-almost ... na-airport

[Colonel Sanders]

I almost had the beer-battered fish and chips
at Jack Astor's, last night.

[Condorito]

Too bad for Neymar, he broke his back and won't be able to play for the rest of the World Cup.

[CFR]

"WHOOP WHOOP NON-EVENT ... WHOOP WHOOP NON-EVENT"

[CpnCrunch]

I find it interesting that so many posters think this is a 'non event'. That's certainly a major fuckup by either the pilot or ATC (or both). If that plane had been taking off rather than landing, or if it had been closer to touchdown, things might have ended differently.

I also note that none of the posters above are responsible for the lives of a hundred passengers....

[bizjets101]

Telephoto lens makes it appear far closer than it was; distance from the runway threshold of runway 02 to the point where the A340 crossed at taxiway Mike is 1166 m (3826 ft)

Airport diagram of incursion site; https://twitter.com/bizjet101/status/486168193690775553

[robshelle]

Also change the scenario to 1/2 mile visibility and the arrival A/C might not have done a go around as either they, or the tower controllers might not have been aware that a runway incursion was taking place.

Robshelle

[single_swine_herder]

As I hear disappointingly often when discussing corporate culture, professional standards, SMS, Risk Management, Operational Control, etc with AOC holders on behalf of clients during safety audits or with AOC staff in mainly 703 or 704 operations ....

"Nobody was hurt, so what's the problem? Why are you making this a big deal?"

Because there was a major systems failure here that somebody got away with .... (this time) .... that's why.

[CFR]

You missed the point ... The title of the news article was "two planes almost collide" which is not true. Was it an "F" up? Yup. Is somebody going to get a whack on the pp or worse? Yup, but "almost collide" - nope. Newspapers sensationalizing stories does nothing to help the publics understanding of flying. Nor do spouting statistics like 99.9 percent safety record which actually means (US stats) ...

12 newborns will be given to the wrong parents daily.

114,500 mismatched pairs of shoes will be shipped/year.

18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled/hour.

2,000,000 documents will be lost by the IRS this year.

2.5 million books will be shipped with the wrong covers.

Two planes landing at Chicago's O'Hare airport will be unsafe every day.

315 entries in Webster's dictionary will be misspelled.

20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be written this year.

880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have incorrect
cardholder information on their magnetic strips.

103,260 income tax returns will be processed incorrectly during the year.

5.5 million cases of soft drinks produced will be flat.

291 pacemaker operations will be performed incorrectly.

3,056 copies of tomorrow's Wall Street Journal will be missing one of the
three sections.

In this case the checks and balances in the system worked the way they were supposed to, in fact why couldn't that have been the headline "professionalism and procedures prevent runway incursion from becoming worse!".

[Pratt X 3]

Incident: Argentinas A343 at Barcelona on Jul 5th 2014, runway incursion

By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Jul 6th 2014 18:27Z, last updated Monday, Jul 7th 2014 14:58Z

An Aerolineas Argentinas Airbus A340-300, registration LV-FPV performing flight AR-1163 from Barcelona,SP (Spain) to Buenos Aires,BA (Argentina), had already crossed runway 02 at taxiways K and D and was taxiing for departure along taxiway M for departure from runway 25R. Without slowing the aircraft crossed active runway 02.

At the time a UTAir Boeing 767-300, registration VQ-BSX performing flight UT-5187 from Moscow Domodedovo (Russia) to Barcelona,SP (Spain), was on short final to runway 02 descending through about 200 feet AGL, when the crew initiated a go-around after spotting the Airbus crossing the runway near the runway midpoint. The aircraft positioned for another approach to runway 02 and landed safely about 15 minutes later.

The Airbus departed runway 25R about 20 minutes after the occurrence.

Runway 02 is normally not used and inactive. Taxiways K,E,D,M,N,T and S thus usually can be used without observing the holding points protecting runway 02. The habit of taxiing across runway 02 without paying attention to the holding points for runway 02 has already caused a number of runway incursions.

At this time it is unclear however, whether the aircraft crossed the runway with clearance (ATC operational error) or whether the aircraft entered the runway without clearance.

Radar data confirm the Boeing was on short final descending through about 200 feet AGL (less than 20 seconds from touch down, about 1.7nm/40 seconds laterally from the Airbus) when they initiated the go-around.

Aena, the airport operator and ATC service provider, stated that the UTAir Boeing could have continued the landing without any danger, the separation was sufficient. Neither company filed any safety report (editorial note: this statement, although not expressis verbis stating this, suggests that the Airbus was cleared to cross the runway).

On Jul 7th 2014 Aena reported that an investigation has been opened into the runway incursion.

On Jul 7th UTAir reported that the crew was on final approach, strictly following ATC instructions, when the captain spotted an obstacle on the runway, an aircraft crossing the runway. The commander took prompt decision to carry out the standard operating procedure. The airline complained: "According to international rules an aircraft on approach has absolute priority over the aircraft located on the ground" and added that the occurrence is under investigation.

http://avherald.com/h?article=476e99b0&opt=0

[PilotDAR]

The commander took prompt decision to carry out......

I like it. A couple of Asiana pilots could learn from this.....

[cossack]

If the A340 was given a crossing clearance by ATC but didn't perform as well as anticipated and the B767 elected to/was issued a go-around, that's just one of those things that happens when you're working with high volume and complexity.

It looks like the A340 landed on 07R and would have to cross 02 3 times to get to the gate. What sort of set up is that? Its begging for over-shoots. The angle of the taxiway that the A340 was on crossing 02 for the second time would mean that seeing the proximity of the B767 would have been almost impossible.

Did ATC stress the need for speed of the crossing? The A340 was certainly moving quickly as it crossed the runway but maybe was a bit sluggish getting there after the 90° turn. Did ATC communicate effectively the crossing traffic's intentions with the landing B767?

All questions that laypeople have but those involved directly as pilots or controllers see almost every time they go to work. This one just happened to get filmed.

Bottom line: if ATC says expedite, please expedite.

[Heliian]

Camera angles my ass!

That was a majour boo boo. These aren't 2 cessnas at your local aerodrome. This wasn't just the nosewheel over the hold line. These two aircraft almost collided. Luckily the utair pilots caught it. If you think that it's not a big deal, you are an idiot and shouldn't be behind a keyboard let alone the controls of an aeroplane

[halfmilevis]

The A340 Captain may not be a pilot, but he did stay at a holiday inn express last night....

[CFR]

Camera angles my ass!

That was a majour boo boo. These aren't 2 cessnas at your local aerodrome. This wasn't just the nosewheel over the hold line. These two aircraft almost collided. Luckily the utair pilots caught it. If you think that it's not a big deal, you are an idiot and shouldn't be behind a keyboard let alone the controls of an aeroplane

Did you even read the post above yours?

Surely you've heard a clearance to cross with a request to expedite, occasionally followed by an ATC call for the go around? No one said this wasn't an error, but whether or not it is a "majour boo boo"[sic] is subject to interpretation. It happens, there will be corrective action taken, and things will get back to business. Have a look in CADORS for "missed approach" and you get over 5000 entries. Have a look at how many are because of an aircraft slow to depart or slow to vacate the runway and even the odd slow to cross, and you will still find hundreds of entries. Maybe I'm wrong here but I doubt the landing pilot went white, started to sweat, shake and pray to God, nor did ominous music fill the flight deck. I bet they were mostly pissed off at the extra fuel burn and connection delay. But as I say I could be wrong.

This is news because there is film (and yes the long focal length compressed the distances).

[pdw]

The commander took prompt decision to carry out......

I like it. A couple of Asiana pilots could learn from this.....

There was room ... in hindsight here, except the slow moving start to crossing the runway would have looked precarious and VERY obvious (instantly).

[teacher]

If it don't look good, GO-AROUND. Imagine if the 340 pilot for some reason hit the brakes instead of the gas while the 767 was in the flare? Who knows, everyone lived to tell and learn about it. Makes for a good video though.

[cbty]

It is quite interesting to remember in Barcelona they have a lots of fun. A couple of years ago a Tu-144 landed on a twy during some works on 25 R , It think it was. A Ryanair flight collided with an american flight and damaged its wingtip but crew members didn't notice ti and they performed take-off anyway. That airport is nice but a bit a mess sometimes.

[kamikaze]

"If it don't look good, GO-AROUND. Imagine if the 340 pilot for some reason hit the brakes instead of the gas while the 767 was in the flare? Who knows, everyone lived to tell and learn about it. Makes for a good video though."

That's the way I look at it ... The media is making a mountain out of a mole hill, it wasn't nearly as dramatic as everyone makes it out to be ... BUT it was still a less than ideal situation ... if for whatever reason that A340 stops moving, that's bad news all around. And even if he keeps going ... wing tip to tail, he still has some distance to go ...

This is more a story about media sensationalizing stuff than anything else

[complexintentions]

Spanish ATC is pretty brutal, although the highest paid in Eurocontrol. Go figure.

But this happens everywhere, every day and yes, Heliian, it is a non-event. It wasn't "lucky" the landing pilots saw the aircraft, it's pretty basic to make sure a runway you're landing on is clear! Sheesh.

The separations in a busy terminal are tight and when they get infringed on, it's a go-around. It may be initiated by ATC, it may be initiated by the pilot, but it's a routine, normal procedure. The comment about low viz operations is misguided, there would be entirely different procedures in place at that time for ground operations.

Nobody "got away" with anything - I cringe when I hear statements like this. (I much prefer "CHEATED DEATH!" and "SECONDS FROM DISASTER!!").

Leave the handwringing to the clueless press and the mindless public with their appetite for invented drama. Pilots should know better.

[co-joe]

So does this qualify as a "near miss" or a "near hit"?

[kamikaze]

Neither!

[robshelle]

The comment about low viz operations is misguided, there would be entirely different procedures in place at that time for ground operations.

Depending on the airport, no it wouldn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Canada, most airports that have LVOP to be set in place don't occur until below 1200 RVR. Anything higher than that, it is business as usual. As a pilot, I've only flown into a few major airports, and as an ATC, I've only worked, and visited about 6 major towers (all in Canada and USA), but I don't see anything that would prevent that kind of a runway incursion if someone (pilot, or ATC) makes a mistake. Unless there is a crossing guard, like at rail lines(out of curiosity, does anyone know of airports that employ that kind of preventative device?), then A/C will cross a runway sometimes when you don't want them to.

Robshelle

[Nark]

Boston and Dallas/Fort Worth have a "crossing guard" system.
I think LAX, SEA and SAN also do.

It's a blinking light system that tells the pilots on the runway, or at the holdshort line if there is an aircraft 'in the way.'

[Driving Comet]

The comment about low viz operations is misguided, there would be entirely different procedures in place at that time for ground operations.

Depending on the airport, no it wouldn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Canada, most airports that have LVOP to be set in place don't occur until below 1200 RVR. Anything higher than that, it is business as usual. As a pilot, I've only flown into a few major airports, and as an ATC, I've only worked, and visited about 6 major towers (all in Canada and USA), but I don't see anything that would prevent that kind of a runway incursion if someone (pilot, or ATC) makes a mistake. Unless there is a crossing guard, like at rail lines(out of curiosity, does anyone know of airports that employ that kind of preventative device?), then A/C will cross a runway sometimes when you don't want them to.

Robshelle

Stop bars are probably the closest to something like a rail crossing. Plus ASDE has alarms for runway incursions.