Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to your question, "Would I press TOGA at 50 feet". Yes I would, and yes I have.
Obstacle clearance areas and climb profiles are based on missed approach parameters from the DA, NOT balked landing parameters.
Missed Approach climb is defined as a go-around from at or above DA.
Part 25 assumes required gradient on:
Go-around thrust on engines
Landing gear retracted
Approach flap set
Balked Landing climb is a go-around from below DA, even in flare (all engines are assumed available).
Part 25 assumes required gradient on :
Go-around thrust all engines
Landing gear down
Landing flap set
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from a previous post....
They're trying to pass it off as a regular event who's effect was amplified by the use of the telephoto lens. "Safety was never compromised and adequate separation was maintained at all times".
I can confirm that this may be a regular event... On my last flight into Barcelona,we did a Go-Around from 200ft because 'the runway was occupied'. It made for a good scenic trip around the sea-front however.
In this recent case the captain did the right thing, at the right time. As how was he to know if the taxying plane was not going to turn right for a back-track of the runway.
They're trying to pass it off as a regular event who's effect was amplified by the use of the telephoto lens. "Safety was never compromised and adequate separation was maintained at all times".
I can confirm that this may be a regular event... On my last flight into Barcelona,we did a Go-Around from 200ft because 'the runway was occupied'. It made for a good scenic trip around the sea-front however.
In this recent case the captain did the right thing, at the right time. As how was he to know if the taxying plane was not going to turn right for a back-track of the runway.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As how was he to know if the taxying plane was not going to turn right for a back-track of the runway.
That aside, I'm not disputing the fact that the decision to G/A was of course correct. Btw, just for info, I've seen quite a few late G/As at LHR, LGW and a host of other major airports. They are not that uncommon.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: close
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference in a late go around because the previous landing traffic hasn't vacated the runway yet where the pilots expect it an the controller is in control of the situation, or a complete surprise where the only saving factor is the sharpness of the landing pilot.
Btw, just for info, I've seen quite a few late G/As at LHR, LGW
I'm guessing that the stats for BCN aren't published.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you say to the pax on a go-around, I wonder? Sorry, folks, we're going to try again!.....
With only two pilots to look after the ship, no doubt busy, is there time to spare for reassurance? or does the cabin crew say something soothing?
With only two pilots to look after the ship, no doubt busy, is there time to spare for reassurance? or does the cabin crew say something soothing?
What do you say to the pax on a go-around
After the Go Around, one would have a few words to reassure the passengers.
I was referring to the curt generalisation of "that of someone drinking a cup of tea, safe in their tower a few 100 metres away". That's just disrespectful to the majority of highly professional and efficient ATCOs
I look at it a different way: When the green man flashes at the traffic lights, I still look left and right before walking across the road. To me that is common sense, even more so I were responsible for leading a group of children across the road!
Of course pilots never screw up. Oh, wait a minute, I believe the ARG A340 was instructed to cross behind the landing B767 and they even acknowledged it!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unnecessary Go Around
@Moloki and Silverstrata
You're both crazy.
The point is that there is an a/c on the runway when it shouldn't be and the tower was not aware. Who knows what was happening or what they would do next e.g. hijack, control issue, pilot incap.
What you are suggesting is handing your control over to the aircraft AWOL on the runway and cross your fingers that they figure their mess out before you impact.
The captain needs to always retain full control of their aircraft. A go around is always the correct course of action at any airport when you have aircraft not following instructions, in your immediate path and when the tower is unaware of the situation. Doesn't matter if this is BCN, Gatwick or the grass strip at the farm.
You're both crazy.
The point is that there is an a/c on the runway when it shouldn't be and the tower was not aware. Who knows what was happening or what they would do next e.g. hijack, control issue, pilot incap.
What you are suggesting is handing your control over to the aircraft AWOL on the runway and cross your fingers that they figure their mess out before you impact.
The captain needs to always retain full control of their aircraft. A go around is always the correct course of action at any airport when you have aircraft not following instructions, in your immediate path and when the tower is unaware of the situation. Doesn't matter if this is BCN, Gatwick or the grass strip at the farm.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH152. I certainly did not/do not dispute the core meaning or logic of your post (indeed, I taught my kids and now my grandson not to blindly cross on a green light). I agree with you but just got miffed at that mental description of ATCOs you portrayed. 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew who initiated the go around did so because they believed it to be the appropriate course of action.
Unlike ALL of you here they actually saw what was happening with their own eyes (rather than a you tube video), and were in possession of the facts and circumstances as they unfolded live right in front of themselves.
Pilots get paid to make decisions of this nature. Discussing the merits or otherwise of a go-around in this case is simply Sunday afternoon quarterbacking.
They went around and landed safely after a sea side excursion. End of.
Unlike ALL of you here they actually saw what was happening with their own eyes (rather than a you tube video), and were in possession of the facts and circumstances as they unfolded live right in front of themselves.
Pilots get paid to make decisions of this nature. Discussing the merits or otherwise of a go-around in this case is simply Sunday afternoon quarterbacking.
They went around and landed safely after a sea side excursion. End of.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rough calculations
If you check the layout of BCN, you can see the distance from the threshold to that crossing, and the altitude of the aircraft can't be that great, given that it appears to be about half the wingspan above the ground at most.
It was calculated earlier to be about 1166m horizontal separation from the threshold to the 2nd crossing.
I don't think the margin of error will be large enough to change the judgement call on this one.
ASN Aircraft incident 05-JUL-2014 Airbus A340-313X LV-FPV
It was calculated earlier to be about 1166m horizontal separation from the threshold to the 2nd crossing.
I don't think the margin of error will be large enough to change the judgement call on this one.
ASN Aircraft incident 05-JUL-2014 Airbus A340-313X LV-FPV
Obstacle clearance areas and climb profiles are based on missed approach parameters from the DA, NOT balked landing parameters.
Aren't obstacle clearances defined for takeoff climb* from a point far ahead of any missed approach or balked landing? Different configuration, yes, but even so, if initial climbout on missed approach / balked landing is on runway heading as usual, then even if you balk at the last moment surely you're still well above the takeoff climb profile?
(* obviously assuming a runway that's used for both takeoff and landing!)
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know for sure it was the crossing that made him go around?
There could have been a number of reasons for it, eventhough the crossing seems like the obvious one.
The landing is the responsibility of the pilot, and even if tower calls for a go-around, the pilot is in his right to elect to land.
In theory, and in practice, the pilot can elect to land on an occupied runway if he deems it safe, or safer than executing a missed approach.
I've seen it done in practice with a "big jet", where a vehicle has moved beyond the stopline on a taxiway in the far end of the runway, but has halted short of the runway itself, and a go-around was called by tower to a "big jet" on very short final (including information on the vehicle).
Ofcourse, something moving onto a runway half-way down, would initiate a go around by most big jets, but smaller aircrafts may still elect to land.
Now, this time I keept my own "small aircraft" piloting experience out of the picture, and referred to a real life experience as a controller with "big jets".
There could have been a number of reasons for it, eventhough the crossing seems like the obvious one.
The landing is the responsibility of the pilot, and even if tower calls for a go-around, the pilot is in his right to elect to land.
In theory, and in practice, the pilot can elect to land on an occupied runway if he deems it safe, or safer than executing a missed approach.
I've seen it done in practice with a "big jet", where a vehicle has moved beyond the stopline on a taxiway in the far end of the runway, but has halted short of the runway itself, and a go-around was called by tower to a "big jet" on very short final (including information on the vehicle).
Ofcourse, something moving onto a runway half-way down, would initiate a go around by most big jets, but smaller aircrafts may still elect to land.
Now, this time I keept my own "small aircraft" piloting experience out of the picture, and referred to a real life experience as a controller with "big jets".
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hearing and observing these two sites about this incident may be of interest if you take the time to do it.
On LiveATC the LEBL feed clearly proves that the Ground or TWR controller spoke in Spanish to the ARG crew on the freq. Whether both UTA and ARG ACFT were on the same freq is not clear but it seems it was not the case. Hearing the LiveATC feed is a pain because their scanner grabs all preset active freqs and continuously jumps from on the other in order to avoid blanks. But at no time the 118.1 Barcelona TWR is heard during the UTA5187 (C/S Uniform Tango Alpha 5187) final(s) approach(es). The ACFT behind the UTA is the BCS6304 (Eurotrans 6304) that was vectored behind the UTA and landed on 02. This is the one that we can see on the video during the first approach of the UTA.
One can hear on the APP freq the controller ordering the AAL66 to hold over SLL due to "we are changing runway in use" (0430Z-0500Z +25.45' LiveATC time box). This is issued just after the UTA is going around.
G/A +25.04'
hold +25.45'
LEBL 050430Z 31005KT 9999 FEW030 20/16 Q1015 NOSIG
LEBL 050500Z 33006KT 9999 FEW030 20/15 Q1016 NOSIG
Because the incident occured just before 0500z the dialog between the controller and the ARG can be heard on the subsequent audio archive 0500-0530z.
G/A UTA 0452z
LA UTA 0507
T/O ARG 0509
The last altitude reported by the UTA is 250ft although it is subject to caution because it is not related to the actual pressure but a standard 1013hpa one. At this time QNH is 1016 and the GA may be 250 or less on a standard 1013 setting which was not the case. The accelerated 12x replay doesn't help because data are not reliable at this speed. 3Hpa is about 80 feet and the actual final 250ft indicated is likely to be less than this one.
The abstract of the CIAIAC is appalling. Saying less is saying nothing. Even the indicated time of the incident is wrong. 1652 local time indicated means 0452z/ 0652 local, likely.
On LiveATC the LEBL feed clearly proves that the Ground or TWR controller spoke in Spanish to the ARG crew on the freq. Whether both UTA and ARG ACFT were on the same freq is not clear but it seems it was not the case. Hearing the LiveATC feed is a pain because their scanner grabs all preset active freqs and continuously jumps from on the other in order to avoid blanks. But at no time the 118.1 Barcelona TWR is heard during the UTA5187 (C/S Uniform Tango Alpha 5187) final(s) approach(es). The ACFT behind the UTA is the BCS6304 (Eurotrans 6304) that was vectored behind the UTA and landed on 02. This is the one that we can see on the video during the first approach of the UTA.
One can hear on the APP freq the controller ordering the AAL66 to hold over SLL due to "we are changing runway in use" (0430Z-0500Z +25.45' LiveATC time box). This is issued just after the UTA is going around.
G/A +25.04'
hold +25.45'
LEBL 050430Z 31005KT 9999 FEW030 20/16 Q1015 NOSIG
LEBL 050500Z 33006KT 9999 FEW030 20/15 Q1016 NOSIG
Because the incident occured just before 0500z the dialog between the controller and the ARG can be heard on the subsequent audio archive 0500-0530z.
G/A UTA 0452z
LA UTA 0507
T/O ARG 0509
The last altitude reported by the UTA is 250ft although it is subject to caution because it is not related to the actual pressure but a standard 1013hpa one. At this time QNH is 1016 and the GA may be 250 or less on a standard 1013 setting which was not the case. The accelerated 12x replay doesn't help because data are not reliable at this speed. 3Hpa is about 80 feet and the actual final 250ft indicated is likely to be less than this one.
The abstract of the CIAIAC is appalling. Saying less is saying nothing. Even the indicated time of the incident is wrong. 1652 local time indicated means 0452z/ 0652 local, likely.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm quite sure they were speaking English here:
"The Italian National Flight Safety Agency (ANSV) started an investigation into a runway incursion incident at Milan-Malpensa Airport in which a Boeing 767 taxied across an active runway, forcing an A320 to perform a go around.
On July 15, 2014, American Airlines flight AA206 landed at Milan-Malpensa’s runway 35R about 09:36 hours local time. The aircraft, a Boeing 767-300ER, N366AA, operated a scheduled passenger service from Miami, Florida.
At the same time, easyJet flight EZY5289 was approaching runway 35L. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, G-EZTC, operated a scheduled passenger service from London-Gatwick, U.K.
ANSV reported that the Boeing 767 taxied across runway 35L towards the terminal, forcing the air traffic controller to instruct the easyJet flight to perform a go around. The Airbus landed safely at 09:51 after completing a left hand circuit.
Weather reported at the time of the incident was fine: METAR LIMC 150750Z VRB02KT CAVOK 24/16 Q1019 NOSIG=
Earlier this month, ANSV met with met several aviation organisations to discuss the increasing number of reports of runway incursions received in 2013 (+40% compared to 2012). ANSV spoke with representatives of the Italian Air Force, the ENAV (Civil Aviation Authority), the ENAC (ATC authority), Assaeroporti (airports association), ANACNA (association of air traffic controllers) and ANPAC (pilot’s association)."
ASN News » Italy investigates Milan-Malpensa runway incursion incident
"The Italian National Flight Safety Agency (ANSV) started an investigation into a runway incursion incident at Milan-Malpensa Airport in which a Boeing 767 taxied across an active runway, forcing an A320 to perform a go around.
On July 15, 2014, American Airlines flight AA206 landed at Milan-Malpensa’s runway 35R about 09:36 hours local time. The aircraft, a Boeing 767-300ER, N366AA, operated a scheduled passenger service from Miami, Florida.
At the same time, easyJet flight EZY5289 was approaching runway 35L. The aircraft, an Airbus A320, G-EZTC, operated a scheduled passenger service from London-Gatwick, U.K.
ANSV reported that the Boeing 767 taxied across runway 35L towards the terminal, forcing the air traffic controller to instruct the easyJet flight to perform a go around. The Airbus landed safely at 09:51 after completing a left hand circuit.
Weather reported at the time of the incident was fine: METAR LIMC 150750Z VRB02KT CAVOK 24/16 Q1019 NOSIG=
Earlier this month, ANSV met with met several aviation organisations to discuss the increasing number of reports of runway incursions received in 2013 (+40% compared to 2012). ANSV spoke with representatives of the Italian Air Force, the ENAV (Civil Aviation Authority), the ENAC (ATC authority), Assaeroporti (airports association), ANACNA (association of air traffic controllers) and ANPAC (pilot’s association)."
ASN News » Italy investigates Milan-Malpensa runway incursion incident
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk_ident, to be perfectly honest it tells us very little. Other than a full r/t transcript of all relevant frequencies and of the CRSs, an equally important missing piece of information, which we might get in the final report, is what internal co-ordination was going on between GND and TWR.
