Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video

[transilvana]

No need to explain it, just watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM&feature=youtu.be

[Machinbird]

Well that was a big failure on someone's part.

When you see something stupid going on in front of you just react as necessary. No need for ATC to tell you to go around. Sort it all out afterwards.

Now lets see what the investigators say.

[lomapaseo]

More than one failure here and a bit of luck to overcome them.

I would have expected some eyes in the RH seat would be looking at the approach to confirm it was clear and not buried in a map or something else.

[Track]

Wow, I guess we can forget getting a 25R crossing from now on...Sierra and M10 it is....

[SpringHeeledJack]

It looks worse because of the foreshortening of the lens used, but in terms of close it ticks that box. It makes you wonder how sharp the BCN ATC staff are to let that happen.

[captplaystation]

Always felt comfortable with 2.5nm spacing at LGW, and landing clearances as the departing is rotating, because, it is "planned" that way, and IF it goes wrong, they have a game plan.

Problem with BCN is that stuff like that happens by default, and the plan is. . . . . . . . well, there is no plan.

Unfortunate consequence of course, as said already, RW crossings will go out of fashion. Oh well, good for the block hrs.

[akaSylvia]

It is foreshortened but according to ASN:

ADS-B data logged by Flightaware24 suggest the B767 had descended to 250 feet before the go around was initiated.

[akaSylvia]

Comments on Youtube seem to be saying that the Argentine Airbus repeated the instruction to holdback and then didn't. Aviation Herald says it's unclear as to whether ATC gave clearance or not. LiveATC has LEBL tower but not ground. Is there any other option to replay the interactions directly before the incursion?

[short bus]

Are eyeballs out the window what saved the day here or would there have been some other warning to alert the crew?

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Could have been very different if a night approach.

[readywhenreaching]

www.jacdec.de (http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/06/2014-07-05-argentine-a340-and-russian-b762-in-serious-runway-incursion-at-barcelona-spain/)

http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-07-05_INCI_AAR_A342_UTA_B762@LEBL_MAP.jpg (http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/06/2014-07-05-argentine-a340-and-russian-b762-in-serious-runway-incursion-at-barcelona-spain/)

[DaveReidUK]

ADS-B data logged by Flightaware24 suggest the B767 had descended to 250 feet before the go around was initiated.ADS-B height data logged by the flight tracking websites is basically a Flight Level (whether above or below the TA), in other words it's not corrected for QNH.

So if the aircraft was actually at the height indicated by FR24, it's pure coincidence - indeed the video strongly suggests it was lower.

[Caboclo]

Don't know how correct the audio is but does the go-around sound a bit half-hearted at first too?

Agreed. Seems like the pitch up happened in 2 stages as well.

[AreOut]

it was maybe as low as 100ft certainly much lower than 250

[fireflybob]

ADS-B height data logged by the flight tracking websites is basically a Flight Level (whether above or below the TA), in other words it's not corrected for QNH.


QNH in the early morning of yesterday at LEBL was 1016 from archive metar so 250 feet based on 1013 would put a/c about 80 feet higher at 330 feet but not sure about accuracy of ADS-B height data.

Maybe pitch up in 2 stages on GA a/c due initial TOGA and then max thrust due urgency?

[FougaMagister]

This is such a basic lack of airmanship that there can't be many excuses for the A340's crew. Always check for traffic on finals before crossing a runway, even if cleared to cross. PPL lesson 1.01 or so...

That said, ATC has some answering to do too. I wonder:
1/ which language was used between ATC and Aerolineas Argentinas (if using Spanish then the approaching UTAir 767 crew was probably left out of the loop)
2/ whether any stop bars are fitted at taxiway/runway crossing points (such as M5 on the diagram).

I fly to BCN every now and then, and never like it. Convoluted taxi routings, near mandatory runway crossings (at least to/from apron R4), and you just feel that ATC isn't on top of their game. When there, I taxi at walking pace, make sure the FO writes down all taxi instructions, and (yes, even before this happened) double-check all runway crossing instructions (and of course check for traffic).

I'll be even more careful in the future...

Cheers :cool:

[Hotel Tango]

I'm still trying to figure out (if the above diagram is correct) what exactly the A340 was doing. Had he landed on 7R (unlikely) and was taxying to the terminal. If so why that route? Was he taxying for departure on 25R (normal for heavies and if so, why did he originate from K4/K5 area?

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Judging by the speed at which the A340 was taxying as it crossed the runway, together with the relatively late go-around of the B767, my take on it is that the A340 crew had been cleared to expedite the crossing, but in the end didn't do it as quickly as the controller had expected/hoped (especially considering the turn - if the taxy route is correct - from D onto M).

Had it been a completely unexpected incursion onto RWY02, I'd have thought that the B767 crew would have commenced the go-around earlier.

I can't imagine any crew would cross an active runway at such speed, in clear conditions, without looking in both directions first. Nor can I imagine a scenario in which that same crew, having looked, could fail to see the heavy on final. Lastly, having seen the aircraft on final, I couldn't imagine a crew crossing that runway (with or without a clearance) unless they felt comfortable to do so by virtue of a clearance which of and by itself inferred that, if done without delay, would be a safe manoeuvre and expeditious to the flow of traffic at the airport.

I think it was an error of judgement (by both the controller and the Argentinian crew) instead of a careless compliance failure.

Let's also not forget that the A340 was at least 1km from the threshold when it crossed.

It was a dramatic-looking video, but I doubt it was a particularly dramatic event for either crew.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Hotel Tango, it didn't originate from K4/5 but most likely from the sea-side apron of the terminal 1, i.e @ K8/9 limit.
So taxi via K, then D, then M to 25R. Only D & M parts highlighted on the diagram, but you can see the K part at the beginning of the video.

[JanetFlight]

Quote:

AENA didn't notice any close call. The 767 was leared to land and the A340 to cross. There were plenty of time and separation distance. The UTair wanted to GA then it's his decision !

[nitpicker330]

The crew of the 767 MUST have seen the A340 approaching their active runway at high speed and they should have been watching them very closely, I fail to see why they left it so late to go around..........?

Anyway it's made all the news channels....

[Wannabe Flyer]

Any reason for a HD camera to be positioned so accurately where this was at the time including having a complete pan and follow thru of the AA aircraft? Very well choreographed film with a human at the other end of the camera...just wondering if this is normal practice at BCN or any other airport.

[underfire]

I am curious how someone was able to get all of those different views on video....

[nike]

Keen spotter

[172driver]

To me it looks like they were filming on airport grounds, and their website looks like a semi-official site of the airport (Google Aerobarcelona). Might well have been a coincidence, doing a video shoot and then seeing this situation unfold.

[Pali]

As a photographer I can just say that using telephoto lens can dramatically change the perception of distances which is also the case in this great video.

Just from a curiosity my question to pro's: from what distance would a pilot decide to GA when observing a moving object blocking his runway which is about to vacate it? Or is it rather a rule of 500 or 1000 ft agl for stabilized approach?

[Denti]

Depends on company i guess. If the runway is in sight and we do not have a landing clearance by 50ft AGL it's a mandatory go around. If the runway is blocked it is the decision of the crew at the day, although as mentioned above on many airports it is quite normal that the runway is still occupied at 200ft with the previous traffic usually just leaving the runway.

[Hotel Tango]

Hotel Tango, it didn't originate from K4/5 but most likely from the sea-side apron of the terminal 1, i.e @ K8/9 limit.
So taxi via K, then D, then M to 25R. Only D & M parts highlighted on the diagram, but you can see the K part at the beginning of the video.

I guess that makes sense. What doesn't (to me) make any sense is a taxy route which effectively crosses an active runway no less than 3 times when the route K, J, E and M would only necessitate 1 crossing. Seems a strange procedure, albeit without knowing all the facts of course.

[claser111]

More than a distance we talk about an altitude...MDA , minimum decision altitude, where you decide to continue for landing or go around. ;)
From the video they look very close but can be just an optical perception, things like this happen every day worldwide.

[patowalker]

Argentinas A343 at Barcelona on Jul 5th 2014, runway incursion | AeroInside (http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4313/argentinas-a343-at-barcelona-on-jul-5th-2014-runway-incursion)

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).

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

HT, the "route K, J, E and M" seems nice, but it's only one route.
What if you have two ways taxiiing traffic to manage?

(only a guess)

[Jwscud]

So, no possibility of:

"XXX expect late landing clearance, traffic crossing"

"YYY expedite crossing, traffic on short final"

"XXX Go around I say again go around acknowledge"

Or (given the recent thread about use of English) the Argentinian talking in Spanish to the controller and the aircraft on final not understanding the transmission and electing to go around as the safer option.

[FlyOnTheWall2014]

Any reason for a HD camera to be positioned so accurately where this was at the time including having a complete pan and follow thru of the AA aircraft? Very well choreographed film with a human at the other end of the camera...just wondering if this is normal practice at BCN or any other airport.
How well does your tin foil hat fit?

There are thousands of spotter videos on you tube. The spotter was filming the A340, then the B767 on final, and panned out as the Airbus crossed the hold and entered the runway. It's been edited and snipped to make a shorter video. Much as I don't see the appeal in standing in a field watching aeroplanes, it's pretty clear there is no conspiracy or choreography here.

[Hotel Tango]

HT, the "route K, J, E and M" seems nice, but it's only one route.
What if you have two ways taxiiing traffic to manage?

Absolutely, and most likely the reason. Nevertheless it does beg the question about a procedure which requires a heavy jet to cross an active no less than THREE times at a busy international airport when there are other options, even if it does mean holding inbound traffic to the most southerly gates of T1.

Might be an idea to extend J to M for starters.

[BDiONU]

Judging by the speed at which the A340 was taxying as it crossed the runway, together with the relatively late go-around of the B767, my take on it is that the A340 crew had been cleared to expedite the crossing, but in the end didn't do it as quickly as the controller had expected/hoped (especially considering the turn - if the taxy route is correct - from D onto M).

Had it been a completely unexpected incursion onto RWY02, I'd have thought that the B767 crew would have commenced the go-around earlier.

It was a dramatic-looking video, but I doubt it was a particularly dramatic event for either crew.From an ATC perspective this sounds correct. Lander told to expect late landing clearance while the crosser was told to expedite the crossing. Did not look like the crosser was going to clear the runway in time so the lander went around. No dramas and not an unusual event at very busy airports.

[bobwi]

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).


This surprises me very much because in the video it seems that the UTair would have touched down before the A340 would have cleared the runway. So if the Aerolineas would have got stuck with some problem we would have had disaster.

My experience with Barcelona is that they never clear you to cross when an airplane is that close. One note though, BCN have reduced their seperation margins and now have something called like intense traffic or so. Therefore the margins are smaller, and runway 02 is a runway that needs to be crossed...

[Wannabe Flyer]

from the credentials of the video it seems to have originated from an avid spotter who is setup permanently at BCN.

AeroBarcelona: Toda la actualidad del aeropuerto de Barcelona (http://www.aerobarcelona.com)

Answers my question of being at the right place at the right time with good equipment. Puts to rest any further queries on this issue from my end. :ok:

[rusty_y2k2]

I'm sorry but that reply from AENA is nonsense to me.

It's one thing to issue a conditional landing clearance "land after", though I'm not sure if Barcelona are able to issue such clearances? it's a different thing entirely however to expect an aircraft to actually touch down with another still infringing the runway within his landing zone whether it's a km from the threshold or not. To me it is clear that the Utair would have touched down with the Argentinas still infringing had they continued.

I also can't comment for anyone else here, but I personally wouldn't cross a runway with the landing traffic that close to crossing the threshold whether ATC had cleared me or not!

Certainly not "ops normal" as they imply in my opinion, especially considering the amount of time I've wasted in my life taxiing the long way around 25R due to "insufficient separation" on the landing traffic.

[WhyByFlier]

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).

So did they just go around for sh!ts and giggles? An honest mistake from ATC and dreadful airmanship from the Argentinian crew.

[BOAC]

With a fin that high and possible sink on g/a I don't think I would push it too far!

[Callsign Kilo]

Aena playing the 'it's not our fault it's someone else's' card. You can guarantee the ground frequency and the Argentinian were speaking to each other in Espanyol. I've been into BCN and MAD when their A340s are kicking about. It's standard practice. I'll also add there are other incidents similar to this one that have occurred in BCN. Anyone from the Easyjet 737 era will clarify :eek:
Also Aerolineas contributed to a fine loss of separation event in BCN not so long ago. You need to bring your A game going into that place.

[lomapaseo]

Still trying to remain open minded

so far I hesitate to conclude that ATC carries the blame unless I've missed a transcript of the incident somewhere?

[patowalker]

Distance from the runway threshold of runway 02 to the point where the A340 crossed at taxiway Mike is 1166 m (3826 ft).

ASN Aircraft incident 05-JUL-2014 Airbus A340-313X LV-FPV (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167805)

[Howard Long]

lomapaseo

Still trying to remain open minded

so far I hesitate to conclude that ATC carries the blame unless I've missed a transcript of the incident somewhere?

I stand to be corrected, but there appear to be some windows in the front of that A340, not sure what they might be there for though.

[fireflybob]

I stand to be corrected, but there appear to be some windows in the front of that A340, not sure what they might be there for though.

But do you know what they saw out of the windows? The taxiway crosses the runway at an oblique angle - the LHS pilot would have to rely entirely on the lookout from the RHS pilot I would suggest. At that angle was the wing or the winglet obscuring an uninterrupted view of the approach path to RW 02?

Don't get me wrong I'm not making excuses for inadequate lookout if that was the case but I see a lot of people on this thread jumping to conclusions and making wild accusations against both pilots and air traffic without being in possession of the facts - all based on a video taken with a telescopic facility.

Human beings do the best they can with the resources available to them at the time (this includes but is not limited to experience, training, fatigue level etc).

[Right Way Up]

Think there may be a bit of training going on at BCN at the moment. The other day a Lufthansa A321 was told to hold position just before he was taxiing past a 757 at G1 (first hold point I think that you come to). It sounded from the urgency as if there may have been a clearance issue. Almost straight away an Alitalia Airbus half way through his takeoff roll was cleared for takeoff despite already receiving that clearance.....situational awareness seemed non-existent from ATC for a few minutes and from the tone of the Alitalia crew it had affected their concentration.

[retrosgone]

As someone who operates into BCN regularly, it is evident that something went wrong on this occasion. Firstly, ATC cannot clear anyone to land until runway crossing traffic is fully vacated - so there must have been an error either by ATC or the Aerolineas crew or both (and you never ever cross an active runway without a positive check that your way is clear, so what the A340 crew were doing is anyone's guess!).


Secondly - video foreshortening or not, the go-around quite clearly occurred very late and not within normal acceptable safety margins, regardless of what AENA might or might not have said. If everything was fine, then an investigation is not required. If an investigation is under way then everything was clearly not OK.

[16024]

MDA , minimum decision altitude, where you decide to continue for landing or go around.

Aargh! FFS!

I don't know where to start, here. Just, no!!!

[cosmiccomet]

Without having the record of the communications between the ATC controllers and the AR crew we can not blame anyones fault.

For the AR crew, the angle between the taxiway M and the runway 02 is more than 120° so it is almost impossible from the RHS to have a clear view to the approach path.

According to ICAO Manual of Prevention of Runway Incursions,

4.5 AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE PROVIDERS AND
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
-4.5.16 When using multiple or intersection departures, oblique or angled taxiways that limit the ability of the flight crew to see the landing runway threshold or final approach area should not be used.

[baselb]

Thanks heavens for that - I thought I was going to have to wait for an investigation report before I could understand how things went wrong....If there were no reports filed, will there be an investigation?

[underfire]

optical illusion of distance or not, they seem quite a bit lower than 250...not even wingspan in height.

seems more like a balked landing scenario...

[captplaystation]

Nice CAVOK & daytime, not a big problem.

Without hearing the tapes ? who knows, but I guess not so nice at night , or in low vis, but one hopes in these circumstances ATC wouldn't have rolled the dice (if it was them that orchestrated this & not a simple RW incursion)

Without the appropriate ATC feed/transcript we are p*ssing in the dark however, so, lets see what/if (anything) comes up from AENA.

[Basil]

Go around - meh.
It's worse when it happens whilst you're doing 100kn on the takeoff roll :eek:

[DaveReidUK]

seems more like a balked landing scenario... Given that a balked landing is synonymous with a go-around, I think you could be right.

[Hotel Tango]

COSMICCOMET: strictly speaking, as it reads, that wouldn't be applicable in this scenario since the AAR was not departing from 02.


UNDERFIRE: seems more like a balked landing scenario...

I don't follow you. Can you elaborate on that?

[clark y]

Who's to say the captain didn't look? If the map posted above is correct, he may not have been able to see the traffic on final approach unless he opened the window and stuck his head out.
As for who is at fault, I'll wait for the report.

[lomapaseo]

As for who is at fault, I'll wait for the report.

don't hold your breath. At the most the facts will be collected and dissiminated locally and you'll never hear anymore of it. Any blame will be left to others.

[Brian Abraham]

Avweb reports that the 340 had been cleared to cross and the 767 cleared to land. On that basis it would seem to be the 767 crew exercised discretion and went around with the belief that margins were being eroded. That's what's supposed to happen - isn't it? As some would say, move along, nothing to see here. That's if the official is to be believed, and no reports filed by either airline.

767 Go-Around Video Goes Viral - AVweb flash Article (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/767-Go-Around-Video-Goes-Viral222306-1.html)

[underfire]

Given that a balked landing is synonymous with a go-around, I think you could be right.

Not from a design perspective, balked or rejected landing is different than go around/missed approach.

Go around procedure should not be initiated below 100' agl.

[fatbus]

So what does one do on a Catt3a/single with no vis contact at 50 ft?

[glendalegoon]

at a boy fatbus!


OK FOLKS< simple question: US Television is awash in this video. IS this incident worth media attention?

[QNH1013]

A go-around can most definitely be accomplished and should be if required, even when below 100'agl or 50' or 10'. Training is widely done to reject the landing and go-around even when wheels have touched the ground.

[crippen]

Remind me .......... how long does it take to spool the engines up on a 340.? Was the landing abandoned a lot earlyer that appears.

[pile.it]

On a different note, did anyone else notice that the G/A procedure seems to be cancelled, then re-applied, almost as if the 767 crew had second thoughts (or a difference of opinions in the cockpit?). The engines spool, then go quiet, the nose lowers, then the engines spool once more and they fly off.

[Bidule]

"You can guarantee the ground frequency and the Argentinian were speaking to each other in Espanyol"

It would have changed nothing if they were speaking Russian. The Russian 767 was obviously not yet on the ground frequency!

[DaveReidUK]

Not from a design perspective, balked or rejected landing is different than go around/missed approach.

Go around procedure should not be initiated below 100' agl.

OK. I guess that, as "balked landing" doesn't appear to be officially defined anywhere AFAIK, interpretations can differ. I've certainly always treated the term as interchangeable with GA/missed approach.

[mary meagher]

Seems to me they need to improve their taxiway angles. If the approaching traffic cannot be seen by the crossing traffic it is an accident waiting to happen. Regardless of clearance to cross by ATC, I sure would want to have a jolly good look at what's coming before crossing an active runway!

Not an easy thing to correct, once the airport has been designed and built!
Can you well traveled chaps name any other destinations with similar problems?

[Tordan]

Re the sound of the engines, sound waves are easily distorted by a number of things such as wind, heat and obstructing objects. Again, the only sure way to know how the throttles were handled is from hard data.

[RevMan2]

Comparing the 2 approaches on the video (0:32 at the time of incursion and 1:13, the first image of the successful approach), it's clear that there is significant foreshortening of the aborted approach due to the greater focal length used.
OTOH, given that the (perceived) height at the time of incursion is less than the (50m) wingspan of the 767 and that the timespan between appearance and touchdown on the successful landing is 7 seconds and the A340 takes 10 seconds to clear the runway, a go-around wouldn't be the silliest option...

[blue_ashy]

"You can guarantee the ground frequency and the Argentinian were speaking to each other in Espanyol"

It would have changed nothing if they were speaking Russian. The Russian 767 was obviously not yet on the ground frequency!


Wouldn't they be on the same frequency, I thought runway operations were handled by the tower? Unless the tower gave a command to cross and contact ground. Is that normal practice?

Either way it was obviously a good decision by the 767 crew regardless and all the more reason to trust Mk.1 eyeball. Until a transcript is available it is impossible to comment on what may of actually been said or otherwise.

It is rather more scary to think about the what ifs in this situation - good weather, daytime and swift actions on the part of the 767 crew appears to have mitigated a more serious mishap.

[underfire]

OK. I guess that, as "balked landing" doesn't appear to be officially defined anywhere AFAIK, interpretations can differ.

Fair enough.
As noted, while balked may not appear, 'rejected landing' does appear in many glossary, as does do not use GA below 100'.

Rejected or balked parameters are based on the ac config below 100' agl...you going to press TOGA at 50'?

So what does one do on a Catt3a/single with no vis contact at 50 ft?

You have either have a tailored procedure in the box, or understand what the fk you are doing. ie, you had better have a tailored procedure in the box.

[bobwi]

You must check if the approach is clear before you cross a runway. If you can't see it, you use TCAS. There is no excuse. Furthermore, I think they could have seen it because they do have visibility in that angle.

And runway crossing in Barcelona is done on the tower frequency. So they would have been on the same frequency.

The airbus seem to have their strobe lights on, so they would have been aware they were crossing a runway because on a taxi way you don't use strobe lights normally.

[DogSpew]

A Go Around can be initiated at any time during an approach and landing, until the Thrust Levers are selected into Reverse Idle.

In answer to your question, "Would I press TOGA at 50 feet". Yes I would, and yes I have.

This is straight from my Companies OM.
"Go-Around after Touchdown
If a go-around is initiated before touchdown and touchdown occurs, continue with normal go-around procedures. The F/D go-around mode will continue to provide go-around guidance commands throughout the maneuver. If a go-around is initiated after touchdown but before thrust reverser selection, auto speedbrakes retract and autobrakes disarm as thrust levers are advanced. The F/D go-around mode will not be available until go-around is selected after becoming airborne.
Once reverse thrust is initiated following touchdown, a full stop landing must be made. If an engine stays in reverse, safe flight is not possible."

[A4]

@blue_ashy

+1.

If you're going to be crossing the active you'll be on tower freq, not ground.

A4

[Mark in CA]

glendalegoon: IS this incident worth media attention?

Not really, but because of the perspective and distance squashing of the long lens, it makes for very dramatic video.

[rallymania]

The first burst of engine noise, is very likely form the taxing aeroplane expediting across the RW and the second burst of noise from the GA?

remembering that the visual perspective is compressed from the telephoto lens, the noise from the GA engines will take several seconds (guess) to reach the camera?

[Malthouse]

IS this incident worth media attention?
Not really, but because of the perspective and distance squashing of the long lens, it makes for very dramatic video.

Unless you consider that it is attracting attention to an airport with possible layout/volume issues and comms/language procedures.

Or would you rather we only talk about things after they go wrong?

[silverstrata]

I think at Gatwick this would be classed as: 'a completely unnecessary go-around'. But each operator and controller has their own limits, so you cannot overly criticise someone for going around.


The real point is why are so many airports so poorly designed that runway crossings have to happen so often? (and three crossings in one taxi is really overdoing it !). Why are we stuck with airports that simply evolved, and have the terminal in completely the wrong location?

Manch and LHR T4 spring to mind as awful terminals/airports that have not been planned. And you can bet that if they add another runway at Stansted, they will put it on the wrong side of the terminal (just like as BCN). Lions led by donkeys again.

[RevMan2]

Not really, but because of the perspective and distance squashing of the long lens, it makes for very dramatic video.

Compare the aborted and successful landings (taken with roughly the same focal length), count the seconds to touchdown and the time it takes the A340 to clear the runway and then tell me again that the aborted landing isn't dramatic...

[ExitRow]

If you measure the time from go around initiation till the aircraft is almost overhead the camera (last few seconds has to be projected but it's clear that less than 10 seconds remains till the video fades to the later phase), it's about 20 seconds max. At around 150 knots that makes for an eighth of a mile.

How can you measure the time, when the tracking shot overhead is clearly edited? Watch it again. It's not continuous.

[mary meagher]

bobwi, who according to his profile drives an A319, says "if you cant see it you use TCAS!"

Would TCAS be helpful in this case?

[pilotmike]

@indigopete - it's about 20 seconds max. At around 150 knots that makes for an eighth of a mile
Do you want to re-check your maths? My calculator gives 0.83NM, or 'about a mile'.

You're out by a factor of 8 using your round numbers!

[bobwi]

It's standard practice in low visibility to use it. You switch it on and the airplanes apear on your screen as little donuts with the altitude relatively to you. On a normal glide, every mile is about 300 feet. So if the next airplane is showing 600 feet you know it's about 2 miles out.

I think this has been standard practice since the linate disaster in 2001.

[AreOut]

I think TCAS works only when you take off and gain some altitude.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why can't people kick those things STRAIGHT for touchdown??!! :{

Would TCAS be helpful in this case?
Certainly does, and very well. Bobwi has it nailed: unless someone is doing a wiffodil approach, it is very easy to work out how far away they are using the height diffferential displayed on the TCAS.

That said, sometimes one can see an aeroplane on long-medium final but there is no TCAS return.

[infrequentflyer789]

Compare the aborted and successful landings (taken with roughly the same focal length), count the seconds to touchdown and the time it takes the A340 to clear the runway and then tell me again that the aborted landing isn't dramatic...

It is difficult to compare as the two landings are shot with focus on slightly different point, plus we never actually see the A340 enter or vacate the runway, and the first shot of the successful landing is (I think) lower than the height of the previous go around. So, picking comparison points is tricky. The angles (including the taxiway crossing angle) and the foreshortening also don't help. We also have to assume identical touchdown point in both landings.

Given all that, I reckon the 340 enters runway (not seen) at about 1 sec before 0:30, and is centred on at about 0:36 and should therefore be off it (again not seen) by 0:43. 767 on first attempt starts to GA at 0:33, second attempt first visible point is 1:13, and looks lower than the GA height (0:33) but lets call it the same (pessimistic). NLG touches down at 1:23, crosses A340 path at approx 1:30 (but that is looking at A340 MLG and it's a bit wider than that...).

So, from 0:33 (go around), at 7s A340 vacates, 10s 767 NLG down, 15-20s 767 crosses A340 path. Some error in those numbers, collision margin _might_ be <10s, but it doesn't look like they would have collided. I'd be surprised if it was "normal" though.

Some press today has quotes from the 767 pilots e.g. Boeing 767 pilot reveals moment he had to abort landing to avoid collision at Barcelona airport | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2684294/Boeing-pilot-reveals-terrifying-moment-forced-abort-landing-avoid-collision-Barcelona-airport.html)

[Mikehotel152]

Whatever the assembled experts on Pprune or in the exalted halls of power at AENA might think, the 767 crew clearly thought the A340's actions compromised safety margins. When in doubt, there is no doubt - particularly when 100s of lives are at stake.

Personally, I would not enter an active runway with someone on short final whatever ATC clear me to do, and I wouldn't cross a runway if I couldn't see it. I trust my judgment before that of someone drinking a cup of tea, safe in their tower a few 100 metres away.

I say that having been cleared to land at 25R in BCN at 100' because they 'forgot' us and been cleared to land when reporting at the hold for departure. Nothing surprises me when it comes to Spanish airports.

Ironically, the great challenge in Spain is getting airborne despite the huge spacings they require between traffic!

Incidentally, I've flown into BCN dozens of times but never seen 02 in use, but taxiing for 25L we have always been cleared to cross 02/20 by GND, not TWR. When the runway is active things might be different - or so one would hope.

[Callsign Kilo]

Thanks for that. I realise that they both wouldn't be operating the same frequency; poorly communicated on my behalf. However as occurrences go in BCN, MAD, VLC etc how many times have you asked 'what is he doing?' or 'where are they?' (unless you speak fluent Spanish). Not a contributing factor here, obviously, but it's just a matter of time. I wonder how the crew of the Easy A319 felt on the issue when they were involved in the Aerolineas Argentinas A340 and Iberia A320 loss of separation incident in BCN not so long ago?

[Hotel Tango]

I trust my judgment before that of someone drinking a cup of tea, safe in their tower a few 100 metres away.

:= Treading on dangerous ground with that sort of generalisation MikeHotel152

[5 APUs captain]

According Russian-OPS (ФАП) the go-round shall be made if at decision height or below the RW is occupied. No doubts.

[glendalegoon]

MikeHotel152

I agree with you 100 percent.

I've been cleared to takeoff on a runway that was occupied by a fuel truck. I had to tell the tower twice they were making a mistake before they looked out the freaking window (not in spain).

MikeHotel152 I will agree with you until the FAA (etc) says the the tower controller is PIC at which time I will set the parking brake, do the shutdown checklist and walk into the sunset, whistling: OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER>

Good Job MikeHotel152 and don't let HT get you down.

[PENKO]

So according to the co-pilot of the UTair, the Argentina340 ignored the tower instruction to hold short of the runway... end of story?

[Hotel Tango]

Fell off my chair laughing at you glendalegoon. You've got it all wrong. I was not suggesting for one second that FD crews should trust ATC blindly, just the same as we don't blindly trust what FD crews tell us. 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 who do a great job, often under difficult conditions. 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!

[mary meagher]

Patowalker, in post 31, refers to a report by AeroInside that includes this alarming paragraph:

"Runway 02 is normally not used and inactive... the habit of taxying across 02 without paying attention to the holding points for runway 02 has already caused a number of runway incursions....."

This time, nobody got hurt...

[Molokai]

I think at Gatwick this would be classed as: 'a completely unnecessary go-around'. But each operator and controller has their own limits, so you cannot overly criticise someone for going around.

Agreed. Someone just want to have a dig at aviators who do not claim to be skygods.

I lost count of the number times when I was at less than 200ft above the threshold when some other aircraft just cross the runway centerline, especially at EGLL and PHNL on good visiblility day time operations. I only went around at around 150ft AGL once at PHNL RW 08L when the JAL aircraft took ages to cross at RB...RB is just too close to the threshold!

[ChickenHouse]

Looking at the vid and the taxi chart I admit I am uncertain how I would handle taxiing. Start K8 as heavy and request crossing RWY 02 from GND will give you what? Clearance to cross one time, or cross three times? On a quick view my papers don't give answer to regulations set. I guess I would ask three times, but I am not frequent visitor there.

[DaveReidUK]

Incident now the subject of an investigation by the CIAIAC (Spanish AIB), though no narrative yet available:

Relación de accidentes e incidentes. Año 2014 - 2014 - Investigación - CIAIAC - Órganos Colegiados - Ministerio de Fomento (http://www.fomento.gob.es/MFOM/LANG_CASTELLANO/ORGANOS_COLEGIADOS/CIAIAC/INVESTIGACION/2014/default.htm) (last item)

Interesting to note that, of the 16 2014 events listed as currently under investigation, 5 appear to be incidents involving a pair of aircraft.

[Mark in CA]

malthouse: Unless you consider that it is attracting attention to an airport with possible layout/volume issues and comms/language procedures.

Or would you rather we only talk about things after they go wrong?

I don't think this rises to the level of something that most people in the U.S. will care about, or need to. Hence the widespread video coverage on U.S. network news broadcasts (i.e., national news programs) is really overblown and sensationalized. Should this matter simply be swept under the rug? Of course not. The issues you raise are valid ones, but are I think of more concern to Spanish aviation authorities than the American public.

[TurboTomato]

From other forums (may or may not be true)

Explanation from a BCN ATCO :
Airport was about to change from night configuration to day configuration. At night, runway 02 is used for landing and 07R for take-off, while during the day 25L becomes the take-off runway and 25R is used for landing (unless winds favor runways 07L/R).
Two of the three ground Air Traffic Controllers work in a smaller Tower located near the main Terminal (frequencies 121.65 and 122.225) while the other ground frequency (121.7), delivery and the two tower frequencies (118.1 and 119.1) are located in the main Tower. 121.65 (122.225 not used at night) cleared the Aerolineas Argentinas A340 to cross runway 02, which he thought was not active as he expected the airport to be in day configuration. Meanwhile, the UT Air Boeing 767 was cleared to land on the same runway by Tower (118.1).
Crossing the active runway usually requires some coordination between the two towers but this is not necessary in night configuration.
Source : PilotList, Robert T.

[Hotel Tango]

Hmm, if they were "about to change" from night to day config, it is odd that some 15 mins after the GA the UTAir landed on 02.

[underfire]

In answer to your question, "Would I press TOGA at 50 feet". Yes I would, and yes I have.

That is not what I meant.
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

[phiggsbroadband]

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.

[Hotel Tango]

As how was he to know if the taxying plane was not going to turn right for a back-track of the runway.

Notwithstanding the angle involved, did you see the speed it (the A340) was moving at? Handbrake turn maybe?! Only in the movies :) 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.

[bobwi]

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.

[DaveReidUK]

Btw, just for info, I've seen quite a few late G/As at LHR, LGWAround one in every 400 approaches at LHR goes around, the ratio is a bit higher at LGW.

I'm guessing that the stats for BCN aren't published.

[mary meagher]

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?

[fireflybob]

What do you say to the pax on a go-around

On a Go Around - nothing - you're busy flying, configuring, following the MAP, and communicating with ATC.

After the Go Around, one would have a few words to reassure the passengers.

[Mikehotel152]

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'm sorry that you reached an erroneous conclusion from my comment. It was not meant as a criticism of professionalism; merely a reflection of the physical risk facing each party when issuing and accepting clearances to cross runways.

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!

We all make mistakes, which is why using all available safety aids is essential - the Mk I eyeball is an important part of this, especially for pilots.

[xcitation]

@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.

[Hotel Tango]

:ok: 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. :O

[deefer dog]

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.

[ExitRow]

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 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=167805)

[OldLurker]

Obstacle clearance areas and climb profiles are based on missed approach parameters from the DA, NOT balked landing parameters.underfire, I'm sure you're right, but could you explain a little further for this ignorant amateur?

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!)

[jmmoric]

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".

[JamesGV]

Linate !

Pull the tapes.

Some crews blindly follow instructions.
Others look out of the window to check it is raining.

[Squawk_ident]

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.

[flydive1]

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 (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/07/17/italy-investigates-milan-malpensa-runway-incursion-incident/)

[Hotel Tango]

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.