Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video

Old 7th Jul 2014, 13:54
  #41 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
With a fin that high and possible sink on g/a I don't think I would push it too far!
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 13:56
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,271
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
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.
Callsign Kilo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 14:02
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,281
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?
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 15:23
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 75
Posts: 1,037
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
patowalker is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 16:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,166
Originally Posted by WhyByFlier
An honest mistake from ATC and dreadful airmanship from the Argentinian crew.
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....
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 17:09
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 47
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.
Howard Long is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 18:15
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,957
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).
fireflybob is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 18:25
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,437
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.
Right Way Up is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 19:43
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 67
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.
retrosgone is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 19:51
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 294
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!!!
16024 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 20:01
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South, near the end of the world.
Age: 46
Posts: 262
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.

Last edited by cosmiccomet; 7th Jul 2014 at 20:43.
cosmiccomet is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 21:34
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Basel, Switzerland
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by LookingForAJob
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?
baselb is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 21:40
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
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...
underfire is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 21:53
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,351
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.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 22:25
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,593
seems more like a balked landing scenario...
Given that a balked landing is synonymous with a go-around, I think you could be right.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 22:28
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,423
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?
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 22:40
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 248
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.

Last edited by clark y; 7th Jul 2014 at 22:41. Reason: Spelling
clark y is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 23:08
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,281
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.
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 02:03
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 3,829
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
Brian Abraham is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2014, 02:07
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 35
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.
underfire is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.