Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video

[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??!!

Originally Posted by Mary

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]

Originally Posted by RevMan2

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

[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]

Bidule

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 (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.