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 9th Jul 2014, 06:34
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,751
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2014, 09:16
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
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.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2014, 09:27
  #103 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tunbridge Wells, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 109
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.
TurboTomato is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2014, 12:55
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,423
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.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2014, 22:03
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 55
Posts: 34
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
underfire is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 11:24
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 543
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.
phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 15:09
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,423
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.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 15:21
  #108 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: close
Posts: 588
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.
bobwi is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 16:23
  #109 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,751
Btw, just for info, I've seen quite a few late G/As at LHR, LGW
Around 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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 20:08
  #110 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
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?
mary meagher is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 20:25
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,959
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.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2014, 21:52
  #112 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 1,218
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.
Mikehotel152 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 00:14
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 51
Posts: 203
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.
xcitation is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 10:20
  #114 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,423
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.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2014, 15:25
  #115 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 63
Posts: 641
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.
deefer dog is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2014, 11:27
  #116 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
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
ExitRow is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2014, 12:29
  #117 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 276
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!)
OldLurker is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 14:27
  #118 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 318
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".
jmmoric is online now  
Old 15th Jul 2014, 18:05
  #119 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dubai
Posts: 91
Linate !

Pull the tapes.

Some crews blindly follow instructions.
Others look out of the window to check it is raining.
JamesGV is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2014, 09:05
  #120 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 163
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.
Squawk_ident 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.