Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: EU
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
To Callsign Kilo, #42
"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!
It would have changed nothing if they were speaking Russian. The Russian 767 was obviously not yet on the ground frequency!
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.
Go around procedure should not be initiated below 100' agl.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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!
It would have changed nothing if they were speaking Russian. The Russian 767 was obviously not yet on the ground frequency!
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.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. I guess that, as "balked landing" doesn't appear to be officially defined anywhere AFAIK, interpretations can differ.
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?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: close
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Underfire
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."
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."
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 55
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
engine noise
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Atlantic
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IS this incident worth media attention?
Or would you rather we only talk about things after they go wrong?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not even close
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.
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.
Not really, but because of the perspective and distance squashing of the long lens, it makes for very dramatic video.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edited overpass
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.
