Edited overpass
 

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

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?

@indigopete - 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!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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!

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

From other forums (may or may not be true)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

: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

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.

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

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!)

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".

Linate !

Pull the tapes.

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

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.

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

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.