at a boy fatbus!


OK FOLKS< simple question: US Television is awash in this video. IS this incident worth media attention?

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.

Remind me .......... how long does it take to spool the engines up on a 340.? Was the landing abandoned a lot earlyer that appears.

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!

OK. I guess that, as "balked landing" doesn't appear to be officially defined anywhere AFAIK, interpretations can differ. I've certainly always treated the term as interchangeable with GA/missed approach.

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?

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...

Wouldn't they be on the same frequency, I thought runway operations were handled by the tower? Unless the tower gave a command to cross and contact ground. Is that normal practice?

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.

Fair enough.
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'?

You have either have a tailored procedure in the box, or understand what the fk you are doing. ie, you had better have a tailored procedure in the box.

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.

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."

@blue_ashy

+1.

If you're going to be crossing the active you'll be on tower freq, not ground.

A4

Not really, but because of the perspective and distance squashing of the long lens, it makes for very dramatic video.

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?

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?

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.

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...