PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543082-aerolineas-argentina-a340-runway-incursion-bcn-video.html)

transilvana 6th Jul 2014 15:10

Aerolineas Argentina A340 runway incursion BCN video
 
No need to explain it, just watch the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5T...ature=youtu.be

Machinbird 6th Jul 2014 15:28

Well that was a big failure on someone's part.

When you see something stupid going on in front of you just react as necessary. No need for ATC to tell you to go around. Sort it all out afterwards.

Now lets see what the investigators say.

lomapaseo 6th Jul 2014 16:35

More than one failure here and a bit of luck to overcome them.

I would have expected some eyes in the RH seat would be looking at the approach to confirm it was clear and not buried in a map or something else.

Track 6th Jul 2014 19:39

Wow, I guess we can forget getting a 25R crossing from now on...Sierra and M10 it is....

SpringHeeledJack 6th Jul 2014 19:51

It looks worse because of the foreshortening of the lens used, but in terms of close it ticks that box. It makes you wonder how sharp the BCN ATC staff are to let that happen.

LookingForAJob 6th Jul 2014 20:03

Investigation report will, hopefully, answer all the questions.

Don't know how correct the audio is but does the go-around sound a bit half-hearted at first too?

captplaystation 6th Jul 2014 20:04

Always felt comfortable with 2.5nm spacing at LGW, and landing clearances as the departing is rotating, because, it is "planned" that way, and IF it goes wrong, they have a game plan.

Problem with BCN is that stuff like that happens by default, and the plan is. . . . . . . . well, there is no plan.

Unfortunate consequence of course, as said already, RW crossings will go out of fashion. Oh well, good for the block hrs.

akaSylvia 6th Jul 2014 20:31

It is foreshortened but according to ASN:

ADS-B data logged by Flightaware24 suggest the B767 had descended to 250 feet before the go around was initiated.

akaSylvia 6th Jul 2014 20:42

Comments on Youtube seem to be saying that the Argentine Airbus repeated the instruction to holdback and then didn't. Aviation Herald says it's unclear as to whether ATC gave clearance or not. LiveATC has LEBL tower but not ground. Is there any other option to replay the interactions directly before the incursion?

short bus 6th Jul 2014 20:42

Are eyeballs out the window what saved the day here or would there have been some other warning to alert the crew?

OntimeexceptACARS 6th Jul 2014 21:13

Could have been very different if a night approach.

readywhenreaching 6th Jul 2014 21:17

www.jacdec.de

http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/[email protected]_MAP.jpg

DaveReidUK 6th Jul 2014 21:18


ADS-B data logged by Flightaware24 suggest the B767 had descended to 250 feet before the go around was initiated.
ADS-B height data logged by the flight tracking websites is basically a Flight Level (whether above or below the TA), in other words it's not corrected for QNH.

So if the aircraft was actually at the height indicated by FR24, it's pure coincidence - indeed the video strongly suggests it was lower.

Caboclo 6th Jul 2014 21:32


Don't know how correct the audio is but does the go-around sound a bit half-hearted at first too?
Agreed. Seems like the pitch up happened in 2 stages as well.

AreOut 6th Jul 2014 21:39

it was maybe as low as 100ft certainly much lower than 250

fireflybob 6th Jul 2014 21:48


ADS-B height data logged by the flight tracking websites is basically a Flight Level (whether above or below the TA), in other words it's not corrected for QNH.
QNH in the early morning of yesterday at LEBL was 1016 from archive metar so 250 feet based on 1013 would put a/c about 80 feet higher at 330 feet but not sure about accuracy of ADS-B height data.

Maybe pitch up in 2 stages on GA a/c due initial TOGA and then max thrust due urgency?

FougaMagister 6th Jul 2014 21:56

This is such a basic lack of airmanship that there can't be many excuses for the A340's crew. Always check for traffic on finals before crossing a runway, even if cleared to cross. PPL lesson 1.01 or so...

That said, ATC has some answering to do too. I wonder:
1/ which language was used between ATC and Aerolineas Argentinas (if using Spanish then the approaching UTAir 767 crew was probably left out of the loop)
2/ whether any stop bars are fitted at taxiway/runway crossing points (such as M5 on the diagram).

I fly to BCN every now and then, and never like it. Convoluted taxi routings, near mandatory runway crossings (at least to/from apron R4), and you just feel that ATC isn't on top of their game. When there, I taxi at walking pace, make sure the FO writes down all taxi instructions, and (yes, even before this happened) double-check all runway crossing instructions (and of course check for traffic).

I'll be even more careful in the future...

Cheers :cool:

Hotel Tango 6th Jul 2014 23:06

I'm still trying to figure out (if the above diagram is correct) what exactly the A340 was doing. Had he landed on 7R (unlikely) and was taxying to the terminal. If so why that route? Was he taxying for departure on 25R (normal for heavies and if so, why did he originate from K4/K5 area?

RAD_ALT_ALIVE 6th Jul 2014 23:51

Judging by the speed at which the A340 was taxying as it crossed the runway, together with the relatively late go-around of the B767, my take on it is that the A340 crew had been cleared to expedite the crossing, but in the end didn't do it as quickly as the controller had expected/hoped (especially considering the turn - if the taxy route is correct - from D onto M).

Had it been a completely unexpected incursion onto RWY02, I'd have thought that the B767 crew would have commenced the go-around earlier.

I can't imagine any crew would cross an active runway at such speed, in clear conditions, without looking in both directions first. Nor can I imagine a scenario in which that same crew, having looked, could fail to see the heavy on final. Lastly, having seen the aircraft on final, I couldn't imagine a crew crossing that runway (with or without a clearance) unless they felt comfortable to do so by virtue of a clearance which of and by itself inferred that, if done without delay, would be a safe manoeuvre and expeditious to the flow of traffic at the airport.

I think it was an error of judgement (by both the controller and the Argentinian crew) instead of a careless compliance failure.

Let's also not forget that the A340 was at least 1km from the threshold when it crossed.

It was a dramatic-looking video, but I doubt it was a particularly dramatic event for either crew.

AlphaZuluRomeo 7th Jul 2014 00:04

Hotel Tango, it didn't originate from K4/5 but most likely from the sea-side apron of the terminal 1, i.e @ K8/9 limit.
So taxi via K, then D, then M to 25R. Only D & M parts highlighted on the diagram, but you can see the K part at the beginning of the video.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.