"sidestep" in FAA land

oh dear! "swing over" was what I meant all the time. Sorry for this stupid confusion.

Been flying to FAA land for 30 years never heard of sweepover

I've been flying 25 years and never heard "sweep over" ? Where does this come from?

see my comment, I corrected all posts I was able to.

Ray,

I realise that you are new here, but many of us try not to judge until we have all of the facts for example what were the UAs crew or the controllers fatigue levels?
The fact that you used sweepover now changed to step over when I’ve always heard side step used, is ironic when compared to your error 1.

Confession time:

My previous graphic showing the sidestep (now corrected) contained an incorrectly calculated height over the threshold (caused by my reading down the runway heading column in my airport reference database, instead of runway elevation :\).

Actual height over the THR was approximately 75', rather than 375', my apologies for the senior moment, Specsavers appointment booked.

A320 fin height is 39' ...

Looking at FR24 am I correct in sighting that the traffic preceding the UAL was AF443 (also a 787 btw) and that traffic did land on 09R (cue ATC having 09R subconsciously in their head)? I also note (according to my FR24 playback) that the Easy apparently lined up at an intersection some 1000 metres from the threshold of 09R? That may explain why United didn't see it (or may have initially thought it was well on the roll at that point. There's still a lot of pertinent information missing.

DaveReidUK

First round of confession completed? ;)

For AVH reporting a Go Around at 260 feet AGL, this matches your calculation even less. Now we don't know which source was more accurate.

I couldn't find any good detaul on BEA website. But ... see next post

Pistonprop

That matches an anonymous commenter on AV Herald. Sounds like from an insider, but how can we know? He states that the preceeding landing Air France 787 requested longer 09R due to brake issues. ATC cleared its landing on 09R. Then ATC approved Easyjet to line up 09R. Then ATC cleared UA57 to land on 09R. Easyjet "not fully lined up but braked hard exiting taxyway", the comment states. And added that ATC alarm system was also triggered.

Let's see what's real.

I do try not to judge, and I swallowed most of the early thoughts. With such little info we can absolutly assume not seeing the complete picture. And certainly not to blame anybody (Did one 3rd world remark to be ironic and provocating, got me reset to a newbie status. Here we rather (ironic on) see an UA obedience culture and steep command gradient ATC to flight deck /irony off)

On the other hand I stay with the fact there was an error 1 by ATC, an error 2 by crew which now seems more important and an error 3 appearing less mystic now.

My error 1. Still I wanna write sweep, and swing doesn't come easy, it's so crazy. :ugh:

Avherald's calculation is based on a transponder altitude of 500 feet. I have no idea where they got that value from, but FR24 clearly shows Mode S values down to 325'.

Adjust the FR24 value for QNH and runway elevation and there's no way you can make that equate to 260' AGL.

CDG Go-Round
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...x-up-sbdk2x2m0

Planes on collision course after Charles de Gaulle airport controller’s error

A slip of the tongue by an air traffic controller put a United Airlines jet on course to collide with an easyJet Airbus seconds before aborting its landing at Paris, an official report has revealed.

Potential disaster was only averted when the pilots of the easyJet Airbus A320 saw the United Boeing 787 bearing down on their runway less than 300ft off the ground as they pulled on to the same runway to take off, according to the Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA), the air accident investigation branch.

The incident on July 20 last year was triggered when the tower controller told United Flight 57, which was carrying 73 people from Newark, New Jersey, that it was cleared to land on runway 09 right at Charles de Gaulle airport. The jet was already low on the approach to the parallel eastward-facing runway 09 left but the pilots assumed that they had been instructed to “sidestep” to the right and line up to land on the right hand one.

The United co-pilot responded, asking for confirmation with an English expression that was not grasped by the controller. “Understand cleared to land 09 right, sidestep for 9 right”, the pilot said. This was a request for confirmation but the controller did not react. The Boeing pilot flicked off the automatic pilot and steered the jet manually on to the parallel approach. The sidestep manoeuvre, called a “doing a bayonet” in French, is occasionally used at busy airports.

The controller, unaware of her error, cleared the easyJet on to the same runway to take off. The pilots saw the Boeing but assumed in the dawn light that it was still aiming for the parallel runway, 250 yards away, where most landings were taking place. Only when they were already on the runway, did they realise the danger. The Boeing was less than a mile away descending through 300ft towards them travelling at about 160mph.

The easyJet co-pilot radioed: “Traffic landing 09 right” and told the Boeing: “Go around 09 right! Go around!”

The big jet, which was light with only a quarter of its normal passengers because of the pandemic, slammed on power to abort the landing. Its pilots had just spotted the easyJet Airbus at the same time. The Boeing came within 80ft from the ground, just 250 yards from the end of the runway before it began climbing away.

The controller told the investigators that “she thought her tongue had slipped because she was focused on Runway 09 right with [an] Air France Boeing 787 that had just landed there,” the report said. “She explained that controllers regularly made such slips of the tongue”.

The controller blamed her lack of recent practice because of the slowdown of air travel in the coronavirus crisis.

The report also faulted the United pilots for failing to use clearer language. They should have requested the controller to “confirm” her instruction. They noted, though, that there was no international standard on the phrase and that “understand” is commonly used by American pilots.

Non-French pilots have complained for years about the potential hazards caused by the use of both French and English at Paris airports. French airliners use French, leaving most other pilots on the frequency in the dark over what instructions they are being given. Most other countries require English only to be used at major airports. Air France pilots once threatened to go on strike when they were required to only communicate in English.

Just before she switched into English to order the wrong instruction, the controller had used French to clear an Air France Boeing to land on the right hand runway.

Just stick to English before a disaster happens.

Banana Joe

It already has - remember the freighter pilot killed at CDG in the runway collision, unaware that the conflicting departing traffic had been issued a takeoff clearance in French.

Sorry to be so ignorant but wouldn't both aircraft have had TCAS operating at that time? I don't see any mention of that.

dmwalker

TCAS RAs and TAs become inhibited below certain radio altitudes.

Sick

Safety recommendation made after that May 2000 accident:

"(that) in the light of the analysis of this accident and previously acquired experience, the DGAC study the expediency and methods of implementation for the systematic use of the English language for air traffic control at Paris Charles de Gaulle aerodrome, as well as the extension of this measure to other aerodromes with significant international traffic."

As they say in France, "plus ça change ..."

BEA report just published in French:

https://bea.aero/les-enquetes/evenem...-de-gaulle-95/

Not showing as available in English yet, but that usually follows in a few days.

UPDATE: English version just released, Sept 2nd 2021

https://bea.aero/en/investigation-re...-de-gaulle-ad/

BTW, the BEA report clarifies the sequence of events in the last couple of seconds, in terms of situational awareness and reaction.

- EasyJet Captain (who was not PF) sees United descending but can't be sure which runway he's lined up to
- United sidesteps as per ATC instruction but asks (unclearly) for confirmation
- United , with good visual to threshold, sees Easyjet entering his new runway and executes a go round
- EasyJet PC does a final visual on the approaching traffic, realises United is for his runway, and issues and emergency go round instruction on the frequency; also stands on his brakes
- ATC (who does not have a visual to the threshold in question) hears this and at the same time gets an audible alert; she issues a go round instruction
- Simultaneously, the ground controller (who does have a visual to the threshold) by chance sees that the United and the Easyjet are in conflict, and turns to alert his colleague, who is at that moment issuing her go-around.