United UA57 cleared for wrong runway - swingover to lined up Easyjet
 

found on avherald (respecting copyright so my own words)

20th of July 2020
United 787-10 on final to 09L at CDG
ATC error cleared them on 09R
UA swinged over
Edit: Easyjet 320-200 was told to line up and wait for t/o clearance on 09R, warned on radio
G/A at 260ft AGL
rated serious incident by BEA

Standard practice in the US to have the runway occupied on short final. Doubt the UA crew considered it a serious incident. Probably didn’t even need to do any paperwork.

Well, there's "occupied" and then there's "occupied". As I'm sure you know better than I, a runway is "occupied", whether waiting at the numbers for takeoff clearance or clearing the departure end threshold. I'm not sure about that latter point, the aircraft may to still have to be physically in contact with the runway surface, but that is how I recall it having been explained to me. Then again, there's "short final" and then there is "short final".

Here's a link to the AvHerald article:
Incident: United B78X at Paris on Jul 20th 2020, cleared to land on wrong runway, ATC error saved by Easyjet

I don't know, but it sounds pretty serious to me ... but not as serious as the Air Canada 'Bus lining up to land on the full (of taxiing/stopped aircraft) taxiway at SFO.

Well, 3 mistakes adding up. Error 1 by ATC confusing 09R with L. Only one letter, but serious. Error 2 by UA crew to swing over without questioning the unforseen change. Error 3 by UA crew to go around so late, at low altitude. METAR reports clear visibility, so how could they miss to spot the waiting Easyjet until being so close? That last error is quite hard to understand and needs to be investigated the most. I hope this was not as bad as it reads.

Good job of the Easyjet crew for keeping good SA. The only clue they had was the radio transmission mentioning the wrong runway (Here I assume there was no explicit call to swing over by UA crew)

Something to keep in mind for all the French air traffic controllers and pilots...

Would easyJet crew be able to maintain the same level of SA, should the aircraft performing a sidestep speak with ATC in French?

This clearance most likely occured at 9nm when it would have seemed "reasonable" at that point (usually you get "Landing Clearance" in CDG after checking into tower frequency and announcing which Runway you're lined up for).

If ATC cleared them at the typical point (1-2nm when the runway was actually clear) like every other European airport, it would have seemed quite odd to switch runways then and the UA crew would have probably questioned the clearance. Specific mistakes aside here, to me just stands as another reason that "clearing someone to land #3" is really poor practice, as much as you're 'used to it' in the US.

There is no encumbrance to ATC expedition by waiting to clear someone to land when the runway is actually clear... Clue's in the word isn't it?

I know I've had this precise debate with some of the above posters here before, but apart from arguing that they're used to it, I cannot see any safety advantage in issuing clearances like this. Hopefully this will be the thing that shakes up CDG to the standard of rest of the sensible world.

Exactly! This was the first thing that occurred to me. The French and their ridiculous pride over safety approach to reducing the SA of other crews.

Several times I’ve had busy Paris / CDG controllers issue me with instructions in French - typically when they are so busy that you have to wait some time before you can get a word in to request a proper clearance.

Does UA use the hud in their 787’s? If so, did the flight path vector cue, and all the other green muck in your field of sight, compromise the field of vision of the landing aircraft?
perhaps they could not see the easyjet very clearly though the hud.

I wouldn't call that an error, with a busy airport the runway is quite often occupied till you're very close to the runway. Latest landing clearance I ever received was at maybe 20-30ft above the CAT I minima...
Or something like "XXX, after departing A320 cleared to land Rwy YY" which basically tells you: OK, there's still traffic on the runway. One can go all the way to the minima before going around, in case the departing traffic is still on the runway - and CAT I minima tend to be around 200ft AGL, so I can't see anything wrong here.

Yep definitely.

Here's a fairly sparse plot from FR24 of the UAL GA:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3946b84cb8.jpg

It could do with a few more data points, but it appears to show that:

a) the United initiated the sidestep at approximately 2.5 DME from the 09L threshold

b) the height AGL over the 09R piano keys was approximately 75' (not necessarily the lowest height achieved in the GA)

The EZY plot on FR24 is even more inconclusive, but is consistent with having entered the runway at D5.

Usual FR24 caveats apply, in spades.

I know sidestep is pretty common in the US, but surprised they would attempt one at 2.5nm if that plot is correct.

DaveReidUK

Oh great. So with all caution regarding the data validity, this is the picture including the assumed Easyjet Position on the rwy (NOT moving I understand):

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....de13e01b58.jpg

(a position which is somehow parallel to the threshold of original 09L)

Look at the threshold displacement between 09L and 09R, UA swung to a runway being much closer.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....964a0895c8.jpg

giggitygiggity

As a european pilot, I have to disagree with you there. I far prefer the way CDG (and the US) issue landing clearances to receiving landing clearances below 200’ (and even below 100’) at LHR and (to a lesser extent) LGW.

Paradoxically in good daylight visibility another aircraft is not so easy to spot on a runway, especially if it is not on the piano keys but further down. From rear with the shallow approach angle the most visible parts are the wings and HS, both of which are a dull grey closely matching the concrete of the runway.

Yeah, they should paint them a high visibility color, like orange or something.

as it was in the morning probably they had also the sun just in front of them

donotdespisethesnake

I'm not sure how good your eyes are but from behind the amount of orange that might be seen might be able to cover a bikini in Ibiza.

I'm really surprised how late the UA crew swinged over. In the FR24 plot, which is never precise enuff an in doubts for me, they were aligned with the runway just inside the airport perimeter. If it really was was that late, I accept that they didn't have a lot of time to spot another airplane occupying the runway. And especially that one said of being at a position for intersection takeoff. Wonder how they managed to be at height over threshold.

Some asked for the Easyjet not having lined up yet. We can't know, but indirect hints are there: If it was totally save, they wouldn't have complained right away. And: BEA ranked it a serious incident "landing clearence on occupied runway. Yes, we don't know if they were already lined up. But obviously the Easyjet already crossed the Holding Position and entered the runway zone.

So I modify:
Error 1: ATC
Error 2: crew swing over very late, and still without questioning. This was not a stabilized approach at all, and looks like they coudn't maintain sufficient situational awareness.

But this needs confirmation from accurate details.

andrasz

If the swing over was that late as FR24 data suggests, you are absolutly right

Er - what does "sweep over" mean?
35 years in commercial aviation and this is a first.

"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.