Talk about a close call

[turnandbank 243]

Talk about a close call.  Somebody should be held accountable for this one.  Video speaks for itself. 

 

 

 

[stans 702]

Looks to me like the Skyteam crew failed to hold short or the tower failed to advise them to hold short.

[JB3DG 225]

Negligence on the part of the crew of the Skyteam bird. Its an absolute basic to check for traffic before entering the runway even at a controlled airfield(or it is at least here in SA). Of course in ultra low visibility you would have to rely on the tower but they don't have much excuse in that clear weather.

[cfsops 0]

I don't think this is as "dramatic" as it appears.

The 767 was landing on runway 2, which is 8333 feet long. The A340, given it's direction and angle to the camera, is using taxiway M, which crosses runway 2 nearly 4000 feet from the start of runway 2, according to the airport diagram.

The 767 appears to be at least 100 or so feet off the ground. Assuming 100 feet and a 3 degree glideslope, it may have been as far as 1900 feet from the runway. Assuming 50 feet, it would be about 1000 feet from the runway. So at the time the 767 performed the go-around, it was easily nearly a mile away from the A340.

The 767 is a 767-3Q8ER with a landing speed of 145 knots, or 167 mph, or 245 feet/sec, according to Boeing documentation. Had the 767 continued it's approach and landing, it would have taken at least 20 seconds for it to reach the taxiway crossing. Even longer since the plane would be braking after touchdown. Though it goes out of frame, it appears to be off the runway about 10 seconds or so after the 767 began climbing out.

I'm not suggesting the go-around was uncalled for: in my opinion, a go-around is appropriate whenever the person flying the plane believes it's necessary. In my opinion, the 767 crew exercised superior judgment by choosing to go around under the circumstances. I'm only saying that the planes were not as close as they seem in the video, nor as close as the "media" wishes people to believe.

[strider1 575]

Close call or not, one plane per runway !

[nikeulas 0]

http://pilote-virtuel.com/viewtopic.php?id=63348

 

Explanation from a BCN ATCO : 

Airport was about to change from night configuration to day configuration. At night, runway 02 is used for landing and 07R for take-off, while during the day 25L becomes the take-off runway and 25R is used for landing (unless winds favor runways 07L/R).

Two of the three ground Air Traffic Controllers work in a smaller Tower located near the main Terminal (frequencies 121.65 and 122.225) while the other ground frequency (121.7), delivery and the two tower frequencies (118.1 and 119.1) are located in the main Tower. 121.65 (122.225 not used at night) cleared the Aerolineas Argentinas A340 to cross runway 02, which he thought was not active as he expected the airport to be in day configuration. Meanwhile, the UT Air Boeing 767 was cleared to land on the same runway by Tower (118.1).

Crossing the active runway usually requires some coordination between the two towers but this is not necessary in night configuration.

 

Source : PilotList, Robert T.

[Christopher Low 5,352]

That doesn't clear the crew of the Skyteam A340. If the first officer had bothered to look out of his side window to check if there was an aircraft about to land, then this incident would not have occurred.

[ACAJS41 2]

I don't think this is as "dramatic" as it appears.

 

The 767 was landing on runway 2, which is 8333 feet long. The A340, given it's direction and angle to the camera, is using taxiway M, which crosses runway 2 nearly 4000 feet from the start of runway 2, according to the airport diagram.

 

The 767 appears to be at least 100 or so feet off the ground. Assuming 100 feet and a 3 degree glideslope, it may have been as far as 1900 feet from the runway. Assuming 50 feet, it would be about 1000 feet from the runway. So at the time the 767 performed the go-around, it was easily nearly a mile away from the A340.

 

The 767 is a 767-3Q8ER with a landing speed of 145 knots, or 167 mph, or 245 feet/sec, according to Boeing documentation. Had the 767 continued it's approach and landing, it would have taken at least 20 seconds for it to reach the taxiway crossing. Even longer since the plane would be braking after touchdown. Though it goes out of frame, it appears to be off the runway about 10 seconds or so after the 767 began climbing out.

 

I'm not suggesting the go-around was uncalled for: in my opinion, a go-around is appropriate whenever the person flying the plane believes it's necessary. In my opinion, the 767 crew exercised superior judgment by choosing to go around under the circumstances. I'm only saying that the planes were not as close as they seem in the video, nor as close as the "media" wishes people to believe.

+1... this sort of thing happens more often then people think, its just that someone happend to be filming during this one and the media gets a hold of it and blows it out of purportion.

The A340 could have been told to cross the runway without delay and things got a bit to close so the 767 went around... really not a big deal at all, but the media purchased the tape and had to in some way make this look like a disaster...

Calling neglagance on the part of the A340 crew is a bit harsh untill the ATC tapes are heard... Telephoto lenses can also make this look much closer then they really are.

That doesn't clear the crew of the Skyteam A340. If the first officer had bothered to look out of his side window to check if there was an aircraft about to land, then this incident would not have occurred.

Aircraft cross many runways when other aircraft are on final approach... this happens everyday across the world. 99% of the time it works, and and the other 1% it doesn't. When that 1% happens... exactly what took place in this video is result.

Ive been flying in the airlines for 15 years...

[vololiberista 205]

The video is clearly shot with a telephoto lens which foreshortens everything making everything look much closer than it is in reality.

 

The landing pilot made the correct decision even though it was safe to land. Because had the crossing a/c stopped unexpectedly that would have posed a greater danger.

 

The media is making more out of it than there is solely because the video makes it look more dramatic.

[Les Parson 99]

Yep, agreed. It reminds me of my old days at LAX as a controller re Rwy's 25L & 25R.

[dazz 69]

That doesn't clear the crew of the Skyteam A340. If the first officer had bothered to look out of his side window to check if there was an aircraft about to land, then this incident would not have occurred.

 

Some argue the A340 was crossing 02 at a steep angle and there's no way the RHS pilot could see the approaching Utair 762

 

http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/06/2014-07-05-argentine-a340-and-russian-b762-in-serious-runway-incursion-at-barcelona-spain/

[Great Ozzie 101]

Problem with that Dazz...

 

Why didn't he hit F11 and pan around the plane?

[SirStiggie 63]

Problem with that Dazz...

 

Why didn't he hit F11 and pan around the plane?

I was wondering the same thing...

[dazz 69]

Problem with that Dazz...

 

Why didn't he hit F11 and pan around the plane?

 

those noobs, hahaha

 

 

 

http://pilote-virtue...ic.php?id=63348

 

Explanation from a BCN ATCO : 

Airport was about to change from night configuration to day configuration. At night, runway 02 is used for landing and 07R for take-off, while during the day 25L becomes the take-off runway and 25R is used for landing (unless winds favor runways 07L/R).

Two of the three ground Air Traffic Controllers work in a smaller Tower located near the main Terminal (frequencies 121.65 and 122.225) while the other ground frequency (121.7), delivery and the two tower frequencies (118.1 and 119.1) are located in the main Tower. 121.65 (122.225 not used at night) cleared the Aerolineas Argentinas A340 to cross runway 02, which he thought was not active as he expected the airport to be in day configuration. Meanwhile, the UT Air Boeing 767 was cleared to land on the same runway by Tower (118.1).

Crossing the active runway usually requires some coordination between the two towers but this is not necessary in night configuration.

 

Source : PilotList, Robert T.

 

Poor coordination on their part then?

 

"which he thought was not active as he expected the airport to be in day configuration"

 

doesn't sound like a great excuse to me. I'm no pro, just asking.

[Nikdunaev 0]

All that is already proven to be the actual severe fault of the Skyteam crew on the runway.

Russians had their landing clearance. Skyteam guys also had the clearance to cross the runway but after the traffic on short final not before! They received this message and provided correct readback. Nobody knows for sure why did they go after acknowledging the crossing instruction correctly and certainly nobody expected this! The traffic controller apologized to the Russian crew right after this.