Incident at Barcelona

brandon_flowers

Just saw this on the FR24 Facebook page. Pretty serious runway breach.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM

mr.anonymous

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Just saw this on the FR24 Facebook page. Pretty serious runway breach.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM

Certainly looks like a serious Runway Incursion.

I believe a Ryanair and other aircraft were involved in a similar occurrence before due to Runway 02 and 25L/R being in use.

Strumms

That is scary. 10 seconds later and things could have ended up seriously badly. You'd need to be asking serious questions of the 340 crew. Even if say they had been cleared in error to cross that active runway how they didn't check for aircraft is beyond me. I know videos can be deceiving but it does seem that they are fairly hauling ass during the taxi too.

magentis

Oh dear,clean trousers anybody?

olive20

mr.anonymous wrote: »

Certainly looks like a serious Runway Incursion.

I believe a Ryanair and other aircraft were involved in a similar occurrence before due to Runway 02 and 25L/R being in use.

Thats correct, the Ryanair had to Go Around because of Air France, new controller just out of training.
BCN needs alot of attention!

Anyway this forum wont allow me post that report so back to Pprune for me. Ciao

circular flexing

Covered here: http://avherald.com/h?article=476e99b0&opt=0

Rabbo

Imagine being a PAX on the taxiing aircraft and looking out the window to that sight. Must have caused some panic.

steve-o

The telephoto lens makes it look close, but the planes are at least 1km apart. Certainly not within safe margins to land, but not in any danger of actually colliding. It would take the landing plane at least 20 seconds to reach where the other plane had crossed.

It's quite possible that the plane was cleared to cross, and the approaching plane was not yet cleared to land (so had to go around). In that case there's no danger, it's just sloppy work by the controller.

circular flexing

The Daily Mail have it now

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2683019/Dramatic-moment-two-planes-collide-runway-Barcelona-airport-caught-video.html

L1011

circular flexing wrote: »

The Daily Mail have it now

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2683019/Dramatic-moment-two-planes-collide-runway-Barcelona-airport-caught-video.html

I like the way they left the word "almost" out of the URL, almost like its on purpose...

brandon_flowers

steve-o wrote: »

The telephoto lens makes it look close, but the planes are at least 1km apart. Certainly not within safe margins to land, but not in any danger of actually colliding. It would take the landing plane at least 20 seconds to reach where the other plane had crossed.

It's quite possible that the plane was cleared to cross, and the approaching plane was not yet cleared to land (so had to go around). In that case there's no danger, it's just sloppy work by the controller.

While you are right in what you are saying with the long distance lens the really worrying thing is that it seems like it was pure luck the 340 wasn't taxiing across 20 seconds later. It was very sloppy on someones behalf for sure.

Why there is no safety report is a bit baffling. In essence do we blame the Russian pilots for wasting passengers time with an unnecessary go around?

BonkeyDonker

brandon_flowers wrote: »

In essence do we blame the Russian pilots for wasting passengers time with an unnecessary go around?

No such thing as an un-necessary go-around. The real fear would be an un-necessary landing.

basill

Just because the airport and atc operator says there is no "safety report " doesn't mean one isn't already in progress. These things have to be completed by the captain then processed by the operator and filed with the regulator within a prescribed legal timeframe. These may well be different considering one will have an Argentinian AOC and the other EASA. From there they ping pong back and forth between all parties involved. The standard reply from the Spanish generally takes the form "if you do not hear any further from us then you can consider the matter as closed"....

brandon_flowers

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

No such thing as an un-necessary go-around. The real fear would be an un-necessary landing.

Unnecessary was meant tongue in cheek. That is basically what is being implied by authorities here, they (UTair) should have continued with the landing as it was "safe to do so". Inversely that means the go around was "unnecessary".

brendanf

while i don't believe there was any imminent danger can't figure out why the taxiing planes pilot just didn't look right before going out on the runway.

bit of a non story though - planes were a good bit apart and go - arounds are relatively common procedures

Tenger

God bless the Daily mail:

...........Miguel Angel, who posted the video to YouTube, where it has already been viewed more than one million times.
Angel, .......said seeing the near-miss was 'one of the worst experiences I have ever had'.

thomasj

http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/video-two-planes-have-serious-near-miss-at-barcelona-airport-635582.html

The airport's administrators said the two planes were exactly where they were supposed to be and that the two planes had enough distance between them.

To me that looked a bit too close for comfort.

tayto lover

And people wonder why i'm scared of flying.:(

basill

I think the 340 would probably be going for 25R due weight, so that bit of the reports so far is understandable. You see quite a few wide bodies going off the longer runway but inevitably they will pickup a significant delay as it is the preferred landing runway.

Until the atc transcripts and possibly an official report released little will be known.

smurfjed

Reading from JADE I was wrong about the A340 crossing at Taxiway K, so i deleted the previous airport chart. The JADEC report shows them crossing at M, although they would have previously crossed on K and D.

With this in mind, the video makes the aircraft appear a lot closer than it actually is.

Five Lamps

According to Sky News the same plane actually crossed the same runway twice. So some sort of dog legged route.

jimbis

Atc could have been totally aware about what was happening and the a340 just wasn't quick enough to cross the runway for them. I'm sure most on here have seen the Finnair go around at JFK and in that video you can hear the atc asking the obstructing aircraft to swiftly move it for traffic ( can't really understand the exact words) then asks again 'quick as you can for me please'. Seconds later tells the Finnair to go around as he obviously knows that the runway won't be clear in time.

Sorry I don't know how to link the vid on an iPad but it's easy to find on YouTube.

Not sure if that link works...
http://youtu.be/b0fVI4l8KQM

St. Leibowitz

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/07/08/why-you-shouldnt-panic-about-the-barcelona-el-pret-near-miss/

Interesting piece on a Mirror Group online site. Sorta helps put your faith back in journos, for a few minutes anyway.

fr336

St. Leibowitz wrote: »

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/07/08/why-you-shouldnt-panic-about-the-barcelona-el-pret-near-miss/

Interesting piece on a Mirror Group online site. Sorta helps put your faith back in journos, for a few minutes anyway.

And what if the aircraft on the ground had to stop for any reason? Or simply just stopped? Would have been game over. Ridiculous, dangerous situation imo.
Didn't a Ryanair have a near miss in this way at this very airport before? (FR weren't at fault btw)

Kenny2012

According to this report the A340 was on it's 3rd crossing of the runway
see report on JACDEC
http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/06/2014-07-05-argentine-a340-and-russian-b762-in-serious-runway-incursion-at-barcelona-spain/

St. Leibowitz

fr336 wrote: »

And what if the aircraft on the ground had to stop for any reason? Or simply just stopped? Would have been game over. Ridiculous, dangerous situation imo.
Didn't a Ryanair have a near miss in this way at this very airport before? (FR weren't at fault btw)

I don't think anything in the article said that it wasn't. The main premise of the article was summed up in the last line, (their italics).

"That’s bad, but certainly not a reason to freak out and never fly again."

I thought it was a well balanced article from a (albeit an online entity of) "mainstream" newspaper. Compare it to a Daily Mail type report that we usually quote and laugh about in this forum. But then, maybe some of us prefer that type of reporting. The DM is still going strong, so somebody is buying it. Looks like journos will never win on this forum. Damned if they sensationalise, damned if they don't.

And I'm not a journo. Just thought that that was a well reasoned and balanced piece on an aviation incident, which is unusual, and worthy of note on an aviation forum.

keith16

Kenny2012 wrote: »

According to this report the A340 was on it's 3rd crossing of the runway
see report on JACDEC
http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/06/2014-07-05-argentine-a340-and-russian-b762-in-serious-runway-incursion-at-barcelona-spain/

3rd crossing? That's crazy. Did they forget something?

I reckon this happens a lot more than we know and this one is high profile as it was caught on video.

Looks worse than it is. Happened me coming into London a few weeks back, we were about a minute from landing and nose went swiftly back up.

Pilot said there was traffic on the runway. In fact, I think I remember on the BBC documentary about Heathrow where ATC were saying they have a go-around at least 4 days a week.

basill

What's the hangup with crossing the runway 2-3 or more times. Could be any number of legitimate reasons for doing so. What about they taxied out for 25L, the shorter runway but the wind changed and so they didn't have the performance and needed the longer runway 25R. So they have to taxi back across 02 and parallel and cross it again for a third time. A centralised load sheet could also snooker you if the take off weight is much higher than planned eg: cargo.

Aviation is not always clear cut especially to those not in the industry obtaining their knowledge from the Daily Snail.

St. Leibowitz

The jacdec.de link above includes an aerodrome chart with the reason why they crossed the runway three times. It's actually very logical that they had to, all to do with a diagonal runway and "square" taxiways.

BonkeyDonker

keith16 wrote: »

Pilot said there was traffic on the runway. In fact, I think I remember on the BBC documentary about Heathrow where ATC were saying they have a go-around at least 4 days a week.

I remember seeing a documentary on either Gatwick or Heathrow, and the head ATC guy was interviewed and stated that as they need to keep utilisation of the runways at near 100% that they actually factor in a 5% go-around rate as they have the aircraft spaced so close together.