Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Near miss at BCN on July 5th

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Near miss at BCN on July 5th

    Is this for real? Approaching plane nearly crashed into a plane taxiing across the runway, only avoided by a landing abort. Any more information available about this case?

    ***PLEASE READ THE DESCRIPTION BELOW***Yesterday, early in the morning...What you see is what happened.An UTair Boeing 767-300 (VQ-BSX) incoming from Moscow ...


    Yesterday, July 5th, a potentially catastrophic near-miss between two airliners was captured on video in Barcelona, Spain. We see an Aerolineas Argentinas Airbus A340-300 crossing a runway on which an Utair Boeing 767-300 was on final approach.



    reminds me off the Tenerife disaster:

  • #2
    Oooops,

    Can't wait to see the radio transcript for this one

    VAZ

    Comment


    • #3
      Same here re: the transcripts, though the incident makes me think more of a daylight version of USAir 1493 than the Tenerife Disaster:


      Comment


      • #4
        Here is more

        Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know if it was an error by the ATC who cleared the AR to cross the active, or by the pilots of the AR that crossed without a clearance.
          But it was BIG and potentially disastrous error.

          All that said, it was not that close.
          The AR is crossing the active several thousand of feet past the threshold.
          And the UT was maybe 100ft up and not yet overflying the threshold when started the go-around.

          Good move by AA to use for this incident an airplane fully in SkyTeam livery rather than AA livery. Less bad image for the airline.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Radar data confirm the Boeing was on short final descending through about 200 feet AGL (less than 20 seconds from touch down, about 1.7nm/40 seconds laterally from the Airbus) when they initiated the go-around.

            Aena, the airport operator and ATC service provider, stated that the UTAir Boeing could have continued the landing without any danger, the separation was sufficient. Neither company filed any safety report (editorial note: this statement, although not expressis verbis stating this, suggests that the Airbus was cleared to cross the runway).
            Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


            If the UTAir was already cleared to land, then that's wrong. No other vehicle can be on, enter, or cross the runway when an airplane is cleared to land on it.

            On the other hand, it's not so strange to receive an advice from the ATC like "XYZ, expect clearance to land above the numbers", meaning that there is someone on the runway which is expected to clear it just shy of your landing. This could have been the case here, although I doubt it.

            From the same AvHerald report:
            Runway 02 is normally not used and inactive. Taxiways K,E,D,M,N,T and S thus usually can be used without observing the holding points protecting runway 02. The habit of taxiing across runway 02 without paying attention to the holding points for runway 02 has already caused a number of runway incursions.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #7
              Isn't a near miss really a near hit?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                Isn't a near miss really a near hit?
                Near miss = too close if the original intention was not to hit.
                Near hit = too far if the original intention was to hit.

                I hope that in this situation the underlying intention was ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  What I still do not understand: why did the Aerolineas Argentinas plane crossed the runway twice?


                  Also, from my impression in the video, the AA-plane accelerated acutely while crossing the runway as if they were aware of the danger coming from the right (of the plane). Is my observation right?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by eTang View Post
                    What I still do not understand: why did the Aerolineas Argentinas plane crossed the runway twice?


                    Also, from my impression in the video, the AA-plane accelerated acutely while crossing the runway as if they were aware of the danger coming from the right (of the plane). Is my observation right?
                    Actually, the AvHerald report explains that it crossed thrice. On taxiway K, then D, and then M (the incident one) as it was taxing to 25R for departure:

                    My best (and only) guess is this:


                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Isn't that a strange taxi clearance if runway 02 is in use? Wouldn't they taxi up echo and only cross at AA?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A quicker and just as effective route would be straight up 02 to M

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                          Isn't that a strange taxi clearance if runway 02 is in use? Wouldn't they taxi up echo and only cross at AA?
                          Maybe November and Echo was being used for inbound traffic.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Id like to hear the ATC communications.
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              Id like to hear the ATC communications.
                              Me too. This could have been a runway incursion, a loss of separation, or nothing at all (if the UT was not yet cleared to land). In any event, it was not a "near miss/hit" (not really near at least).

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X