Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Near miss at BCN on July 5th

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

  • #16
    Aerolineas Argentinas has been involved in numerous aviation incidents like this, in my personal opinion the biggest mistake no matter who were clear to do something or not, is the AR A340 crossing the runway without even looking if the approach path is clear, they were very close not to see them, in conclusion they didn't have a second to move their heads to both sides.

    What is the point on turning the strobe lights and not looking to both of your sides? In the ground even if you're clear to cross the runway, you have a very important tool to avoid accidents when the weather is OK, it's called a pair of eyes.
    Juan Felipe Arango Pérez
    FAA Commercial Multi-Engine Pilot
    C172 PA44 JS32 B767F A332F

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jfarango View Post
      in my personal opinion the biggest mistake no matter who were clear to do something or not, is the AR A340 crossing the runway without even looking if the approach path is clear, they were very close not to see them, in conclusion they didn't have a second to move their heads to both sides.
      The pilots didn't have the telephoto that the videotaper used. The plane was 1.7 miles away and 200ft above. While surely visible, it would not have been very remarkable (not the big plane about to crash you in 2 seconds if the pliot doesn't aggressively pull up as it seems in the video). And I don't know how good is the visibility of your 5 o´clock (45° behind your right shoulder) in an A340.

      --- 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


      • #18
        New news:

        Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

        It later emerged, that following the landing clearance for UT-5187 a runway a crossing clearance was issued to AR-1163 (ATC operational error, in Europe runway separation is solely responsibility of the tower, a landing clearance means that the arriving traffic is the only one permitted on the runway, no other clearance can be issued to enter/use the runway unlike e.g. the USA where ATC is permitted to "anticipate runway separation" if the pilots see the preceding traffic and thus turn runway separation to pilot's discretion unless low visibility procedures are in use, hence multiple landing clearances and takeoff clearance can be issued at the same time).

        --- 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


        • #19
          So.....

          1. UT Air was cleared to land using the English language.
          2. Aerolineas Argentinas was cleared to cross rwy 02 using the Spanish language.
          3. There was 40 seconds clearance between the two aircraft as AA cleared the runway which ATC deemed sufficient and does not contravene any European airfield operations laws.
          4. UT Air captain made the unilateral decision to go around on seeing the AA aircraft ahead on the runway.

          What were the problems here ?

          1. Barcelona is a major European International airport. The international language of use is specified as English. I don't care too much what Middleofnowhere Airfield does but I EXPECT a major international airport to use English whatever the airline nationality.

          BUT...

          UT Air would have been on the Tower frequency and AA would have been on Ground frequency so neither would have heard the other.

          2. European operational rules apparently state that an aircraft can be on a runway that has another aircraft on cleared finals to that runway provided ATC are happy that sufficient space exists for both aircraft to complete their movements safely.
          I'm not too happy with that, I'd much rather have an empty runway for an aircraft on cleared finals to use but, them's the rules.

          3. The UT Air captain did not HAVE to go around but he made the unilateral decision to do so based on what he considered to be the safest option. That works well for me. He can fly me any time he wants to.

          To summarise...

          -Use English 100% of the time.
          -Nothing to be on the runway that has an aircraft on approach to it.
          -ALL aircraft to stop at runway entry markers/crossing points when they get to them and THEN request clearance to cross.

          This will make Uncle Brian a very happy bunny !
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
            3. There was 40 seconds clearance between the two aircraft as AA cleared the runway which ATC deemed sufficient and does not contravene any European airfield operations laws.

            2. European operational rules apparently state that an aircraft can be on a runway that has another aircraft on cleared finals to that runway provided ATC are happy that sufficient space exists for both aircraft to complete their movements safely I'm not too happy with that, I'd much rather have an empty runway for an aircraft on cleared finals to use but, them's the rules..
            Wrong: "Once an airplane is cleared to take-off or land on a runway, nothing else can enter, cross or use the runway". That's the "European airfield operations laws" (as you named them).
            So this was clearly an ATC procedural violation.
            What ATC could have done, instead, is NOT cleat UTAir for landing and tell them something like "expect landing clearance in the last moment". With UTAir NOT cleared to land, then, they HAD to go around if they didn't receive the landing clearance on time. That would have been legal.

            It's in the USA where something like this can legally happen:
            ATC: XYZ, cleared for take-off, RWY 99.
            ATC: ABC, cleared to land RWY 99 behind traffic now taking off.
            ABC: Cleared to land RWY 99, have the traffic in sight.
            So the landing plane has to confirm that they have the preceding airplane in sight. By the way, that's the same for airplanes in flight. You can give them clearances that put each other closer than required separation as long as they have confirmed that they have each other in sight and you instructed them to maintain visual separation.


            1. Barcelona is a major European International airport. The international language of use is specified as English. I don't care too much what Middleofnowhere Airfield does but I EXPECT a major international airport to use English whatever the airline nationality.

            -Use English 100% of the time.
            I see your point and tend to agree, but:

            That's not how it works everywhere. For example in Argentina (including Ezeiza) ATC will talk with airplanes in the language that they are contacted. If the plane calls in Spanish, they'll reply in Spanish, if they call in English, they reply in English (some times an "odd" variation of English).

            Your point is good, but it's worth mentioning that this should be accompanied by a good training in English as a second language for all ATC and pilots. And that's tough. Learning a second language is not easy, and learning it well enough to be able to communicate effectively across different accents (both native and foreign) is really tough (much harder than learning to fly).

            In fact, more than a few issues have been caused by pilots with poor English in English ATC environments, or ATC with poor English with an English speaking pilot.

            So, although I agree with the concept, and one tends to say "so make English a requirement, and if you are not good enough you cannot be a pilot/controller", that's not easy to implement or enforce (I mean, you can enforce English, but you cannot enforce GOOD English) and I wonder if this could cause more incidents than it would avoid.

            All that said, maybe I'm mistaken but I had it understood that in Europe English is the MANDATORY ATC language everywhere.

            3. The UT Air captain did not HAVE to go around but he made the unilateral decision to do so based on what he considered to be the safest option. That works well for me. He can fly me any time he wants to.
            That's questionable. I'd say that since the "clear runway" was not complied with, once he became aware of that, and on so short notice, it could have been considered "reckless and careless" (and hence illegal) to continue the approach.

            But if ATC became aware that the AR was crossing the runway, they had the obligation to proactively instruct the UTAir to go around, since the requirements for the landing clearance were not met.

            -ALL aircraft to stop at runway entry markers/crossing points when they get to them and THEN request clearance to cross.
            Nobody has gone as far as that AFAIK, but as part of a plan to reduce the number of runway incursions in the USA, the FAA has mandated that any runway crossing must be explicitly cleared. If you receive a taxi clearance that takes you across a runway, you are NOT cleared to enter/cross such runway unless explicitly cleared to do so. But if you receive such clearance before (even much before) reaching the intersection, you are not required to stop and ask again.

            --- 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


            • #21
              .

              Originally posted by Jaun
              ...in my personal opinion the biggest mistake no matter who were clear to do something or not, is the AR A340 crossing the runway without even looking if the approach path is clear...
              Originally posted by Gabriel
              ...reasons why they didn't make a mistake...
              I know that there's an SOP used by a lot of airlines that you check for it being clear before you cross ANY runway (let alone an active one).

              ...and I guess if you don't have the angle, you might want 1) Might want to see what you can do with a temporary zig zag, and 2) Might want to say something to the controller.

              I'm not sure I agree with Juan that they made the BIGGEST mistake, but after watching a Jetstream 31 crew dutifully BOTH call out clear when crossing an INACTIVE runway, I'm partly agreeing that it's not cool to enter an ACTIVE one without some good hard confirmation that there's no burning conflicts...
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                It's in the USA where something like this can legally happen:
                ATC: XYZ, cleared for take-off, RWY 99.
                ATC: ABC, cleared to land RWY 99 behind traffic now taking off.
                ABC: Cleared to land RWY 99, have the traffic in sight.
                So the landing plane has to confirm that they have the preceding airplane in sight. By the way, that's the same for airplanes in flight. You can give them clearances that put each other closer than required separation as long as they have confirmed that they have each other in sight and you instructed them to maintain visual separation..
                Are you certain of that? You are correct in stating that in the USA, landing clearance is often and regularly given even with the runway being occupied by a departure, a preceding arrival still rolling out, or even another aircraft ahead on the approach. But as far as I know ATC is still responsible for a minimum amount of separation even in a visual approach. If any aircraft is still within the runway safety area when the landing aircraft is on short final, usually prior to crossing the threshold and DH, they will be told to go around. If they touch down with any other airplane not fully clear of the hold bars it will be considered a loss of separation. I don't think you can just ask them to maintain visual separation and have two airplanes on the runway at once.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  .





                  I know that there's an SOP used by a lot of airlines that you check for it being clear before you cross ANY runway (let alone an active one).

                  ...and I guess if you don't have the angle, you might want 1) Might want to see what you can do with a temporary zig zag, and 2) Might want to say something to the controller.

                  I'm not sure I agree with Juan that they made the BIGGEST mistake, but after watching a Jetstream 31 crew dutifully BOTH call out clear when crossing an INACTIVE runway, I'm partly agreeing that it's not cool to enter an ACTIVE one without some good hard confirmation that there's no burning conflicts...
                  I think it's pretty poor judgement and highly unprofessional for airline pilots to cross any runway without visually checking each direction for traffic and confirming they are cleared to cross.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    The pilots didn't have the telephoto that the videotaper used. The plane was 1.7 miles away and 200ft above. While surely visible, it would not have been very remarkable (not the big plane about to crash you in 2 seconds if the pliot doesn't aggressively pull up as it seems in the video). And I don't know how good is the visibility of your 5 o´clock (45° behind your right shoulder) in an A340.
                    I know they didn't have the telephoto, but it wasn't that far so you missed it... I don't wanna judge but at least when I cross a runway, I always make sure of visually clearing the area for my own safety, and in an A340 you have a pretty good angle of view.

                    Regards,
                    Juan Felipe Arango Pérez
                    FAA Commercial Multi-Engine Pilot
                    C172 PA44 JS32 B767F A332F

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Assuming, of course, that they could see...

                      There is no way the Captain here could look out and see anything of interest other than the F/O's head. Similarly, even the F/O may, as Gabriel suggests, not be able to see that far behind him.

                      Yes, the pilots should be looking out the window to make sure an approach is clear before crossing. And to that end there have been many 'saves' when a cleared to cross aircraft has prevented an accident (or near miss) by doing so. But it does get quite difficult when you're trying to look 'behind' you.

                      Its a good reminder to crews to keep a vigilant eye out!

                      It was also good work from the go around aircraft to be keeping up their awareness!

                      This sort of taxi-route is set up for this type of incident. 'Design out the hazard'.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hmmmmm... from what I have read and seen here so far, it seems to me that it was not as bad as it looked in the video, but also not good.
                        Of the three parties involved, I'd say the UTAir crew is home free. If the Argentinians were cleared to cross they should get a slap on the wrist for not visually checking. If they were NOT cleared to cross, I think a serious trip to the boss's office is in order. And ATC need to be strongly reminded to get their act together.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          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"...
                          I've never heard such an instruction, in fact, I don't recall ever getting a landing clearance much below 500'. I certainly would not wait until I'm "above the numbers", that's much too late.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            A selection of posts from AVHerald, from real pilots....

                            English is Now the Mandated International Language of Aviation

                            The International Civil Aviation Organisation has decreed that from 1 January 2008 all Air Traffic Controllers and Flight Crew Members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium and not simply have a proficiency in standard ICAO Radio Telephony Phraseology.
                            Landing clearance while traffic on the runway IS possible in Europe
                            By Maxmobil on Tuesday, Jul 8th 2014 18:36Z

                            While I appreciate this website of fellow Austrian Simon to a great extent, the statement "in Europe... no other clearance can be issued..with traffic on the runway" is not true.

                            There are airports in Europe like ESSA Stockholm Arlanda, or LIRF Rome Fiumicino, where a "land after" procedure is common, depending on certain conditions which relate partly to visibility.
                            The (in my opinion worst example) extreme is LFPG Paris de Gaulle, where you get a landing clearance while being number four on the ILS, and this even in light rain and visibility around 1 km which makes it impossible to check if the runway is clear before you touch down. If the TWR is alert enough to warn you about a traffic still on the runway is unknown but I doubt it.
                            Poor English Skills
                            By Aviator on Wednesday, Jul 9th 2014 00:03Z

                            Regardless of the findings of the investigation (a Spanish investigation will never lay blame on a Spanish ATCO anyhow) the fact remains that the English skills of both ATCOs and pilots of Spanish operators leaves a lot to be desired. This fact will never ever be recognised due to the inherent culture in Spain, i.e. an inability to accept responsibility.
                            ATC
                            By Thomas on Tuesday, Jul 8th 2014 15:48Z

                            There is a statement from the Spanish ATC saying "there was no problem at all, distance between the planes has been big enough and the A340 was nearly already over the runway". Well, sounds for me it was a mistake of the ATC...
                            And finally......possibly the most sensible quote of the lot !.....

                            By (anonymous) on Monday, Jul 7th 2014 14:47Z

                            EXPECT LATE LANDING CLEARANCE THEY OFTEN USE... IT CHANGED INTO A GA, A NORMAL PROCEDURE. THE HEAVY 34-300 CROSSED TOO SLOW, FULL OF FUEL, INERTIA SOMETIMES.

                            OK NEXT SUBJECT PLEASE...
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              A selection of posts from AVHerald, from real pilots....

                              [Re: Landing clearance with the runway not clear yet. Permited or not in Europe?]
                              Well, here there is a clear contradiction between what Simon (the owner of AvHerald) said and what this user said.

                              In my previous post (which was before this user's comment) I took the word of Simon for good because, statistically, he is almost always correct with factual information.

                              Now, I don't know who of them is wrong, but one of them is wrong.

                              And finally......possibly the most sensible quote of the lot !.....
                              By (anonymous) on Monday, Jul 7th 2014 14:47Z

                              EXPECT LATE LANDING CLEARANCE THEY OFTEN USE... IT CHANGED INTO A GA, A NORMAL PROCEDURE. THE HEAVY 34-300 CROSSED TOO SLOW, FULL OF FUEL, INERTIA SOMETIMES.

                              OK NEXT SUBJECT PLEASE...
                              As I've said more than once here, that would have been perfectly ok.
                              Except that, in this case, the UTAir was already cleared to land, not told to expect a late landing clearance. At least that's what reported by AvHerald.

                              If that's correct (and again, it almost always is), then we have several possibilities:

                              a. Nothing can enter a runway once an airplane has been cleared to land in that runway. In this case we have a violation by ATC, because they cleared an airplane to cross the runway with another airplane already cleared to land in such runway.

                              b. "Plan ahead" landing clearance are permitted. Then, given that the UTAir pilot decided to go-around (perfect-sense decision in my opinion) we have 3 variations of what would have happened if they had not proactively gone around when they did:
                              b1: They would have received a "go around" instruction from ATC 1 second later: Ok.
                              b2: The AR would have cleared the opposite "hold short" line before the UTAir touched down: Ok.
                              b3: The UTAir would have touched down with the AR not yet clear of the hold-short line: Even a more serious violation than a).

                              --- 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


                              • #30
                                Does looking out a window have any relevance here?
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X