Planes almost collide in dramatic runway near-miss at Barcelona airport

[brooklynite]

Source: The Telegraph



The heart-stopping moment two passenger planes avoided a catastrophic collision was caught on camera on Saturday.

Footage shows a Boeing 767 from the Russian airline UTair coming in to land on a runway at Barcelona's El Prat Airport. But with the plane just feet from touching down, an Aerolineas Argentineas Airbus A340 slowly taxis across the runway, forcing the still-airborne pilot to respond to the emergency by pulling back into the air.

The quick-thinking pilot of the UTair jet landed the plane safely after circling around.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10950708/Planes-almost-collide-in-dramatic-runway-near-miss-at-Barcelona-airport.html

[ewagner]

1. Well executed go around

by the book! Excellent piloting.

I'd love to hear the air traffic control tape on that one!

[HereSince1628]

4. Would also be interesting to listen for crickets on ground control. n/t

[Brother Buzz]

20. Even retracted his landing gear

textbook

[matt819]

2. To quote George Carlin

That's not a near miss. It's a near hit.

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. Beat me to it.....

[Lucky Luciano]

19. ...and me!! nt

[Uncle Joe]

32. and me!! n/t

[Lochloosa]

3. This happeded to me last month flying into San Diego.

The back of the seats on the plane have interactive flat screens that you can watch the planes flight from the pilots view.

Kind of like Flight Simulator. It shows airspeed and altitude. We were on approach and got down to 1500' and an airspeed of 158 mph. Suddenly the planes engines powered up and we pulled up.

I looked at my wife and said that is not normal. The pilot came on a few minutes later and casually said that another plane was late taking off and we had to do a fly around. Right.

[a la izquierda]

5. Ah, wonderful. I just booked a flight for Friday into Barcelona. NT

[mainer]

6. Probably the best time to fly into Barcelona

After this incident, ATC there is probably scared to make any mistakes and will be super vigilant.

[a la izquierda]

7. True enough.

I'm not a super skittish flyer anymore, so I'm really not worried. But it figures...

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. I had a nighttime pull-up coming into SFO about five years back

Lots of people were sleeping and didn't notice. I was a smoker then, and was dying to get off the plane for a smoke, so I damn well noticed that we were about to land, then we were suddenly thrusting back up and circling over Marin! Pilot said it was a landing gear indicator.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. I had something similar happen at SFO during a day time flight

but the pilot said it was a traffic issue. Went up sharply and out over the Pacific before circling to the East Bay then coming back for a new approach.

[marble falls]

9. The Russian pilot made it seem so easy. What could have happened.........

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608051057311155274&pid=15.1&H=106&W=160

Tenerife airport disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tenerife airport disaster
KLM Flight 4805 · Pan Am Flight 1736 Accident summary
Date March 27, 1977
Summary Pilot error, runway incursion, heavy fog, limitations and failures in communication
Site
Los Rodeos Airport
(now Tenerife North Airport)
Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Total injuries (non-fatal) 61
Total fatalities 583
Total survivors 61
First aircraft



The Tenerife airport disaster was a fatal collision between two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft on Sunday, March 27, 1977, on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport (now known as Tenerife North Airport), on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands. The crash killed 583 people, making it the deadliest accident in aviation history.

A bomb explosion at Gran Canaria Airport, and the threat of a second bomb, caused many aircraft to be diverted to Los Rodeos Airport. Among them were KLM Flight 4805 and Pan Am Flight 1736 – the two aircraft involved in the accident. At Los Rodeos Airport, air traffic controllers were forced to park many of the airplanes on the taxiway, thereby blocking it. Further complicating the situation, while authorities waited to reopen Gran Canaria, a dense fog developed at Tenerife, greatly reducing visibility.

When Gran Canaria reopened, the parked aircraft blocking the taxiway at Tenerife required both of the 747s to taxi on the only runway in order to get in position for takeoff. The fog was so thick that neither aircraft could see the other, nor could the controller in the tower see the runway or the two 747s on it. As the airport did not have ground radar, the only means for the controller to identify the location of each airplane was via voice reports over the radio. As a result of several misunderstandings, the KLM flight attempted to take off while the Pan Am flight was still on the runway. The resulting collision destroyed both aircraft, killing all 248 aboard the KLM flight and 335 of 396 aboard the Pan Am flight. Sixty-one people aboard the Pan Am flight, including the pilots and flight engineer, survived the disaster.[1]

[Beacool]

21. That was my first thought.

The crash in Tenerife was beyond horrific. The airport should have been closed due to the fog and the runway conditions, a fatal mistake.

[trusty elf]

10. One would think

that the pilots of a plane taxiing onto a runway would look both ways before crossing.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. It's the flight controller's job to tell pilots when they can taxi safely.

Somebody either gave landing permission
or taxi permission incorrectly.

[trusty elf]

14. I realize that.

Still, I think I'd look anyway, just to make sure.

[dballance]

15. Exactly how does one "look both ways" in an airplane?

When the Argentinian plane taxied, at the direction of ground control no doubt, the Russian Boeing would not have been in his sight line by looking both ways. The Russian Boeing would still have been at least a thousand feet in the air. Perhaps more. The Argentinian pilots would have had little ability to see it much less any responsibility to even attempt to do so. That's why there is ground control and ATC. They're the ones responsible for "looking both ways" on behalf of the pilot who taxiing. If the Russian pilot hadn't reacted as well as he did and the two planes had collided it would have been squarely the fault of ground control & ATC. Not either of the planes' pilots.

[Capt.Rocky300]

23. Nonsense. Just because a controller instructs or clears........

the crew of an aircraft to do something, it doesn't relieve the crew of exercising common sense and safe operating practices. Whether it is taxiing onto to a runway for departure or in this case crossing one, the crew should look to see if another aircraft is approaching. And yes, the First Officer of the A340 could see the Boeing on approach. He just didn't look out his side window to check for inbound traffic. The Russian crew saved the day because they were looking out.

[dballance]

28. So "Capt" would you please enlighten me to the number of hours you spent in the cockpit?

I'd really like you to tell me the number of hours you've spent in the cockpit of a commercial airliner dealing with such a situation.

If you haven't spent any time in the cockpit piloting a rather large plane around the ground and in the air then I'm really trying to understand your comment "Nonsense."

I might be mistaken but it seems that the crew of an aircraft MUST defer to the ATC and ground control (those silly FAA regulations). The ATC and ground control are there to ensure the safety of all of us on airplanes because those two entities are supposed to be more situationally aware than the many pilots who are, rightly, concerned with only their aircraft. The pilots don't see the bigger picture and it's not their job to do so. That's why there is ATC and ground control.

If pilots decided that they, rather than ATC and Ground Control should use their "best judgement" and ignore the instructions of ATC and Ground Control then it would surely be a very unsafe to be on an airplane.

Let me quote you:

And yes, the First Officer of the A340 could see the Boeing on approach. He just didn't look out his side window to check for inbound traffic.

Well FUCKING NO he didn't "just look out his window." Ground Control had cleared them to taxi so there was NO FUCKING REASON HE NEEDED TO LOOK OUT HIS SIDE WINDOW FOR ANOTHER AIRPLANE.

So what if he actually had looked out the window and seen the other airplane? He'd probably have been shouting "OH SHIT" if he saw it. He wasn't supposed to have to see the other plane. He relied upon the people in the tower and in traffic control to provide him a clear taxi-way the same way that happens thousands of times each day. The same way that pilots depend upon the controllers to not cause a collision each and every time an airplane lands, takes off and is taxiing.

[Capt.Rocky300]

29. I can tell you are not a pilot. I, to answer.........

your question, spent more than 13,000 hours in the front seats of Douglas DC-8s, Boeing 727s, 737s, and 747s and Airbus A300s and A310s (hence the 300 in my Capt.Rocky300 since that was the airplane I was flying when I retired) over a span of 35 years with 3 airlines. I flew domestic and international. Beginning my airline career in 1975, I retired in 2010 at age 60 following heart valve replacement surgery. I was a check airman on the A300/310 for a couple years. I also have about 3000 hours as a Second Officer, or flight engineer on the DC-8 and 747. That was the normal seat progression in those days. Prior to my airline career, I was a certified flight and ground instructor and charter pilot. I also have owned 3 of my own airplanes accumulating over 4,000 hours in light airplanes. All accident and violation free.

Now, to my post. I said "nonsense" because you are wrong about several things. I have been in this situation. Both positions. I've been on final approach with clearance to land when a controller cleared another flight to taxi onto the runway for departure. It happened to me at Chicago's ORD twice. I did the same thing the Russian pilot did. I executed a go-around and told ATC what we were doing. According to your belief, since I was cleared to land and the other jet was cleared to taxi onto the runway I should have obeyed ATC and hit the other airplanes? Afterward, I filed a NASA report. I imagine the controller did as well to prevent a certificate action against him. My certificate was never in danger since I used my captain's authority, granted to me by the regulations, to avoid an accident and fulfilled my responsibility for safe operation as required by the regs. No penalty for that. And my reintroduction into the airborne system following the go-around didn't cause things to fall apart. Controllers are trained to handle the unexpected. I was simply vectored around for another approach. Yes, the controller's workload was increased but like I said, they are trained to deal with it.

What you seem to overlook is controllers are people too and they make mistakes, just like pilots and everybody else. I have been cleared to "taxi into position and hold" (old U.S. terminology, now it is "line up and wait", to conform to ICAO standards) when I could clearly see an aircraft approaching on final that would cause a conflict. I had the First Officer point out the conflict and that we'd continue holding to the local controller. It was an "oh shit" moment for him. It happened to me once at Seattle's SEA and once at LAX. And speaking of LAX, you seem to have forgotten or are unaware of the US Air 737 landing on the commuter plane killing all aboard the turbo-prop, as well as the captain of the the US Air jet and some of his passengers. Darkness prevented the crews from seeing each other. According to you, things happened just as they should since both crews were complying with ATC clearances. No need for the first officer of the commuter to look out his side window for traffic before taking the runway because ATC never screws up? And those bright lights coming toward him that he could have easily seen didn't mean anything? You are correct in stating crews are expected to follow clearances and instructions. But mistakes are made because of the human factors and safety is the overall priority. BTW, because of that accident, our company instituted a procedure that when aligned and holding on the runway, all lights must be on to illuminate the runway ahead thereby providing an approaching aircraft a better chance to see you.

Now to visibility out the cockpit windows. It depends to some extent on the airplane. DC-10s and MD-11s which I have jump-seated on many times to get to and from my domicile, have huge windows with great views. Others like the Boeings and Airbuses are smaller but are more than adequate for seeing out to the sides and up or down. As I said, a pilot can look out the side windows while holding short of the runway and see out and up to the point an aircraft on approach is visible the entire time, weather permitting. Of course, spacing is greater during poor weather so there isn't as much concern for conflicts. You may have to lean forward a little to see it cross the threshold in the top of the windshield. The only places a crew can't see is straight up or down due to the roof and floor of the cockpit.

One more thing, experience is a great teacher. That is how a seasoned pilot is able to look out the window and KNOW whether there will be a safe distance between his/her aircraft and another. It was my own personal procedure to always look both ways before taking a runway. And if I couldn't see well enough to the right, I'd ask my First Officer if it was all clear. Frankly, I'm amazed all pilots don't do it automatically and out of self preservation. So yes, you can look both ways from an airliner. And when I was a check airman, I would have busted anyone who didn't. Fortunately I never had to. Oh, and I do it from my Bonanza as well.

Now you can believe whatever you want. I don't really care from this point on. But if I wasn't a pilot for 35 years, my wife would like to know where I disappeared to for days or weeks at a time in that uniform.

[Blue_Tires]

30. You flew the DC-8?

Sweeeeeeeet.....

[Capt.Rocky300]

31. I do feel privileged. It handled like a Mac Truck but it was a blast.....

It's like it was on rails. Especially the stretched versions.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Not that unusual, the timing can be a bit off at busy airports, probably happens every day.

[Capt.Rocky300]

25. More often than you know.

[mnhtnbb]

16. Last time I flew into LaGuardia--last August--we had an aborted landing. Up and around again.

I'm sure it happens a fair amount at busy airports. Not fun as a passenger.

[mnhtnbb]

17. I suspect there were a few choice words in the cockpit of the Russian plane!

[Beacool]

22. I've flown into that airport quite a few times.

I have family in Spain and in France. Since they are near the Pyrenees in both countries, Barcelona is the nearest large airport. I'm so relieved that nothing happened. There have been a lot of near collisions lately as airports are overtaxed. Kudos to the Russian pilots, they even retracted their landing gear and did a perfect turnabout.

A near collision occurred recently in Houston:

Two airplanes narrowly averted a midair crash near the Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston this week in what was the second such incident in as many months.

A Singapore Airlines jumbo 777 flew within 200 feet vertically and about a half-mile horizontally - about eight football fields - of a Delta Air Lines A320 just before 7pm on Thursday.

Air traffic controllers caught the error and corrected the airplanes courses before they got any closer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682297/Airplanes-nearly-collide-Houston-second-near-miss-two-months.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. "officials were quoted as saying the manoeuvre was normal and passengers were not in danger"

Sources at Spanish airport authority AENA told La Vanguardia newspaper that the planes were more than 1km ( 0.6 miles) apart at all times, and that the angle of the shot makes the planes appear closer to each other than they actually were.

Both planes were in the correct position and the Russian jet could have landed safely, the sources said. Neither of the two airlines had lodged a complaint, they added.

However, it is not clear why the pilot of the Russian plane took the decision to abort the landing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28200666

If they were 1km apart, and the plane landing was travelling at 70 metres a second (its rough landing speed), it would have been about 14 seconds away. I reckon it took the taxiing plane about another 7 seconds (after the plane aborted) to cross sufficiently for there to be room for the other plane to pass. Not enough, I'd say.

[Stonepounder]

26. I can't speak to equipment/training at international airports.

However, I do know that in the US controllers are overworked and understaffed. They are also using a radar system that is obselete and held together with bailing wire and spit. The ATCA has been pleading for money to hire more controllers and upgrade the radar systems, but, of course, the Republicans in Congress can't afford that and instead are pushing for funding cuts.

One of the many reasons that I just don't fly any more. (And it's not because I have ever been afraid of flying. I have earned over 2 million frequent flyer miles on American Airlines alone.)

[benld74]

27. Many, many pairs of stained undies from that one,,,,,