Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Near Miss - Aviation Accident Averted

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   
July 5 2014 at abrcelona Airport saw a near miss Watch


I would say the pilot of Aircraft on short finals did a great job, while it was a part of bad airmanship on the part of the pilot of the aircraft on the ground.
Do not have the atc transcripts
edit on 7-7-2014 by Nochzwei because: link




posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Whoa, the pilot on the plane that diverted a disaster deserves a high five from all his passengers and a few drinks at the airport bar! He saved a plane load of lives!



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Dude must have ran a red light.

You mean they don't have those on runways?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Dude must have ran a red light.

You mean they don't have those on runways?

You do have red lights, but whether they were switched on or not? In any case when you cross an active runway, you always look to see if any aircraft is on the final approach for landing.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Nochzwei

Whoa, the pilot on the plane that diverted a disaster deserves a high five from all his passengers and a few drinks at the airport bar! He saved a plane load of lives!


Changed perception of distances due to use of telephoto lens.
The A340 is crossing near the end of that runway while the B767 is crossing the fence, more than 2500 meters away.

Of course, the decision to land or go around is entirely the crew's decision, i would have landed.

edit on 7-7-2014 by Ivar_Karlsen because: SNAFU



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You know. That's a good idea!



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei


You do have red lights, but whether they were switched on or not? In any case when you cross an active runway, you always look to see if any aircraft is on the final approach for landing.

Especially if the traffic signals are "out". More likely he was given clearance by the tower. As I understand it and I know someone will point out my error, the tower has control of traffic near to and on the ground at airports and pilots rely on their direction exclusively.

Collision warning should be added in the cockpit to override that. They have it for microburst, proximity to the ground, bingo fuel, etc.

Narrow miss and hats off to the pilot who kept his eyes up.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


Of course, the decision to land or go around is entirely the crew's decision, i would have landed.

The hell? You are fired.

No one ever lands on a runway that is insecure. If ground control is issuing the all clear to cross there you have no idea who might appear in your path next. That was obviously a go around.

I'm not even a pilot and I understand that.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18116591]Ivar_Karlsen
Changed perception of distances due to use of telephoto lens.
The A340 is crossing near the end of that runway while the B767 is crossing the fence, more than 2500 meters away.



And you could make that out despite the telephoto. How?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If they had landed, by the time they got that far down the runway the other plane would have been long clear.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

If they had landed, by the time they got that far down the runway the other plane would have been long clear.








to me from the video , it looked like an obvious go around



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

It was, I'm just saying that if for some reason they had landed for some reason.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


Of course, the decision to land or go around is entirely the crew's decision, i would have landed.

The hell? You are fired.


I fly in and out of that airport several times a month, and belive me a landing would have been both safe and legal.

As i said the use of telephoto lens and video editing made it look like the two planes were very close, while the distance between them were at least 2500 meters.

On many European airports it is quite normal to land on runways still occupied by departing, crossing or landing airplanes.

One situation i can think of is that the landing 767 hav got a late landing clearance, if that is the case a go around is mandatory below 50 feet (100 in my Company as per SOP)
edit on 7-7-2014 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

If they had landed, by the time they got that far down the runway the other plane would have been long clear.


So you would have landed?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If they were at the farther end of the runway, sure. As close as it looked, hell no, I wouldn't even consider dropping close.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


As i said the use of telephoto lens and video editing made it look like the two planes were very close, while the distance between them were at least 2500 meters.

I understood that.

If that airport is letting planes play dodge ball with others on final I'd say that is generally sloppy procedure. Once you are give clearance to land there shouldn't be anything in my visual range on, entering or leaving that runway.

Can't be normal procedure. The reaction of the pilot kind of leads me to believe the same thing. Especially if he was approaching the point of no return.

I also respect your experience as a pilot. You say you'd go ahead and land. Have you ever done that? Have you ever seen that happen in front of you?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18116938]Ivar_Karlsen
On many European airports it is quite normal to land on runways still occupied by departing, crossing or landing airplanes.

One situation i can think of is that the landing 767 hav got a late landing clearance, if that is the case a go around is mandatory below 50 feet (100 in my Company as per SOP)

Very unusual indeed.
Late landing clearance meaning?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Tine to buzz the tower?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

In the US separation is 30 seconds. So you can have one on the departure end of the runway taking off, while another is on the approach end landing.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The average plane stops in a few thousand feet. It takes five to ten seconds or so to cross a runway on average.

If you have a plane crossing 5,000 feet down a 10,000 foot runway, and a plane at 200 feet on final approach, there is no physical way they're going to hit. Even if the one crossing stops, the one landing should still have room to stop.






top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join