Seems to me there should've been a simultaneous order for the BA pilot to clear the runway AND for the Swiss plane to go around. I'm surprised the latter was allowed to land given there wasn't much margin for error.
I'm an aerodrome controller-the issue here was runway separation. On a day like this the reduced runway separation requirements between an arriving and departing aircraft is that the departing aircraft needs to "be airborne and past the point of expected rollout" of the arriving aircraft, before the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold. In this situation, had the departing aircraft been allowed to continue, there would have been a loss of separation. Good call by the controller.
I've done some pilot training, I think what happened is that ATC gave clearance to the BA crew but because they took there sweet time ATC cancelled the clearance and asked him to exit the runway. The BA aircraft did had enough time to take off, however if the Swiss plane aborted its landing the two aircraft would have ended up having less then the 3 mile air separation. It's OK, controllers have the right to change there mind on changing circumstances.
@Speedbird103 hey, I was being sarcastic. Photographic foreshortening makes it appear the planes are on the same piece of territory, but that is ludicrous.
the proximity of the BA 146 does look a bit close, but actually it was well out of the other aircraft path. After Tenerife, one can be a bit jumpy when aircraft are close to each other.
looks like a classic case where the BA had to do a static takeoff,... he took too long, probably got several expedites from the tower, but had to spool up engines. and then it was too late. happens to us in TNCM too, where we need to spool up for static takeoff. and landing traffic is very close. see my vids for example
There wouldn't of been a collision because had the BA pilot not cleared the runway, the Swiss pilot would have already had his hands ready to push to full on the throttle to do a go-around.
I don`t see a problem here. The plan was for the swiss air to land after the BA take-off but the BA had some kind of trouble and aborted. Great job that they got off the runway quick enough for the Swiss Air to still be able to land.
I was working at the airport on the day... Air traffic gave clearance to the ba for take off. The ba cancelled due engine management warning light...
The ba was aware of the Swiss within 2 mike final so called "aborting vacating at kilo" atc advised Swiss "expect a very late landing clearance or go around " Swiss " ba is visual we will continue...
Good decisions and actions by all... A go around at that stage of landing is more risky than taking a late clearance, the ba vacated quickly and th
It would be nice to hear the RT for this one. You might find it was a change of plan by the tower controller. Plan 1 was to get the Bacon 146 out before the Swiss, but when he doesn't roll in time plan 2 is vacate the Bacon and land the Swiss. Not uncommon. In fact a similar thing happened to me on my CPL test at Leeds-Bradford!
Since the tower knew about the short final of the Swiss A/C the ATC should have asked BA to hold short at the h/p or to execute an immediate T/O. In any case the A/C shouldn't be lined up on the rwy. From the moment that an A/C is lined up it means that it's going to T/O. That it has the safe time space from the arriving A/Cs or the ablitity to T/O fast and safe.
could have also been traffic management. The center probably delayed the BAs departure time a few minutes, this happens a lot. Tower has to call center for clearance to depart if the departure time is not within the filed limits. If it isn't, then it needs a new clearance. They were probably not given the clearance and tower told em to hold on the taxi way. If you did use google maps you'd see the hold short lines, meaning there's enough room. AKA, wrongly named video.
BA had enough time to takeoff before the Swiss landing but just think about this, what would have happened if the BA had a rejected takeoff and the Swiss had an emergency landing or a touch and go for that matter. Both aircraft could have collided on the runway. That's why ATC gave those instructions.
BA clear of the runway about 0:59, Swiss given a late landing clearance about 1:12. Even without the voice comms, its obvious this is NOT a near miss and you do those involved a disservice by describing it thus.
i have to agree with steve 31000 the position of the ba flight at the beginning of the vid clearly shows that he had finished his "back track taxi " and was in position to take off , but for whatever reason failed to do so in good time, so would have been instructed to vacate the runway to allow the swiss air flight to land. and then taxi back into position and then commence his take off run, whilst not serious, it is unusual.
A week before this an RJ100 had a nose gear collapse on landing. Neither of these aircraft are 146's, The Ba pilot vacated the runway at low speed and the Swiss landed next in line. Nothing actually happened...Swiss could have easily gone around as they would have been high enough and visual at that point. Your dramatising a bit!
The inbound Swiss had PLENTY of time to "Go Around". It would have never have "Landed on top" of the BA flight. Maybe if there was extreme low viability... Also, im thinking BA may have misunderstood tower and thought he was cleared for take off, then when tower noticed he was rolling told him to abort and exit..??Who knows, Im just happy every one is SAFE!
@beatchildproductions If the Swissair goes around then the BA takes off and collides with it from below, not the best option. ("Go around" means follow the runway heading for another 5 miles before turning around to rejoin the holding pattern.)
Wow this is a pretty serious blunder! I work at a one runway airport myself and there's always a fairly large gap between planes being allowed to use the runway and another plane landing. In fact, planes can't even cross the runway to reach the handling platform if another flight is within a minute of landing or so.
@ryanair737400 DaMotoRider85 is right. It has no trust reversers. If you notice, the rear speed brake is always open when landing due to the enormous amounts of drag it needs to maintain speed on the steep approach at London City. When it touches down, the spoilers on top of the wing deploy and it uses its wheel brakes to stop
Watch the video more carefully, it doesn't pivot it turns off the runway and goes around in a loop to avoid being hit by the incoming flight. Check google maps for a profile of the runway - it's quite an unusual design.
I see. So there is a signifigant rotation zone. I still don't think this was a very big deal at all. It is a small airport in the heart of London, and space is hard to come by.
In addition, this is a quote from Wikipedia: "In 2003 a new holding point was established at the eastern end of the runway, enabling aircraft awaiting takeoff to hold there whilst other aircraft landed."
@Steve31000 Sorry mate, I know this was over a year ago - but you're wrong.
At the end of runway 09 they have an extra manouvering area - this is so that a pilot can taxi down the runway and exit here and hold at one of three holding points (K, L and M) so that he is ready for an immediate take off after the landing plane vacates the active. Definately not an accident
@jordangmagic Yes but if you watch closely, the plane had alreadu taxiid into position and powered up for take-off before leaving the runway again going in a full circle back to where he started in the waiting area. Thanks for the comment though.
@Steve31000 it would be faster for it to take off than to taxi ahead to exit the ruway, it was probably an aborted takeoff due to some bad indications on engines or instruments..
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest.
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest.
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest. Granted, I might be missing something with the database.. maybe it wouldn't include this.
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest. Granted, I might be missing something with the database.. maybe it wouldn't include this. I doknow that when a pilot fell asleep and overshot the airport by 30 miles, that made it.. that's how I found this db.
@jordangmagic Also checked AAIB, which is apparently where it would be for London City.. nothing.. Gotta say it wasn't worthy of report even if it was as dramatic as portrayed.
There are any number of reasons for the BA plane to have rejected the take-off at the initial roll which could have been resolved on the taxiway. The BA pilots would have been fully aware of the swissair and vice versa. Total non-event.
Why didn't the Swiss air plane abort landing as soon as it saw the BA plane on the runway? It could not assume the Ba plane would clear the runway on time.
it's hard to tell what actually happened from this video because of the perspective. it looked like the BA plane was on the taxiway rather than the runway. I don't believe close calls like these can happen in reality, especially in an advanced city like London.
btw planes landing at LCY have a challenge because of the steep glide slope and also the fact that they can't deploy thrust reverser due to the noise regulations.
'iremember', how could it be a result of engine trouble on the BA flight as it went off the runway, let the other plane land and then taxied into take-off position on the runway and then took-off. If it was engine trouble it wouldn't have taken off two minutes later.
@Steve31000 so how much do you know about Bae 146 aircraft? they could have had an indication problem on throttle up for takeoff that had to be sorted out, so they left the runway to sort it out or even see if it was in the MEL, do you know what an MEL is? prior to taking off. The problem is you don't know enough about aviation or this incident to deem it a near miss.
I believe (like others) that the departing aircraft had enough time to get in the air but probably had a warning and had to abort and clear the runway just in time for the other to land.. if it wasn't safe the other plane would have gone around.
Things are gonna get even tighter when LCY is operating 120,000 flights a year with their postage stamp runway and ruining the lives of thousands in East and SE London.
Hopefully things will get so hairy, folk will stop using it.
Like the first time BA's 318 has to land in high winds/torrential rain. Can't wait :)
Hey Mate. You may be against LCY but It is important to your local area. Without London City your economy would be worse. There will be no BA 318 scary landings because If its too dangerous they will land at gatwick! Shut Up and Deal With It. If you don't want a AIRPORT DON'T LIVE NEAR ONE!
1) Please explain where one can live in London with being near an airport.
2) I moved to where I live to GET AWAY from aircraft noise. They have MOVED the flight path over my property.
3) LCY improves my economy? BULLSHIT. Thousand have to suffer noise and pollution to aid the convenience of a handful of City fatcats?
4) You are a classic aircraft nutter - stuff everyone elses quality of life so you can indulge your hobby. Newham/LCY are being SUED over their expansion, and I hope they lose.
I'm not saying you should live in london. Farnbourgh is quiet. And has a sleepy airfield nearby. Your exaggerating that they have moved flight paths. They have not. Your a typical noisy neighbor who thinks their view is the way that everyone should behave. LCY will win because it does benifit the economy. Keep your bullshit to yourself. I bet you have flown out of LCY! Hey. Your A Fatcat!
You are showing your complete ignorance. The HAVE moved LCY take-off paths to accomodate the larger jet aircraft that could not follow the same SIDs as the turboprops. Ask the CAA.
Who's the bullshitter?
You'll find there's a large residents campaign mounting along the new paths.
I flew out of LCY twice the year it opened (on Dash 7s) but never since.
As for benefitint the economy - crap. The place is SUBSIDISED. Who do you think pays for all the security?
Talk about over reaction. The ATC more than likely cleared the BA for takeoff, informed or forgot to inform him than an aircraft was inbound. If he did inform him, the pilot should not have sat on the runway for 30 secs before starting his takeoff, if he wasnt informed then the ATC should have done so. The Swiss aircraft would have saw the BA from a long way out and was ready to go around if need be, no panic....
what's more likely it maybe that the BA connect had some cockpit warning and decided they weren't readyf or takeoff. So instead of sending the Swiss around, ATC managed to taxi the BA out and save the Swiss a lot of fuel and money.
It's more efficient to taxi someone off rather than go around, if there is time to do so safely.
Can't figure out what happened. My guess is, the BA 146 lined up without permission and was asked to exit the runway, hence the little burst of thrust. Then the Swissair 146 landed. Swissair easily had time to go-around, and would have done, if BA had not been clear.
"lined up without permission". That is extremely unlikely to happen in a civilised country with the ATC communication protocols. Of course, anything is possible, but entering a runway without permission would be a grave and serious mistake, possibly leading to dismissal.
That's not a near miss! The swiss aircraft wouldn't have been given clearance to land until the ba connect was clear of the runway, that's how it works, it's called air traffic CONTROL.
It didn't look like an aborted take-off to me...it looked like he was told to clear the runway for incoming traffic. perhaps he positioned without permissin...OR the controller mis judged the timing...I've seen and heard over the scanner what appear to be close calls, but amount to good timing/experience on the controllers part. This perhaps wasn't one of them...? lol great vid tho.
As a captain with many years experience of LCY operations on the RJ, I can assure you that this is not a "near miss". Probably there was a slight delay in release by the TMA controller, and the aircraft was asked to reposition to the hold to allow the Swiss RJ to land ... happens all the time.
That Swiss Air pilot should have gone full throttle, gear up, and a hard left and circled around. He had to have seen what was happening on the runway. He shouldn't need a controller to tell him this.
He also has a minimum decent altitude that is perscribed by the approach chart for the specific approach he is shooting. No need to go around before that altitude if you don't get clearance, but legal requirements to go around if no clearance is received by that altitude. Obviously in this case ATC gave the Cleared to Land before the Minimums, or else we would well have seen a go around. (Go arounds happen every day somewhere on earth and pilots are trained how to roughly 20 hours into training)
Yes, I also think it should've been termed as a "near-hit." I think it would've been much safer if the BA Connect was allowed to just take off. I think there was enough time to allow the BA Connect to take off before the Swiss Air landed. The BA Connect's take off abortion made things much more dangerous. This is of course in my view point as an enthusiast.
"I think it would've been much safer if the BA Connect was allowed to just take off." - Your thinking is flawed. What if the BA has to reject the takeoff halfway down the runway and the Swiss has touched down behind him already?
london city is a short runway and hard getting in and out. Im wondering if even at the threshold the Ba was in the way for landing as you just about have to take up most of that runway Even if he had tried to take off and the swiss air did a go around you would more than likely still had a collison or one sitting in the drink
That's exactly what I was thinking after I saw it. Theres nothing but water on either side of the runway and as cykliu said there is nothing to the south of the runway, and only thing to the north is a loop for planes which have backtracked from the terminal to wait in. Its a difficult airport to land in.
Why talk about what ifs? The 'what if' scenario you just described was prevented - that's what these people are paid for. This is a no brainer... the BA was cleared for take off and didn't roll quick enough, so his take off clearance was cancelled and the pilot vacated to prevent the Swiss from going around. I've seen car manouevres in a tesco car park that have scared me more.
What if anything could happen suppose the brit airways lost power and couldnt make the turn, what if a rock fell from the moon and smashed a car or what if a 29 cent light bulb caused and l-10-11 to crash killing many. What if are real and can be disasterous. THis is a tight runway to begin with and not as easy as heathrow to land . THe problem is this is a very tight airport to land in without any possible obstructions. Everything is an if
If the BA couldn't have made the turn the Swiss would have gone around. Don't start scaring people about flight safety - everyone knows what they're doing! Even if the Swiss pilot experienced a huge mechanical problem he/she'd have just landed anyway once clear of the BA and suffered the consequences of the later inquest. For Christ's sake...
im sure the BA connect would've been far down the runway-but not yet airborn by the time Swiss landed, and that would've meant 2 aircrafts on an active runway at the same time...which is not favored.
I don't see any problems in these procedures. The BA plane hold a little longer in the active, maybe noticed some assymmetric thurst power or some warning light. The Swiss' pilots surely were able to see the BA situation and had enough time to go around if they needed. No real danger at all.
he wasn't "just crossing the active" there is nothing to the south of the runway, and only thing to the north is a loop for planes which have backtracked from the terminal to wait in.
However, you are right in that it's a non-event. The arriving aircraft had a clear visual on the situation and had the runway not of been clear in time a go around would of been performed.
If that is a near miss then there is a near miss at heathrow every 90 seconds. And events like this are not dangerous. There is no reason to believe that ATC didnt have complete control of the situation.
Just by looking at the proximity of the two aircraft it's clear that there was no real danger. The nose low approach angle of the 146 provided adequate visual awareness to the crew of the Swissair aircraft. I suppose distraction, tunnel vision, or something of the sort could have caused the crew not to notice the BA aircraft, but it's highly unlikely as it's hard not to notice an aircraft pulling on the runway in front of you.
A non event, I'd imagine the cityflyer got a take off config warning or equivalent and so correctly aborted and helpfully vacated the runway quickly to allow flow of traffic to be maintained...no "blunder" by anyone.
Not even. They probably were not ready for takeoff, so they were asked to vacate the runway immediately. They vacated so that the swiss 146 could land, then they took off. No big deal.
Haha my dads piloted that plane!
alexorangesailor 1 week ago
Dont you know how to hold quietly a camera ? Its always moving. You suck
seb92ify 1 month ago
Swiss had plenty of time to go around, no way he would have just landed on swiss, BA probably miss understood the tower.
123123123ABCABCthe 1 month ago
People that stand around filming airplanes or trains are weird. And yes, I also read BACON!
Fromtheroad31 2 months ago
Lol at the start i though "Bacon?" hahaha
DeeMinion 2 months ago
Seems to me there should've been a simultaneous order for the BA pilot to clear the runway AND for the Swiss plane to go around. I'm surprised the latter was allowed to land given there wasn't much margin for error.
fortyninepages 3 months ago
I'm an aerodrome controller-the issue here was runway separation. On a day like this the reduced runway separation requirements between an arriving and departing aircraft is that the departing aircraft needs to "be airborne and past the point of expected rollout" of the arriving aircraft, before the arriving aircraft crosses the threshold. In this situation, had the departing aircraft been allowed to continue, there would have been a loss of separation. Good call by the controller.
phildan89 4 months ago
Has anyone else read BACON on the plane at the beginning of the video?
faithlesspr 4 months ago
The swiss BAE would go around!
HamburgAirport 4 months ago
BACON!
rhysybum 5 months ago
10 seconds my ass its more like 30 seconds you dimwhit
Terrorizer321 5 months ago
Close call! :)
ew12345671 6 months ago
why would a plane that small need 4 engines??
TheBoeingMan123 6 months ago
I've done some pilot training, I think what happened is that ATC gave clearance to the BA crew but because they took there sweet time ATC cancelled the clearance and asked him to exit the runway. The BA aircraft did had enough time to take off, however if the Swiss plane aborted its landing the two aircraft would have ended up having less then the 3 mile air separation. It's OK, controllers have the right to change there mind on changing circumstances.
dustziggy 6 months ago
Comment removed
dustziggy 6 months ago
The BA jet was on the taxiway - not the runway. Unless London is too poor to afford a proper airport.
menthol5 7 months ago
@menthol5 London can afford a proper airport, London -Heathrow, Gatwick, or Stansted ring a bell?
Speedbird103 7 months ago
@Speedbird103 hey, I was being sarcastic. Photographic foreshortening makes it appear the planes are on the same piece of territory, but that is ludicrous.
menthol5 7 months ago
Strange occurance yes.
Near miss? Not even close to a near miss.
darrindwp 8 months ago
Hahaha sorry couldn't help it but at 0.01 the engine is blocking the "nect" bit in BA Connect, so it just looks like BACON...
HMSDaring1 10 months ago
the proximity of the BA 146 does look a bit close, but actually it was well out of the other aircraft path. After Tenerife, one can be a bit jumpy when aircraft are close to each other.
hotelgulf718 11 months ago
What the fuck is a near miss? It's called near hit, hit and miss!!!
Digger843ASXM 11 months ago
looks like a classic case where the BA had to do a static takeoff,... he took too long, probably got several expedites from the tower, but had to spool up engines. and then it was too late. happens to us in TNCM too, where we need to spool up for static takeoff. and landing traffic is very close. see my vids for example
haitiano1982 11 months ago
There wouldn't of been a collision because had the BA pilot not cleared the runway, the Swiss pilot would have already had his hands ready to push to full on the throttle to do a go-around.
stothem1234 11 months ago
I don`t see a problem here. The plan was for the swiss air to land after the BA take-off but the BA had some kind of trouble and aborted. Great job that they got off the runway quick enough for the Swiss Air to still be able to land.
mdo686 1 year ago
pause at 0:00 BACON!!
murder5able 1 year ago
near miss...yer rite
what a waste
tosspot
JoyDivisionSouth 1 year ago
MMMMM.....Ba Con! Move Over Ba Con, there's something leaner!
littleeyeddog 1 year ago
i see this once a week... i work in the big green house across the dock...
SkidMajor 1 year ago
swiss timing sponsored by accurist
ray217bot 1 year ago
swiss...a go around is a better option ...
PPiTTislakatamia 1 year ago
Wow small 747 plane using 4 engine
AuthoringStudio 1 year ago
dam swiss. messin every thing up for everyone. lol
jube1123 1 year ago
That was NO WEAR NEAR a near miss
MrLenovo44 1 year ago
two jumbolinos lol :) nice planes :)
kbuss10 1 year ago
They are BAE 146 or RJ100/85 depending on model.
hazard2006 1 year ago
I was working at the airport on the day... Air traffic gave clearance to the ba for take off. The ba cancelled due engine management warning light...
The ba was aware of the Swiss within 2 mike final so called "aborting vacating at kilo" atc advised Swiss "expect a very late landing clearance or go around " Swiss " ba is visual we will continue...
Good decisions and actions by all... A go around at that stage of landing is more risky than taking a late clearance, the ba vacated quickly and th
hazard2006 1 year ago
It would be nice to hear the RT for this one. You might find it was a change of plan by the tower controller. Plan 1 was to get the Bacon 146 out before the Swiss, but when he doesn't roll in time plan 2 is vacate the Bacon and land the Swiss. Not uncommon. In fact a similar thing happened to me on my CPL test at Leeds-Bradford!
Cat10980 1 year ago
They look like 747 sausage dogs
BritishPrashant 1 year ago
@BritishPrashant just what I was thinking!! What aircraft is this?
hsxtcqm 1 year ago
soo.. where is the near miss??,,,
ChromeRide 1 year ago
Since the tower knew about the short final of the Swiss A/C the ATC should have asked BA to hold short at the h/p or to execute an immediate T/O. In any case the A/C shouldn't be lined up on the rwy. From the moment that an A/C is lined up it means that it's going to T/O. That it has the safe time space from the arriving A/Cs or the ablitity to T/O fast and safe.
workgrave 1 year ago
It is clearly an ATC fault by my opinion
workgrave 1 year ago
lol from 0:01 - 0:03 the side of the plane says baconn
connaizemo 1 year ago 3
could have also been traffic management. The center probably delayed the BAs departure time a few minutes, this happens a lot. Tower has to call center for clearance to depart if the departure time is not within the filed limits. If it isn't, then it needs a new clearance. They were probably not given the clearance and tower told em to hold on the taxi way. If you did use google maps you'd see the hold short lines, meaning there's enough room. AKA, wrongly named video.
d0rkiishchris 1 year ago
When I first saw this, my eyes went all funny and all I saw on the side of the 146 was bacon, I thought i was going mad!!.
tonightwefly 1 year ago
BA had enough time to takeoff before the Swiss landing but just think about this, what would have happened if the BA had a rejected takeoff and the Swiss had an emergency landing or a touch and go for that matter. Both aircraft could have collided on the runway. That's why ATC gave those instructions.
yvr6 1 year ago
BA clear of the runway about 0:59, Swiss given a late landing clearance about 1:12. Even without the voice comms, its obvious this is NOT a near miss and you do those involved a disservice by describing it thus.
tedwalk1960 1 year ago 2
The tower probably gave BA instructions to get on the runway and get his ass moving! He didn't and had to scoot out of the way.
my235 1 year ago
i have to agree with steve 31000 the position of the ba flight at the beginning of the vid clearly shows that he had finished his "back track taxi " and was in position to take off , but for whatever reason failed to do so in good time, so would have been instructed to vacate the runway to allow the swiss air flight to land. and then taxi back into position and then commence his take off run, whilst not serious, it is unusual.
davepic 1 year ago
a goaround by the swiss plane could have been a more viable.
addi138 1 year ago
hmmm...not really that much of an incident. If you were listening to the tower, you might have had a better explanation :)
Borck103 1 year ago
A week before this an RJ100 had a nose gear collapse on landing. Neither of these aircraft are 146's, The Ba pilot vacated the runway at low speed and the Swiss landed next in line. Nothing actually happened...Swiss could have easily gone around as they would have been high enough and visual at that point. Your dramatising a bit!
kem1880 1 year ago
nothing extreme, professional jobs in a busy airport
fgiorgio 1 year ago
What type of planes are those?
warpedcomedy 1 year ago
This is not an incident
meatpie29 1 year ago
theres a serious amount of flaps being used for that takeoff!!! some high climb out for noise regs.
737captaineasyjet 1 year ago
Nice video but not a near miss.
The incoming plane had plenty of time to go around.
skazhiprivet 1 year ago
The inbound Swiss had PLENTY of time to "Go Around". It would have never have "Landed on top" of the BA flight. Maybe if there was extreme low viability... Also, im thinking BA may have misunderstood tower and thought he was cleared for take off, then when tower noticed he was rolling told him to abort and exit..??Who knows, Im just happy every one is SAFE!
beatchildproductions 2 years ago 25
@beatchildproductions If the Swissair goes around then the BA takes off and collides with it from below, not the best option. ("Go around" means follow the runway heading for another 5 miles before turning around to rejoin the holding pattern.)
oktal3700 7 months ago
as a controller, that wasn't a big deal. probably could have made it...6000ft. and airborn. And the pilot might have initiated the abort.
Mr59strat 2 years ago
Can you wonder how bloody nice it`d be if the swiss air was filming its landing! that was close mate!
gustavocavel 2 years ago 6
that brittish airways driver is as slow as a vfatman running
Afrench87 2 years ago
Wow this is a pretty serious blunder! I work at a one runway airport myself and there's always a fairly large gap between planes being allowed to use the runway and another plane landing. In fact, planes can't even cross the runway to reach the handling platform if another flight is within a minute of landing or so.
bramberkien 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
waddel20 2 years ago
so does the bae 146 not use reverse thrusts?
ryanair737400 2 years ago
nah no thrust reversers juat the poilers on the top of the wings and the speed brake on empenage... oh and the wheel brakes of course
DaMotoRider85 2 years ago
@ryanair737400 DaMotoRider85 is right. It has no trust reversers. If you notice, the rear speed brake is always open when landing due to the enormous amounts of drag it needs to maintain speed on the steep approach at London City. When it touches down, the spoilers on top of the wing deploy and it uses its wheel brakes to stop
swapnil10891 2 years ago
London City Airport has only one runway. This is common--one plane taxis while another lands, then the first pivots and takes off. NOT AN INCIDENT.
10khampton0728 2 years ago 16
Watch the video more carefully, it doesn't pivot it turns off the runway and goes around in a loop to avoid being hit by the incoming flight. Check google maps for a profile of the runway - it's quite an unusual design.
Steve31000 2 years ago
I see. So there is a signifigant rotation zone. I still don't think this was a very big deal at all. It is a small airport in the heart of London, and space is hard to come by.
10khampton0728 2 years ago
In addition, this is a quote from Wikipedia: "In 2003 a new holding point was established at the eastern end of the runway, enabling aircraft awaiting takeoff to hold there whilst other aircraft landed."
10khampton0728 2 years ago
@Steve31000 Sorry mate, I know this was over a year ago - but you're wrong.
At the end of runway 09 they have an extra manouvering area - this is so that a pilot can taxi down the runway and exit here and hold at one of three holding points (K, L and M) so that he is ready for an immediate take off after the landing plane vacates the active. Definately not an accident
jordangmagic 1 year ago
@jordangmagic Yes but if you watch closely, the plane had alreadu taxiid into position and powered up for take-off before leaving the runway again going in a full circle back to where he started in the waiting area. Thanks for the comment though.
Steve31000 1 year ago 7
@Steve31000 it would be faster for it to take off than to taxi ahead to exit the ruway, it was probably an aborted takeoff due to some bad indications on engines or instruments..
Danielk2603 1 year ago
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest.
secondeye 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest.
secondeye 10 months ago
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest. Granted, I might be missing something with the database.. maybe it wouldn't include this.
secondeye 10 months ago
@Steve31000 You can actually check all investigations at NTSB, and there is only one from 2/15/09 to 3/15/09 in the UK and it isn't this.. I would think if he had to throttle down, and taxi off, and only had 10 seconds before a fatal collison, it would warrant an invest. Granted, I might be missing something with the database.. maybe it wouldn't include this. I doknow that when a pilot fell asleep and overshot the airport by 30 miles, that made it.. that's how I found this db.
secondeye 10 months ago
@jordangmagic Also checked AAIB, which is apparently where it would be for London City.. nothing.. Gotta say it wasn't worthy of report even if it was as dramatic as portrayed.
secondeye 10 months ago
@10khampton0728 i disagree thats to close,i mean the pilot aint got mirrors so he couldnt see any danger.he's gotta rely on the tower...too close
curnock 3 months ago
Aw bless Ba
LiiV3LoNDoNLiiF3 2 years ago
There are any number of reasons for the BA plane to have rejected the take-off at the initial roll which could have been resolved on the taxiway. The BA pilots would have been fully aware of the swissair and vice versa. Total non-event.
AngryMacGuy 2 years ago
Why didn't the Swiss air plane abort landing as soon as it saw the BA plane on the runway? It could not assume the Ba plane would clear the runway on time.
girishmuraly 2 years ago
this plane looks really interesting with it short wings and 4 engine...what is this plane called where is it made? is it russian?
kevinatucla 2 years ago
its a BAe 146 and i think there factorys in scotland
gotz999 2 years ago
the engine is small but it's loud louder than a airbus 318
InfiniteSaviour49 2 years ago
no it's a BAE 146, it's a British Aerospace plane, until recently it was the only jet plane alowd to land at City because it was so quiet.
Ben123planes 2 years ago
the connect 146 could probably have got off narrowly
animotioned 2 years ago
it's hard to tell what actually happened from this video because of the perspective. it looked like the BA plane was on the taxiway rather than the runway. I don't believe close calls like these can happen in reality, especially in an advanced city like London.
btw planes landing at LCY have a challenge because of the steep glide slope and also the fact that they can't deploy thrust reverser due to the noise regulations.
happyguy82 2 years ago
(BAe 146's haven't got thrust reversers)
petetongdj 2 years ago
yeah but boeing 737 and airbus A318 land at LCY too and they aren't allowed to deploy them.
happyguy82 2 years ago
Airports bring money and jobs to the local area. Bring in plenty of visitors and big business use them as well
trekster1 2 years ago
'iremember', how could it be a result of engine trouble on the BA flight as it went off the runway, let the other plane land and then taxied into take-off position on the runway and then took-off. If it was engine trouble it wouldn't have taken off two minutes later.
Steve31000 2 years ago
@Steve31000 so how much do you know about Bae 146 aircraft? they could have had an indication problem on throttle up for takeoff that had to be sorted out, so they left the runway to sort it out or even see if it was in the MEL, do you know what an MEL is? prior to taking off. The problem is you don't know enough about aviation or this incident to deem it a near miss.
unapro3 1 year ago
Comment removed
iremmeber 2 years ago
He would have made it............probably more dangerous to pull out.
stegatops 2 years ago
cause british pilots are soo much niceer than swiss ones..............
sailesh2001 2 years ago
wise choice on the pilots part, he probably would have made it though.
bowlingwithzombies 2 years ago
just tight traffic, not near miss
boobyboob69 2 years ago
...they were probably cleared for an immediate take off as landing traffic was at 2 miles and still don't power up.
turbine1013 2 years ago
Typical Flyer Nigel's. They line up and take their time rolling - costs a few go-arrounds and megga frustration at LCY.
turbine1013 2 years ago
I believe (like others) that the departing aircraft had enough time to get in the air but probably had a warning and had to abort and clear the runway just in time for the other to land.. if it wasn't safe the other plane would have gone around.
jmr604 2 years ago
Things are gonna get even tighter when LCY is operating 120,000 flights a year with their postage stamp runway and ruining the lives of thousands in East and SE London.
Hopefully things will get so hairy, folk will stop using it.
Like the first time BA's 318 has to land in high winds/torrential rain. Can't wait :)
ogvert 2 years ago
Hey Mate. You may be against LCY but It is important to your local area. Without London City your economy would be worse. There will be no BA 318 scary landings because If its too dangerous they will land at gatwick! Shut Up and Deal With It. If you don't want a AIRPORT DON'T LIVE NEAR ONE!
planeboy737 2 years ago
1) Please explain where one can live in London with being near an airport.
2) I moved to where I live to GET AWAY from aircraft noise. They have MOVED the flight path over my property.
3) LCY improves my economy? BULLSHIT. Thousand have to suffer noise and pollution to aid the convenience of a handful of City fatcats?
4) You are a classic aircraft nutter - stuff everyone elses quality of life so you can indulge your hobby. Newham/LCY are being SUED over their expansion, and I hope they lose.
ogvert 2 years ago
I'm not saying you should live in london. Farnbourgh is quiet. And has a sleepy airfield nearby. Your exaggerating that they have moved flight paths. They have not. Your a typical noisy neighbor who thinks their view is the way that everyone should behave. LCY will win because it does benifit the economy. Keep your bullshit to yourself. I bet you have flown out of LCY! Hey. Your A Fatcat!
planeboy737 2 years ago
You are showing your complete ignorance. The HAVE moved LCY take-off paths to accomodate the larger jet aircraft that could not follow the same SIDs as the turboprops. Ask the CAA.
Who's the bullshitter?
You'll find there's a large residents campaign mounting along the new paths.
I flew out of LCY twice the year it opened (on Dash 7s) but never since.
As for benefitint the economy - crap. The place is SUBSIDISED. Who do you think pays for all the security?
ogvert 2 years ago
It makes me laugh at the start of the vid when you can only see the BA CON (bacon), of BA connect!
j4cko56 2 years ago 2
i thought of the exact same thing! lol
boomer757 2 years ago
Damn, that was close. Yikes.
brandondallas 2 years ago
Talk about over reaction. The ATC more than likely cleared the BA for takeoff, informed or forgot to inform him than an aircraft was inbound. If he did inform him, the pilot should not have sat on the runway for 30 secs before starting his takeoff, if he wasnt informed then the ATC should have done so. The Swiss aircraft would have saw the BA from a long way out and was ready to go around if need be, no panic....
startsem 2 years ago
far too much zoom, cant see the distance between the two planes
yunnamed 2 years ago 3
I was in the same situation EXACTLY at LCY, only we hadnt started taking off and they let the plane land over us, which was a bit risky.
Updation 2 years ago
what's more likely it maybe that the BA connect had some cockpit warning and decided they weren't readyf or takeoff. So instead of sending the Swiss around, ATC managed to taxi the BA out and save the Swiss a lot of fuel and money.
It's more efficient to taxi someone off rather than go around, if there is time to do so safely.
examinerblues 2 years ago 3
I really wish want to have new BAe-146 that already built. cuz all are over age fleet. I blame for 9/11 for cause production shut down.
strassj 2 years ago
I was not aware any of the BAE146 fleet were still in BA Connect livery... strange...
ascott1980 2 years ago
there still is BA Connect livery flights in the BAE146 fleet
bigrossco07 2 years ago
Can't figure out what happened. My guess is, the BA 146 lined up without permission and was asked to exit the runway, hence the little burst of thrust. Then the Swissair 146 landed. Swissair easily had time to go-around, and would have done, if BA had not been clear.
Thanks for posting this interesting clip!
cedarjet707 2 years ago
"lined up without permission". That is extremely unlikely to happen in a civilised country with the ATC communication protocols. Of course, anything is possible, but entering a runway without permission would be a grave and serious mistake, possibly leading to dismissal.
ryanhaart 2 years ago 2
wtf? that is fault of traffic control if the swiis already was cleared to land then wathc was the BA doing there?
zfreak90 2 years ago
That's not a near miss! The swiss aircraft wouldn't have been given clearance to land until the ba connect was clear of the runway, that's how it works, it's called air traffic CONTROL.
mancsaint 2 years ago
It didn't look like an aborted take-off to me...it looked like he was told to clear the runway for incoming traffic. perhaps he positioned without permissin...OR the controller mis judged the timing...I've seen and heard over the scanner what appear to be close calls, but amount to good timing/experience on the controllers part. This perhaps wasn't one of them...? lol great vid tho.
mayorlondon 2 years ago
George Carlin was right. This wouldn't be a near miss, but a near crash. An actual collision is a near miss :)
onixya1969 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fake
Terrorizer321 2 years ago
Lol u dont know much
jacobs088 2 years ago
Thats what the typical uneducated person would think ;)
Terrorizer321 2 years ago
this is crap man..!!!! i kept waiting for the near miss and it never happened..
drwhopk 2 years ago
a bae146 in ba connect!? theres still hope!
bobnoxadrez 2 years ago
holy crap!
B777rocks 2 years ago
Comment removed
Benashy7 3 years ago 5
Thanks for your reply. Are you a captain/first officer? Great to have your input.
Steve31000 3 years ago
were u a pilot on 1 of those planes?
lukesimonbrothers 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Your lying i was the pilot you stupid idiot!! Get back to playing your flights games!
Terrorizer321 2 years ago
Near miss?! whatever.
cfar014 3 years ago
As a captain with many years experience of LCY operations on the RJ, I can assure you that this is not a "near miss". Probably there was a slight delay in release by the TMA controller, and the aircraft was asked to reposition to the hold to allow the Swiss RJ to land ... happens all the time.
cdlgrainger 3 years ago 4
Impressive job career you've had. I wanted to be a polit when I was a kid. Mabye I still will be.
Nkatsikanis 3 years ago
That was no near miss! Just a last minute change of plans.... :-)
ads998 3 years ago
That Swiss Air pilot should have gone full throttle, gear up, and a hard left and circled around. He had to have seen what was happening on the runway. He shouldn't need a controller to tell him this.
BassmasterBling 3 years ago
He also has a minimum decent altitude that is perscribed by the approach chart for the specific approach he is shooting. No need to go around before that altitude if you don't get clearance, but legal requirements to go around if no clearance is received by that altitude. Obviously in this case ATC gave the Cleared to Land before the Minimums, or else we would well have seen a go around. (Go arounds happen every day somewhere on earth and pilots are trained how to roughly 20 hours into training)
musicalaviator 2 years ago
Yes, I also think it should've been termed as a "near-hit." I think it would've been much safer if the BA Connect was allowed to just take off. I think there was enough time to allow the BA Connect to take off before the Swiss Air landed. The BA Connect's take off abortion made things much more dangerous. This is of course in my view point as an enthusiast.
cicerojuliuscaesar 3 years ago
I think you're correct there.
Something probably went wrong in the BA plane thus necessitating an abort.
KasHCubeD 3 years ago
"I think it would've been much safer if the BA Connect was allowed to just take off." - Your thinking is flawed. What if the BA has to reject the takeoff halfway down the runway and the Swiss has touched down behind him already?
ryanhaart 2 years ago
nothing wrong there. if the ba hadn't aborted takeoff it would have been some perfect spacing. coincidence, i'm sure.
coolian2 3 years ago
aww..those planes are so cute
Ultraman221 3 years ago 2
i'm just saying, the swiss air should have done a go around and the ctrlr should have told him 2 and the BA plane could have just kept going
cjracer1000 3 years ago
Shouldn't this be re-termed as "near-hit?"
Anyway, why was this claimed to be a 'near-hit?' That Swiss aircraft had plenty of time to abort the landing if necessary.
mrblujet 3 years ago
Way to blame ATC when you have no idea what you're talking about.
EmuInfluenza 3 years ago 3
Yep that could have been really bad.
iron1215 3 years ago
everyone makes mistakes.........................
jpro747 3 years ago
london city is a short runway and hard getting in and out. Im wondering if even at the threshold the Ba was in the way for landing as you just about have to take up most of that runway Even if he had tried to take off and the swiss air did a go around you would more than likely still had a collison or one sitting in the drink
flipperinms 3 years ago
That's exactly what I was thinking after I saw it. Theres nothing but water on either side of the runway and as cykliu said there is nothing to the south of the runway, and only thing to the north is a loop for planes which have backtracked from the terminal to wait in. Its a difficult airport to land in.
Steve31000 3 years ago
Why talk about what ifs? The 'what if' scenario you just described was prevented - that's what these people are paid for. This is a no brainer... the BA was cleared for take off and didn't roll quick enough, so his take off clearance was cancelled and the pilot vacated to prevent the Swiss from going around. I've seen car manouevres in a tesco car park that have scared me more.
permissiontospeaksir 3 years ago
What if anything could happen suppose the brit airways lost power and couldnt make the turn, what if a rock fell from the moon and smashed a car or what if a 29 cent light bulb caused and l-10-11 to crash killing many. What if are real and can be disasterous. THis is a tight runway to begin with and not as easy as heathrow to land . THe problem is this is a very tight airport to land in without any possible obstructions. Everything is an if
flipperinms 3 years ago
If the BA couldn't have made the turn the Swiss would have gone around. Don't start scaring people about flight safety - everyone knows what they're doing! Even if the Swiss pilot experienced a huge mechanical problem he/she'd have just landed anyway once clear of the BA and suffered the consequences of the later inquest. For Christ's sake...
permissiontospeaksir 3 years ago 2
Funny looking planes. Never seen one before...
sampsonoff 3 years ago
they are called bae-146s or arvo RJs, built for STOL capability
Jerrycobra 3 years ago
im sure the BA connect would've been far down the runway-but not yet airborn by the time Swiss landed, and that would've meant 2 aircrafts on an active runway at the same time...which is not favored.
boeingt 3 years ago
I don't see any problems in these procedures. The BA plane hold a little longer in the active, maybe noticed some assymmetric thurst power or some warning light. The Swiss' pilots surely were able to see the BA situation and had enough time to go around if they needed. No real danger at all.
arkobayashi 3 years ago 2
if its a near miss then tht means he nearly missed him which means he hit him
airjordanboy32 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
N495QS 3 years ago
Wasn't he just crossing the acitve? Non event to me...
keokibrandon 3 years ago
@ keokibradon:
he wasn't "just crossing the active" there is nothing to the south of the runway, and only thing to the north is a loop for planes which have backtracked from the terminal to wait in.
However, you are right in that it's a non-event. The arriving aircraft had a clear visual on the situation and had the runway not of been clear in time a go around would of been performed.
ckyliu 3 years ago
If that is a near miss then there is a near miss at heathrow every 90 seconds. And events like this are not dangerous. There is no reason to believe that ATC didnt have complete control of the situation.
alexchalmers86 3 years ago 3
LOOOOL! AGREED! that made me laugh!
pilotanthony 3 years ago
Just by looking at the proximity of the two aircraft it's clear that there was no real danger. The nose low approach angle of the 146 provided adequate visual awareness to the crew of the Swissair aircraft. I suppose distraction, tunnel vision, or something of the sort could have caused the crew not to notice the BA aircraft, but it's highly unlikely as it's hard not to notice an aircraft pulling on the runway in front of you.
N99RatShite 3 years ago 2
A non event, I'd imagine the cityflyer got a take off config warning or equivalent and so correctly aborted and helpfully vacated the runway quickly to allow flow of traffic to be maintained...no "blunder" by anyone.
runningjump 3 years ago
Not even. They probably were not ready for takeoff, so they were asked to vacate the runway immediately. They vacated so that the swiss 146 could land, then they took off. No big deal.
hotmailsucksass 3 years ago 2
I was staying at the Ramada hotel just over the water from the runway when this happened! Thanks for posting
wazzawazza73 3 years ago
It's a small world!
Steve31000 3 years ago
That's amazing, because I was in my car stuck on the M11 on the way home to Cambridge. Absolutely amazing. Amazing!!!!!!!!
njc021073 3 years ago 2