Jetairfly B738 and TuiFly B738 at Palma Mallorca on Jun 13th 2014, loss of separation on runway
Last Update: July 18, 2016 / 22:13:15 GMT/Zulu time
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Jun 13, 2014
Classification
Incident
Airline
Jetairfly
Flight number
TB-5421
Departure
Brussels, Belgium
Destination
Palma Mallorca, Spain
Aircraft Registration
OO-JLO
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800
ICAO Type Designator
B738
A TuiFly Boeing 737-800, registration D-AHFH performing flight X3-2313 from Palma Mallorca,SP (Spain) to Dusseldorf (Germany), was taxiing for departure from runway 24L and was cleared to line up runway 24L and wait.
The ATC controller assessed a short time later that the separation between the arriving and departing aircraft had become too tight to permit the departure before the arriving aircraft and cancelled the line up clearance, however, not before the German TuiFly aircraft had already crossed the hold short line. The aircraft stopped.
Spain's CIAIAC reported that the controller subsequently advised the JetairFly crew to expect a go-around due to the position of the aircraft on the ground. The JetairFly crew advised they would accept a visual approach clearance and would continue landing in this case, the controller verified they had the German aircraft on the ground in sight and cleared the aircraft for a visual approach and cleared the aircraft to land.
OO-JLO touched down safely, D-AHFH departed a short time later and reached Dusseldorf without further incident.
The CIAIAC have opened an investigation into the occurrence stating that the meteorologic conditions were suitable for a visual landing clearance.
On Jul 18th 2016 the CIAIAC released their final report the probable cause of the incident was:
The likely cause of the runway incursion involving aircraft JAF7WJ and TUI1FX was the failure to coordinate an appropriate separation between arriving aircraft so as to allow TUI1FX to take off before the arrival of JAF7WJ.
Contributing to the incident were:
- the workload at the local controller’s position in the TWR resulting from the closing of runway 24R and the accumulated delays and waiting aircraft,
- the change in the traffic pattern minutes before the incident, with all aircraft being inbound with the exception of the sole departing aircraft, TUI1FX, and
- the decreased separation between arriving aircraft due to a late request to JAF7WJ to lower its speed.
With respect to decision making by the tower controller the CIAIAC analysed:
When the controller made the decision to insert the takeoff, there were four aircraft in the landing sequence, with a fifth about to join the sequence at the localizer. The separation between the aircraft between which he wanted to insert the takeoff was 4.6 NM, with the leading aircraft 1.4 NM away from the threshold.
By the time he gave the clearance to line up and wait, the separation between the aircraft had fallen to 4.5 NM and the leading aircraft was 0.8 NM out.
When the controller decided to cancel the clearance, the scenario was as follows: the aircraft had just landed, the next one was 4.2 NM out and approaching at 160 kt, and the waiting aircraft was still at H10, though it was moving.
At that time the controller did not know how long the aircraft that had just landed would remain on the runway, meaning the runway occupancy time did not influence his decision.
The decision to cancel the takeoff is believed to have been affected by the distance and speed of the approaching aircraft and by the fact that the taxiing aircraft, though it had already started moving, was still some distance away from the runway. In fact, this is the aspect that was mentioned by the controller, who thought the incident occurred because the taxiing aircraft was not fully ready to take off. Perhaps the controller expected the taxiing aircraft to start moving sooner, and for it to be almost entering the runway as the arriving aircraft landed. The radar records show, however, that the landing aircraft passed in front of the waiting aircraft almost five seconds before the latter started moving. This amount of time is considered fast and reasonable, and the crew do not seem to have been unprepared for takeoff. Instead, the controller’s assessment of the situation is thought to have resulted more from his desire to execute the takeoff as quickly as possible, in light of the proximity of the next aircraft in the sequence.
The subsequent evolution of the traffic showed that the controller’s decision to cancel the takeoff had been correct, since there would not have been enough time for the aircraft to take off. The time spent by the landing aircraft on the runway (1 min 17 sec) and the distance and approach speed of the next aircraft meant that by the time the runway was completely clear, the next aircraft was 0.9 NM out, leaving no time for an aircraft to depart under these conditions.
With respect to both Jetairfly crew and tower controller accepting the runway incursion the CIAIAC analysed:
After evaluating the position of the waiting aircraft, the three pilots on the approaching aircraft concluded that landing did not jeopardize the safety of either aircraft. For both the controller and the pilots, the fact that the aircraft on the ground was outside the runway and that weather conditions were perfect conditioned their initial decision. If the aircraft had been on the runway, if the weather conditions had been bad or if the aircraft’s position could not have been confirmed visually, this situation would not have arisen and neither party would have opted for this solution.
The communications between the crew and the controller showed that the situation that was going to occur was known and had been accepted by both parties. The fact that it was the crew that proposed to make a visual landing could have helped change the controller’s decision since, as he himself stated, he trusted the pilot’s judgment.
In light of these factors, it is understandable how both parties, the controller and the pilot, accepted to continue landing on a runway that was officially occupied.
Metars:
LEPA 130930Z 22007KT 190V280 CAVOK 28/17 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130900Z 22007KT 190V250 CAVOK 27/13 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130830Z 22004KT 170V260 CAVOK 27/16 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130800Z 22004KT 190V270 CAVOK 26/17 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130730Z 21003KT 170V250 CAVOK 25/17 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130700Z VRB01KT CAVOK 25/12 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130630Z 00000KT CAVOK 23/11 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130600Z 00000KT CAVOK 20/11 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130530Z 00000KT CAVOK 18/12 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEPA 130500Z 00000KT CAVOK 17/11 Q1018 NOSIG=
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Jun 13, 2014
Classification
Incident
Airline
Jetairfly
Flight number
TB-5421
Departure
Brussels, Belgium
Destination
Palma Mallorca, Spain
Aircraft Registration
OO-JLO
Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800
ICAO Type Designator
B738
This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Article source
You can read 2 more free articles without a subscription.
Subscribe now and continue reading without any limits!
Read unlimited articles and receive our daily update briefing. Gain better insights into what is happening in commercial aviation safety.
Send tip
Support AeroInside by sending a small tip amount.
Related articles
Fleet type match
JetairFly B738 at Brussels on Jul 29th 2017, flaps problem
A JetairFly Boeing 737-800, registration OO-JAY performing flight TB-6386 from Rabat (Morocco) to Brussels Charleroi (Belgium), was on final approach…
Fleet type match
Jetairfly B788 at Brussels on May 1st 2016, slat problem
A Jetairfly Boeing 787-800, registration OO-JDL performing flight TB-705 from Brussels (Belgium) to Cancun (Mexico), was climbing out of Brussels'…
Fleet type match
Jetairfly B737 near Paris on Mar 6th 2015, fuel filter indication
A Jetairfly Boeing 737-700, registration OO-JAR performing flight TB-5997 from Brussels (Belgium) to Tenerife Sur Reina Sofia,CI (Spain), was enroute…
Jetairfly B763 at Brussels on Mar 24th 2013, could not retract flaps
A Jetairfly Boeing 767-300, registration OO-TUC performing flight TB-727 from Brussels (Belgium) to Zanzibar (Tanzania) with 202 passengers, was…
Jetairfly B763 near Shannon on May 23rd 2012, medical emergency
A Jetairfly Boeing 767-300, registration OO-JAP performing flight TB-208 from Cancun (Mexico) to Brussels (Belgium), was enroute at FL370 about 140nm…
Newest articles
Red Air MD82 at Miami on Jun 21st 2022, runway excursion causes gear collapse on landing
A Red Air Dominicana McDonnell Douglas MD-82, registration HI1064 performing flight L5-203 from Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) to Miami,FL (USA)…
Fleet type match
Southwest B737 near Dallas on Apr 25th 2024, engine shut down in flight
A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N793SA performing flight WN-4195 from Denver,CO to San Antonio,TX (USA), was enroute at FL410 about…
Subscribe today
Are you researching aviation incidents? Get access to AeroInside Insights, unlimited read access and receive the daily newsletter.
Pick your plan and subscribePartner
A new way to document and demonstrate airworthiness compliance and aircraft value. Find out more.
ELITE Simulation Solutions is a leading global provider of Flight Simulation Training Devices, IFR training software as well as flight controls and related services. Find out more.
Your regulation partner, specialists in aviation safety and compliance; providing training, auditing, and consultancy services. Find out more.
AeroInside Blog
Popular aircraft
Airbus A320Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-800 MAX
Popular airlines
American AirlinesUnited
Delta
Air Canada
Lufthansa
British Airways