How EIGHT Jets Were In Danger Over Madrid | Chaos Over Madrid
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2022
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrashJoin My Discord: / discord
Final Report: www.mitma.es/recursos_mfom/co...
TAP A320 Image: John Taggart
EC-LJS Image: Fabrizio Berni - www.jetphotos.com/photo/7082210
Iberia A320:Juke Schweizer
This is the story of, well 8 planes and no the title isnt clickbait 8 planes were involved in this incident. Usually when you start reading an accident report you have this section where they talk about the planes involved. Usually its like aircraft one heres all the info about that aircraft and then maybe aircraft two. In this case it just keeps going all the way from 1-8. Now lets meet our unlucky contenders shall we?
Plane number one was flight 1018 A tap air portugal a320 flying from lisboa to madrid,
plane number two is flight 8825 a air nostrum bombardier crj 600 flying from turin to madrid,
plane number three is flight 54 a ryan air 737-800 that was flying from dublin to madrid.
Plane number four is Flight 99 another air nostrum CRJ 600 plane flying from alicante to madrid
number 5 flight 36 is an iberia a320 flying from birmingham to madrid.
Aircraft number 6 is flight 290 another ryan air 737-800 flight 290 this one flying from birmingham to madrid. What number are we on?
Oh yeah number 7 flight 5 is an air europa 737 flying from arrecife to madrid and
finally aircraft number 8 which was flight 7 was an air europa a330 flying from milan to madrid.
Phew were done with that. 8 planes all coming into madrid and theyre all about to get very close to each other in a very bad way.
So it's the 27th of may 2018 and Madrid airport is having a very bad day. Its about half past 8 and up until this point the airport was in a north configuration. Runways for takeoffs and landings are selected based on the wind conditions at the airport at the time. In the north configuration the wind will be coming in from the north so the planes will want to take off in that direction. At Madrid the north configuration means that planes will be landing on runways 32L and R and taking off from 36L and R. But a bit past 8:30 pm the winds suddenly changed and the 7 of the 8 planes that we were talking about before all had to go around due to the new wind direction. This sudden shift in the winds direction also meant that the airport had to change its configuration, using the earlier configuration of runways would no longer allow planes to land into the wind. So the airport shifted to the south configuration, where runways 18L and 18R were used for landings and runways 14L and 14R were used for takeoffs. Its basically the opposite of the north configuration.
After a while after the go arounds all 7 planes had been vectored to land on runways 18L and 18R as the configuration demanded, the two planes to land was the TAP A320 that is flight 1018 and the air nostrum CRJ that is flight 99. The A320 had been cleared for runway 18R and the CRJ on runway 18L. As they both flew their approaches, the A320 was flying at 240 knots and the CRJ at 250 knots both planes had been instructed to slow down to 180 knots, at this point they were 1.3 nautical miles apart but they were starting to come together. As both planes began to slow down for the landing they both started to get uncomfortably close to each other. At first .9 nautical miles apart and vertically 900 feet apart then they were .8 nautical miles apart and 200 feet apart vertically. This was well below the required 2 nautical miles of separation required when landing on two parallel runways. But as time went on the distance between both planes just dropped and dropped but they both landed safely before they could get any closer . Phew disaster averted right? Oh far from it. At this time two more planes were lining up to land on runways 18L and R. Ryan air flight 290 and the air nostrum flight 8825. The ryan air 737 was landing on runway 18R and the air nostrum CRJ was landing on runway 18L. Like before both planes were adequately spaced when the landing sequence started, they were 4.1 NM apart like before both planes were asked to reduce their speed. The distance between them continued to shrink, within seconds thye were just 1.9 NM apart and just 600 feet apart in altitude. It kept falling, soon they were 1.4 Nm apart and 500 feet apart in altitude. At their closest point they were just 1.2 nautical miles and 600 feet apart in altitude. But before they could get any closer both planes landed safely. 
Наука
Here’s that air Canada story where the plane got knocked around a bit: ruclips.net/video/dD5RJ0MnyNk/видео.html
Hey bro i think this isn't a serious incident because at San Francisco it happens regularly and planes come so close that you can see it from another plane window
It wouldn’t be an 8-plane pileup without some Ryan-Air planes involved
The comment thar made me laugh out loud literally. Kudos.
@@chrisbentleywalkingandrambling happy to bring you a little happiness 😁
Was thing that too XD
Cracked me up, but so fucking true 😂
RyanAir retains a zero passenger deaths record.
In the mid-1980s (1986 or 1987 I think), I can remember walking from Hainault (to the north east of London) tube station to my place of work on the industrial estate. I was used to hearing the sound of aircraft overhead but, on this morning, the noise seemed unusually loud. I looked up and saw six or seven aircraft literally wingtip to wingtip.
I was late for work that morning as I watched them being slowly untangled in a great S-curve with each aircraft peeling off as they reached the tip of the S in order to continue their approach to Heathrow.
I never saw any media coverage of the incident and the internet was not a thing back then. Nor was TCAS. Even so, it really happened and it kept me spellbound for the 20 - 30 minutes it took to sort out the unholy mess. God knows how the extremely dangerous situation was ever allowed to develop.
sounds a lot more like a planned formation than a mess of any kind... flying in a formation like that is really difficult, staying in formation through turns is incredibly hard WITH specialised training and practice, i highly doubt this would just happen by accident and be resolved in *that* kind of way. also cant imagine what would lead to that situation developing without either the pilots or ATC questioning the situation... are you sure it wasnt a formation flyby for some event or airshow?
@@qtrg5794 If you can explain to me why so many commercial airliners were flying in close formation (literally tens of feet apart at very low altitude) at 07:00hrs in the morning over a residential area in a regular Heathrow holding area at a time when all the trans-Atlantic and far Eastern red-eye traffic is coming in to Heathrow with tired pilots, low fuel reserves and passengers who just want to get off their aeroplane, I'd be fascinated to hear it!
I've watched enough aircraft in my time to recognise a formation when I see it! More to the point, if it was a formation, all the exciting stuff happened many miles away from the nearest airfield so who would have been watching it?
Further point: have you ever seen six or seven commercial ailines fly like that even FOR an event?
@@qtrg5794 any pilots which had military training would know how to fly in formation, however engine turbulence would be so different on airliners that i am not certain that flying in formation would even be possible. it's an insane concept which has killed quite a few pilots, i recall a group, was it the Thunderbirds? which followed the leader into the ground after a mechanical issue prevented the leader's plane from pulling up. i think it was a loose bolt. I read about an incident in an early biplane in England's fledgling air arm in which a pilot was neatly decapitated by the propeller of another plane which was flying in formation behind him.....
@@thomasm1964 I for one would love if MACI does their amazing research as usual and manage to find it!
@@thomasm1964 maybe it's a wrong memory/a dream or something. I kid you not, I was in my teens at some place and decided to visit it again and it looked different than I had it in memory. But it didn't change, just my memory changed. Maybe it never happened.
Two hundred feet of vertical separation?! That's insane.
You can have two hundred feet of vertical separation, e.g. one aircraft at 2, 500 feet and the other at 2,300 feet, and still be five miles apart horizontally.
They were on PARALLEL RUNWAYS lmfao. Of course their vertical separation was similar; the runways are uh..... both on the ground. This was written a bit click-baity.
Yeah and 1.3NM horizontal separation. It's called parallel runwsy landing. Nothing as special as it sounds on this video
so according to the skyaero post "once established on the ILS LLZ, each aircraft was required to be a minimum of 3 nm from any aircraft ahead on the same LLZ and 2nm away from an aircraft making an approach on the adjacent LLZ" and I don't think Madrid can do a PRM approach
Yeah, 20 stories are nearly nothing. Just jump down.
Normal day in Microsoft Flight sim
I’ve never heard about this incident before! People remember the Tenerife and Uberlingen disasters but collisions avoided are seldom known! One of the greatest features of your channel is that you don’t recycle episodes, you cover incidents that’ve never been reproduced on simulation in any other YT channel or Mayday!
Having seen so many disasters avoided in aviation my confidence in air travel is now much higher from 8 to 9!
I have landed 121 times in Madrid Airport. Never had a sense of risk. Horizontal separation may have been less than 2NM but never at risk. Vertical separation needs to be taken into account with the horizontal separation. Madrid airport runways configuration is one of the safest anywhere as there are no intersections. Landing in south configuration is normally a little bit more bumpy because of the hills around but, hey where will be the fun or flying without it?
I'm ATC. IMO, this is much ado about nothing. Separation "rules" are based largely on 60s radar separation. These pilots were heading to parallel runways, with ok or better vsby.
I was wondering how this really differs from the intentional parallel landings they sometimes carry out at busy airports like SFO. Like obviously it’s not good that the ATC seems not to have really had a handle on the situation, but it doesn’t seem likely that these planes landing close to eachother on parallel runways was actually likely to be a danger. Planes landing too close on THE SAME runway, now that really could cause a wake turb danger, or worse the risk of the second plane landing before the first has vacated the runway, but parallel runways seems inherently pretty safe unless there’s something wrong with the localizers.
When you wrote ok, I read it AK. That's how it sounded
Thats exactly what I was thinking and I am only an aircraft engineer lol
@@MegaBrokenstar the difference is that SFO is certified to use SOIA, madrid is not for PRM approaches
I am a flight attendant here in the UK and I still trust ATC and aircraft communications.
For some yeares, before Coivd-19, I was based at Bangkok's main airport, Suvarnabhumi. The controllers are the most professional I ever have expereinced. The traffic density is high. Depsite this, the change of runways from north to south. was very smooth with few delays. The approach controller at Madrid must have had a very bad day...
I have a vivid and traumatic memory of the Beechcraft Bonanza, one of possibly 3 small planes in a mid air collision ... as an 8 yo witnessing the aftermath of the accident. Though I could not remember the date, thanks to an astute YT comment, I found out it was 4/5/1961 at Riverside CA Municipal Airport. There was a mid air collision between at least 2 small planes. Though, I have not been able to find this accident report, but I do seem to recall news reports initially said 3 aircraft were involved, though I'm not sure. There were certainly 2 ... my mom was a single working RN, and had been leaving us 3 kids with a next door neighbor for the previous year. The neighbor heard the news reports and being only about 10 minutes away, she took us there. The planes came down in a residential area, and thankfully nobody on the ground killed, but all aboard both planes died.
There were aircraft parts, victims and body parts, still under the yellow tarps, some on rooftops, when we got there. I remember people saying one of the occupants had been decapitated. Thankfully we did not see that. But the most distinctive thing was the tail of the Bonanza with that "V". And though we were spared the decapitated victim, my mom was not pleased the neighbor had taken us there. But I'll always remember that V tail on the Bonanza ... but WOW! 8 aircraft!!! ... thanks goodness, no one injured, or killed ... 🙂
Oh yeah, THIS is the kind of chaos with a happy ending I love in my aviation content.
Now thats not a mini crash investigation 😤
Nothing about this was mini 😭
this is insane bro I never heard of this great detailed info
Your ability to convey every small detail is amazing thank you for excellent content
Surprised he didn't give us a description of the ages and experience of all the pilots involved, or perhaps the choice of meals available on the flights. Could have easily stretched it out to 20+ minute video.
Amazing video! Thank you for always making such high quality video's, they're really good, I really like them! Keep up the good work!
200 feet of seperation?
Let's put that into perspective, the wingspan of a Boing 777 is 212 feet! Total madness!
Sorry, but each aircraft was aligned to their assigned runway, L and R, which are sufficiently spaced, with 1950m between them. Munich Airport has a distance between the runways of 2250m.
The vertical separation is not so much of a problem here, but the aircraft should be staggered, AC1 landing left, then AC2 landing right a minute later, AC3 landing left 2 minutes later and so on. Landing at CDG, you often see another plane on approach to one of the Southern runways, while you land on of the Northern runways (there are 4) . So yes, there was a situation here, that should not have happened, was investigated to prevent a repeat, but there never really was a serious immediate danger for any of the aircraft.
@@wakeupcall2665 With you, not as scary as I thought. Cheers for the heads up.
On day 6 of Covid right now and your videos are helping me get through it more than without. Cannot thank you enough for everything you put into your videos, the effort and research definitely shows!
Hope you get better soon!
Say the line……
Adam Gray stay safe?
i'm very confident of the safeness of passenger air travel. i could not fly as regularly as i do (~50 flights a year) with a lower confidence level...at least not without it being a near constant cause of stress.
So what do you do to reduce stress levels when flying trans atlantic, if you do? I'm a stress flyer and I've gotten a huge confidence boost by watching videos like these, but I'm still a little nervous
Please like the comment if you reply, I don't get notifications if you don't. I really want to know
"But wait! There's more! Hang on to your seats, because this one's a screamer!"
I'm glad everyone got on the ground safely.
That’s insane, I’m glad it worked out in the end! I’d say my confidence in air travel is a 9.
Last flight I was on I was looking out the window and a “private jet” looking plane flew under us at what I’d say was only 1000 feet. It was incredibly scary even though I’m sure it was a safe distance
I had a Special experience few years ago on a flight, when a Emirates Plane passed ca50m above us. Nobody i asked saw it and they didnt believe me. U could See the Pilots From the other plane. Was very scary.
Its a long Time ago but stayed in my mind
The separation minima is 1000ft and 3 NM, so it was as per procedure, and pretty safe.
(This is reduced to 2.5 NM on approach to a runway within 10 NM)
@@alaqmargandhi1165 Also depends on IFR/VFR and what airspace the aircraft are in.
@@olihsv4047 - I had a similar experience on a Saudi airlines 747 in the early 80s. Another 747 approached our aircraft at about 40° off head on and both took violently evasive action. This was at night but I could (very briefly) see the faces of the passengers on the other jet. I was absolutely terror stricken and spent about £90 on alcohol on the following connection flight, - no alcohol on Saudia Airlines, presumably because the pilots had drunk it all.
@@philhughes3882 And a slam at the Saudis. Sounds like it was you with the drinking problem not them.
Amazing video dude
This video has a feel of the early days of Power Rangers series where the team line up their zords in a sequential manner to form the single megazord.
Lmaooooo
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation though it still happens to this day, I just checked being curious about their whereabouts.😁
Huh?. 8 PLANE??!!
8 planes
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation mother of god
Very plane
Incredible video!
Crazy. I'd say my confidence in flying is definitely a 9 - miniscule bit of fear mixed with the knowledge that I'm more likely to die in a car accident on my way to the airport. :D
A brilliant video. I’d be interested to know what changed when aircrafts 9 and 10 landed, that meant they weren’t affected like planes 1 to 8.
Cues change for approach - it's a complete coincidence that parallel approaches happened to be perfectly aligned. Tower controllers work on the same separations and speeds, so if you get them in sync, this can happen. The confusing thing is that this is an everyday (and totally normal) method of landing at most large international airports.
This was a very nice presentation. Those were some lucky flights -- that nothing happened. Just wow!! Great story and graphics!! Thanks!! 👍✈✈👍
This is what I'd call "professionalism."
It's great to know that, if the winds shift suddenly, the ATC and pilots can work together to get everyone on the ground without escalating delays 👍🏼
yeah especially with 8 planes involved
I wish they would change the C in ATC to stand for “coordinator” rather than “control”. The latter makes it sound like pilots are a bunch of irresponsible toddlers that need someone to tell them what to do, and the language positions ATC and pilots as if they are at odds. The former describes ATC as an ally of pilots who’s there to help everyone get where they need to go as quickly and safely as possible, and a means of facilitating communication and coordination between pilots in the same airspace.
Another amazing video 💓
I listen to your channel right before I fly every time just to make it crazy.
It's been a tough day but then I saw your upload and heard "This is the story of...." and my day is already a whole lot better.
Insane. Thanks for sharing
"Let's meet our unlucky contenders" is a fantastic quote to include
Normally I can follow you very well, but this time I didn't understand what the problem was, how it was responded to, and what the solution was in the end.
Loved the Iberia A320's "SUBSCRIBE" on top of the registration. 👍👍😉😉
Sorry, I don't quite get it. Parallel landings happen all the time at other airports like SFO and LAX, in fact you can watch videos of them on youtube. Why aren't those aircraft violating separation?
Exactly what I was thinking, planes literally land a few hundred feet abeam wing to wing at airports like SFO routinely, not sure what the big deal was here. Landing on parallel runways doesn't seem like as big a deal as this video is making it out to be
1) they have specialized procedures to maintain separation between all planes
2) separation was not maintained in this case and that separation is very important
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation again, you keep mentioning "special procedures" without clarifying what that means. I love your videos, but this one just leaves more questions than it answers unfortunately
This is what I’m talking about www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-84-1.pdf
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Oh I see. Thanks!
Let me start off by saying I’m not a Controller.
Although weather was a factor in the decision to change the arrival runways, I can’t see it being a main causal factor for the separation incidents described in the video.
Yes there were a lot of aircraft that were resequenced to the 18 parallels, but it should have been managed by the controller so that there would be enough in-trail spacing between each aircraft on the adjacent finals. It’s possible they were sequence very close to each other to begin with, which allowed one aircraft to catch-up to the other.
After asking the second aircraft on the adjacent final to slowdown, and seeing it wasn’t going to work, then the controller should have broken off the approach before things got too close - and then do this with each pair where the subsequent separation event arose. Yes, massive workload for the controller, but at least you don’t have four airproxs in succession.
I might be missing something here !
But great video as always Mini Air Crash Investigation 👍
Thanks for another informative and well-researched video. Whilst I like looking at these videos, I feel that the number of things which can go wrong is so great that I prefer not to fly.
Damn. Great breakdown
With the lateral separation never getting below about a mile, I'm not sure this was really all that dangerous. It did eat into the margins, but the margins are there to allow for this kind of thing.
This is one of the very few where I'm most interested in what happened to the controllers and what measures will be taken in the future
Great video. I have lived in Spain for many years. It all sounds very normal. Trying very hard, not enough info or coordination, chaos, danger, excitement and all ending well. Kinda sums up my pueblo. España te quiero !
Did you check out Mentour pilot Petter? He has a channel and flies out of & lives in Spain. He dies all kinds of incidents fresh ones also.
Does edit.
@@sharoncassell9358 I have. He says OK in an annoying way and talks to much for me.
I am more confident in air travel than I am in any other method of travel and I am a professional commercial driver!
Eight planes? EIGHT? PLANES!? OH. MY. GOSH. 😱😱😱
To see how they pulled this off with no bad effects, I would say I'm quite confident with air travel today. ☺️
Ah yes, the FSX Lobby
NICE SHOW MINI CRASH GUY.
This is difficult to envisions the starting sequencing of way out at approach altitudes which should have set up each set of pairs such that separation minimums could always be maintained. I can only recall one or two simultanious approach landings and takeoffs but I gather they are standard at high density airports out of necessity. Obviously crews cannot be looking out to their sides to guard against separation distances unless observing crew members are on the inside positions and even then they are way to busy with other duties.
First of all, thank you for this particular report.
I know anything is possible in air travel at any particular time and weather situation.
I am wondering what the distance was between the L and R runway's.
Otherwise, I rate these incidents an 8 on the 1 to 10 scale.
Thanks MACI.
I really like the way you explain everything so that ordinary people can understand what you are saying. I do have a single engine Cessna license so it helps some but even if I didn't, I think I could still understand the main points of these incidents. To answer your question, I'll answer this way: the most dangerous part of air travel is the drive to the airport. I think people often fear flying, is bc so many people die or get hurt at the same time. Flying is still the safest way to travel.
I wouldn't trade it for the world. I've gone by cruise ship train to CA . Plane. I still prefer flight. I had an engine cut off in mid air on me in a Cessna150 in 1983 on my 9th flight and I picked out a field to land in but the farmer was waving his arms to ward me off. I fiddled with the engine start plunger as I was gliding and calling a mayday. All of a sudden 40 ft from the ground my engine kicked in and I ascended in a calm but well prayed attitude and gained altitude and landed on the runway which was 3 miles away. I didn't have time to get scared. I was busy flying the airplane. I also thought that maybe the instructor had pulled the plug to test my fear factor skills. He asked me when We got down was I afraid & why not. As a joke I told him because I was taking you with me. He didn't appreciate it . that's how I handle emergency situations and have my well earned heart attack when its over. I never saw that instructor again. Maybe he thought I was bad luck. But I never had anymore near miss flights except one big garbage truck accident due to a bald tire over inflated hydroplaned on wet pavement in rain at night on a highway in Queens NY.
Well done
You never even mentioned the threat of wake turbulence being blown across to the other runway.
Many years ago my instructor and I were about to go out for patterns. He noted that the National Guard’s big helicopters were practicing on the north end. He said that we should just tie down and wait. The winds were from the north and the guard were nearly a mile away. Just after tie down. The floor mats from the office had been laying outside after washing. The winds had brought the turbulence all the way to the south end. Black carpet mats went everywhere. We found one on the access road near the railroad track.
I became a firm believer in wake caution after that experience.
Wake Bad! Proximity Bad! Together unthinkable!
4:00 White thext on white background, absolute genious.
Huge air crash investigation
I like your reports, but this one doesn’t make sense as an investigation as it is a normal procedure.
These are just SOIA ,simultaneous offset parallel approaches and is common all around the world. The airport is specially equipped with high update radars and the aircraft are both tuned to a common secondary frequency on which breakout instructions are given if either of the aircraft stray into a specific area between the runways.
I believe investigators had a bit of slow month back then so they decided to write a whole complex incident report just for fun.
Great vlog as always! At OSL they are not allowed to have uncoordinated landings and take offs even the rwys are over 1km apart. Take a look at some landings from SFO here on YT. Caution wake turbulence. Lol!
How is this a vlog? lollll. Not sure what you mean by "uncoordinated" - but these were all vectored in by ATC, as are countless airport ops around the world as I type this. Not sure what the issue is. And wake turbulence isn't an issue if you're laterally separated and at equal altitudes (unless you're practically touching) - this is WHY SFO (and everyone else) conducts parallel landings constantly.
Wake vortices depart at ~500fpm TOPS both vertical and horizontal, aircraft next to each other are actually guaranteed to be safe from wake turbulence lol, even then the separation of the runways ensures adequate spacing for even mis-matched approaches to be completely safe, the only separation concern is the same runway landings and/or approach paths.
I do not understand this video at all - what relation is there between the controller supervisor not having good weather understanding and between the 4 proximity incidents? Did he make a wrong call ? Or did he switch too late and hence the rush? And even if there was rush why did the planes get closer if they were correctly spaced (as you stated) in the beginning. I mean if I have two planes not too close and I tell both of them to slow down, how do they get so dramatically closer 4 times in a row?
Either I am slow at the moment or there is something important missing from the video.
Because this was a video about 8 aircraft getting close, but (plot twist) were never in danger. I say clickbait.
Anyways, the planes got closer because they were landing at the same airport. They were close in vertical sep because.... they were landing at the same airport. They were close in distance because.... they were vectored into the same airport. Of course this is bearing in mind that they were operating parallel runways, so... as you said, I don't understand this video at all.
What a headache! 10 - always very confident and hoping for turbulence 👍
Many flight attendants like turbulence. Its soothing to them.
Wake turbulence may be dangerous, but the chance of colliding didn't seem that high to me. Yes, they're going pretty fast, covering 1 Nm in 18 seconds at 200 kts. I'd hope one of the parallel planes has the other in sight, otherwise it's a bit close. When flying parallel, the relative speed isn't that high though
Maybe I'm tired today and not taking everything in but I feel like a comparison of the different strategies airports run for parallel approaches would have helped contextualize these incidents.
I have utmost confidence in any plane that I'm not on.
Roger Kearns Tee hee. I have confidence in the plane I'm on because I have an unbroken record of always being somewhere else when anything of the slightest interest occurs. :)
@@653j521
Yes, I get that: on a plane we really don't want interesting stuff showing up. ;)
tks the content
I'm very confident in air travel safety. 10/10. The food is usually a -9815382/10 tho.
I just recently took a flight from Hurghada, Egypt to Munich, Germany. We and another Air Cairo planes landed simulateously on parallel runways.
Used to be in pilot training, no flying never has been save.
This situation is difficult to oversee but after the first incident the controller could have asked one of the plane to G/A
probarly creating a new chalenge doing this.
It would hoever create room for the next batch to seperate more safely
Madrid's configuration is kinda cool. They always take off from the center of the airoort
I was flying Melbourne to Sydney once and over NSW I was in seat 1A and looking out I saw a BA 747 just underneath me on its climb out from Sydney airport. It was very fast of course but I was so close I saw the registration number! It was dealt with as an 'Airprox incident'
Early! This sounds good.
Sounds like it was just a cascade of events and poor setup by approach/area controllers during the runway changes. The only positive was that it was aircraft on parallel runways not intersecting ones
Glad everyone landed safely
Ayah, normally I'm a 8-9 confidence in flying, but this video has dropped my confidence level to a 4-5 but ONLY if I'm flying into or out of Madrid. Heck, methinks I'll go around and fly to/from somewhere anywhere other than Madrid.
They need to sort out their shit and have a SOP in place for ALL configuration changes.
I don’t have the charts, but a measurement on Google Earth shows me that the two runways are about 4300 feet apart. This means that two aircraft would be able to carry out Simultaneous Close Parallel PRM approaches even at the separations that the video shows. Much ado about nothing?
How else is he going to get an 11 minute video? This is like the short bus version of accident investigations.
I just returned from Madrid recently too!
Your channel is long past its name. To me it's the main air crash investigation channel.
It calls for the invention of Heavy Traffic Collision Avoidance System...
That was a miracle
This title is clearly clickbait! It wasn't eight planes almost colliding. It was four pairs of planes almost colliding. That's only two planes per collision! Come on, man!
I love your videos. Keep up the good work!
@@justinshurie6105 The internet really needs some kind of universal sarcasm notation. I was just making a joke. I love his videos and was poking fun at the title.
@@dockkid it's /s
Flying holds no fears for me, my problem is that airports in general bring on my panic attacks.
Wow this one is new to me.
This was an absolutely unbelievable story. Hard to believe this kind of stuff can still happen in modern times.
On that note, this incident reminds me of Air Canada Flight 759 - a similar proximity incident in SFO where they tried to land on a taxiway and nearly collided with four (4) jets on the runway. I'd love to see you cover it!
Anyway, thanks for the work as always!
I'm wondering whether the weather further out might have played a part. I know the two inbound flight paths are very close, but it seems that one track was consistently faster than expected. Maybe an issue with the edge of a wind area? If there's windshear going on it might be possible.
Nah, they flew as fast as allowed on descent (normal) and when asked to slow, they did. Both were vectored in parallel, the process took several minutes and was clearly going to happen for EACH set of parallel approaches. I don't see the issue personally, but this kind of thing is normal in the US and how our airports with parallel runways operate daily.
I have seen 2 air crafts land on parallel run ways often at SFO on runways 28R/28L at the same time
At SFO parallel landings are nearly a daily routine. In a good weather only tho ;)
oh boy I love crossover episodes
Sounds like there was some lack of co-operation between different ATCs. Sending every other plane to holding pattern would've resolved all this.
Always good videos, I also get heightened tension watching them! I rate air travel low in respect of other forms of transport. The way they calculate the safety stats. of say, air transport, compared with rail journeys is a little bias towards the former. Peace be unto you.
This incident sounds like how Hollywood thinks ATC works
When you said Phew, 'I' had to drink some water and all I can think was, that's not a Few, that's a lottt.. 😅
If there is a decimal for NMs its called a cable ie 0.7nm is 7 cables
Please share link to the AC 759 descending late into dark SFO with about ✈️✈️✈️✈️ on taxiway and coming within ~12-~21’ with tail fin before spooling up for go around!
Compare potential casualty count with Tenerife.
Some kind of proximity radar should be fitted at the front rear starboard and portside of aircraft, which should produce howling sound if planes approach to more than 500 meters with respect to each other, the sound changing in pitch according to the speed of approach.
am i missing something? wouldn't wake turbulence take some time to reach left - right? if so, wouldn't it be better for the planes to be actually parallel to each other rather than one in front and one in the back?
I'm no pilot, but since each pair was headed for the same altitude (the runway), I would think that the ATC could have sent one of each pair a bit further away or into a holding pattern to increase the horizontal separation and stagger the landing times. Perhaps it was just too many planes for that ATC to juggle at once.
Also no pilot - I would think that parallel runways would be far enough apart for two planes to land at once. I am SO not a pilot - but it never occurred to me that it would be otherwise.
I am a pilot but can’t recall many situations like this. But I think the air traffic control and the pilots did an amazing job to avert disaster…
I always had a confidence of 10 in air travel. It's due to the follow up incidences that air travel maintains its safety record..
My first thought before watching is to wonder if TCAS is capable of computing and resolving for 8 planes
Compared to parallel approaches in SFO this is a piece of cake.
Isn't this kind of separation when landing/taking off on parallel runways pretty normal? There's a whole compilation on youtube of planes doing just that at SFO.
My confidence in air travel depends on my ability to suspend disbelief as one must when watching Sci Fi. If I think about the age of the plane, the number of square feet of skin that has endured X takeoffs, landings, pressurizations and wind conditions. Then there are the miles of electric cables and hydraulic tubing, the thousands of fasteners and the numerical calculations in different measurement systems. The scary stress factor of overworked ATC staff, the pilot fatigue, upset stomach, mad at the spouse……. Then, sure I’m confident when flying.
How confident am I? Oof, that's a tough question. I don't fly very often but I've not once felt the least bit of unsafety when I did, so, at least in Europe, it'd be 9/10. I imagine that would be less in other parts of the world though.
This is crazy