US Airways Phoenix to Philly developed engine vibration in a left engine and returned to Phoenix.
The Boeing 757 circled Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport for 90 minutes to burn off fuel then in spite of unwanted oscillation, made a safe landing at 10:50 a.m. Passengers were provided other flights.
The plane and its engine’s bad vibes are being inspected.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Environmental Strategy and Integration is researching a “green” fuel broadly called green diesel—which has half of the carbon emissions of regular fuel—in the hope of weaning commercial planes off of fossil fuels. Green diesel, which is already being produced, is a legitimate alternative to Jet-A fuel which is what is used now.
Biodiesel is typically made by chemically reacting lipids with alcohol producing fatty acid esters. Refined diesel can be produced that is chemically identical to diesel fuel. Any blending ratio can be used, and no modifications or checks are required for any diesel engine, but what is being considered is using green fuel in a half-and-half blend with Jet A fuel.
On January 10, a Delta Airlines Boeing 757-200 en route from Jacksonville to Atlanta encountered turbulence on approach to Atlanta.
A flight attendant was injured.
No other injuries were reported.
The incident is under investigation.
The pilots who flew flight 4013 (Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700) and landed at the wrong airport nine miles from the correct airport on Sunday have been suspended. Yes, they landed safely but at the wrong airport. Hello. The PIC and copilot have a combined flight experience of twenty-six years. Guess they weren’t (as the video says) “paying attention.”
Nothing for the passengers to worry their pretty little heads about.
Please note the above line is sarcasm.
Southwest Airlines said:
“The Southwest Airlines Pilot in command of flight #4013 safely landed at (PLK) Taney County airport this evening. The Boeing 737-700 carried 124 Customers and a crew of five and was operating as a scheduled flight from Chicago Midway to Branson.
Our ground crew from the Branson airport has arrived at the airport to take care of our Customers and their baggage. The landing was uneventful, and all Customers and Crew are safe.”
The runway was half as long as normal, the plane stopping three hundred feet short of the drop off at the runway’s end.
The PIC was cleared to land at Branson, right before it nailed the landing at M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport.
So we’re all waiting for the investigation to hear the answers to why it happened, why the co-pilot didn’t catch the mistake (or maybe he did?), if confusion between Branson and Southwest is a common thing, and all those other questions that come up.
WASHINGTON – The investigative work into the Jan. 7, 2013, fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston, is estimated to be completed by the end of March, the National Transportation Safety Board said today. The analytical and report writing phase of the investigation will follow the completion of the investigative activities. The final report is expected to be presented to the Board at a public meeting in Washington in the fall.
Members of the investigative team have been conducting work in the United States, Japan, France, and Taiwan. As the investigation has progressed, the NTSB has been working closely with Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Japan Transport Safety Bureau, the French BEA, and technical advisors from Japan and France.
Some of the investigative activities include:
– Completed disassembly and documentation of the individual cells of the incident battery.
– Completed examinations of exemplar batteries and battery cells for baseline reference and comparison to the incident battery. These examinations were conducted at NTSB and independent laboratories and included computed tomography scans, non-destructive soft short testing, and destructive evaluation and analysis of the batteries and cells.
– Awarded a contract to Underwriter’s Laboratories to assist the NTSB in defining and performing system-level tests of the Boeing 787 battery and charging system. The testing includes characterization of the thermal and electrochemical properties of the battery and oscillatory testing and is expected to be completed in February.
– Radiographic studies, which included over 200,000 CT scan images, were conducted to examine and document the internal configuration of individual cells from the incident and exemplar batteries.
– Conducted interviews with FAA, Boeing, Thales, and GS Yuasa personnel to review and document key steps, personnel roles and responsibilities, data and information flow, design artifacts, and approvals in the certification process for the battery and charging system.
– Evaluated and documented the process for the battery system safety assessment, including a review of the supporting tests and analysis performed and the safety analysis standards relevant for lithium-ion batteries.
– Conducted on-site survey of battery manufacturing facility in Japan including a review of design, engineering, and production documentation, as well as manufacturing processes, procedures, and training for personnel involved in the manufacture of the battery.
The date of the Board meeting at which the findings of the investigation will be released, including the probable cause of the battery fire, will be announced later in the year.
A British Airways Boeing 747-436 was taxiing for takeoff from Johannesburg-OR Tambo Airport. The plane missed a turn, went on to taxiway M which was too narrow, and the wing hit a building. (I guess December 22nd was the day for planes all over the world hitting things.) The plane’s wing was damaged, but luckily no one aboard was, except the pilot was probably pretty red in the face. Oops.
The wing did a pretty good job of cutting into a two story building. Four employees of Johannesburg-OR Tambo airport were slightly injured. The airport emergency team handled the plane’s fuel leak, and of course, an investigation is under way.
Not the location of “M” on the chart below:
Tatarstan Airlines operator of the Boeing 737-500 that crashed in November in Kazan only flies seven planes. (Maybe 6, now?) The one that crashed was leased from a Bulgarian company, with a history of minor accidents.
Fifty people died on the Tatarstan Airlines jet that dived nose-down to a fiery grave in Kazan. The investigation says that even though the two pilots were on their second go-around (i.e. second attempt to land), everything was working until impact. Recovering from the botched landing attempt, they pulled up at a too steep angle. From a height of 700 m the airplane entered a nose down attitude, reaching a -75° pitch. They died trying to dive to recover momentum, and impacted at 450 km/h.
Human error? Sleep deprivation? The crash embodies what is wrong with Russian Airlines.
Russia has withdrawn the operating license for Tatarstan Airlines due to
“noncompliance by the airline with certification requirements for Russia’s civil aviation, violations of the established norms of flying hours, working and relaxation time.” The action came after it was discovered that Tatarstan Airlines breached rules regarding personnel training and rest times for flight and cabin crew. Of course, Tatarstan Airlines is
Currently there’s a political wrestling match going on whether or not to ban planes over twenty years old.
In my opinion? They could buy all the new planes they want, but unless they supplement with proper training and rest protocols, safety issues will remain the same.
On December 22nd 2014, a Delta Airlines Boeing 737 was damaged by a large container used by DGS cleaning company. The impact tore a hole behind the wing.
The 737 was parked at gate B37 Terminal 4.
DGS (http://deltaglobalaviation.com) offers jobs for aircraft cleaners, skycaps, and ramp agents. I don’t see dumpster driving on their list….
On December 18, Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 767-383ER #ET-AQW en route from Addis Ababa to Zanzibar-Kisauni Airport diverted to Arusha Airport. On landing on the too short runway, the plane’s wheels departed the pavement and became mired in soft ground.
No one was injured in the landing.
There is a rumor that the pilots diverted from the Zanzibar airport because they were unable to land there because there was a vehicle on the runway with a flat tire. The plane was nearly out of fuel and the best/closest option was Arusha. Passengers waited aboard as air stairs were driven from Kilimanjaro airport to Arusha—time consuming, but stairs eliminate the likelihood of injury by emergency evacuation on slides.
The diversion to Arusha is under inquiry; they apparently landed without clearance and once they were down, asked where they were. It is unknown if, even under the most favorable conditions (i.e., empty with experts at the helm), the plane can take from the short runway. It remains to be seen how the crew will fare for this decision, but some credit should be given for landing a 767 safely onto a 4500′ runway with zero casualties. Some armchair pilots are guessing that the pilots mistook Arusha for Kilimanjaro airport, mistaking Mount Meru for Kilimanjaro.
A Nordstar Airlines emergency landing at Krasnoyarsk occurred after a cabin decompression alarm indicated problems aboard the Krasnoyarsk to Norilsk flight.
Pilots returned the Boeing 737 to Krasnoyarsk and made a safe landing at 6:26. An inspection revealed that a door had not been properly closed. The open door was unable to maintain cabin compression adequately, although the door itself was in working order.
No one was injured. Nordstar Airlines is now reviewing its procedures and local officials are opening an inquiry.
On December 13, 2013, a Norwegian Air Shuttle Boeing 737-8JP in Las Palmas Airport, Gran Canaria had boarded. The Danish captain announced over the intercom that “we have become bombhotade and must vacate the planet directly,”
The airline’s staff who received the message prior to departure. After the threat was placed against the plane, it was evacuated and searched, as were the passengers. The announcement came when they were already on the runway.
Passengers were admitted into the terminal. Baggage and the plane were examined.
No bomb was found.
The plane was rebounded at 20:40 and went on its way from Las Palmas Airport to Stockholm without further delay.
On December 13, 2013, at Amsterdam-Schiphol International Airport, a US Airways (737-8K2) #N202UW was taxiing when it struck a parked Boeing 737-8K2 belonging to KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (PH-BXK).
The winglet of the parked plane was knocked off. Both planes sustained damage. There were no reports of injury, but the incident caused passenger delays.
We found the image of the accident on Twitter.
The Asiana investigation continues.
Back in July, the pilot who was insecure about making a visual approach in a 777 crashed at San Francisco International Airport on a visual approach in Asiana Flight 214’s Boeing 777. Specifically, he told NTSB investigators “it was very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane.” The glideslope was not working at the San Francisco airport, and that was an instrument the (*undertrained) pilot was relying on. The plane came in so low the tail struck the seawall and broke off. The video below shows the plane rotate 360 degrees and catch fire by the runway.
Video with news commentary
Before impact, the relief pilot in the jump seat repeated several times “sink rate” trying to warn the pilots at the controls that the jet was too quickly losing altitude. One of the pilots said “It’s low.” Then there was a stick shaker alert (which occurs when the plane is about to stall from flying too slowly. I once had a pilot do a presentation that included the disturbing grinding of the stick shaker alarm as it violently vibrated the control yoke. It’s an alarming direction to the pilots to increase thrust.)
When the stick shaker went off, the instructor called for a go around. It went off four seconds before impact. It was too late.
Both the instructor and the captain were relying on the auto throttle, and both were unaware it was off.
I’m not discounting the wounds of the injured, nor those three deaths, nor the tragedy of one of the teen victims being run over by an airport crash tender. (That’s a whole tragedy by itself—who knows if she might have survived but for being so obscured by foam that she was not visible to crash responders—through the firemen who carried her out surely must have known she was there.)
A dozen critically injured, a hundred-sixty-nine injured, but only three deaths.
It’s nothing short of a miracle. Especially on inspecting the condition of the burned out shell of the hull. Especially on reviewing the just-released surveillance video that shows the plane splintering after impacting the firewall, cartwheeling like a crippled gymnast down the runway and dissolving into a cloud of dust and flame. No jet fuel fire here——leaking oil ignited as it poured on to a hot engine.
The Kazan crash (Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363) from November 17th is fresh in my mind. Everyone aboard–fifty people (forty-four passengers and six crew) all died. The plane just fell from the sky while landing at an impossible 75-degree-nose-down attitude, piloted by a pilot whose license is apparently fake. Everyone in that crash died. (Tatarstan surveillance below.)
Of course one can see the physics—that everyone on the Tatarstan flight received the full direct impact, versus how the rolling of the Asiana plane dispersed some of the impact energy. Still, there is tremendous force in a crash.
I know I should be talking about pilot training, because this is yet another crash that appears to be due to pilots becoming too dependent on technology. But I will focus on that another day. Right now, I am overwhelmed after looking at the crash tape.
Asiana—Cartwheeling Catastrophe
I am surprised that I have neither heard or seen choruses of amazement that all but three people survived the rolling catastrophe in San Francisco. Some credit should perhaps go to the rescue crew, quick actions of the cabin crew, performance of the emergency slides, and maybe even the aerodynamics of the 777 whose seats are required to withstand 16g of dynamic force.
Sure, there was error involved in this crash, but when you look at the survival rate, some credit is due to the 5.5 billion Boeing put into research, development and safety of the 777.
The National Transportation Safety Board’s Investigative Hearing into the crash landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 originally scheduled for December 10, has been postponed due the government closing because of inclement weather in the Washington DC area.
The agenda for the previously scheduled two-day hearing has been slightly revised so that the hearing can be completed in one day. It is expected that the hearing will run until 8:00 p.m.
The hearing will be held at the NTSB’s Board Room and Conference Center at 429 L’Enfant Plaza SW in Washington. Directions to the Board Room are available at www.ntsb.gov/about/conference_center.html.
The revised agenda can be found below:
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $325,000 civil penalty against Dallas-based Southwest Airlines for allegedly operating an aircraft that had been improperly modified, violating Federal Aviation Regulations.
On Aug. 29, 2011, maintenance personnel improperly installed a switch that enables flight crews to test the windshield heating system on a Boeing 717 that AirTran Airways Inc. was operating. Southwest is in the process of merging with AirTran.
Proper installation of the switch would have allowed personnel to isolate the windshield anti-ice system that was causing a warning that the windshield heater was failing. Instead, the center and left windshield warning systems were reversed. The right windshield warning system continued to operate properly. The aircraft was operated on 1,140 passenger flights before the problem was corrected.
Boeing warned 15 carriers to avoid flying the 747 and 787 near “high level thunderstorms” because of a risk of engine-icing problems. Six incidences of GEnx engines losing thrust at high altitude because of a buildup of ice crystals behind the front fan led to Boeing issuing a notice probating flying at high altitude within 50 miles of thunderstorms.
In the meantime, GE and Boeing are working to control the problem.
By now you have probably heard already about the Atlas Air Boeing 747 which was en route from New York to Wichita, Kansas…and landed at the wrong airport. The intended destination was McConnell Air Force Base, which has runways long enough for the 747 to take off and land. But the actual destination was Col. James Jabara Airport which has no control tower, is much smaller, and does not accommodate the big jets.
Somewhat ironically, the plane’s cargo was a B-787 fuselage going to Boeing.
The Atlas Air 747 needs a 9,200 foot runway. Because it had used up enough fuel, it was light enough Thursday to successfully take off from Jabara’s 6,101 foot runway. The cargo flight landed safely at McConnell. Two pilots were flown from New York to Wichita to make the flight. Below is a video of the take-off.
The Boeing-737 flight that crashed in Kazan may have done so under the command of a
Pilot In Command (PIC) who had never performed a real go-around. The PIC had 1000 night flight hours and was properly trained, according to authorities—but if that is the case, how is it being reported that the PIC had never performed a go-around? What is verifiable is that there is a large debris field, a nose down crash. Note how windy it is while they are on the field putting out tape and spraying. Also there is a video being posted that shows a nosedive: http://lifenews.ru/#!news/122878 though whether this is actually the Tatarstan Airlines flight in question is, in fact, questionable.
The PIC had 25000 hours and the copilot had 1900 hours. Reports are that the “pilot of Kazan crash had put the plane into nosedive.” The plane hit nose first. We do not know if it was at the steep angle in the video above or in a more normal angle.
The black box has been recovered, and the preliminary report may be available soon.
Six crew members and 44 passengers died. Their bodies have not been identified yet, through the manifest has been released.
On Nov 14, 2013, a Virgin Atlantic Boeing en route from Montego Bay to London when the plane encountered turbulence.
Four people (one member of the crew and three passengers) were injured by the turbulence.
The flight continued to London where it made a safe landing.
On November 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm, Flight 363, an Ak Bars Aero/Tatarstan Boeing 737-500 en route from Moscow to Kazan, made several go-arounds, and more than one landing pass. On the second (?) attempt, an hour after takeoff, it crashed on landing at Kazan. On touchdown, the jet’s nose hit the ground.
The plane caught fire on impact after a fuel tank caught fire. None of the 44 passengers or 6 crew survived the fire.
The leased 23 year old plane was registered as VQ-BBN.
The Metars were reported as:
UWKD 171530Z 23008G11MPS 5000 -RASN OVC007 03/03 Q0993 R29/2/0055 NOSIG RMK QFE734/0979
UWKD 171500Z 23009G12MPS 9999 -RASN OVC008 03/02 Q0994 R29/2/0055 NOSIG RMK QFE735/0980
Translation:
METAR UWKD 17th @ 1530Z, wind from 230 at 8, gusting to 11 MPS, visibility 5000′, Weather: light rain snow, Sky: overcast at 700, temperature 3, dewpoint 3, altimeter 0993 mb, r29 / 2 / 0055 nosig remarks: qfe734 / 0979
On the ground, an official was quoted saying “The visibility was five thousand meters, the runway was dry. You cannot even imagine better conditions.”
NOTAMS:
A4677/13 – AD CLSD DUE TO TECR. 17 NOV 18:20 2013 UNTIL 18 NOV 08:00 2013. CREATED: 17 NOV 18:29 2013
Transport Prosecution Office has opened a criminal investigation.
Passenger list (EN)
Attention!
17.11.2013
With the Boeing 737-500 aircraft operating the flight U9 363 on the route Moscow – Kazan during landing 19:25 (GMT) accident.
On board were 44 passengers and 6 crew members.
The circumstances are being investigated.
Airline “Tatarstan” brings his deep condolences to the families and friends of the victims.
A preliminary list of registered on the flight.
Surname Name Date of birth
Akulinina Natalia 21.08.1987
Antonov Alexander 01.01.1957
Artashina Daria 07.09.2002
Ahmetshina Alia 23.07.1990
Baranova Jana 15.08.1987
Bull Donna Carolina 02/14/1960
Burdin Yuri 25.12.1967
Vaprenttsev Denis 02.10.1984
Hajiyev Diana 10.05.1955
Guzhiev Rustam 02/27/1982
Drantusova Natalia 04.05.1971
Zaripov Venus 07.09.1988
Zaripov Albina 21.01.1980
Zgurtskaya Victoria 08/30/1969
Ivashkevich Irene 20.09.1979
Kamashev Mstislav 15.10.1986
Kashapova Alina 27.06.1998
Knyazev Eugene 07/02/1955
Kuznetsova Helena 11.06.1971
Kucherov Anna 18.04.1990
Lyashin Yuri 12.04.1976
Makarov Gennady 31/10/1965
Mangusheva Tatiana 09/17/1949
Minnihanov Irek 04.03.1989
Morozova Olga 08.02.1960
Muzychuk Dmitry 30.05.1986
Nazyarov Ruslan 17.09.1973
Oshurkova Margaret 06/22/1958
Parkhomenko Novel 20.02.1986
Prokofiev Paul 15.01.1974
Rashitova Gulnara 15.07.1991
Sadrutdinov Ayrat 16.02.1984
Safin Damask 05/24/1986
Safiullin Diana 09.10.1989
Sibgatullin Abdullah 20/12/1926
Sibgatullina Maria 01/13/1926
Skvortsov Ellina 08.06.1976
Smolenttsev Nicholas 04/19/1964
Smolenttseva Helena 05/29/1966
Sterkhova Anastasia 23.01.1990
Fazleeva Mignonette 07/12/1959
Khafizova Alina 10.09.1987
Shchukin Victoria 01.10.1977
Yankilyaykis Alexander 03.02.1977
Crew
Surname Name Patronymic Date of birth Position
In connection with the aviation accident of the flight U9-363 on November 17, the airline “Tatarstan” organizes delivery of close relatives (parents, spouses, children) affected in Kazan.
On the issue of delivery, please contact the working group created on the basis TSNOP.
Senior Group: Shalymova Svetlana Vitalyevna.
Contacts:
+7 (843) 267-88-04, 537 -97-52
sop@tatarstan.aero
On November 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm, Flight 363, an Ak Bars Aero/Tatarstan Boeing 737-500 en route from Moscow to Kazan, after several go-arounds, and more than one landing pass. On the second (?) attempt, an hour later, it crashed on landing at Kazan. On touchdown, the jet’s nose hit the ground.
The plane caught fire on impact after a fuel tank caught fire. None of the 44 passengers or 6 crew survived the fire.
The leased 23 year old plane was registered as VQ-BBN.
The Metars were reported as:
UWKD 171530Z 23008G11MPS 5000 -RASN OVC007 03/03 Q0993 R29/2/0055 NOSIG RMK QFE734/0979
UWKD 171500Z 23009G12MPS 9999 -RASN OVC008 03/02 Q0994 R29/2/0055 NOSIG RMK QFE735/0980
“The visibility was five thousand meters, the runway was dry. You cannot even imagine better conditions.”
NOTAMS:
A4677/13 – AD CLSD DUE TO TECR. 17 NOV 18:20 2013 UNTIL 18 NOV 08:00 2013. CREATED: 17 NOV 18:29 2013
Transport Prosecution Office has opened a criminal investigation.
The passenger list includes Alexander V. Antonov (regional head of Russia’s Federal Security Service) and Irek Minikhanov, son of the president of Tatarstan.
After making note of the Oct 31 near miss in Oslo, I remembered this 100 foot close call of two Boeing 747’s over Scotland. This occurred in late June, when a Lufthansa pilot was climbing, and a British Airways flight were 24.3nm apart on converging courses. A STCA (Short Germ Conflict Alert)
The Oslo near miss could have been prevented if the repetition protocol have been observed.
The Scotland near miss had two planes
(DLH418 Lufthansa Boeing 747-830, D-ABYC Frankfurt (FRA) – Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD))
and
(BAW87 British Airways Boeing 747-436, G-BNLM London-Heathrow (LHR) – Vancouver (YVR))
on a collision course 100 feet Vertical/3.9 nm Horizontal and 1100 feet Vertical/2.8nm from impact. The study of the event concluded that actions of both the pilots and the controller contributed but that the pilots avoiding ATC instructions caused the proximity issue.
The added pressure of reporting incidents such as these should help pilots and air traffic control to avoid similar events in the future. It will do so ONLY if adequate attention is paid to the mistakes, if alternative/better responses are deter mend, if the resulting studies are closely attended, and if protocol is adjusted to reduce the possibility of such problems re-occurring. On some level, the protocol worked, because these incidents were not collisions. However, they were closer than they should be. All I can say about this event is that it is a good thing that mistakes are reported.
We wrote about two Norwegian Air Shuttle planes that suffered a near miss when two planes followed the same instruction from ATC. The Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) report on the event is below.
Report (Translation)
Description
The 31 October 2012, two airliners from English too close together under a simultaneous missed approach (NAX741) and departure (NAX740) at Oslo Airport. There was strong tailwind on final. The AIBN believes that the flight crew on NAX741 had unrealistic expectations of the ability to be stabilized later in 1000 ft above the airport elevation. The decision to initiate the missed approach was taken at a late stage. Expectations of final-controller and tower controller that the speed of the landing would be reduced sufficiently during the approach, was not met. The missed approach for NAX741 came into conflict with the simultaneous departure of NAX740.
Visibility conditions were such that the tower controller could not maintain visual separation between aircraft. Planes were for each other and both were rising. Tower air traffic controller instructed NAX741 to swing west. A mixture of callsign originated and led to NAX740 initiated clearance given to NAX741. The minimum horizontal distance between the aircraft was about. 0.2 NM (370 m) while the vertical height difference was 500 ft (152 m). AIBN considers that there was real danger of collision in the incident. When the situation first arose, prevented the situation awareness and good reviews from the flight crew and tower controller further escalation of the conflict.
AIBN considers that established and practiced procedures will help to ensure that situations are recognized and averted before they become critical. Data from the cockpit voice recorder (Cockpit Voice Recorder CVR) was not secured. CVR data is important to understand the sequence of events, and AIBN therefore it is unfortunate that CVR data is not guaranteed. AIBN no new safety recommendation in this report, but refers to a previously issued safety recommendation (SL no 2012/06T) not closed.
Type of report: Full report
Location: Oslo Airport Gardermoen ENGM
Event Date: 31/10/2012
ICAO Location indicator: ENGM
Aircraft: Boeing 737-600/700/800 / Boeing 737-600/700/800
Operator: Norwegian Air Shuttle / Norwegian Air Shuttle
Reg notice: LN-DYC / LN-NOM
Flight conditions: IMC
County: Akershus
Type of event: Serious incident
Type of flight: Commercial, scheduled / Commercial, scheduled
Category Aviation: Tung, aircraft (> 10 000kg) / Tung, aircraft (> 10 000kg)
Flykategori: Land plane, multi-engine, turbofan / turbojet
FIR / AOR: ENOS (Oslo ATCC)
A Royal Air Maroc Boeing 767-36NER, Flight 206 from Casablanca, Morocco, had touched down at 4:30 p.m.. While the plane was being loaded, the belt loader caught fire.
Two hundred fifty passengers evacuated by slide. Several were injured in the evacuation, and seven suffered smoke inhalation, five of whom were hospitalized. The plane is out of service.
The fire in the belt located by the jet’s cargo door was reported at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport at 4:47 pm on Nov 4, 2013.
An investigation is underway.
On Oct 31, 2013, a Norwegian Boeing 737-800#LN-DYC en route from Trondheim to Oslo with 130 passengers and 6 crew, was descending towards Oslo and was switched to a different runway. A second Norwegian Boeing 737-800 #LN-NOM en route from Oslo to Trondheim took off. Instructions from ATC became confused, and both planes followed a single instruction, bringing them into proximity.
Flight 741, which was landing, was below Flight 740. Flight 740 got a TCAS (Traffic collision avoidance system) warning and diverged. Accident Investigation Board Norway noted the minimum separation between the two aircraft was down to 0.2nm lateral at 500 feet vertical.
