We constantly hear about close calls in aviation. I think it’s easy to become desensitized to these, and wonder which are actually dangerous, and which are just a bit too close for comfort.
Along those lines, on Monday night we saw what’s easily one of the closest calls we’ve seen in a very long time, as reported by The Aviation Herald. Data suggests that TWO PLANES CAME WITHIN 10 FEET OF ONE ANOTHER ON THE RUNWAY!!! While I first covered this yesterday, I want to provide an update, as one of the airlines involved has now released a rather interesting statement, so we have some more details.
In this post:
Catastrophe narrowly avoided at Nice Côte d’Azur Airport
This incident happened very late at night (around 11:30PM local time) on Sunday, September 21, 2025, at Nice Côte d’Azur Airport (NCE), in the south of France. It involves two aircraft:
- A Nouvelair Airbus A320 with the registration code TS-INP was performing flight BJ586 from Tunis (TUN)
- An EasyJet Airbus A320 with the registration code OE-IJZ was performing flight U24706 to Nantes (NTE)
The Nouvelair A320 had been cleared to land on runway 4L, while the EasyJet Airbus A320 had been cleared to line up and wait on runway 4R, and was just taxiing into position on the runway. Just to clarify, those two runways are parallel to one another (at a heading of roughly 40 degrees), with 4L being to the left, and 4R being to the right.
All of that sounds fine, except for one little issue. The Nouvelair pilots (accidentally?) lined up their plane with runway 4R instead of runway 4L, with the former runway being occupied by the EasyJet plane.
According to ADS-B data, the Nouvelair A320 crossed the runway threshold at 50 feet above ground level, and only initiated a go around six seconds later. An A320 has a tail height of over 41 feet, so the planes literally missed one another by a matter of feet. This isn’t some “oh it was sort of a close call” situation. Instead, this was a split second from being one of the worst aviation disasters that we’ve seen in a very long time.
The EasyJet plane subsequently exited the runway and returned to the apron, and the flight was ultimately canceled. Meanwhile the Nouvelair plane performed a go around, and then landed without incident, roughly 12 minutes later.
EasyJet passengers report hearing a loud noise and strong vibrations in the plane, and the EasyJet captain also reportedly informed passengers that the other A320 had overflown them by three meters.
Weather conditions at the time of the incident weren’t good at all — there was strong precipitation and limited visibility, which no doubt contributed to this situation.
This narrowly avoided disaster is being investigated
France’s BEA, which investigates incidents and accidents involving aircraft, has already confirmed that it has opened an inquiry into this incident. The public prosecutor’s office is also investigating this for “endangering the lives of others,” so this is being taken very seriously.
Nouvelair has issued a statement regarding the close call, claiming this occurred “under particularly challenging weather conditions, marked by very heavy rain and extremely reduced visibility.” The airline emphasizes that it has been operating for over 36 years, and claims that “safety and security of its passengers and crew remain its top priority.”
Yes, it’s likely that the weather may have played a factor here, but the explanation almost has the tone of suggesting that the poor weather somehow justifies almost landing on the wrong runway. Given the weather, the plane was presumably on an instrument approach, no? And if so, how did they end up lining up with the wrong runway? Because lining up with the wrong runway seems like something that’s more likely to happen with a visual approach.
There were likely around 10 feet of separation between the two planes on the runway, and it can’t be overstated what a close call this was. So I imagine the investigation will be centered around why the Nouvelair pilots got their runway assignment wrong, since this is a pretty major screw-up. There are some situations where you can kind of understand how there could be confusion, like if there’s a taxiway on one side that could somehow be mistaken for a runway.
But they were cleared to land on the left runway, and they landed on the right runway, where there’s nothing (not even a taxiway) to the right. This seems like really sloppy piloting. If bad weather and limited visibility contributed to this, then that’s almost more confusing, since lining up with the wrong runway should be even less likely with an instrument approach.
The poor weather does explain how it was possible for the Nouvelair pilots to not see the EasyJet plane taxiing onto the runway, though. This isn’t the first time that we’ve seen a very close call on a runway at night, and it likely won’t be the last. But my goodness, this has to set a new record in terms of just how close of a call it was.
I’ve seen some people ask why the EasyJet flight would’ve been canceled after this incident. While nothing has officially been announced, it’s possible the plane needed to be inspected after such a close call. For that matter, I’d fully support the pilots just not feeling like flying anymore, and being too rattled by the closest call they’ve had in their career.
Bottom line
Two Airbus A320s had a very close call at Nice Côte d’Azur Airport. An EasyJet A320 was supposed to line up on one runway, while a Nouvelair A320 was supposed to land on another runway. However, a mixup with the Nouvelair pilots caused them to instead approach the occupied runway, overflying the plane on the runway by a matter of feet.
This is a next-level close call, and I’m curious to see what an investigation reveals…
What do you make of this close call?
small note The Nouvelair A320 had been cleared to land on runway 4L this means it was in the air - not on the ground. on the ground was an easy jet aircraft that was allowed to cross rwy 04L line up rwy 04R. Line up means that the aircraft is on the ground - NOT in the air. It is standard procedure that departures in Nice are on 04R or 22L and arrivals on...
small note The Nouvelair A320 had been cleared to land on runway 4L this means it was in the air - not on the ground. on the ground was an easy jet aircraft that was allowed to cross rwy 04L line up rwy 04R. Line up means that the aircraft is on the ground - NOT in the air. It is standard procedure that departures in Nice are on 04R or 22L and arrivals on 04L or 22R. It is clearly the fault of the aircraft in the air that it landed on the wrong runway (I am not discussing the possible role of ATC - the language of aviation is English not French, maybe they should start using it in every situation at international airports - NOT speaking French among themselves). Those who were on the ground and were given permission to enter (LINE UP) on runway 04R could hardly influence the aircraft in the air that was approaching the wrong runway. From the ground the pilot cannot tell where the aircraft is flying and when it is on the runway he can no longer see it.
Another example of the horrific French aviation culture. Laissez faire being an understatement, the BEA has had more than a decade to recognize and act on the sloppy piloting, protocol deviations, and lack of adequate CRM yet here we are. Unsurprising sadly.
Where was ATS and do these planes not have ads-b? Obviously pilots made an error on approach but there are many redundant systems that should have prevented this
ATC not ATS
For what it’s worth, the storm that hit Nice on Sunday night was one of the strongest and most shocking/damaging I’ve ever witnessed. Can’t imagine how it would lead to this but trust that this was no ordinary weather.
Regarding EasyJet canceling also this allows the pilots to immediately go to the break room and start writing a report of what happened. While their memory is fresh it really should become a standard procedure.
There are moments you just call it a day afterwards.
Much too close. The flight being canceled always strikes me as peculiar "we were scared, nothing was damaged, but now we're ALSO inconvenienced!" but I do guess that having rattled cockpit crew refusing to fly again that day could be a thing like Ben suggests.
Also, if now you have a plane full of frayed nerve passengers anything can set them off. Nobody wants that up in the air.
Fate (or God for American readers) seems to be either giving Easyjet a hard time re conflictions on runways, or sparing them from disasters, depending on which way you look at it.
BER 2016/05/22 was an Easyjet takeoff and Ryanair landing on the same runway due to ATC error: https://avherald.com/h?article=4a028071
And BER 2022/10/12 was an Easyjet takeoff and Air France landing on the same runway, probably due to ATC error, although ATC claimed...
Fate (or God for American readers) seems to be either giving Easyjet a hard time re conflictions on runways, or sparing them from disasters, depending on which way you look at it.
BER 2016/05/22 was an Easyjet takeoff and Ryanair landing on the same runway due to ATC error: https://avherald.com/h?article=4a028071
And BER 2022/10/12 was an Easyjet takeoff and Air France landing on the same runway, probably due to ATC error, although ATC claimed that taking 20 seconds to start take-off roll made it U2's fault: https://www.unionesarda.it/en/world/nearly-the-plane-crash-at-berlin-airport-collision-avoided-for-20-seconds-m644fsxs
Why do they depart on 4R, an extra long taxi to that runway, would not 4L be better?
For example at LAX landings are on the outer of the 2 runways.
It struck me too that there would indeed seem to be less risk from crossing at the take-off end than the landing end.
4R is a longer runway and so better for takeoffs. You'll notice at LAX the outer runways are also the shorter ones. Planes generally need more runway for takeoff than landing
Interesting. I noticed years ago that most departures occur on runways closest to terminal while arrivals occur farther. I assumed this was done in order to reduce ground fatalities in cases where a landing goes badly.
In the French news there are reports one of the Easyjet pilots had visible tears and both were in a state of shock. Hence, the decision to cancel.
What some remember as a rear orifice going ‘half crown-sixpence’ moment.
Thankfully all on board both aircraft walked away and the emergency services were not required.
Confusing headline. It makes it seem like the Easyjet also lined up on the wrong runway, which was not the case.
"the pilots just not feeling like flying anymore" - may well have been one pilot to the other "You are suffering from shock - you are not in a fit state to fly".
Training of pilots, and others, should make them able to keep calm through a crisis.
But when the crisis situation is resolved (and training is not the same as real risk) many people find that the body is temporarily messed...
"the pilots just not feeling like flying anymore" - may well have been one pilot to the other "You are suffering from shock - you are not in a fit state to fly".
Training of pilots, and others, should make them able to keep calm through a crisis.
But when the crisis situation is resolved (and training is not the same as real risk) many people find that the body is temporarily messed up by (medics correct me) the abrupt reduction in adrenaline.
A few years ago a driver crossed the median line and I saw the headlights coming towards me - she told the police I took evasive action to turn a head-on collision into a side-on scrape, but I have no recollection of that one second, and while I wasn't emotionally distraught, I didn't drive (or use other power tools) for a few days.
Having suffered shock before from a different road incident, I recognised the feeling of detachment - it's as though one needs time to retune the connections so that sensory inputs will lead to correct actions.
The first time you suffer shock, trust other people who tell you to wait to do things.
I absolutely agree, and I can see why the pilots would not want to fly. They knew how close this was to becoming a horrible disaster, and being a pilot, they knew how if the crew of the Nouvelair A320 took one more second before initiating a go-around, this situation would have ended very differently, and likely would have cost them their lives. They were really close to death at that point, and the pilots...
I absolutely agree, and I can see why the pilots would not want to fly. They knew how close this was to becoming a horrible disaster, and being a pilot, they knew how if the crew of the Nouvelair A320 took one more second before initiating a go-around, this situation would have ended very differently, and likely would have cost them their lives. They were really close to death at that point, and the pilots were likely one of the few people onboard the aircraft who knew this immediately. Training helps to give guidance on what to do in certain situations. Once you get out of that situation, well, the shock can cloud your judgement, and it would likely cause the flight crew to think about that incident for the entire flight. That could distract them should there be a sudden time-sensitive problem in-flight, and therefore it would be the right call to cancel the flight or to get a new crew. Despite what this incident shows, the aviation industry works to prevent unnecessary risks and to steer towards the side of caution. Therefore, those pilots not operating the Easyjet flight is the best course of action after this incident.
in US LCC news, Spirit has just announced it is furloughing 1/3 of its FAs or about 1800 of them.
That is a weird comment to make about a near-fatal accident in Europe.
I’m trying to understand your headline and failing miserably. This seems like another of your Both Sides things where it’s clear that one party is at fault but you show concern for that party as well as the victim, like when an airline screws over your readers and you show understanding for the airline.
What would be interesting would be if you were driving and got t-boned due to no fault of yours but a...
I’m trying to understand your headline and failing miserably. This seems like another of your Both Sides things where it’s clear that one party is at fault but you show concern for that party as well as the victim, like when an airline screws over your readers and you show understanding for the airline.
What would be interesting would be if you were driving and got t-boned due to no fault of yours but a third party presented it as both parties being at fault. I don’t wish this on you but perhaps the analogy will illustrate how you’re presenting things. In this case, Easyjet did everything right. Call out the company that caused the problem.
Ben is very left-wing and doesn't want to state the obvious fact that the African airline pilots were at fault, so he implies that the EasyJet pilots may also be responsible. I admire his instincts but it's something keep in mind when reading his articles (which are otherwise the best way to keep track of airline and loyalty news).
George is an idiot. Left leaning or right leaning, still an idiot.
The headline may or may not be appropriate, but either way, I am confident it is not because Ben is left-wing. Didn't notice any Africa support tendencies when criticising Cairo airport...
Good reason to avoid flying at night.
Surely ATC bears some responsibility here for not seeing the plane was lined up for the wrong runway and instructing to go around. Obviously the pilot is in control, but ATC is a critical check on these things and we would see more mistakes like this were it not for ATC.
I agree. Hopefully they didn't fall asleep as we recently saw in Corsica.
This being said, I flew yesterday evening from Nice airport and nearly all flights were 2 hours late, which I interpret as ATC got a kick in the rear to pay extra care (but I may be wrong).
Going to disagree here for a number of reasons.
First this was at night. Depth perception at night is notoriously difficult (DCA anybody?), especially from where the Tower is located at LFMN, there is a significant slant angle.
Had it been daytime and the whole aircraft was discernible it might have been a bit easier to see, but you are talking about runways only 300m apart so even then its not really going...
Going to disagree here for a number of reasons.
First this was at night. Depth perception at night is notoriously difficult (DCA anybody?), especially from where the Tower is located at LFMN, there is a significant slant angle.
Had it been daytime and the whole aircraft was discernible it might have been a bit easier to see, but you are talking about runways only 300m apart so even then its not really going to become apparent until very late on when viewed from an acute angle.
The Tower is located almost 2.5km from the threshold of 04R . Visibility was poor, only 8km in rain and thunderstorms.
The only visible part of the landing aircraft would have been the lights and the view from the tower is over lit aprons, taxiways and runways.
Having worked myself in an ATC Tower at night it would be practically impossible for any human to have noticed a 300m offset in these conditions.
This is similair to the Air Canada SFO incident although they lined up on a taxiway on their approach. Afterwards changes were made for ATC to only issue instrument approaches at night not visual approaches like Air Canada was on. Wonder if the tunis flight was on a visual like Air Canada.
I was just thinking the same thing. IMO It should be SOP for airlines worldwide to dial in the ILS approach at least as a backup whenever landing with a parallel runway.
I was in the area last night and the weather was appalling. Got around 2.5” of rain in a couple of hours.
Was it going To Nice, or Tunis?
The incident occurred at Nice airport. The landing aircraft was inbound from Tunis.
Me getting the joke over 24 hours later (face palm)
Hahaha nice! (Pun intended)
"...what a close call this WAY."
(s/b was)
This is horrifying – I think OE-IJZ was involved, not OE-IJY.
@ Alvin | YTHK -- Whoops, fixed, thanks!