Did A Singapore & Korean Plane Really Have A Close Call Last Week?

I read avherald.com on a daily basis, which covers airline incidents and news. I noticed they covered a case at Seoul Incheon Airport on May 5, where a Singapore Airlines 777 had to abort its takeoff due to a Korean Air A330 crossing the runway without permission.

Asiana-A380-First-Class-115
Seoul Incheon Airport

Incidents involving planes crossing runways without permission always immediately remind me of the Tenerife Disaster, which is the single worst aircraft accident in history. During this incident two 747s collided on a runway, killing 583 people.

Several media outlets have picked up on the Singapore Airlines & Korean Air situation at Incheon Airport, labelling it a near miss. First of all, I don’t actually understand the term “near miss.” Shouldn’t it be “near hit?” Comedian George Carlin (RIP) had a great joke about this back in the day:

Anyway, The Aviation Herald has a good explanation of what happened. To summarize:

  • A Singapore Airlines 777-300ER bound for San Francisco began its takeoff roll on runway 15R
  • Moments later a Korean Air A330-200 (incorrectly) joined a taxiway which crosses runway 15R
  • The Singapore Airlines 777-300ER had their takeoff clearance canceled; at this point they were going 105 knots, and they managed to slow down 5,100 feet away from the Korean Air A330-200
  • Due to overheating, the tires on the Singapore Airlines 777-300ER deflated, causing the flight to be delayed by about 19 hours
  • The Korean Air A330-200 returned to the gate, incurring about a 100 minute delay

It’s obvious that the Korean Air plane was in the wrong. I’m also curious why the Korean Air plane returned to the gate. Did they want to start an investigation of the pilots right away? If so, was Korean Air able to find a replacement cockpit crew that quickly?

More importantly, was this actually a narrowly avoided catastrophe? While any situation where a plane enters an active runway without permission is inexcusable and worthy of an investigation, this situation was unlikely to end in catastrophe, even without intervention:

  • The taxiway on which the Korean Air plane crossed the runway (marked “G” in the below diagram) was at the very end of the ~12,300 foot runway, so the Korean Air plane was crossing at the furthest possible point of the runway
  • Without intervention, the Singapore Airlines plane would have taken off well ahead of where the Korean Air plane was crossing
  • Even with the high speed aborted takeoff, the Singapore Airlines plane stopped with roughly a mile of runway left

ICN-Graphic
Map via The Aviation Herald

None of this is to downplay the ridiculousness of crossing an active runway without permission, but it is to say that I don’t think this was quite a near-repeat of the Tenerife Disaster.

Conversations (14)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Methven Guest

The KAL aircraft took a wrong turn into G (it's start position was unusually close to the main taxiway which may have contributed to the pilots mis-identifying their position). I believe they stopped before entering the runway but, I was told, still triggered a sensor alerting the tower to an impending runway incursion.

0
‼ 0
Martin Guest

I don't really get this. If the A330 was crossing the take-off runway at the far side of that runway, then the 777 would have been airborne well before then. So aborting the 777 actually makes it more dangerous to my mind, because it then has to stay on the runway and hope it stops before hitting the A330 (which it presumably would avoid anyway under V1.) The danger is not if the 777 takes off but if it doesn't. I get that procedures demand that the take-off be aborted but wouldn't it be safer to not abort in this case?

0
‼ 0
Tom Guest

Why do you say that the KE flight was at fault? Isn't it equally likely that ATC was at fault?

0
‼ 0
O. Guest

You question why the Korean Air A332 returned to gate. That is standard operating procedure for all airlines all over the world in cases like this. Would you feel safe in an airplane with pilots thinking about what just happened, which in worst case could have ended in a collision? Runway incursions on active - and especially occupied - runways are an extremely serious matter. And why compare it to the Tenerife disaster? The situations are so different, especially when it comes to the reasons why what happened happened.

0
‼ 0
Geraint New Member

Here's a discussion on the origin of the term "near miss" http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nea1.htm

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published