Nouvelair and EasyJet A320 Near-Miss: What Went Wrong?

(NICE, FRANCE) A near-disaster at Nice Côte d’Azur Airport on Sunday night has sparked a formal safety probe and fresh government pledges to tighten oversight.

Around 21:30 local time on September 21, 2025, a Nouvelair Airbus A320 arriving from Tunis lined up with the wrong runway and flew over an EasyJet Airbus A320 that was holding for departure, missing it by less than 10 feet (about 3 meters) before climbing away. Investigators say the Nouvelair crew had been cleared multiple times to land on Runway 04L but instead aligned with Runway 04R, which was occupied by the EasyJet aircraft awaiting takeoff clearance to Nantes.

Airport staff and air traffic control confirmed that heavy rain and poor visibility were present, increasing the risk of confusion at night. Early findings also point to a lighting issue: lights on Runway 04R appeared much brighter than those on Runway 04L. That difference may have drawn the Nouvelair A320 toward the wrong approach path. Controllers repeatedly queried the crew’s alignment. However, the pilots reported they were on short final for 04L when, in fact, they were approaching 04R.

The Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) opened an investigation within hours. A preliminary review outlines three factors that likely combined to create the hazard: adverse weather, the runway lighting contrast, and a breakdown in confirmation between cockpit and tower as the aircraft neared touchdown. The Nouvelair jet eventually executed a go‑around only after air traffic control intervened. Sixteen minutes later, it landed safely on 04L. The EasyJet flight taxied back to the apron and was canceled.

Initial findings and facts

• Aircraft involved: Nouvelair flight BJ586, an Airbus A320 (TS‑INP), arriving from Tunis; EasyJet flight U24706, an Airbus A320 (OE‑IJZ), preparing to depart for Nantes.
• Clearances issued: Air traffic control cleared the Nouvelair crew to land on Runway 04L multiple times.
• Actual approach: The Nouvelair A320 lined up with Runway 04R, occupied by the EasyJet jet.
• Weather: Heavy rain and reduced visibility at the time of the event.
• Lighting: Runway 04R’s lights appeared brighter than those on 04L at night.
• Separation: The arriving aircraft overflew the EasyJet by less than 10 feet before climbing away.
• Outcome: Nouvelair performed a go‑around and landed safely on 04L; EasyJet returned to the apron and its flight was canceled.

Early analysis points to a combination of weather, lighting contrast, and communication lapses between the cockpit and tower as the primary contributors to the close call.

The BEA will examine cockpit voice and flight data recorders, radar tracks, tower recordings, runway lighting settings, and weather logs. It will also analyze crew procedures, including cross‑checking runway identifiers and confirming approach paths during low visibility. Those steps are standard in a serious incident probe. The agency’s final report will likely issue safety recommendations for airports with parallel runway layouts, especially where lighting intensity differs between runways at night. The BEA’s official portal provides updates and publications on ongoing cases and safety guidance; readers can follow developments via the BEA’s site at https://www.bea.aero.

Why this happened — expert context

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, runway confusion, while uncommon, tends to occur when several risk factors align:

• Parallel runways that are visually close together.
• Night operations with reduced visual cues.
• Adverse weather such as heavy rain and low visibility.
• Lighting contrasts between runways that can mislead pilot perception.

The Nice event contains all these elements, which is why BEA’s focus on lighting, weather, and pilot‑controller communication is expected.

Government and operational responses

France’s Transport Minister, Philippe Tabarot, said authorities will move to:

• Boost staffing in control towers to reduce workload spikes during complex conditions.
• Introduce biometric measures to strengthen oversight and control access to sensitive areas.

Potential practical effects for airport operations:

• More resilient staffing during storms and peak hours.
• Possibly tighter identity checks for staff who manage critical runway and approach systems.
• Better separation of duties in towers to reduce task saturation.

Impacts for passengers and cross‑border travel

A near-miss affects more than the crews and controllers; it affects passengers and those depending on timely connections. Key practical advice and likely impacts:

• Passengers flying routes across the Mediterranean—like Tunis to Nice—should expect potential delays during autumn storms and build extra time for same-day connections.
• Travelers with time-sensitive permits or visas should keep copies of entry documents, passport, and itinerary handy to speed rebooking and gate processing.
• Airlines may cancel flights when crews reach duty‑time limits after long delays or go‑arounds, preserving safety but straining capacity.
• Families meeting minors or older relatives should plan for communication gaps: storms can slow mobile data and airport Wi‑Fi; share backup contact numbers and meeting points.
• Employers relying on flying staff should allow longer lead times for start dates after weekend or late-night arrivals.

Operational lessons and mitigations

Aviation professionals emphasize both technical and human factors:

• Cockpit procedures require crews to verify runway identifiers visually and electronically, comparing the assigned runway in the flight management system with the approach path and markings ahead.
• Heavy rain can blur visual cues. When two parallel runways sit close together and one appears brighter, the human eye can drift to the brighter centerline.
• For air traffic controllers, added staffing could help split tasks during peak demand and night operations, reducing the chance of missed confirmations.
• For airport authorities, lighting harmonization across parallel runways—ensuring intensity and pattern are balanced—may reduce the chance an arriving aircraft tracks to the wrong centerline.
• Immediate actions airports and airlines can take:
  1. Review and, if necessary, adjust runway lighting settings for consistent intensity.
  2. Reinforce strict call‑and‑response checks on runway assignment between tower and flight crew.
  3. Use real‑time monitoring tools to flag deviations from the cleared approach early.

Safety wins when systems respect human limits: better tools, clear procedures, and enough staffing so no one—pilot or controller—has to do too much at once when the weather turns.

Final note

As the BEA progresses, expect specific recommendations for Nice and, possibly, for other airports with parallel runways. For the public, the takeaway is straightforward: despite the scare, the safety system worked — controllers caught the misalignment, the crew executed a go‑around, and both aircraft ended up safe on the ground. Continuous improvement aims to make the next close call less likely—and the next stormy night more routine.