Tweet
Exhibits (a) through (d).
-
-
...and (e) and (f)Comment
-
VERY ENLIGHTENING, READ THIS (too big to post) Oct 2005 attempted takeoff from taxiway at Olso (ENGM):
Incredibly, this has happened twice on the same taxiway at the same intersection, despite obvious cues to identify that taxiway M is not a runway. Taxiway lighting is quite distinctly different from runway lighting (would this help at 14:30 in the afternoon in an Olso winter?). In the first instance, the pilot mistook the dashed yellow hold position line short of A3 on taxiway M for a temporary indication of a section closure on the south end of the runway (There was a NOTAM indicating the closure, so she expecting this). ATC had already given her clearance for takeoff before reaching the runway, so she went. The available taxiway from A3 is about 1,600 ft. ATC was on the ball and immediately informed her of her error, and she aborted at about 80 kts.
The AIBN (Accident Investigation Board Norway) made two recommendations following the incident, one being to withhold clearance until the a/c has entered the runway. Obviously this has not been heeded.Comment
-
G'day Evan,
Sometimes, unfortunately, its turned out that the conditions at the airport itself are not the only ones that can mislead people.
Often, a crew that operates to non-standard airports becomes used to taking off on all sorts of markings, having to cross red stop bars, and other non-standard operations. All of these things diminish the likelihood that the "cues" that should tell you that you are in the wrong place will actually be effective.
I have never operated to Oslo, however a quick look shows that they *might* have Yellow runway markings - something that does happen at snow-affected airfields, but is not ideal. One less difference between runway and taxiway.
Another trap for the unwary - I'm guessing the parallel taxiway is a Code E approved one, meaning it is probably at least 23m wide, possibly more. A320's and 737's are often operated off runways that are 30m wide, and possibly with yellow markings... again, not an excuse, but you can see how the "alarm bells" in the pilots head might not be going off at this stage.
I'd also be a bit wary about what the airport weather reports as "good visibility" compared to what you interpret as "good visibility".
It is possible that both of these taxiway takeoffs have occurred from the A3 intersection, where runway queues like threshold markings, touchdown zone markings etc are absent. So, you're looking at comparing one bit of asphelt to another. One is slightly wider, but both have yellow centreline marking, and yellow edge marking, although the runway ones should be thicker, and the centreline should be dashed. They key though, is that the taxiway probably looks quite inviting to an A320 or 737 crew... it would look a lot like their standard runways!
None of these things are justifications, don't get me wrong. Pilot responsibility is always an issue. But we have to be a little practical and admit that pilots aren't perfect, and we should be ensuring that everything in the airport environment works to help them, not add additional threats.Comment
-
Amen! Thank you. Just extend that from the airport environment to the entire flight environment.Originally posted by MCM View Post
BTW: This would not happen if the ATC withheld clearance until the a/c was confirmed on the runway. Why won't they adopt that?Comment
-
Efficiency would probably be the big loser, as would increased ATC workload. That said, it is possibly a good mitigator, particularly as it is a known problem. As a balance it might be possible to just require it for all A3 departures.
There are other options - better signage perhaps (as it is obviously not clear enough by the fact there have been two), hot spot designation on the airport chart to highlight the threat.
I notice the report talks about withholding clearance until lining up like Auckland - Auckland was most definately a special case due to the way the airport was marked and layed out, and extreme measures were required. I'm not sure its practical for standard airport layouts as a default.Comment
-
Please don't leave. We need all of the pilots we can get around here, and you are such a valuable member here. I sure don't want you to go! How can we convince you to stay?Originally posted by WILCO737 View PostI do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.Comment
-
-
Another incident involving a Russian/CIS airline using Western Equipment. Hmm
A couple of points come to mind;
1. The Tupolevs, Yaks and Ilyushins are not nearly as unsafe as they are perceived in the west. If crash rates in this part of the world are higher than elsewhere one needs to look beyond just the aircraft to explain the reason, i.e look at the total environment inc maintenance, crew training, atc standards, airport facilities etc
2. How many middle aged Russian/CIS pilots have switched from flying Soviet era aircraft to Western Aircraft mid-career? Does learning to fly a completely new machine, perhaps with a new language in the cockpit, at that stage of one's life introduce additional risk?
3. Aeroflot Management must be exasperated by this incident. It's only about 2 years since they took from a runway in Portugal and then there was the Perm crash involving a subsidiary. I honestly think their service and safety standards have come a long way and are comparable to most Western Carriers. But every time something like this happens the Public perception moves backwards undoing oh so much good work. Thank C__ I'm not an Airline Executive!Comment
-
One question....
Who, if anyone, said "Clear to takeoff" ??????
and, who did they say it to ?
and, was it misheard ?
and, what was the weather like ?
Hold on...that's four questions ?...and there's probably more.
Too many variables for non pilots like me to comment on this incident. Personally, I'd rather listen to Wilco....who I sincerely hope sticks around here.Last edited by brianw999; 2010-03-17, 19:11.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
I am still lurkingOriginally posted by brianw999 View Post
I will try to answer a few of your questions briefly.
"cleared for take off" sometimes you get that clearance still away from the runway. Happens if no other traffic is nearby or on final. You contact tower and he clears you for take off.
"who said it" Well, usually ATC gives the clearance and the pilot repeats it (readback) and during the readback ATC should double check if it is the right airplane answering and the correct runway
"misheard" well, maybe. But that does not prevent a take off from a taxi way.
"weather" I heard visibility was ok...
Yes, many questions. That's why I don't like the speculations and the jumping onto conclusions right away...Comment
-
I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.Comment
Comment