Not again! Heavy Jet takes off on ANC taxiway.

Singlecoil

I don't reMember
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Posts
1,273
Total Time
8760
Cargo jet takes off on taxiway; FAA investigates

Error is second in four years; safety a concern
By DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News
Published: November 15, 2005
Last Modified: November 15, 2005 at 05:34 PM


An Asia-bound cargo jet was reported taking off from a taxiway instead of its assigned runway at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport earlier this month, prompting an investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The incident, if confirmed, would mark the second time in four years that a large commercial aircraft launched from a taxiway instead of turning northwest up the runway that ends near Point Woronzof, as directed by air traffic controllers.
On Nov. 5, a MD-11 freight jet operated by Taiwan-based EVA Air was cleared to fly from runway 32, which extends more than two miles from the airport terminal area toward Knik Arm, said Scott Erickson, a safety investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board in Anchorage.
The jet had originally been moving toward a different runway, but the air traffic control tower notified the EVA Air crew that runway 32 was available and gave permission to take off there, Erickson said.
The NTSB was notified that the jet turned in the correct direction, but went up the taxiway that runs parallel to the runway on its west side, Erickson said.
Runways are the broad concrete expanses where aircraft take off and land. Taxiways are the narrower access roads used by jets and planes to reach the runways for takeoff, or move to the terminal after landing.
No other aircraft was on the taxiway at the time, and the EVA Air jet apparently flew to Taipei as planned, Erickson said.
This particular taxiway, designated "Y," is almost as long as the runway, according to an airport diagram.
"Any time you have an aircraft that doesn't follow the directions of the (air traffic) controller, it kind of puts a safety deficit in the system," Erickson said. "The FAA is looking into it."
FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer confirmed an investigation was under way but would not comment further.
Messages left with EVA Air in Anchorage and other offices were not returned Monday.
In January 2002, a China Airlines jet carrying about 250 passengers and crew was directed to take off from runway 32, toward Point Woronzof. Instead, the jet accelerated west on another taxiway, this one only about half as long as the runway.
It barely cleared the ground: its landing gear scratched twin grooves in the snow berm as the jet became airborne. Taiwanese air safety authorities later suspended the pilot for eight months and the first officer for seven months.
The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has experienced similar mishaps, the Seattle Times reported Sunday. At least eight times since 1999, aircraft have mistaken a certain taxiway for a runway. Three aircraft actually landed, the Times said, while five changed their flight paths at the last minute.

Daily News reporter Doug O'Harra can be reached at do'harra@adn.com.
 

Purpledog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
304
Total Time
Who ?s
A nice arguement against cabotage: Air China, Korean Air, & now EVA. All one has to do is look at pics of the old Kia Tek to see the buffoonery.
 
Last edited:

cforst513

Giggity giggity goo!!!
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Posts
1,854
Total Time
2100
the difference betwixt a runway and a taxiway are HUGE, especially if youre flying at night. what gives, here? how does that happen?
 

Spooky 1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Posts
987
Total Time
Some
Kal Dc10

How many pilots here remember the KAL DC10 freighter that took off from about mid-filed on 25R, thinking he was on R32. There was a Navajo holding in position on 7L that the DC10 main gear and center training wheel clippied off both wings of the Navajo. The DC10 continued out over the end of the runway and settled down through the approach light and then burned for at least two days. Believe it of not, no one was killed in either airplane.
 

EMBATP

looking for Patroni....
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Posts
232
Total Time
7000+
eva air

it's a good possibility that "eva " md-11 was world. they contract with them.

no flame just stating possibilities
 

CutEmUp

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Posts
140
Total Time
4000
Since when do runways have yellow lines down the middle with blue lights on the edges?
 

TrafficInSight

mmmm.... doooonuuuut.
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Posts
613
Total Time
350
CutEmUp said:
Since when do runways have yellow lines down the middle with blue lights on the edges?
Is there a possibility that it was snowing?
 

Sam Snead

Roger, Roger.
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Posts
151
Total Time
5000
It's all about human factors... "set"

The twy edge lights are on but there's no familiar green centerline lighting. It's at night. Vis is poor. You're tired and in a hurry. ATC gives you a last minute change. You've been cleared for takeoff. The nose is on rwy heading.

No excuses. Just reasons.
 

Chronic Jetlag

I'm great at sleep'n in
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
202
Total Time
SexyTm
Your ignorant statement

Purpledog said:
A nice arguement against cabotage: Air China, Korean Air, & now EVA. All one has to do is look at pics of the old Kia Tek to see the buffoonery.
I'm againt cabotage 100% but you are 100% wrong!!! The incident in ANC is NOT a nice argument again cabotage; it's not even a weak argument (not "arguement"). You should know all the facts before you open your mouth and make an a$$ out of yourself. Until you've flown extensively into both Anchorage and Kai Tak (not Kia Tek)for a 121 carrier you should refrain from jumping to conclusion. Your ignorant statement assumes all part 129 foreign carriers are flown by foreign nationals. I know for a fact the EVA MD-11 was not under the command of a "foreign pilot." Did it ever occur to you the pilot probably reminds you of yourself when you look in the mirror? There are numerous good pilots working for overseas carriers, even more after 9/11.
Do you have experience flying out of ANC when you're jetlagged and fatigued, under poor visibility with multiple runway changes; having to re-calculate T/O performance numbers and flying with an FO who maybe inexperienced? The cards are stacked against you. Have you flown 12 plus hours in the air then have to land in Kai Tak with little or no rest?
Let's deal in facts and back our fellow pilots until we have ALL the facts. The aviation world is filled with guys with "EXPERT" stamped on their forehead; don't be one of those guys.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
Cabotage is an economic and trade matter, not an operational one. If the FAA has doubts about the safety of a particular airline, then that airline should not be allowed to fly in the U.S. However, we all know that's a decision in which State Department trade politics will trump safety issues, everytime. Heck, domestic airline economic issues trump safety issues.

As far as fatigue issues go, usually ANC is a crew change point due to crew rest limitations, so I would be surprised if the EVA crew was fatigued. It was very very lucky that no one was killed and one or more aircraft destroyed.
 

TXGold

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
153
Total Time
5.5mil
Chronic Jetlag said:
I'm againt cabotage 100% but you are 100% wrong!!! The incident in ANC is NOT a nice argument again cabotage; it's not even a weak argument (not "arguement"). You should know all the facts before you open your mouth and make an a$$ out of yourself. Until you've flown extensively into both Anchorage and Kai Tak (not Kia Tek)for a 121 carrier you should refrain from jumping to conclusion. Your ignorant statement assumes all part 129 foreign carriers are flown by foreign nationals. I know for a fact the EVA MD-11 was not under the command of a "foreign pilot." Did it ever occur to you the pilot probably reminds you of yourself when you look in the mirror? There are numerous good pilots working for overseas carriers, even more after 9/11.
Do you have experience flying out of ANC when you're jetlagged and fatigued, under poor visibility with multiple runway changes; having to re-calculate T/O performance numbers and flying with an FO who maybe inexperienced? The cards are stacked against you. Have you flown 12 plus hours in the air then have to land in Kai Tak with little or no rest?
Let's deal in facts and back our fellow pilots until we have ALL the facts. The aviation world is filled with guys with "EXPERT" stamped on their forehead; don't be one of those guys.
Umm, Mr. Pompous freight driver you misspelled "against" in an email where you were correcting someone elses spelling. HeHa.
 

mtrv

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Posts
156
Total Time
500-
Won't it be great when all commercial aircraft are equipped with something us GA pilots now get in a Cessna 172, Cirrus, Diamond,Pipers, Beech, Mooney's and a few others?

I'm talking large PFD/MFD displays such as the Garmin 1000 and Avidyne, with GPS based airport diagrams, and XM Satellite weather, which displays weather patterns for hundreds of miles in all directions.

With a large airport diagram display on the right side MFD, and your airplane symbol in the correct location, it would be much harder to mistake a taxiway for a runway. But in years past, it was also GA who first had access to the larger moving map GPS hand-helds, which greatly improved situational awareness. I remember when hand-held display's far out did the certified panel GPS's for size and availble information.

It's just amazing, that a new 172 student, can have more avaiable information at their fingertips, than some large commercial airliner & freight pilots have! :)
 

sky37d

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Posts
999
Total Time
1000+
mtrv said:
Won't it be great when all commercial aircraft are equipped with something us GA pilots now get in a Cessna 172, Cirrus, Diamond,Pipers, Beech, Mooney's and a few others?

and XM Satellite weather, which displays weather patterns for hundreds of miles in all directions.


It's just amazing, that a new 172 student, can have more avaiable information at their fingertips, than some large commercial airliner & freight pilots have! :)
1. XM only works in Continental US.
2. One of the reasons for CREW is so they don't make dumb mistakes.

With all the high tech stuff, people still make mistakes. dumb ones, too.
 

mtrv

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Posts
156
Total Time
500-
sky37d said:
1. XM only works in Continental US.
2. One of the reasons for CREW is so they don't make dumb mistakes.

With all the high tech stuff, people still make mistakes. dumb ones, too.
Sure, they'll still make mistakes. But I'd never dismiss high tech. With large moving map displays for terrain, terrain warnings, and the airport diagrams; perhaps we'll see fewer flights into terrain, and less takeoffs on the taxiways.
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
mtrv said:
Sure, they'll still make mistakes. But I'd never dismiss high tech. With large moving map displays for terrain, terrain warnings, and the airport diagrams; perhaps we'll see fewer flights into terrain, and less takeoffs on the taxiways.
Fewer flights into terrain?, sure ... fewer taxiway takeoffs? I doubt it. In the case of terrain avoidance, the newer technology gives you tools that allow you to do something you can't do without it. In the case of taxiway takeoffs, you alreay have the tools in the form of paper runway diagrams, compasses/heading indicators, and runway/taxiway edge lights. If the pilots involved didin't check the color of the edge lights to make sure they were white instead of blue, or check that the heading indicator matches the runway heading (in the case of the China Airlines airbus) what makes you think they'd look at a gee whiz moving map display to check if thye were on the corect runway? It wasn't a case of the pilots being unsure, and not having any means of checking, it was a case of the pilots being sure (but wrong) and not cross checking with the simple, low tech, foolproof tools *already* at thier disposal.

Remember how your instrument instructor told you to always check your compass and DG against the runway heading before adding power? (or maybe he didn't) that's one of the reasons, so you don't take off on a taxiway that is 80 degrees off from your runway.
 

Say Again Over

With you
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Posts
1,162
Total Time
13K
Mtrv is correct

I agree 100%, look what had to happen at the S. Teneriffe airport before the ATC got ground radar to keep track of aircraft taxiing. I think we will find that the visibility may have played a big part, I would wait to start pointing fingers.
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
Say Again Over said:
I agree 100%, look what had to happen at the S. Teneriffe airport before the ATC got ground radar to keep track of aircraft taxiing. I think we will find that the visibility may have played a big part, I would wait to start pointing fingers.

The accident at Tenerife happened because the KLM captain started his takoff roll without takeoff clearence. THe Pan-AM 747 crew knew they were still on the runway, the tower controller knew Pan-Am was on the runway, tower never issued a takeoff clearence. Ok, so given that KLM was rolling without clearence, and given tht ATC knew the runway wasn't clear, how would radar have helped this? Granted, the controller *might* have noticed the KLM 747 starting the takeoff roll in time to call an abort, but he might not have. Given the manner in which Van Zant, the KLM captain was behaving, I doubt it would have registered on his conciousnous if the Tower was telling him to stop. He was already ignoring his flight engineer who was telling him that they were not cleared to takeoff and that Pan Am might still be on the runway...and assuming that the controller would tell him to stop assumes that the controller noticed he was moving in time to get his attention. That's a big assumption, the controller, if he had radar wouldn't have any reason to be checking the radar that the runway wasn't clear, because he *knew* the runway wasn't clear, and he hadn't cleared KLM to takeoff.

As an aside, the tower controllers at Anchorage saw the China Airlines Airbus begine hte takeoff roll on Kilo, commented on it, but didn't do anything to stop them.
 

Chronic Jetlag

I'm great at sleep'n in
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
202
Total Time
SexyTm
just the facts

A Squared said:
Fewer flights into terrain?, sure ... fewer taxiway takeoffs? I doubt it. In the case of terrain avoidance, the newer technology gives you tools that allow you to do something you can't do without it. In the case of taxiway takeoffs, you alreay have the tools in the form of paper runway diagrams, compasses/heading indicators, and runway/taxiway edge lights. If the pilots involved didin't check the color of the edge lights to make sure they were white instead of blue, or check that the heading indicator matches the runway heading (in the case of the China Airlines airbus) what makes you think they'd look at a gee whiz moving map display to check if thye were on the corect runway? It wasn't a case of the pilots being unsure, and not having any means of checking, it was a case of the pilots being sure (but wrong) and not cross checking with the simple, low tech, foolproof tools *already* at thier disposal.

Remember how your instrument instructor told you to always check your compass and DG against the runway heading before adding power? (or maybe he didn't) that's one of the reasons, so you don't take off on a taxiway that is 80 degrees off from your runway.
Checking your compass and DG in this case would not have made a difference. They allegedly took off on taxiway Y which parallels runway 32 with the same magnetic alignment. Also checking your "gee whiz" moving map display don't always tell the whole story because some MD-11s have only three IRUs and no GPS installed which will be prone to mapshifts. Taxiway Y has recently been widened and it also extends into runway 6L. The crews faced multiple last minute runway changes, which meant they had to recalculate TO performance while taxiing. The incident is still under investigation; we DON'T know all the facts, ground trace radar is under review. Let's not jump into any conclusions and convict our fellow pilots. It could have happened to any one of us.
 

Say Again Over

With you
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Posts
1,162
Total Time
13K
Squared,

I think you need to check into the accident you spoke about, they have proof now there was a communication SNAFU along with the fact that ATC allowed two aircraft on an active runway :)bomb: ) at the same time, remember dead pilots have bad lawyers.
 
Top