A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
Right. That's why I included the parentetical reference to the China Airlines. That plane *did* take off on a taxiway which had a direction substantially different that the runway for which tey were cleared. Perhaps you missed that.Chronic Jetlag said: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.
Uhh well actully, it wasn't recently widened, it was recently built. 3 years ago, it didn't exist, except as a 1000 ft segment between Lima and 6L. That would be one way to keep pilots from taking off on taxiways, make thne all 1000 ft or less.Chronic Jetlag said:Taxiway Y has recently been widened and it also extends into runway 6L.
I'm not trying io hang the crew at all. WHat I'm saying is that those who think gee-whiz techonological gadgets are the soulution to all the worlds ills may not have discovered the Holy Grail they think thay have. My comments about the crews actions, or omissions were not to accuse the crew, but to show that they (likely) didn't use the tools they had, so giving them more (and higher tech) tools is not the answer.Chronic Jetlag said: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.