Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Not again! Heavy Jet takes off on ANC taxiway.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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.
 
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! :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top