All,
The China Airline situation in ANC leaves them open for a little bashing because (1) no one was killed or injured (by luck) (2) Their already poor accident/incident record.
However, incursion incidents/accidents are one of the largest threats in airline operations. I have written a couple of articles on the subject for our in house publication and have read the reports on many, many incursions.
There seems to me to be a few different major reasons for incursions. Some are obvious, some not.
(1) Crew not following proper company and _____ (regulatory authority) procedure. Most carriers now require a taxi briefing and having all crewmembers have a taxi diagram in view. Evidence suggests this is not always done.
(2) Loss of situational awareness while taxiing – at a glance this seems to be a major contributing factor in the China Airline incident. Some airports have extremely confusing taxiway/runway setups, and poor markings/lighting.
In the U.S., the FAA has made this MAJOR item for both pilot and controller education, new and better signage and lighting aids, and warning devices that combine ASR and surface radar data to predict incursions (nicknamed AMASS), Standardized Taxi Routes (STR’s), and a proposed Surface Management System (SMS). As with most regulatory agencies, progress is slow, but it is happening. (I’m not trying to be patronizing here, but our British friends seem to be way ahead of us on these procedures/hardware/software – the notorious fogs in G.B. no doubt the motivation).
Now I’m going to get into the “touchy, feely” area. CRM, or lack of it during taxi operations. Taxiing a transport aircraft is regarded in many cockpits as a “Captain only” event, which is reinforced by the fact that on most aircraft there is only a tiller on one side – the captains. While in all other regimes of operation, the F/O has access to equal control of the aircraft (he/she may have to move a priority switch in some of the newer aircraft), during taxi in most transport aircraft, only the captain can truly control the aircraft. And I believe that this, in many cases, contributes to taking the rest of the crew out of the loop. The only direct input an F/O has in most aircraft to influence taxi is to step on the brakes – and no doubt produce a confrontation. However, in many of the incursion events, there was a “warning shot across the bow” from another crewmember (including and in particular Tenerife), but not direct action by the other crewmember. How may incursion incidents/accidents were prevented by a direct input by another crewmember (brakes)? We will never know.
I have always been of the opinion that the toughest call in aviation is taking control of an aircraft (air or ground) when you are not the PIC. But the incursion history shows this would have saved many lives. There is very little guidance/training in this area. A simulator scenario/training syllabus during annual recurrent that would require the F/O to take control of the aircraft would be helpful in this regard.
Comments? Criticisms? The traditional PPRUNE bashings?