DCAte writes:
On a lighter note: if Delta can land on a taxiway, why can't KLM take off on one?
I think you've provided the much needed chuckle this thread needed.
Once all the furor over the actual mistake subsides, we need to think about what economically feasible steps can be taken to keep pilots from landing and taking off from taxiways.
Obviously, a lot can be said about this being a "less than best" situation.
Yard-sale type signs saying "do not take off from this strip of pavement" or something similar..?
Joking a bit with that, but maybe ground signs could improve a bit.
I'm going to posit this thought.
Most of the infrastructure was designed in the lush days before US deregulation and the cropping-up of low-cost carrier operations world-wide, and everything is much more demanding than the "golden days".
Air transit doesn't have that special panache it once did, and I'm sure this is evident to the pilots.
(Anyone even casually involved with commercial air travel is experiencing a severe loss of respect. Southwest, once considered the absolute cattle-car experience, has been racking up favorable customer survey comments, and they haven't changed their business model.)
As an aside, I'm sure it was a rectum-tightening experience in this case, as I'm sure the deck crew realized what was happening shortly after it started to happen.
They DID successfully complete a takeoff, prolly from a surface which isn't as smooth and groomed as a runway. I have no idea what a rougher surface can imply when taking off.
Therefore, one can't assume the PF and the PNF to be completely inept.
So, what can be done?
In this incident, I don't think the A vs. B or any model argument applies. It's a case of workload and infrastructure, and it would be very bad indeed to throw the baby out with the bathwater...
So, put your dreamy hats on and start writing - maybe there will be a few good ideas, and maybe someone can take that upstream a bit.
RR