British Airways Incident at Johannesburg
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pukinDog- Your assumption is that we are all perfect. To me it is irrelevant whether it was notamed or on the chart. When planning the lighting or signage it has to be considered that crews will miss exits if not properly indicated, especially at night in a poorly lighted area.
I can not understand the reason why the airport authority would not make it very clear that taxiway Mike was unusable by aircraft of a certain wing span especially after they have had previous incidents. They clearly did not respond to those previous incidents which to me is criminal negligence.
I can not understand the reason why the airport authority would not make it very clear that taxiway Mike was unusable by aircraft of a certain wing span especially after they have had previous incidents. They clearly did not respond to those previous incidents which to me is criminal negligence.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inflight
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the wing slices into the building and it's criminal negligence on the part of the airport authority?
It's basic common knowledge that if at anytime you are unsure you stop the aircraft and clarify. Authority could have easily sent a tug out and pushed them back. Like I said, it could happen to anyone and in aviation it's all about safety, rather than playing the blame game, but c'mon guys...... Blaming on the airport signs. How long has that taxiway been there. Aircrafts been going in and put of joburg all this time. At some point in our careers, be it in a 744 or a light Cessna, we may have taken the wrong taxiwY, big deal.......
It's basic common knowledge that if at anytime you are unsure you stop the aircraft and clarify. Authority could have easily sent a tug out and pushed them back. Like I said, it could happen to anyone and in aviation it's all about safety, rather than playing the blame game, but c'mon guys...... Blaming on the airport signs. How long has that taxiway been there. Aircrafts been going in and put of joburg all this time. At some point in our careers, be it in a 744 or a light Cessna, we may have taken the wrong taxiwY, big deal.......
It's basic common knowledge that if at anytime you are unsure you stop the aircraft and clarify.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kungfu ; It isn't a taxi-way but a taxi-lane. Quite a few assumptions in the ANO and the UK Air pilot. At any airfield, anywhere in the world, different terms have different regulations like load bearing strength, wing tip clearances, aircraft over a certain weight etc. I am afraid that we are expected to know this and I am truly sorry to say, we, the professional crew, are responsible at all times.
A nice yellow line painted down the assumed centre of a taxiway is for guidance . We are expected to familiarise ourselves with taxi routings. We are expected to know the difference between a taxiway & a taxilane. It would be helpful if all airports in the world had illuminated taxiways, nice green 'follow me' centre lines, big red 'NOT FOR 747 ' signs etc, but, they don't.
Read the post by the military guy who was present at the Court Martial of an Argosy captain who did everything right but was still found guilty. Why ??? Simply, the law made him responsible & I guess the prosecuting lawyer argued, correctly, that the yellow line was for guidance, not for strict obeyance . I stated in my opening paragraph that I was truly sorry. The law is an ass but we can see where lawyers are coming from. The ILS and any approach aid is for guidance. We are guided to a position where we can make a visual landing. We are responsible at all times and held accountable if it all goes horribly wrong. Follow a faulty GP or Loc signal "thinking" it was correct will lead you into the deepest pooo immaginable.
British law is based on approved legislation but a feature is precedent. Where a Judge rules ( if not already case ) it becomes case law. Judges have ruled, many times in our profession, that the pilot (of course, ultimately the Commander) is Fully & finally responsible. I don't like it. I have opposed it. But, it is, currently, the law & it is the law that should be changed.
Observation through my career has revealed many cases where the Capt was ultimately held responsible even though the mitigation was profound. Aircraft following neat little lines but still contacting buildings and / or other aircraft not properly parked astonish me. Aircraft following Marshaller's instructions into buildings and/or other badly parked aircraft & the pilot is held responsoble. Even stand entry, remember, is a stand entry guidance system. Follow it religiously accuarately but hit something , guess ?? Yeah, the law deems that we are responsible.
time to change the law.
A nice yellow line painted down the assumed centre of a taxiway is for guidance . We are expected to familiarise ourselves with taxi routings. We are expected to know the difference between a taxiway & a taxilane. It would be helpful if all airports in the world had illuminated taxiways, nice green 'follow me' centre lines, big red 'NOT FOR 747 ' signs etc, but, they don't.
Read the post by the military guy who was present at the Court Martial of an Argosy captain who did everything right but was still found guilty. Why ??? Simply, the law made him responsible & I guess the prosecuting lawyer argued, correctly, that the yellow line was for guidance, not for strict obeyance . I stated in my opening paragraph that I was truly sorry. The law is an ass but we can see where lawyers are coming from. The ILS and any approach aid is for guidance. We are guided to a position where we can make a visual landing. We are responsible at all times and held accountable if it all goes horribly wrong. Follow a faulty GP or Loc signal "thinking" it was correct will lead you into the deepest pooo immaginable.
British law is based on approved legislation but a feature is precedent. Where a Judge rules ( if not already case ) it becomes case law. Judges have ruled, many times in our profession, that the pilot (of course, ultimately the Commander) is Fully & finally responsible. I don't like it. I have opposed it. But, it is, currently, the law & it is the law that should be changed.
Observation through my career has revealed many cases where the Capt was ultimately held responsible even though the mitigation was profound. Aircraft following neat little lines but still contacting buildings and / or other aircraft not properly parked astonish me. Aircraft following Marshaller's instructions into buildings and/or other badly parked aircraft & the pilot is held responsoble. Even stand entry, remember, is a stand entry guidance system. Follow it religiously accuarately but hit something , guess ?? Yeah, the law deems that we are responsible.
time to change the law.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A squared ; Got my law degree at Oxford & loved, therefore, Aviation Law, also at Oxford (oh, ok, Kidlington, then !). But, one of the few to get top marks in aviation law, I burned both my copy of the UK Air Pilot and that awful little white pamphlet, the ANO, at a graduation Bar-B-Q. But, as I said in my opener quite a lot in there. Also did a licence conversion to Dutch, long time ago, but they loved the Air Law exam where lots of stuff on definitions of taxi-way, taxi -lane, manoevering area, apron area .........aaaaaah........mindblowing. And we were expected to know all this. Incidentally, have a quick look at the SQ B777 thread alluding to much of what was really the drift of my submission.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, it has not been answered on this thread, only a suggestion of a rumour at post 242 that the aircraft had been parked in an abnormal gate that night.
The question is not why the aircraft ended its taxi in lane M but why it was in domestic taxiway B in the first place, which is in fact the root cause of the accident.
The question is not why the aircraft ended its taxi in lane M but why it was in domestic taxiway B in the first place, which is in fact the root cause of the accident.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboy 41
Wiggy makes the point exactly. If you are unsure, stop. But there are countless examples in aviation history where there was no uncertainty in the crew's mind, and probably here as well. This is why previous posts have talked about "confirmation bias".... visual. aural, situational cues that either do nothing to provide that uncertainty or worse, positively reinforce the perception that you are where you should be.
A classic example is Air NZ polar sightseeing tour where a DC-10 piled into the slopes of Mt Erebus. The INS entry sheet had been incorrectly prepared (reversed digits) by ground crew and the crew followed the coordinates exactly (albeit lower than the MSA due to precedent). It took them, in whiteout conditions, straight into the slopes of Mt. Erebus. The first report by inspector Ron Collinson concluded that "The decision of the captain to continue a flight at low level toward an area of poor surface and horizon definition when the crew was not certain of their position and the subsequently inability to detect the rising terrain which intercepted the aircraft's flight path". This was subsequently questioned by Justice Mahon in a Civil enquiry, which pointed out that they were not uncertain at all - the INS told them (incorrectly) where they were, but even worse, how could they know that there was poor surface definition as there should be no "surface" there and they - like most most crews - had never experienced the unique polar whiteout phenomenon.
I know the location very well and as others have said the outfield is a dark as Hades at night. The aircraft lights would give a cue for forward vision focused on the continuation of the centreline. I invite someone to replicate the situation from a 747 at night and share..if it hasn't already been done.
A classic example is Air NZ polar sightseeing tour where a DC-10 piled into the slopes of Mt Erebus. The INS entry sheet had been incorrectly prepared (reversed digits) by ground crew and the crew followed the coordinates exactly (albeit lower than the MSA due to precedent). It took them, in whiteout conditions, straight into the slopes of Mt. Erebus. The first report by inspector Ron Collinson concluded that "The decision of the captain to continue a flight at low level toward an area of poor surface and horizon definition when the crew was not certain of their position and the subsequently inability to detect the rising terrain which intercepted the aircraft's flight path". This was subsequently questioned by Justice Mahon in a Civil enquiry, which pointed out that they were not uncertain at all - the INS told them (incorrectly) where they were, but even worse, how could they know that there was poor surface definition as there should be no "surface" there and they - like most most crews - had never experienced the unique polar whiteout phenomenon.
I know the location very well and as others have said the outfield is a dark as Hades at night. The aircraft lights would give a cue for forward vision focused on the continuation of the centreline. I invite someone to replicate the situation from a 747 at night and share..if it hasn't already been done.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dubai
Age: 43
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slowjet- I did read the post regarding the Argosy and the court marshall. It is not relevant in this case in my view, the military have different rules regarding accountability than civilian law courts.
If this case was to be tried in court then criminal negligence would have to be proved (quite rightly) beyond reasonable doubt by a unanimous 12 jurors. Just looking at this thread you can clearly see that you would never get better than a 50/50 split on said negligence. I do believe however that 100% of us would agree that the Airport Authority were negligent, since this situation has happened before with out any rectification.
I don't even believe you would find these guys guilty if presented with the evidence in court and you had to take responsibility for your opinion. I understand we all love to criticise on this website.
The Korean crew in SFO were in fact, in my view, guilty. No prejudice, just reviewing what I've read.
If this case was to be tried in court then criminal negligence would have to be proved (quite rightly) beyond reasonable doubt by a unanimous 12 jurors. Just looking at this thread you can clearly see that you would never get better than a 50/50 split on said negligence. I do believe however that 100% of us would agree that the Airport Authority were negligent, since this situation has happened before with out any rectification.
I don't even believe you would find these guys guilty if presented with the evidence in court and you had to take responsibility for your opinion. I understand we all love to criticise on this website.
The Korean crew in SFO were in fact, in my view, guilty. No prejudice, just reviewing what I've read.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KP, not criticising. A reminder to all readers (professional flight crew do not need the reminder) that the Capt is ultimately responsible no matter how profound the mitigation. That is the point that I argue and, in a sense, defend the BA crew. In court, I would not have to defend my "opinion". Opinion is just that. FACT, is, however, very different.
Lots of mitigation in this case & that is why many professional pilots have made statements like " There but for the grace.................." etc.
In court KP, I would say ; " I know what you did and why you did it. But, I cannot condone it". I rest my case.
Lots of mitigation in this case & that is why many professional pilots have made statements like " There but for the grace.................." etc.
In court KP, I would say ; " I know what you did and why you did it. But, I cannot condone it". I rest my case.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems a updated version of taxiway status has been ignored.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8237364
If I am to believe this information being correct there were all kinds of malfunctions all over the place.
I'm just thinking "Linate" and I am glad noone was seriously injured.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8237364
If I am to believe this information being correct there were all kinds of malfunctions all over the place.
I'm just thinking "Linate" and I am glad noone was seriously injured.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Snuggles #356
It seems a updated version of taxiway status has been ignored.
In fact, looking at what I can see of the ground in the night-time images on Pages 1 and 2 it does suggest this.
Last edited by BOAC; 29th Dec 2013 at 11:42.
A couple of similar high time BA 744s are due to be put " out to pasture" in early 2014.
Probably cheaper to write off this aircraft in situ, and delay retirement of similar in UK?
Probably cheaper to write off this aircraft in situ, and delay retirement of similar in UK?
I know that the cost of properly assessing the wing can't be ignored but it looks to me as if the only repairs needed will be to the outer end of the wing, and not substantial even at that - probably not that costly even given the age of the aircraft, if it was intended to fly for another few years otherwise.
Personally, I doubt it will fly again.
