British Airways Incident at Johannesburg

[VinRouge]

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.

Depends on whether the front spar is damaged, whether the technical know how to repair is available locally and whether the parts required for repair are available.

Either way, hope those involved have a fair investigation and that BA can demonstrate true colours in support of just culture if this has been an honest mistake, despite its cost. We don't get to pick how expensive our slips errors and lapses are at the end of the day!

[lookoutbelow]

Why were they on 'B' is not the question here, they were.. I agree the signage is bad, well non existent, but the crew will have had access to updated charts and will no doubt have significant African operational experience, with all the issues that involves.
If they were parked on an unfamiliar stand/area of the apron then one would think that more than just a cursory review of the unfamiliar taxi route would have been completed in the pre-flight briefing. As has been mentioned a thorough monotone line by line briefing of the EXPECTED taxi out route can be of limited benefit (especially in China!) as the route issued can and will often change depending on other traffic movements which by it's nature is dynamic, not to mention other variable factors. What has undoubtably happened here is that the crew temporarily lost spatial awareness - we have all been there.

What some airlines advocate (not sure on BA's stance) is a running or progressive taxi brief between the crew as the aircraft taxi's, for example - PM "taxing on A, cleared onto C which is 2nd left, a 90 degree turn - do you agree?" This cheks crew confirmation, understanding and highlights any disagreement/ambiguities in their mental models. If this had of taken place, they MAY have picked up the pitfall of M leading on from B.. Distractions can be a huge issue both taxing and in the air and may have played a part even if it occurred for just a few seconds at the wrong time (cabin crew calling with secure, RT call, FMC input, Final Figures, ill timed conversation etc).

IMHO they didn't slow down or stop and check with ATC on their position as in their minds they were taxing down B expecting signage on the left for the active runway holding point. I imagine the penny only dropped when somebody heard a nasty noise or more lightly yaw and extra thrust needed to continue taxing..

As has been said, all of us (private and professional) make mistakes of differing magnitude on each and every flight, most days it is an incorrect freq selected or minor SOP slip, much less frequently it is excepting an incorrect clearance, selecting an incorrect speed or perhaps taking the wrong taxi link onto a main taxiway with little consequence, but on this day for this crew the holes lined up and they hit a building at some speed.

I look forward to reading the AAIB report and learning of the causal factors which I am sure we can all learn from. Assuming they were not negligent (sending SMS, laughing/joking, intoxicated etc) then it was a genuine honest mistake. Punishment enough will be to know they have written of one of the companies aircraft and further that everybody in the airline will know who was responsible (I suspect there are no secrets, even in a huge airline such as BA). I hope BA deal with it in a mature, diplimatic and professional way. I do feel sorry for the chaps but also it was very lucky that wasn't an office full of people in the 1st floor of the building on that night.

[tdracer]

Especially as old as it is. Didn't someone say it has 100,000 airframe hours?


110,000 hours actually . However if it did recently go through a heavy check, it would make it a more valuable if it was repaired.


I wondering if, assuming minimal structural damage, they might do some sort of temp repair so they can ferry it to someplace like Cardiff or Victorville to either be properly repaired or scraped.

[clipstone1]

Its largely depends on what value BA has this aircraft insured for.......

Market value is naff all, but airline hull all risks insurance is on an agreed value basis, they could have it insured near to market vslue say $15-20m or they could have it insured at a much higher value, many leased aircraft would be insured at $50m.
Knowing BA own all these aircraft, it is likely they insure them at just above the net book value of the aircraft. BA assume a life of between 20and 25years for an aircraft, thus this aircraft is likely to have a value to BA not much higher than the cost of the last check.

Thus they will be discussing very carefully the options for this aircraft with their insurers.

[totempole]

Whichever way you guys try to diminish the stuff up by these British crew, it is ultimately their fault. Face it. Don't be hypocrites. Kid gloves and all, gee all you apologists have no shame!

This is no " incident ", IT IS AN ACCIDENT. the plane was damaged, the building was damaged and most important of all, human beings were injured.

[newfoundglory]

they could have it insured near to market vslue say $15-20m

is this the approx. value of the airframe WITHOUT the engines?

[Dairyground]

Usually this far down a tread someone has asked about the relevant METARS, and a few posts later someone has provided them. So far, nothing, and we dont even know for cerain if it was raining at the time of the incident. Some photographs suggest that it had been raining, but there has been nothing to suggest whether or not falling rain "assisted" the deviation.

There are assumptions that all the flight crew had been to JNB many times. This may be the case, but there is a first time for everyone. On this one, I don't expect any response before the names and experience appear in the official initial report.

An finally, as someone who only gets to sit beside windows that look out sideways, never ones with a forward view, I am surprised by statements thst the centreline lights may be on during the day, but are switched off at night. I would have expected that they would be on during the hours of darkness, and off, if at all, during daylight.

[Not-a_Pilot]

Dairyground, your assumption about the lights is reasonable.

However, this is Johannesburg. It is quite common here to see streetlights burning brightly during the day when they're not needed instead of at night when they are needed.

Even if the streetlights do burn at night, often something with their sensors or timers goes haywire after a storm or prolonged rain and they don't switch on at all, or they come on at odd hours.

If memory serves correctly it had been a wet weekend when the incident occurred. Though it might not have been raining at the airport at the time, it was raining in other parts of the city.

The erratic nature of Johannesburg lighting coupled with poor weather conditions may have been contributing factors.

[sAx_R54]

Originally Posted by 40&80
...I recommend my Indian gentleman and his light be considered by this African airports management team...

I guess this is as strange as it can get! Really?

[overstress]

I don't expect any response before the names and experience appear in the official initial report.

Names do not appear in the AAIB reports. They are all online for anyone to see. Take a look, what you get is Commander's age and flying hours.

What relevance are the crew names anyway?

[framer]

What the devil is our profession sinking into? I guess we're not above reflecting today's society.

What a load of tosh. It's easy to sit back and say " today's society tut tut tut" but large aircraft have been collecting buildings ( mainly hangars) with their wing tips for generations. I'm not excusing hitting a building but it's got nothing to do with ' today's society'. It's more a continuation of the standard human limitations than a departure from the norm. You probably never were privy to the same type of incidents in the 60's because you weren't on Pprune.

[PukinDog]

kungfu panda
pukinDog- Your assumption is that we are all perfect.

On the contrary, I certainly do not make such an assumption. It's because we aren't perfect that due diligence as professionals is required at all times when we're doing what our ATPLs authorize and say we're able to do. Like it or not, strap on an airplane and we're held to that higher standard by everyone else even if you don't do it for yourself.

To me it is irrelevant whether it was notamed or on the chart.

Frankly, if you're a pilot that's one of the more troubling statements I've ever read on this site, and on so many levels. Just curious, with this outlook how do you manage ACN/PCN issues? How do you know you have enough runway? We transpose limits/performance issues for our particular aircraft over airport limitations/restrictions all the time and derive what's do-able from those charts/notes/NOTAMS.

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.

Are you suggesting that there was no taxiway line combined with signage indicating where they were supposed to go in order to get to the runway, or that the runway sign wasn't in view before the missed turn from their vantage point of the cockpit?

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

Despite your insistence to the contrary, charts/notes/NOTAMS are indeed a way airport authorities make such things clear.

What if Mike didn't/doesn't even have blue taxiway edge lights. Would the absence of something that obvious be enough of an indicator to you?

It's hard to put a finger on just what your expectations are. Given that you believe charts, notes, and NOTAMS are irrelevant, guidance to where you are cleared-for isn't enough, do you expect warning signs or something akin to a ski resort notifying those who can't follow a trail map they're about to go out of bounds into avalanche country? Please explain in more detail exactly what you expect airports around the world to do for you?

[nitpicker330]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm , maybe a couple of nice Red illuminated warning signs posted on each side of the offending area-------"Stop, a/c above XXm wingspan do not enter"

Maybe that might help!!

[OverRun]

We need to clarify the status of TWY Mike. Slowjet posted:

It isn't a taxi-way but a taxi-lane

For it to be a taxilane, it has to be located on an apron which it isn't. Even if it was, and it is clearly not, then it would still be an apron taxiway rather than a taxilane. ICAO Annex 14, Doc 9157, Part 2 Taxiways, Aprons and Holding Bays refers, especially section 1.1.8 and Figure 1-1.

It is a taxiway, TWY Mike, and is shown as such on the FAOR AERODROME GROUND MOVEMENT CHART AD-02 12 DEC 2013. From this chart, an extract shows it coming off TWY Bravo.



The note at the lower left hand side unfortunately indicates by default that the width of TWY Mike is 30.5 m. Yet Google Earth shows it to be about 19m. The chart also shows shoulders, but these were not visible on the Google Earth photo.

The said building is 24.5m approximately from the centreline of TWY Mike. Difficult for the 747-400 to get past with its wingspan of 64.9m (32.45m from centreline to wing tip). That building location would control and limit the taxiway strip width and that in turn would mean that TWY Mike is an ICAO Annex 14 Code B taxiway, and is limited to Metroliners and such-like. It is too narrow for even the smallest of the airline jets, which are Code C.

I wonder how the Code C jets shown in the earlier photos here got to Apron Mike.

[PukinDog]

nitpicker330
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm , maybe a couple of nice Red illuminated warning signs posted on each side of the offending area-------"Stop, a/c above XXm wingspan do not enter"

Maybe that might help!!

If one misses the other information, signage, and indicators, clearly a couple small signs wouldn't be enough. After all, that's what was missed before. Far more effective would be a laser array buried in the ground at the wingspan width limit, aimed at the sky, and if an aircraft wing breaks the beam a barrage of star shells are automatically fired into the line of sight of the cockpit to alert the crew. If the crew still doesn't get the message, a 2nd laser array will trigger a barricade net to be raised across the taxiway in front of the offending aircraft.

This system would probably be adequate in terms of outcome and airports not being liable for criminal negligence, and there wouldn't be a need to retrofit all aircraft with tailhooks automatically extended through some sort of proximity sensor (as would be required if arresting-wire systems were installed).

[JammedStab]

When I saw the details of this incident, I realized that this could have happened to me. I had read recently of an A380 in Brisbane I think where they continued past where they were supposed to turn to the takeoff runway.

After reading that thread, I have tried to look at taxiway charts more closely for the briefing to see if there are similar traps.

Saw one at Schenzen the other day for the departure runway. It has two taxiways running parallel to the runway. If on the closer one, you likely can't go wrong because at the end of the taxiway is the 90° turn toward the runway threshold. But the further away parallel continues past the taxiway that takes you to the threshold. So it was briefed that this is a "threat" if we get the further away parallel. A similar thing can be done at JNB for the incident taxiway for what would be in this case, a trap that will present itself during taxi.

Also found myself taxiing on a dark night on a dark taxiway recently at a familiar airport just staring at the centreline while taxiing. Had to remind myself the obvious. That with a 213' wingspan, the aircraft has lots of overhang beyond the taxiway edge. Who knows if some construction equipment could be hiding nearby improperly parked or some other vehicle. Airports with snow can have improper snowbanks. And if on the wrong taxiway by accident, we can see what might happen.

So the bottom line is, look around not just straight ahead. If doing heads down stuff, an occasional look can still be made outside or the aircraft stopped. If it is very dark, how about landing lights briefly on for a quick better look-ahead(around). Nothing says that you must only have the taxi light on.

[kungfu panda]

Very nice post Jammedstab, Thankyou. I will use that little tip of briefing as a "Threat" any taxyway which extends beyond the departure point of the runway.

In my view, on a dark night if I need them I will put on all Landing lights to see as clearly as possible, Plus runway turnoff lights and taxy lights.

[Gerald_D]

OverRun, you have applied some selective reading there . . . .

On that same chart, there is another box at the top titled CAUTION / RESTRICTION and the first point therein is:

1. ACFT to exercise caution when taxiing on

TWY B southbound to THR RWY 03L due to
Apron taxilane M extending from TWY B in a
Southerly direction.

That makes it clear that M is to be considered a non-taxiway, and hence unlit. And, as someone mentioned earlier, movement by tug only.

When quoting from the Aerodrome Design Manual, the full text is:

1.1.8 Taxilanes located on aprons are divided into 2 types . . . .

which makes it clear that not all taxilanes have to be on aprons. Indeed the document mostly uses the laborious "aircraft stand taxilanes" which implies there are other types of taxilanes, but there doesn't seem to be a definition . . . .

[Gerald_D]

Meant to add to previous post . . . .

It is peak summer holiday out here now and it is unlikely that the formal enquiry will start until everyone is back from their holidays in about 2 weeks time.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by OverRun

FAOR AERODROME GROUND MOVEMENT CHART AD-02 12 DEC 2013

- the same chart reportedly carries a warning about this junction (B/M). "ACFT to exercise caution when taxiing on TWY B southbound to THR RWY 03L due to Apron taxilane M extending from TWY B in a Southerly direction"