British Airways Incident at Johannesburg
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please allow me as a lowly piece of SLF try to summarise 22 pages of argument, rumour and speculation for the benefit of the lazy journalists mentioned in the previous post.
1. The crew at the pointy end has the ultimate responsibility for accidents like this no matter what contributing factors there might be or how unfair it may seem. I don't think anyone is actually arguing about this.
2. There is a high likelihood that an eventual report will find that there ARE a bunch of contributing factors (anything from bad layout and poor signage at the airport to high workload on the flight deck while taxiing). However all of this is pure speculation at this stage and not worthy of reporting as fact by Mr. Lazy Journalist.
3. Nobody knows yet whether the air frame can be repaired or treated as a write off and this decision will have to come after careful inspection by professionals.
Okay, delete me or ban me for being SLF daring to post but that's how I read all 22 pages of this topic.
1. The crew at the pointy end has the ultimate responsibility for accidents like this no matter what contributing factors there might be or how unfair it may seem. I don't think anyone is actually arguing about this.
2. There is a high likelihood that an eventual report will find that there ARE a bunch of contributing factors (anything from bad layout and poor signage at the airport to high workload on the flight deck while taxiing). However all of this is pure speculation at this stage and not worthy of reporting as fact by Mr. Lazy Journalist.
3. Nobody knows yet whether the air frame can be repaired or treated as a write off and this decision will have to come after careful inspection by professionals.
Okay, delete me or ban me for being SLF daring to post but that's how I read all 22 pages of this topic.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a simple accident. How many times have seasoned car drivers simply taken the wrong turn.
Of course many of the general public's perception is that now , not only can pilots not actually be able to land a plane without aid, they can't drive either.
Thank God this was not another SQ 6 or Comair 5191.
Of course many of the general public's perception is that now , not only can pilots not actually be able to land a plane without aid, they can't drive either.
Thank God this was not another SQ 6 or Comair 5191.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: House
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wishing to drag this thread off topic, I am curious. What loss(es) did you suffer that you wish to be compensated for, and what would you believe a fair level of compensation to be?
The level of compensation depends on the length of delay suffered and in this case I believe it varied - sometimes a bundle of Avios points is not appropriate, nor appreciated.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was also curious why the chart needed Chinese language support to properly display (according to my computer). And I wondered what was in the 12 Dec 2013 update. So I got the previous edition of the chart.
Umm, there is no warning or even mention of TWY Mike.
And I still read the TWY width as 30.5m.
Umm, there is no warning or even mention of TWY Mike.
And I still read the TWY width as 30.5m.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh! so the Ground Movement Chart was updated on 12th December, and suddenly there is a caution reference to Taxiway Mike which there wasn't before. Ten days later an aircraft continues on to Twy Mike and hits a building.
Gosh!
Do we know when this change was communicated to the airlines? And was it reflected in updated guidance provided to the crew? Anyone?
Gosh!
Do we know when this change was communicated to the airlines? And was it reflected in updated guidance provided to the crew? Anyone?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cape Town
Age: 68
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"there is no warning or even mention of TWY Mike"
. . . . . that is because TWY Mike does not exist. Apron Mike extends all the way TWY B. Apron Mike is panhandle shaped.
On that funny pdf behaviour, did your pdf reader give you exactly the same blank box every time?
. . . . . that is because TWY Mike does not exist. Apron Mike extends all the way TWY B. Apron Mike is panhandle shaped.
On that funny pdf behaviour, did your pdf reader give you exactly the same blank box every time?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . . . that is because TWY Mike does not exist. Apron Mike extends all the way TWY B. Apron Mike is panhandle shaped.
Please refer to the SA CAA media statement of December 23rd concerning the subject accident CAA Website
which contains the following:
"...According to the preliminary report, the SACAA was informed that the B747-400 aircraft was cleared for takeoff on Runway 03L. Further, it was confirmed to the SACAA that the air crew got instructions from the Air Traffic Control to taxi using taxi way B. The crew continued onto taxi way M which is narrower resulting in the aircraft impacting on an office building...."
If it looks like a taxiway, is used like a taxiway, quacks like a taxiway, nobody parks on it like it was an Apron and wasnt a taxiway, and the SA CAA call it a taxiway, then I think its a fair bet it is a taxiway.
Panhandle shaped apron. Eisshh. On the other hand I do agree that calling it part of the apron gets you out of the inconvenient truth that if it were a Taxiway it would be an ICAO Class B taxiway and there are class C jets parked on the Apron at the other end of Twy M. As Overrun said... I wonder how they got there?
Last edited by Pinkman; 31st Dec 2013 at 14:08.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a copy of the relevant Navtech charts which the crew used, and the only mention of 'M' and possible pilot confusion is on page 10-6 dated 06 March 2013 which says "Exercise caution when taxiing on TWY B due to confusion with apron M."
This is a small text paragragh on a page of text - ie not next to the aerodrome taxi/ground chart. Of the taxi/ground chart page 10-2 there is nothing to highlight any restrictions on 'M'.
Referring to documents other than those the crew used on the day does not, imho, add anything to understanding their behaviour, more over it only goes to point out the charting defficiences.
Note: it does refer to 'apron M', although to all intents and purposes it is indistinguisable to a normal taxiway.
This is a small text paragragh on a page of text - ie not next to the aerodrome taxi/ground chart. Of the taxi/ground chart page 10-2 there is nothing to highlight any restrictions on 'M'.
Referring to documents other than those the crew used on the day does not, imho, add anything to understanding their behaviour, more over it only goes to point out the charting defficiences.
Note: it does refer to 'apron M', although to all intents and purposes it is indistinguisable to a normal taxiway.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLEASE guys = there is nothing to be gained by argueing semantics.
There seem to be some minor inconsistencies in the charts but MIKE is clearly a taxiway leading to an apron. Argueing semantics is pointless, the real issue is a lack of proper signage and the proximity of a building to a taxiway.
Both are hazards which do not meet ICAO standards. A note on a chart is not a satisfactory solution - the hazards should have been properly corrected many years ago.
As always, the captain carries the can. The captain is always resonsible for his vessel (be it ship or aircraft) regardless of who is actually in the left seat at the time, he could even be asleep in the crew rest area, he is still responsible.
Nigel gets it in the neck - but hopefully he will get some understanding from management in view of the obvious trap for the unwary and hopefully SA Airports will, at long last, fix the real problem.
There seem to be some minor inconsistencies in the charts but MIKE is clearly a taxiway leading to an apron. Argueing semantics is pointless, the real issue is a lack of proper signage and the proximity of a building to a taxiway.
Both are hazards which do not meet ICAO standards. A note on a chart is not a satisfactory solution - the hazards should have been properly corrected many years ago.
As always, the captain carries the can. The captain is always resonsible for his vessel (be it ship or aircraft) regardless of who is actually in the left seat at the time, he could even be asleep in the crew rest area, he is still responsible.
Nigel gets it in the neck - but hopefully he will get some understanding from management in view of the obvious trap for the unwary and hopefully SA Airports will, at long last, fix the real problem.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 31st Dec 2013 at 14:06. Reason: Spelling
@ watersidewonker
Between EU and non-EU airports, >3500km, >3 hour delay: €600 per passenger
One assumes that they're expecting monies due under regulation 261/2004.
The level of compensation depends on the length of delay suffered and in this case I believe it varied - sometimes a bundle of Avios points is not appropriate, nor appreciated.
The level of compensation depends on the length of delay suffered and in this case I believe it varied - sometimes a bundle of Avios points is not appropriate, nor appreciated.
Last edited by RevMan2; 31st Dec 2013 at 16:10.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navtech charts
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually this is all getting rather silly and FWIW I believe the SA CAA are wrong here. 'M' would appear to be:
1. Unlit
2. Narrow - Charlie210, who's post has been 'removed' by some helpful person told us both of these.
3. For access to Apron M
and probably a 'taxilane'
but whether in fact it quacks or not, or whether it is a lane or taxiway is not particularly relevant except to explain why the 'width of taxiways' is stated at 30.5m when 'M' is less, and why the SA CAA themselves appear to refer to it as a taxilane on the chart. In my experience, airports are full of unlit narrow tarmac surfaced routes crossing and joining taxiways.
There are other ducks to pluck here, are there not?
1. Unlit
2. Narrow - Charlie210, who's post has been 'removed' by some helpful person told us both of these.
3. For access to Apron M
and probably a 'taxilane'
but whether in fact it quacks or not, or whether it is a lane or taxiway is not particularly relevant except to explain why the 'width of taxiways' is stated at 30.5m when 'M' is less, and why the SA CAA themselves appear to refer to it as a taxilane on the chart. In my experience, airports are full of unlit narrow tarmac surfaced routes crossing and joining taxiways.
There are other ducks to pluck here, are there not?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Un-Lazy Attorney
Let's see, 20-plus pages, lots of volleys in re what facts belong in, or out of, the relevant set known to legal counsel (in US at least) as "the" facts, also volleys aplenty over what is or is not a fact in the first place....let me ask my airplane-driver PPRuNe chaps a simple question: as this crew was taxiing this aircraft in this specific situation, what is the numerically stated probability they perceived - consciously - that their Situation Awareness had - suddenly / unexpectedly / inexplicably - degraded? What with uncertainties - here in this thread to date as and when one reads it cumulatively - about designation such as is it an apron or taxiway, is the Caution on the chart or not, does the PDF load in toto or not - and this crew quite evidently is plowing along, taxi, taxi, taxi, CRUNCH - what was the probability one of the aviators at the controls (or both) wondered or said, 'ah, wait a sec....' or the like? Look, please don't remind me that the CVR will be played etc, etc, blah. I'm asking, on the one band, EX POST, ya'all volleying like a tennis team over what is a relatively simple occurrence, while on the other hand, EX ANTE the pilots in the incident seemed to think it was 100 percent nominal. Or did they? And if not, what probability of error did they perceive? Yes, based on the facts - known, perceived, assumed, and/or guessed-at, at this time. It's a real-time business, right?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone thought the 'B' on the chart at the junction of B and M could maybe be interpreted as meaning the taxiway on the left of it (actually taxiway M)..
It does seem to be directly in between them both, and could hence lead one into thinking that B does carry on straight.....??
Obvious to all of us 20/20 hindsighters, but at the time??
2p's worth..
It does seem to be directly in between them both, and could hence lead one into thinking that B does carry on straight.....??
Obvious to all of us 20/20 hindsighters, but at the time??
2p's worth..
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Uk
Age: 53
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were some previous posts that suggested the plane was park at a gate not normally used, hence using B taxiway ( used mainly for domesic terminal). All I know is that we departed from gate A3 which is pretty normal and as I gathered leads directly on A taxiway. We were also 15 mins early and it was very quiet that time of night. When we left the following night with BA56 we used the same gate A3 and proceeded directly on A taxiway. I did not give much attention to our taxi movement the previous night though.
What might the reasons be why they were directed to the B routing "detour"? Won't this be very unfamilliar territory for a Heavy? Might be normal procedure to use B from gate A3 but looking at the charts it looks strange..
What might the reasons be why they were directed to the B routing "detour"? Won't this be very unfamilliar territory for a Heavy? Might be normal procedure to use B from gate A3 but looking at the charts it looks strange..
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BN2A,
Does your query refer to the Navtech chart?
If it doesn't, it is without any meaning, as the only charts on board were the Navtech ones. BA (and I'm pretty certain no other airline) carry the Air Pilot publications for every country. That is why they pay a premium rate to the chart suppliers, who may have some culpability in this case.
Does your query refer to the Navtech chart?
If it doesn't, it is without any meaning, as the only charts on board were the Navtech ones. BA (and I'm pretty certain no other airline) carry the Air Pilot publications for every country. That is why they pay a premium rate to the chart suppliers, who may have some culpability in this case.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was referring to the charts posted on here by other Ppruners... Not sure which they were, Navtech, AIP, Jepp, Aerad, or whichever...
Was only an observation that might possibly have been a contributing factor (that hasn't been mentioned so far) along with all the other factors (mentioned repeatedly!!)..
Was only an observation that might possibly have been a contributing factor (that hasn't been mentioned so far) along with all the other factors (mentioned repeatedly!!)..
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counselor:
My take on the probability factor is that they were consciously aware when they hit the building, because SA was "out the window" (not literally) up until that unfortunate impact. Prior to impact, they were obviously somewhere else mentally.
From personal experience, the external lighting on a 747 is quite sufficient for the purpose of taxiing at night.
...let me ask my airplane-driver PPRuNe chaps a simple question: as this crew was taxiing this aircraft in this specific situation, what is the numerically stated probability they perceived - consciously - that their Situation Awareness had - suddenly / unexpectedly / inexplicably - degraded?
From personal experience, the external lighting on a 747 is quite sufficient for the purpose of taxiing at night.