So still no report?
 

Is it not strange it is taking so long for this report to be produced?

People are always puzzled by why reports take so long to produce.. In this case we know that the pilots while probably involved with check-lists at night failed to remember that the intersection at that point was poorly marked but speculation doesn't work. In any accident investigation even those that the cause might seem blindingly obvious factors from all aspects have to be considered and discounted.. It's proving that all the other factors of the flight played no part that takes the time... they can't just stop at.."OK lads looks like the crew failed to notice the intersection, that'll do"..They have to know that the nose wheel steering hasn't failed, that no distractions were occurring that caused the crew to miss the intersection, that the radios were not a factor. etc, etc..It's proving what didn't occur that takes the time in every investigation.. and we wouldn't want it any other way would we ?

MungoP, there are some places that have a rather lynch-mob approach to sorting things out (remember that farcical Dewani trial?). Such people aren't interested in proper, thorough investigations. They are quite happy with something that is cobbled up at short notice, but is most likely totally incompetent, that blames someone else. (Again, remember the Dewani trial? Then just think about where this incident took place...)

I suspect Mack the Knife is pretty close. Where labor is expensive, it makes sense to strip out the 'good stuff' early on in the process. But where labor is cheap, you can simply put a pile of wreckage in front of 'recyclers', tell them they get X% of what they salvage, and wait...
I was recently in Jakarta - that's the basic system they use. No one bothers to strip out recyclables from the trash, it's not worth the trouble. Trash haulers pick up everything, sift out the good stuff from the chaff, and burn the rest (which does wonders for the already :mad: air quality).
Further, it's not just 3rd world countries - a couple years ago I replaced a old water heater, and asked my sister's hubby if I could borrow his truck to haul the old one off to the recycler. He said "don't bother, leave it on the sidewalk and it'll be gone in 24 hours". Sure enough, within a few hours there was a guy at the door making sure I didn't mind if he hauled off the old water heater :sad:

SACAA final report
http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and...ports/9257.pdf

Pretty much as expected - the crew were suckered into a mistake by faulty taxiway lighting and faulty lighting of a signboard. Their failure to rebrief after the change from being given Alpha to Bravo was a factor.

Very interesting reading. Two points.

To those who mutter about the time taken to see the official reports - take one hour to read this report- all 130 pages- and see the detail involved for a relatively minor incident. Well done SACAA.:ok:

Secondly, as expected, a chain of errors,
Personally I find the signage/lighting deficit slightly more significant than the briefing error. (Not well done Acasa.) :=
But my experience of ORT is now more than 15 years old. I recollect it being quite hard work at night.

The taxyway centreline should have been painted magenta.

They'd have followed that.

Failure by inspection crews to recognise and report multiple lighting faults causing a failure to NOTAM the danger.

Gross incompetance at ACASA - what a surprise. Sadly this is symptomatic of the much wider problems of the public sector in post-apartheid South Africa where the entire system from top to bottom has been stuffed with political appointees and nepotism with absulutely no regard for such outdated colonial concepts as ability, competance, education, work ethic or even literacy.

Does SACAA have the balls to rock the boat by stomping heavily on ACASA to sort out the mess ? Sadly I have my doubts.

Meanwhile the infrastructure will continue to crumble due to lack of investment and any sense of direction or safe operations.

"Loss of situational awareness caused collision with building"
 

For those who don't have the time to read the entire report, here is a "probable cause/s" summary taken from the report:

"The loss of situational awareness caused the crew to taxi straight ahead on the wrong path, crossing the intersection/junction of Bravo and Mike instead of following Bravo where it turns off to the right and leads to the Category 2 holding point. Following aircraft stand taxi lane Mike; they collided with a building on the righthand side of Mike.

"Contributory Factors: The crew did not conduct a briefing to discuss the cleared route, nor did they refer to the correct taxiway information in chart 10-6. In combination with the ground movement visual aids, this created confusion and loss of situational awareness when taxiing on taxiway Bravo."

Cazalet! Have you read the 130 page report? I'm guessing from your ignorant comments that you're not even Aircrew so if you don't have anything interesting to say, do yourself a favour and keep your ill informed nonsense to yourself. Thrush!!!:mad:
MacBook. Actually, taxiway Bravo turns LEFT towards the Cat 2 hold at Mike, not RIGHT.
And before anyone asks, I'm not BA, I just hate the 'Monday morning quarterbacks' and rubbish spouting idiots that often frequent these pages.

Have always know this flight to be BA054 the report says BA034?

+1

AG that is well written. We have problems in South Africa...... there is also a confirmed rumour that a very senior SACAA staff member was removed a week or so ago by the cops. :ugh:

BA34 is correct. The aircraft had operated BA33 LHR-JNB on 21 December.

On 21/22 December, G-CIVF operated BA55/56 and G-BNLF operated BA57/54.

BA33/34 was an additional flight BA added onto the JNB route for that northern-hemisphere winter period to provide extra capacity (think it was non-daily). Now the A380 has arrived it has reverted back to 2xdaily throughout the year.


The flight number has been taken up by the new LHR-Kuala Lumpur service.

Thanks that make sense..

Arfur Dent,

Whilst you are right of course, this is actually a direct quote from the report (so maybe a little less agitated response would have been more appropriate? ;) ).
One of many slight inconsistencies in the report. Minor maybe, but still, this being the official report after all, one would have expected a more careful wording, less redundancies, and certainly a final editorial check...

EDDN - Yes, you're quite right and I apologise to you. Reading the comments from Cazelet (or whatever he calls himself) you may understand my objections - 'are the pilots worth more than the aircraft they wrecked' and 'perhaps if the painted the centreline magenta they would have followed that' are just sarcastic and objectionable flotsam IMHO.
Glad the plane wrecking, magenta line following pilots kept their job and are back in the air, somewhat wiser. That's the way forward, surely.

Fully agree - very unqualified comments indeed!