View Full Version : Qantas Lines Up On Wrong Runway
BCF Breath
24th Mar 2005, 08:46
Anyone else able to shed some light on the Qantas flight that lined up on 23R at Auckland With runway works in progress and were then advised to re-position to 23L?
Happened about 3-4 weeks ago and when it did depart, rotated after the works area.
QF 164 maybe.
Quite a hot topic of conversation here in certain quarters.
Woomera
24th Mar 2005, 08:54
Not defending my fellow Aussies ....... but there's those that have done it ..... and those yet to do it.......... :\
reynoldsno1
24th Mar 2005, 09:01
Anyone else able to shed some light on the Qantas flight that lined up on 23R at Auckland With runway works in progress and were then advised to re-position to 23L?
So, no problem then?? Everyone did their jobs. Of course rotation was "after the works area" - wasn't that the point of changing runways?
Do I smell a trawler around?
Ultralights
24th Mar 2005, 09:27
what were the conditions like? foggy? rainy? night? typhoon?
mustafagander
24th Mar 2005, 09:56
First question is did it actually happen?
Given that 05L/23R is the bit of tarmac you actually taxi along, I would find it at least a bit odd to then turn around at the end of the taxiway expecting to take off.
It is likely that some day some one will do it or try to do it, especially from the 05 end. Why does it have to be made so difficult for the occasional visitor? White pages, yellow pages, ramp control, ground control, FMS arrivals, but only for the initiates etc. etc.
Sal-e
24th Mar 2005, 10:46
Woomera,
What are you trying to say??? You defend when you say you're not defending, otherwise why mention it? Yes, you are being defensive.
Why those cop-out comments? Not exactly useful for future preventions of similar incidences.
So he taxied out and did a 180 at the runway end?!?! That's essentially what you're saying BCF! Did anyone see it or did you just 'hear' it on the radio? I've had a bunch of comms in AKL with the runway works active that if someone wasn't actually watching the aircraft could make it appear that we were taxiing out into the bay!
stiffwing
24th Mar 2005, 13:11
Mustafa,
One can also taxy along "bravo" to proceed to the 23L threshold. However, this is not a regular occurence for "heavys" from the international terminal and perhaps causes more confusion than is intended.
Whether the alleged incident occurred or not, you may be interested to know that QF has recently issued an Intam alerting crews to "somewhat confusing" taxiways and apron areas at NZAA !!
schnauzer
24th Mar 2005, 18:24
Well, if he did do it, and it's a big "IF", then I would be having a verrrrry close look at the ATC system and the ground facilities.
It has been obvious for a long time now that NZAA's airport is woefully inadequate - the taxiway system is rubbish - the SID's and STARs are insane - NZ ATC will happily descend you OCTA without a care in the world.
You want to throw stones BCF? Take a look in your own back yard. Get you mate Helen to grow some balls (ooops sorry, he already has!:} ) and fix it!
Oh and BTW? It could well have been one of your highly paid Jicinnict brothers....
BCF Breath
24th Mar 2005, 20:24
Interesting replies. Quite a mix of the standard, No, it can't be us. Oh maybe it was J/C (lets blame the poor semi-Aussies...which it wasn't).
It's BS, well it did happen.
My point was to see if there was anyone worthwhile out there with maybe a reason why it happened and possibly a fix if required..
So then you get the blamers.
AKL isn't perfect, tough. Get over it. Theyre just putting taxiway markers in at CHCH....
And in defence of ATC, it was them who stopped the Airport auth from getting the second-hand marker boards from SYD to use in NZ!!
You want to throw stones BCF? Where did that dribble come from?? :mad:
If you want to prevent a Singapore jobby have a good input not some of this aero-club cr@p. Or no it cant happen to QF, "Cause we all know it can to anyone!
downwind
24th Mar 2005, 21:22
shades of singapore airlines B744 crash at Taipea a while ago!
Do companys use the ILS to correctly ident the right runway when taxiing to the active runway, in low viz conditions?
BCF Breath.........if true he made a mistake, we all make them on occasions and luckily in this case ATC picked up on it.
Having operated into and out of AKL numerous times in the last few months, making a mistake there is not all that hard, especially if you have not been there for a while. The AKL signage would have to be some of the worst I've seen.
Without better signs, it's crazy to have so close to a main runway, a taxiway which substitutes as a standby runway (Markings and all). Accident waiting to happen!
edited because I could not spell misstake! :D
mr hanky
24th Mar 2005, 22:47
Having operated into and out of AKL numerous times in the last few months, making a misstake there is not all that hard
Oh, I dunno... what's so hard about "Continue through M4, proceed via D6, B8, taxi along 05L, hold at A1, 23R"? :confused:
burty
25th Mar 2005, 00:08
It's very common for heavy aircraft at AKL to use Bravo while taxiing for departure, esp when 23L is in use.
Three Bars
25th Mar 2005, 00:54
For those who may be a bit defensive about Auckland airport, as one who has operated extensively through Auckland over the last month, let me try to consolidate the information that has been mentioned by others.
Qantas has been going through the LOSA audit process now for about 18 months. This system examines threat/error environments and how pilots manage the threats that they are confronted with to avoid making potentially serious errors.
Auckland airport, in my opinion, presents several threats to the unsuspecting/unfamiliar pilot. These are:
1) A taxiway which is marked as a runway and is called a runway (05L/23R) even when it is being used as a taxiway.
2) Taxiway signage that is very poorly positioned - the signage is placed almost perfectly between the taxiways so that you are not sure whether the sign refers to the next taxiway or the previous taxiway.
3) The taxiway designations are extremely confusing - from memory, taxiway B8 aligns with D6 (even though both are little more than inverts). As bad as these designations are, they are an improvement on the "FIRST" taxiway and the "MAIN" taxiway designations of previous years at Auckland.
4) With the works in progress at the International Terminal, the pavement markings and lead-in lighting for entry to Bay 8 (in particular) are very difficult to see at night, and are almost impossible to see at night in the rain - this point is freely acknowledged by the maintenance personnel who meet the aircraft on arrival.
5) Despite undergoing regular maintenance for over 10 years (that I can remember), often with major disruptions to existing procedures (necessitating the green and yellow Jeppesen pages) runway 05R/23L is still very rough, ungrooved, covered in rubber deposits and has ICAO runway markings that are very difficult to see. Runway 05R/23L is due to be closed again next month for several weeks.
If an incident did happen as described above, I would not be surprised. I know that there are plans for a major parallel runway complex at Auckland (to the north of the existing terminal) with a cross runway also mentioned. I hope that these developments will render the current 05L/23R redundant - and the sooner the better.
Captain Can't
25th Mar 2005, 05:01
three bars has summed it up nicely...
and when you are admist the chaos (for an unfamiliar one like myself) ATC get rather narcy when you double check or slow down to get it together :mad: as if we should all be at one with this harmonius sh!tfight :yuk:
Ron & Edna Johns
25th Mar 2005, 06:47
3 ||| s..... You are absolutely correct.
And another smallish but significant point - there's a small error in the Jepp charts at the moment: if you look at W-10-9B it appears that 05L COMMENCES at B10/A9. In other words, when taxiing via B, B10 for an A10 departure off 05R you appear unable to turn right onto 05L/23R to get to that takeoff point. You appear only able to go straight ahead onto A9. From the same chart you cannot see the start of 05R. It's deceptive - conscious that the threshold of 05L is alongside the A10 departure point for 05R you could erroneously think that by taxiing straight ahead from B10 that you are approaching your desired dept point, A10. But you're not, it's A9. Look at the reality on the full airport chart: W-10-9. A9 is significantly short of A10. And consider it in the context that most of the other A and B pairs line up! By this I mean B1 lines up with A1, B2 with A2, B3/A3, B5/A5, B7/A7 - but B10 DOESN'T line up with A10, but A9 instead.
Couldn't make a mistake? An easy error to catch? Really should study the charts better? Yes, probably. Well, I made this exact error and couldn't believe how I'd done it. Swiss cheese: early start, tired, poor weather, hadn't been there in ages - and a chart that is in error. Figures had been calc'd and set for departure at A10 but using W-10-9B I rolled straight forward at B10/A9 thinking we'd arrived at A10. And given that A10 is significantly displaced anyway, at first glance the A9 picture doesn't look massively different to the A10 picture. Fortunately we quickly realised our (my) mistake and recalc'd the figures for an A9 departure. But imagine a heavier aircraft making this mistake and not picking it up.....
This type of thing and all your points, 3 ||| s, really ought to go into a Flight Crew Report/Safety Observation Report/Whatever Report, instead of here. Why not send send them something and maybe, just maybe, things will improve over the ditch?
Be careful out there.
Three Bars
25th Mar 2005, 08:17
R&E,
Unfortunately, I have a - how should I say this - healthy scepticism about the reporting process.
So far I have lodged three flight crew reports over the years. The first one received a prompt and polite statement that nothing would change and the second one was ignored. The third, and most recent involved collection of an unpaid meal allowance and was actioned very efficiently.
Regarding Auckland, I imagine that nothing would happen to a FCR/SOR since an INTAM has already been raised - probably as a result of the incident already described. Whilst all of the issues I have raised are "threats" I feel that they would be assessed as only requiring "increased vigilance" by the powers-that-be.
Finally, I doubt that my input as a lowly F/O would be as well received as the words of wisdom eminating from a vaunted four-striper.
I look forward to the challenges of operating into Auckland with the dreaded green charts again next month!
The Enema Bandit
25th Mar 2005, 09:41
:mad:
schnauzer
25th Mar 2005, 16:07
AKL isn't perfect, tough. Get over it.
Well, thats gotta be an all time classic quote from a kiwi. Thats like saying, "well our engines fail. Tough..."
BCF, you are a troll. Thats all you were doing.
AKL is a shambles, and its clear that I'm not the only one who finds this to be true. It is an accident waiting to happen.
Mr.Buzzy
25th Mar 2005, 19:59
A little while ago, Freedom had the misfortune of bogging a maingear while lining up on Melbourne 27.
Plenty of us defended the crew, learnt a lesson and moved on: A great many though had all kinds of "poor form" and "bad airmanship" type remarks to post about the incident.
What Id like to know now is: Where are all of these heros now? Why has the peanut gallery gone so quiet on this event?
Do a search on the thread, Im sure you'll find it fascinating to make the comparison!
bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbzbzbz
schnauzer
25th Mar 2005, 20:35
From one troll to another....
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz....:zzz:
BCF Breath
25th Mar 2005, 20:49
Schnauzer, yeah, OK, that comment was a bit flippent esp as yesterday with crap wx and darkness a bit earlier here, I was glad of an exp chap in the other seat to guide around the Int terminal.
3 Bars and R & E, couldn't have said it better.
Mr. Buzzy, isn't it interesting....
Oh, and don't expect the other runway to be here soon. Maybe in 10 years... then all international flights going north (from the existing runway) will have to pass through the domestic flights going south (from the new runway). Go figure!
The_Cutest_of_Borg
26th Mar 2005, 00:02
How can you make a proper comparison when you have NO details to work on. So far ( and I am not sayng it DIDN'T happen) all that has been presented is a bunch of unsubstantiated rumours!
Get some details and maybe we can have some intelligent comment, 3 bars posts notwithstanding.
"Qantas lines up on wrong runway"
Are you sure BCF.
From the posts following your rumour it appears that it was not a runway at the time of the occurrence. It was in fact a taxiway.
Should instead your comment read Qantas lines up for take off on taxiway.
Does sound difficult over there at present warranting greater vigilance than normal. Keep it safe guys a lot of people count on you to get right every time.
reynoldsno1
26th Mar 2005, 08:00
the SID's and STARs are insane
...and EVERY single one has been designed at the specific request of an operator.... fact ... go figure....
rescue 1
26th Mar 2005, 10:38
...and I bet that operator is Air NZ. They control everything aviation in that country! It's time everybody [NZ aviation] looked beyond the back fence.
Oh, and it's not Qantas in Oz (they do control the Govt) or the larger Airlines/Boeing in the US.
The change of transition in NZ came as a shock to ALL operators there.
Chris Higgins
28th Mar 2005, 03:01
Yeah, these stories get way out of hand. I was greeted by an aeroclub type the other day in Martha's Vineyard who thought I had just landed at Nantucket by mistake.
I did fly a passenger from Chicago to Nantucket, then ferried the 0.1 it took to get Martha's Vineyard to fly passengers out of there.
Who the hell knows what happened, probably nothing!
NoseGear
28th Mar 2005, 07:41
As a pilot who operated in and out of Auckland daily for the last 3 years or so, I quite agree with 3Bars assesment of the place. For the regular operators, generally no problems, but I think there are any number of traps for those pilots who might only operate there a few times a year.
As for "the SID's and STARs are insane" comment, I really cannot figure that one out, maybe you'd care to be more specific?
Nosey
reynoldsno1
28th Mar 2005, 08:15
The major works at AKL have not been well managed, but given the fact that there is only one "proper" runway, they have been prolonged (predicatble) and unsatisfactory (also predictable). They have done their best with the 2nd runway/taxiway - actually installed a LLZ, and there is now also a RNAV/VNAV approach to that "runway" whilst work proceeds on the main runway from April.
AKL is not a complex airport. By most international standards, it's a piece of p*ss to find your way around - compared to some airports it's barely provincial...and you can see most of the time.
If someone thinks the SID/STARs at AKL are "insane" - well, they really need to get out more...
I have absolutely no connection with AIAL....:cool:
I find it hard to find fault with the Jet SIDs.........no initial hold-down and straight ahead.
The original post happened circa 20 Feb 05, direct to Adelade Flight, early morning. Lined up on 23R, which had no lights on, had work in progress (no workmen), and were advised by tower that they were on the wrong runway. Made some light of the comment, re-positioned and then departed via 23L to Oz.
I hope the Skippy Skipper sent a case of VB or Bundy to the controller for being awake/onto it at that hour.
It CAN happen to ANYONE.
The SID's and STARS aren't the real problem.
It is definitely whoever the turkey was that designed the joint, quite obviously without consulting any other airport in the world!
Taxiing around, particularly at night in rain (happens a lot), is quite a challenging exercise at times. (putting it extremely mildly)
Parallel runways too close together that can't be used at the same time.
Whoever designed the taxiway designators needs to be shot.
Whoever decided to call a runway that is a taxiway a runway needs to be shot (yes that is correct. That is how confusing the joint is)
The taxi instructions given are confusing due particularly to the runway that is a taxiway but is still called a runway.
Runway markings are strange.
If AirNZ designed it, I am glad I don't fly for them.
By the way, don't compare it to Christchurch. It is very simple to get in and out of. It is basically a small airport with some big jets coming and going. Nothing complicated or annoying (Except for the bloody interference on the ground freq!)
piontyendforward
30th Mar 2005, 21:18
What are you lot on about.
23R/05L is only a TEMPORARY runway, while the main 23L/05R is being dug up and rebuilt, and upgraded to accept class F aircraft (A380 size)
23R/05L is only used once each year to reduce disruption to a minimum and still allow direct flights with reduced payload to North America. It takes 6 hours to close the main and establish the temporary runway. When the runway works on the main runway is all complete (2007ish) the temporary runway will be dis-established.
The operation was based off Gatwick Airport who had the same problem of a runway that built in the early 1960's that was breaking up and needed to be replaced.
The consultation list is quite large for any changes, Qantas and Air NZ are the two largest operators, Airwork, Airfreight, RNZAF, Great Barrier, Mountain Air etc (16 operators total) are all represented at any changes to the airport.
Taxi way markings and signs, not good but getting better. Even CHC is starting to has some signs installed.
Since when has an Airline ever designed an Airport!
AKL was first built in 1960 and opened in 1966 the largest type flying then was the streched DC8 so it has not done to bad.
And no, I also do not work for AIAL.
e. coli
30th Mar 2005, 21:52
If I remember rightly, some of the taxiway names were changed a couple of years ago. Golden opportunity to come up with something sensible. Instead we've got the current shambles. Maybe they could have another go?
Quokka
30th Mar 2005, 22:46
"... the SID's and STAR's are insane..."
What? Could there possibly be SID's and STAR's that are worse than in Perth???
Surely not...
;)
Skycon
18th Apr 2005, 11:16
can confirm (visually) yes it did happen
can also confirm (visually) that first lot of works 2 yrs ago was QFA B747 tried to line up on non active 23L
weather was fine, light was good
SIDS insane? takeoff - go straight ahead! Duh? missed straight climbs 101 did we?
and NO ct7 I have not recieved my beers but VB is definitely acceptable if they ever were to arrive. cheers mate.
BCF Breath
19th Apr 2005, 01:48
Ah, so you were the onto it controller that didn't blink.
Well done.
Gee hasn't it gone quiet from the baggers on the West Island.
Skycon
20th Apr 2005, 09:54
no - someone else gets the kudos this time, and yes they did (as always ) do well.