EVA Air taking off from the taxiway

[Taikonaut]

Saw the article below on the Anchorage Daily News this morning. Apparently this happened on the 5th of Novermber. This is the first I've heard of it:

Cargo jet takes off on taxiway; FAA investigates
Error is second in four years; safety a concern

By DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News


An Asia-bound cargo jet was reported taking off from a taxiway instead of its assigned runway at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport earlier this month, prompting an investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration.


The incident, if confirmed, would mark the second time in four years that a large commercial aircraft launched from a taxiway instead of turning northwest up the runway that ends near Point Woronzof, as directed by air traffic controllers.

On Nov. 5, a MD-11 freight jet operated by Taiwan-based EVA Air was cleared to fly from runway 32, which extends more than two miles from the airport terminal area toward Knik Arm, said Scott Erickson, a safety investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board in Anchorage.

The jet had originally been moving toward a different runway, but the air traffic control tower notified the EVA Air crew that runway 32 was available and gave permission to take off there, Erickson said.

The NTSB was notified that the jet turned in the correct direction, but went up the taxiway that runs parallel to the runway on its west side, Erickson said.

Runways are the broad concrete expanses where aircraft take off and land. Taxiways are the narrower access roads used by jets and planes to reach the runways for takeoff, or move to the terminal after landing.

No other aircraft was on the taxiway at the time, and the EVA Air jet apparently flew to Taipei as planned, Erickson said.

This particular taxiway, designated "Y," is almost as long as the runway, according to an airport diagram.

"Any time you have an aircraft that doesn't follow the directions of the (air traffic) controller, it kind of puts a safety deficit in the system," Erickson said. "The FAA is looking into it."

FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer confirmed an investigation was under way but would not comment further.

Messages left with EVA Air in Anchorage and other offices were not returned Monday.

In January 2002, a China Airlines jet carrying about 250 passengers and crew was directed to take off from runway 32, toward Point Woronzof. Instead, the jet accelerated west on another taxiway, this one only about half as long as the runway.

It barely cleared the ground: its landing gear scratched twin grooves in the snow berm as the jet became airborne. Taiwanese air safety authorities later suspended the pilot for eight months and the first officer for seven months.

The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has experienced similar mishaps, the Seattle Times reported Sunday. At least eight times since 1999, aircraft have mistaken a certain taxiway for a runway. Three aircraft actually landed, the Times said, while five changed their flight paths at the last minute.

[hotelmodemetar]

It is not a shame, Air France did the same at Lisbon 3 years ago:O

[Trentino]

Please excuse my critism because I was not there with the Eva crew but wouldnt it be quite evident that taxiway lights are blue as opposed to the white runway lights?
my questions are
1. How fatigued where the crew?
2. What was the visibility?
3. Was the F/O afraid of the skipper?
4. What was their recency of experience at this airfield?


I feel terrible that this can happen to a crew.
I feel that there must be some underlying issues for this to happen.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

good point, the lights should have been a give away

[Localiser Green]

Runways are the broad concrete expanses where aircraft take off and land. Taxiways are the narrower access roads used by jets and planes to reach the runways for takeoff, or move to the terminal after landing.

About the only time I have ever heard a journo know the difference.

[akerosid]

Frankly I'd prefer the crew knew it rather than journalists.

Maybe a possible addendum to the Flight Ops manual!

[10 DME ARC]

Well in the UK an a/c should only be given take off clearance at or approaching the holding point! 2nd time it has happened off that taxiway!!

[Micky]

Happend to a crew of a c-414 few years ago in dus
they landed on the taxi way:eek:
Low sun light blinded them so they could not tell the difference...

micky

[Taikonaut]

10 DME

Two different taxiway. Both were suppose to takeoff on RWY 32. China Airlines took off on Kilo to the west, parallel to 25R, 90 degrees off. EVA took off on taxiway Yankee which parallels to RWY 32.

Don't know what time of the day or night it happened or whether or not it was snowing at the time. It's now (as of last night) -10, -sn...

From experience, it can be difficult at times especially when requesting full lenght since the holding point for 32 is actually on RWY 07L.

Don't know the crew compostion, whether Chinese, Latin American, Anglo or Phillipino...?:bored:

[411A]

Eva Air has apparently gone the cheap route for the recruitment of flight deck crew, so I'm not surprised in the slightest that this has happened....:yuk:
Wonder when the light in the upper storey will go on...?:uhoh:

[kontrolor]

this http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/asiana_anchorage.htm (one) is still my favourite.

[barit1]

Taxiways are the narrower access roads used by jets and planes...
See, I told you that jets aren't real planes!

[FlyVMO]

Eva Air has apparently gone the cheap route for the recruitment of flight deck crew

Where do they get their crew?
Thanks
Rob

[Flight Detent]

But....

Wouldn't the Flight Engineer be mentioning/interrupting/shouting in their collective ears when they made any attempt to advance the thrust levers when not on the..............

errrrr sorry, I forgot.....we don't need Flight Engineers nowdays, the two pilots are never distracted or miss important indications or caught out wondering 'how it works' or not aware of the consequences of what they are doing/about to do!

If "I told yous so" rings a bell..........

Pretty soon it'll be like Big Ben on Newyears!!

Cheers, (I feel better now!)

FD :bored:

[uncle dickie]

I suppose the beauty of being told to "line up" then allows ATC to confirm you are in the correct position before issuing take-off clearance.

[catchup]

Happened also to a DC 8 freighter at EDDF many years ago. Aircraft didn't make it, went up in the mud beside rwy 18.

[Kalium Chloride]

About the only time I have ever heard a journo know the difference.


Perhaps we can leave the cheap shots out and return to a mature discussion? :rolleyes:

[GearDown&Locked]

An Asia-bound cargo jet was reported taking off from a taxiway instead of its assigned runway at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport

This crew should give thanks to the fact that this particular taxiway was built in a way that let them get away with it without any problem. Some taxiways look like a rollercoaster, and that was not one of them for sure.

GD&L

[GlueBall]

No mention of weather...? I have seen portions of runway lights and taxiway lights covered with freshly plowed snow. Not to make any excuses, but under certain circumstances, given a low visibility situation at night, differentiating between snow covered taxiways and runways can be a challenge. Tunning the ILS for the respective runway after line-up will help if there's any doubt. :eek:

[bugg smasher]

At certain times of the day, both Romeo & Yankee taxiways (parallel to 32 on each side) are in heavy use by Fedex, UPS and Northwest, all of whose ramps are at the departure end of 32. In low viz, like it was early this morning during the heavy snowfall, this could have been a horror show. As if moose(s?) aren’t enough.

Anyone can make a mistake, but in this case, must agree with 411A, time for a Taipei Reality Check(ride).

[klink]

just for info:
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4938/anc8sz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Global Pilot]

Good Point GlueBall!

"Cleared visual approach 27L"...as your turn onto finals you are greeted by 27L, 27R and the bloody well put on in the centre aswell...ooh and the two parallel taxiways!

ILS ident should always be used as a fail safe.

[Weapons_Hot]

klink
Your chart is way out of date - TWY Y extends down to 07L as also indicated on Jep ANC 10-9.

uncle dickie
We use the term "into position and hold" in the States.

For more info, go to www.nankantraz.org (EVA Flight Crew)

[Will Hung]

I'm only a humble PPL so please don't shoot me down in flames. Is it not in some way possible to tune in to the ILS of a particular runway to prevent this from happening ?

[Will Hung]

Thanks Mike Jenvey, I'm amazed it's not a SOP for all airlines. It would have prevented the Singapore incident at Taiwan some time ago.

[speedalive]

Yes Weapons Hot, you do use the phrase "into position and hold," in place of our "line up and wait." Both seem to me to be pretty well understood and unambiguous, but in the US aircraft are often cleared to take off well before they reach the hold, and I've even been cleared to land prior to reaching the FAF. These are practices I personally disagree with, although admittedly they mainly occur at less busy times.

Re using localiser to confirm correct runway - I was taught to do this for ALL night, Low Viz and Intersection departures, and at any time you could not actually SEE the r/w number as far back as the 1980's, and I am surprised this is not SOP for ALL operators, and FTO's.

[Dan Winterland]

Most aircraft have or had the facility to position update the INS or IRS position on selection of take off thrust. But now as most aircraft use GPS this position update doesn't actually happen now. Surely it must be an easy modification to trigger a warning if take off thrust is selected at somewhere other than the threshold of the programmed runway.

Just a thought.

[Weapons_Hot]

Speedalive and Well Hung:
RWY 32 in ANC does not have an ILS - PAPI only.
RWY 14 does have an ILS, although I cannot confirm if it was operational at the time.
As for weather conditions at the time, nothing I have read indicates that LVP were in effect.
I believe that RWY 32 has a displaced threshold for landing, with the runway/landing threshold markings some 1200ft beyond the extension, which commences in RWY 07L. Therefore it is improbable that the crew would be able to see the departure runway markings "32" at the commencement of the takeoff run, which was from the extension.

Dan Winterland:
Update occurs when the thrust levers (throttles) are advanced beyond about 80%. It updates the IRS to the threshold of the departure runway, as set in the FMC, unless there is GPS signal, in which case, the GPS derived position is the default value (with a few exceptions - loss of RAIM, etc.)

[Will Hung]

Weapons_Hot, thanks for that, my name's WILL by the way not WELL (although I have been called that in the past !)

[Weapons_Hot]

WILL Hung
To quell any rumor, I can assure you it was only a typo - promise ;)

[Faire d'income]

Just a point, this type of incident can happen easier than one thinks.

I'm not saying this is what happened because I dont know but try this scenario.

Delayed flight....crew tight on duty time....usual corporate pressure...LVP's......long taxi to runway......offered runway with much shorter taxi....f/o told to get figures for new runway and insterts them( head down )....captain allows himself to get distracted looking at new sid or whatever( head down )....lines up... heads back up....see what you want to see....long concrete...Toga!

This is neither to berate the crew nor to defend them, just to highlight the importance of constant vigilance.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

This from their Nankingtraz website:The flight in question was BR635 on Nov 5, from ANC to TPE with a crew compliment of 3 - PIC, RCA and FO.

The PIC and RCA had in the previous 48 hours, flown ANC/JFK/ANC, and we calculate that from Nov 3, until sign-on on Nov 5 for BR635, had effectively, 21 hours rest. All 3 crew members met CAA minimum rest requirements.

We are unaware of the actual meteorological conditions at the time of the incident.

We know that the airplane, a MD11, was cleared to RWY 32 via TWY K.

However, the crew were advised of a RWY change - RWY 07L, and were cleared to RWY 07L via TWY K.

On entering TWY K, the crew were again advised of a RWY change - RWY 32 extension, and were cleared to taxi on RWY 07L to RWY 32 EXTN. The crew believed upon line up, they were in the line up position for RWY 32 and subsequently took off.

Eventually after takeoff, they were instructed to telephone ANC ARTCC.

Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).

All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.

The PIC and RCA are on leave; the FO had previously resigned and was his last flight before commencing employment with a UAE based carrier. Was fatigue a factor here?

[Airmike767]

ANC has often heavy ice fog this time of year.....it would be interesting to know the conditions, the TW is easy to mistake for the runway.......perhaps the ground radar should have been monitored?

[Quod Boy]

Erm,whats wrong with this picture??

Whoooops.Could be career limiting that one.

QB

[gengis]

Will: "Thanks Mike Jenvey, I'm amazed it's not a SOP for all airlines. It would have prevented the Singapore incident at Taiwan some time ago."


First, that was an accident, not incident.

Second, would you believe that the ILS WAS tuned? This was because the crew had elected to use the "Para-Visual Display" in the reduced visibility. And yet, all these cues that you allude to were missed! There is apparently no 100% foolproof procedure yet that will protect in all situations. No matter what system you come up with, it seems there's always gonna be someone who can slip through!

[dartman]

rwy 32 doesn't have an ILS on it.

[ATC Watcher]

Hang on :
quote :
------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).

All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------

All this is then based on an APP radar trace recording ? Knowing the precison of such (old) radars, and the lateral distance between Y and the RWY , one has to be a bit more careful before sentencing the crew.

The article at the begining of this thread does not affirm this either.

If the crew stick to their story and the TWR did not notice anyhing wrong, I doubt anyone can prove anything.
What was the wind BTW ?

[zerozero]

I'm certainly not pushing any theory but I know for a fact that the tower at PANC has a ground radar system installed (I've personally toured the tower).

The resolution is remarkable. You can see aircraft *and* ground equipment.

Whether or not it was operational at the time of this incident I have no idea.

Be careful out there.

[Few Cloudy]

Flight Engineers are sterling fellows but not a catch-all.

The Tenerife KLM crash was not prevented by one - why not?

Because the crew (CRM uninvented...) did not listen to him and he did not push his point.

FC.

[Old Smokey]

We use the term "into position and hold" in the States

The same term is used, with the same meaning, in Taipei, the home airport of the EVA crews.

It would seem that this was not a factor.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[A-3TWENTY]

It`s the new FUEL ECONOMY POLICY...

:D :D :D

[Rockhound]

Few Cloudy errs when he writes that the KLM FE was not listened to in the Tenerife crash. The KLM 747 had already begun its takeoff roll when a transmission to the tower from the Pan Am 747 that they would report when clear of the runway sounded in the cockpit. The FE questioned the pilots, somewhat tentatively: "Is he not clear, then?".
The KLM Capt., who was PF, responded: "What did you say?". FE: "Is he not clear, that Pan American?". Capt. (emphatically): "Oh, yes ". The co-pilot also answered simultaneously in the affirmative and the FE did not press the point. The captain was convinced he had TO clearance and thus had no doubt the runway was clear.
Rockhound