Pilots blamed INITIALLY in 2006 British Airways crunching of lights at MIA

[fireflybob]

Pilots blamed in 2006 British Airways crunching of lights at MIA (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-0929britishairways,0,3192228.story)

[AMEandPPL]

Why does the headline only blame pilots as usual, when the report ALSO includes :
inadequate lighting to designate where the runway ends

so not entirely the pilots' fault at all, then ?

[free at last]

Most likely, usually, allways, related to pilot actions.:)

[Carnage Matey!]

I guess the previous similar overruns of that runway were pilot error too! Have they improved the stop end lighting there yet?

[sevenstrokeroll]

Piece of advice:

if, upon landing, you are not at or near a dead stop at or near the far end fixed distance marker, prepare for the worst.

[Airbubba]

Here's the NTSB narrative of the incident:

MIA07IA031 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20061227X01849&ntsbno=MIA07IA031&akey=1)

And here's the probable cause:

MIA07IA031 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061227X01849&key=1)

Often, these VIP charters are done with management pilots who don't fly that much from what I've seen at other carriers.

A lot of progress has been made in runway and taxiway markings in recent years. Even places like CDG and ORD have tried to sort out the maze of exits and parallels that result from decades of expansion of a 1960's dream airport. Closed pavement is marked much more dramatically, perhaps the SQ crash at TPE several years ago finally got the ball rolling on this one.

As someone observed after the Comair crash in LEX, we have better situational awareness driving to work with a $200 GPS than we do taxiing an airliner at a major airport.

[411A]

As someone observed after the Comair crash in LEX, we have better situational awareness driving to work with a $200 GPS than we do taxiing an airliner at a major airport.
That 'someone' was full of cr*p.
GPS or no GPS. situational awareness is one of several primary duties of pilots.
Can't stand the heat, get the heck out of the (FD) kitchen.
There is absolutely NO excuse for pilots taxying over lights, if they are illuminated.
None, nil, zip.

[forget]

There is absolutely NO excuse for pilots taxying over lights, if they are illuminated. None, nil, zip.

Perhaps you've never taxied a really big aeroplane.

[ibelieveicanfly]

well said Forget.
411A : bloody h.....le!it is easy to critisize some other pilots.have you ever done any mistake?if you do nothing you won't,do you?
or once it will catch you.

[747-436]

Often, these VIP charters are done with management pilots who don't fly that much from what I've seen at other carriers.

I don't think it was a VIP charter, think it was a scheduled flight with line pilots.

[Sunshine Express]

They broke two 12" lights. Hardly a major incident.

A real pisser but not a disaster. Only became a big deal because of who was on board.

[FlyMD]

As someone observed after the Comair crash in LEX, we have better situational awareness driving to work with a $200 GPS than we do taxiing an airliner at a major airport.

Good comment. Since they put the GPS-supported Jeppesen airport chart on our Gulfstream (on a to-scale map, a little green aircraft symbol appears at the present position), our situational awareness has grown considerably, and taxiing around AMS or similarly complicated airports is a breeze.

As for 411A, you can safely ignore him. I'm not gonna repeat what he is, but he is a flaming one of the kind....

[thunderbird7]

I remember getting lost in exactly the same spot a couple of weeks previous to this incident. Easily done as the lighting layout did not seem to have any coherent pattern.

Sorry I'm not perfect either 411A

[mr Q]

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5340-24 Runway and Taxiway Edge Lighting Systems, published in September 1975, described standards for design, installation, and maintenance of runway and taxiway lighting for airports. Appendix 2 of the AC included diagrams of acceptable methods of light arrangements. On page 3 of the appendix, two locations for placement of threshold lights are shown, both outboard and inboard of the runway edge.

In April of 2004, AC 15/5340-24 was incorporated into AC 150/5340-30, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids. This AC no longer included the diagram showing threshold lights installed outside the runway edges, except for instances where usable pavement, such as a taxiway, extended beyond the threshold. The AC was revised in April of 2005, and became AC 150/5340-30A. It was again revised in August of 2006 and was renamed AC 150/5340-30B. Neither of these revisions included the former method of installing threshold lights outboard of a runway, except when usable pavement extended beyond the threshold. It is noted that the 2004 and 2005 versions of the AC stated, "The standards contained herein are effective for all new construction. Upgrades for all future lighting systems should use this standard." There was no mention in either AC of any requirement to proactively upgrade existing installations. Figures 3 and 4 show currently approved standards for threshold lighting.

Page 1 of AC 150/5340-30B, stated that: "All lighting configurations contained in this standard including declared distances and yellow-green taxiway centerline lead-on lines are the only means acceptable to the Administrator and must be incorporated within 6 months after signature of this AC." Safety Board staff asked the FAA whether or not this requirement applied to existing threshold lighting configurations, as stated in the AC. In an official response dated March 15, 2007, the FAA replied:

"This change was not included in the paragraph, Principal Changes, in AC 150/5340-30 because it was not intended that existing systems be modified to conform to the new standard. When AC 150/5340-30B was published, it stated, "All lighting configurations contained in this standard including declared distances and yellow-green taxiway centerline lead-on lights are the only means acceptable to the Administrator and must be incorporated within 6 months after signature of this AC." This change was intended to rapidly implement new taxiway/runway intersection lighting standards, which could be accomplished in the time period specified because the change would only require changing lenses on lighting fixtures. The language, which conveyed a requirement to upgrade taxiway end lighting was inadvertently included. This could not reasonably be accomplished in six months, and it was not our intention to include such a requirement. However, after further consideration, we are currently reviewing our standards for runway end lighting and anticipate additional changes. We expect to make such changes mandatory, and will specify a reasonable compliance period."

Safety Board staff also asked the FAA how many runways in the United States had threshold lights that did not meet the current standard. The FAA replied that they "do not keep any records that indicate the number of Part 139 airports that have threshold lights not meeting the standards in AC 150/5340-30B." It was noted that, in addition to runway 12/30, runway 8R/26L at MIA had similar threshold lights that did not meet the current standards.

[411A]

It was noted that, in addition to runway 12/30, runway 8R/26L at MIA had similar threshold lights that did not meet the current standards.

All the more reason BA should have generated a briefing bulletin for pilots, as MIA was, and still is, a regular destination for the airline.
I worked for two small(er) airlines that had the capacity to generate these briefing bulletins...and one of these is now the largest in SE Asia.

So, the question then remains...just why was BA not up to snuff, in this department?:}

[L337]

411A is a Troll, and best ignored.

He contributes very little to this forum.

With luck his latest wind-up will be deleted. Just like his last one was.

[Rainboe]

The BA pilot briefing is computer generated, for a flight like MIA can be some 8 feet long or more. It tries to cut out the unnecessary stuff (do we need all these warnings about cranes? Just keep them out of the flightpath and I don't need to know!). Frankly, there is far too much unimportant information in these briefings, and I am also quite convinced from long personal experience that of what is in these Notams, 50% at any one time is either incorrect or expired. I used to look at the mass of information in the briefings in despair, wondering how I was going to wade through it.

Quite simply, for a major international terminal like MIA, all I want to know is displaced thresholds due WIP or radio aids out. I need know nothing else. If the lighting standard is some unique lash up, then the place should be closed and brought up to date, then opened. I do not need to know what taxiways are out- by the time the information has filtered through communications systems and airline briefing departments, the WIP is probably NIP anymore. the ground controllers will tell me what to do and where to go and how to get there. That is the way it should be, so how was confusion caused? This threshold area of 12 where it is near the EW runway was a real badly laid out corner. Something fooled an experienced crew. Instead of throwing mud, we need to see why it is such a lash-up.

[Airbubba]

Frankly, there is far too much unimportant information in these briefings, and I am also quite convinced from long personal experience that of what is in these Notams, 50% at any one time is either incorrect or expired. I used to look at the mass of information in the briefings in despair, wondering how I was going to wade through it.


Amen, brother Rainboe, amen. There is so much junk in 1930's teletype format, Notams in coded form, NDB's out of service for enroute airports, runway closures hidden in pounds of paper. Some folks seem to thrive on the complexity, I don't.

In some places in Asia and the Middle East, pilots still get somewhat of a real briefing with gotchas highlighted and planned taxi and departure routes printed out. In the U.S., you usually just get a pile of paper and a phone number for a dispatcher who may be a thousand miles away on the other side of a phone menu inspired by Dell Product Support. I rarely bother to make the call anymore, they are usually too busy working other flights to give much individual attention.

A few more crashes and perhaps someday more attention will be paid to the user interface on the paperwork.

[Lou Scannon]

I have every sympathy for the BA crew...but there again I have managed to get the wheels of a large civil aeroplane on the grass whilst taxying at a US airport, albeit one of their Military ones.

My excuse?...it was night and raining so the flight deck side windows were slightly obscured. I kept well away from the blue taxyway lights when making a sharp left turn and felt more than a little surprise when I realised that my left wheels were on the slightly damp green stuff.

I later found out that the taxyway lights were not set on the edge of the tarmac, but several feet into the grass, so the picture was right but not the actuality.

Unlike the BA crew, all my incident required was a little spade work from the Flight Engineer, a large piece of PSP to stick on front of the left wheels and we were soon back on dry land. He later told me that he had been based at that particular field and knew that the shovels and PSP were stored in a small shed next to the taxyway as pilots managed to use the grass on a regular basis at night.

Bad lighting?...a regular event?....but still embarrassing!

[RAT 5]

"There is absolutely NO excuse for pilots taxying over lights, if they are illuminated.
None, nil, zip."

1. Not true. Many lights are hardened and sunken into the surface just so they CAN be taxied over. Not red ones, I grant you.

2. AC 150/5340-30B states that, "Where operations are not conducted below 1200 ft RVR, neither taxiway centerline lead-on or lead-off may be installed within the confines of the runway. Further, if the taxiway is perpendicular and dead-ends into the runway, the taxiway centerline light nearest the runway must be installed 150 feet from the centerline of the runway. Otherwise, taxiway centerline lights must not extend into the confines of the runway…" Taxiway Q at MIA was configured according to the FAA standards for marking and lighting.

Why for the love of the aviation God why is this a requirement? No matter what the RVR, and 1200' is not excessive, at night in heavy rain you need all the help you can get to stay on the hard stuff; especially with ATC asking you to "expedite vacating," which is not unheard of in USA. (they push tin on the ground as well.) To deliberately not have guidance lighting extending into the runway service, when sunken light systems are available, seems an accident waiting to happen. Is this a case of 'not designed and built here so don't want it.'

[411A]

Poor 'ole Big Airways, they seem to have rather bad luck in North America.
Engine failure on takeoff, then continuing all the way to LHR...and not able.
Taxying over frangible light bits...gosh, what a shame.
Perhaps the bearded one's airline can take over some of the routes, as they seem to do a slightly better job...in more ways than one.:cool:

[Human Factor]

As heard in many a BA briefing room:

Charts, charts, charts, charts, charts, charts.......

To be fair, it's got a lot better recently.

[L337]

@411A

/yawn

[Ignition Override]

Airbubba:

Yep, those sophisticated FAA notams can be of very limited help in the winter, with lights inop or working and unknown timing of plowing runways, taxiways (keeping lights cleared off?). And Dispatch is allowed to find more ways to use creative wx forecasting to sometimes avoid alternate fuel, if allowed by us.

This winter, if we anticipate landing more than about 15 minutes after tower closes with falling light snow etc, we will have a braking action report from a jet with MSP or ORD Center etc, and Dispatch will hear about this need before we begin the preflight.
Outsourcing rampers has led to interesting late departures and unknown conditions during arrivals.

Oh well, back to SKS and MN 44 discussions.
Commie-built rifles (no, not Kalifornia), what cheap, dependable fun! Keep this a secret...
It's been a wonderful change from reading about this industry, and the boring aloofness of our ever-present resident expert in all matters aviation...

[The SSK]

NTSB have withdrawn the report from their website.
Oops

[Hotel Mode]

If the lights were that at fault, at one of the worlds busiest airports - how come similar incidients are well, nigh on zero?

Because 30 is a fairly unusual landing runway and BA is one of the few (only?) 747 operator into MIA that would wish to vacate towards the end of 30 due its (now former) terminal location.

[Pontius]

411A,

Once again your ignorance of the facts does your posting no good whatsoever.

Engine failure on takeoff, then continuing all the way to LHR...and not able.

No, they did not continue to LHR; they continued towards it. There is a BIG difference. You like to make it sound as if you know all the details and factors which the crew would have taken into account but, evidently, you do not. The CAA regulations, under which BA operate, permit the continuation of the flight in a 4-engine aircraft if certain conditions have been fulfilled. The crew complied with those conditions and continued their flight. Doubtless you will have some comment on their decision but save yourself the typing because you have absolutely no credence in these pages and no-one wants to hear your unsupported and factless suppositions. You were not there, you do not fly for BA, you do not fly under CAA regulations and have no grounds on which your base your disparaging remarks apart from what you would have done :rolleyes:

Perhaps the bearded one's airline can take over some of the routes, as they seem to do a slightly better job...in more ways than one Tw*t, VS already fly to MIA. You really need to learn more of what goes on in the real world, rather than that little tin-pot museum flight for whom you operate.

[411A]

No, they did not continue to LHR; they continued towards it.

Yes, with an engine failure right after departure, and the destination some eleven hours distant.
Flawed mental process on the part of the Commander, no more, no less.
IF Big Airways should try this stunt again, I suspect that the USDOT will have the FAA suspend BA's 14CFR129 authority...and yes, they have to have same to continue scheduled services to America, on a regular basis.

As for the incident at MIA, flawed operational decision, no more, no less...unless we consider the possibility that these frangible lights were just waiting for Big Airways, and rushed to the scene to partake of the situation...:}

[L337]

I think 411A is going senile. He only visits this forum to post disparaging remarks about the British, and BA in particular.

His posts are becoming more childish with the passage of time.

[Carnage Matey!]

IF Big Airways should try this stunt again, I suspect that the USDOT will have the FAA suspend BA's 14CFR129 authority...and yes, they have to have same to continue scheduled services to America, on a regular basis.

Wonder what happened to that big fine the FAA were talking about giving BA? It all went rather quiet when the FAA realised the stupidity of their own situation.

As for the incident at MIA, flawed operational decision, no more, no less...unless we consider the possibility that these frangible lights were just waiting for Big Airways, and rushed to the scene to partake of the situation

Just waiting for the other American carriers who've also hit them too no doubt.

[Airbubba]

NTSB have withdrawn the report from their website.
Oops

The links I posted earlier still work for me, perhaps they rely on a cookie dropped on my computer or they persist in my cache (whatever that means :) ).

[The SSK]

Airbubba: The links I posted earlier still work for me, perhaps they rely on a cookie dropped on my computer or they persist in my cache (whatever that means ).

When I open that second link, I don't see the 'probable cause' that you mention, merely a summary version of the facts.

[Basil]

It was also Cathay policy, in the event of a single engine failure on a four, to continue towards destination.
There is plenty of time to continue climb, stabilise the situation, take all possibilities into account - range, further failure, high ground, O2, en route alternates, discuss with ops: availability of onward aircraft, maintenance, least disruption to pax, port with highest allowances. If good: continue, if not: return. You're only going to dump the fuel anyway.
After the fuss about BA going into Manch I don't know what policy in BA & CX is now.

[Airbubba]

When I open that second link, I don't see the 'probable cause' that you mention, merely a summary version of the facts.

You're absolutely right, the paragraph about the 'probable cause' has indeed disappeared. Hmmm...

[Shore Guy]

Report blaming British Airways pilots for runway light damage at Miami International Airport released prematurely, NTSB says -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbntsb1002sboct02,0,1708869.story)

[Pontius]

Yes, with an engine failure right after departure, and the destination some eleven hours distant.
Flawed mental process on the part of the Commander, no more, no less.


Once again, the self-proclaimed expert on all things aviation comes out with a sweeping statement about which he knows so little. 411A, you may consider it 'flawed' to continue but you're used to your clapped out, junk yard specials in the aviation bowels of the world. I will say this v..e...r...y slowly so you can understand. An engine failure in a 744 is not a big deal. If the terrain (in case another engine fails), alternates and fuel allow it, the Company policy, the CAA policy and, indeed, the preferred policy of anyone who matters on the subject of BA's 744s is to continue. The destination will, obviously, be taken into account and I know of no-one who would continue to LOS or MEX but going towards LHR, knowing you have so many places to go if something else happens is not 'flawed' thinking. It may well represent different thinking to such a self-opinionated, has-been (in his own head) as you but one day you'll, maybe, realise that it's not the rest of the world that's wrong.

And, since you do love your clear cut statements. I'm right and you're wrong. Simple as, so get over it.

[Dan Winterland]

Having operated into many large US airports (including MIA), I've often thought that it would be nice if those airports could operate to some sort of worldwide standard where pilots from every country could understand the lighting and markings without ambiguity and risking their aircraft.

It's not just MIA, JFK, SFO, EWR, and BOS all have some sort of issues which are a challenge to Threat and Error Management. (TEM, the new buzzword which is replacing CRM!) Having extensive NOTAMS and briefings is all good and well, but when faced with the problem in poor vis/rain, when you're fatigued and ATC are telling you to get off the runway 'NOW", the threats are mounting up and mistakes are more likely to be made.




PS: Those worldwide standards exist of course. The Chinese can manage it - why can't the US?

[411A]

Those worldwide standards exist of course. The Chinese can manage it - why can't the US?

Two reasons.

1) China has been involved in civil aviation on a large international scale for only a relatively short time.

2) The USA, on the other hand, has had far more experience, on a huge scale for a very long time, so we can do what we want.

Others have a choice, of course.
Don't like it, don't fly here.

Quite simple, really.

...but when faced with the problem in poor vis/rain, when you're fatigued and ATC are telling you to get off the runway 'NOW"....


An interesting observation.
One must ask, however...just whom is flying the airplane, you or ATC?

[chuks]

The pilot in command is the final authority and takes the ultimate responsibility but the outcome is determined by many things. You have the crew, the aircraft, ATC, the environment and lots of other things too.

Unless you think (or in some cases here, know) you are Superman then you have to acknowledge that you as PIC can be caught out by something such as lighting set up differently to what you are used to. It's easy to be wise after the fact but when events are unfolding it can be a different story. Afterwards, of course, you have to take the blame!

I used to operate at Lagos, where we could enjoy all sorts of weird features, missing signs, markings and lights, a taxiway that seemed to allow a direct crossing of the active but had no exit on the other side, another exit that saw you turning the wrong way first, humps, dips and big holes, radio blind spots for no obvious reason... You would be listening to some airline crew new to the place getting themselves tied in knots trying to figure out what to do next when there was nothing wrong with their airmanship, it was just a lack of local knowledge.

The ideal is having things the same wherever we go but we just are not there yet and probably never will be. The States can be a problem because of our sheer size, "We do things differently but so what?" is the basic attitude, as so succinctly enunciated above. You come to the States, you need to figure out how we do things. That really is sub-optimal, making us part of the problem instead of part of the solution but...

I once had a fascinating dialogue with the white man in charge of a new regional airport "somewhere in Africa". The exit from the runway involved two 90° turns flanked by deep, unguarded monsoon ditches. I told him that this was just an accident waiting to happen, when he pointed out the pale yellow stripes on the taxiway plus the fact that "Everyone has been told not to go straight ahead."

I had figured on a bizjet going in a ditch in the rain, maybe a nice, new GV. Instead it was a helo, when a main rotor blade flew over the terminal to land in the parking lot, killing no-one. Next week the ditches were covered!

It is just human nature that we have to deal with, ours and that of others.

[Airbubba]

PS: Those worldwide standards exist of course. The Chinese can manage it - why can't the US?

Not sure I would call the Chinese very standard. Metric RVSM? Bilingual ATC? At least you always get a follow me truck turning onto the ramp...

[bubbers44]

Being based at MIA for 13 years I can understand confusion with taxiway signs and lights. I hated landing at night and getting off on an unfamiliar taxiway and finding myself back to familiar territory. I have even heard ground control appologize for the confusing signs when pilots couldn't figure out what they meant. If BA crunched a couple of lights, no big deal. It doesn't mean they were unprofessional, just made a tiny mistake. I landed at Denver once in a snowstorm and it took forever to get to the gate because all the taxiway signs were covered with snow, the visibility was bad and it was night time at an unfamiliar airport. I knew the chances of screwing up were very high no matter how careful I was. I hate trying to find my gate using my compass.

[banana9999]

Report blaming British Airways pilots for runway light damage at Miami International Airport released prematurely, NTSB says -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbntsb1002sboct02,0,1708869.story)

Who gets to investigate this "accident" ? :)

[Roy Bouchier]

As Bubbers44 says, Miami is confusing. I was based at FLL for years and always disliked it when we had to reposition or divert to MIA. Unfortunately, unlike many posters here, I was only human and occasionally would make a mistake.

[Da Dog]

I would rather fly into LOS than any of the third world airports in the USA, you know the ones..... MIA,JFK,LAX and my very favourite ORD.

The US in my book is one to be avoided:yuk::yuk:

[Airbubba]

The US in my book is one to be avoided

Take four more with you...:)

[pedropedro]

A few facts, but dont let these get in the way of a story about "pilots not paying attention"
The lights were not to US standard (their words) and were upgraded 3 months after the event. The approach lights to RW 12 should have been back lit, they were not and were invisible from 36ft, cockpit ht. (2 FAA inspectors and the regional NTSB inspector in question agreed) The lights that lead off the Q area of RW 30 were bi-directional and should have omni -directional, fact. So guess what, you cant see them except over yr shoulder looking backwards and then only for a second. Why hasnt this happened before? well it has, VS ended up in the grass. There are very few 747 operators that go to MIA, very few land on rw 30, so very few that venture down that end of the RW. The westerly RW was asked for and was declined. When the error was realised, the airplane was stopped and assistance asked for, the safest thing to do.
2 out of the 3 pilots had landed on RW 30 just prior to the incident in daylight and had gd mental model about the expected picture, yet were still confused when faced with night landing. Does anybody here think that non standard and confusing lights could possibly could have contributed to the cause of the incident??? Let me re-iterate, non standard and confusing lights.
to quote from NTSB report
"They recommended that runway end lights be placed behind each runway 12 approach light and that runway turnoff guidance lighting be installed."


The FAA (both ex DC10 trng Capt) inspectors agreed 100% and when drove down the RW the following night, (MIA closed the RW) they couldnt see the RW exits either and they were in a car doing 5mph. Is anybody convinced yet?


The FAA produced a circular prompted by this event

"However, after further consideration, we are currently reviewing our standards for runway end lighting and anticipate additional changes"

So, by inference, surely this means that there could be a problem with the lighting at MIA in particular.

Also, same report.


"It was noted that, in addition to runway 12/30, runway 8R/26L at MIA had similar

threshold lights that did not meet the current standards."



The crew were fully exonerated of any blame by the FAA inspector, and the NTSB inspector and more importantly BA at the time.



Please feel free to add, 411A, you are a kn** and have obviously never taxied a big airplane, must hurt.

[Flap62]

411A

Much as I hate to bite:

The USA, on the other hand, has had far more experience, on a huge scale for a very long time, so we can do what we want

Without turning this into an anti-US rant, do you ever wonder why the USA is held in contempt by whole swathes of the world?

[Airbubba]

Without turning this into an anti-US rant, do you ever wonder why the USA is held in contempt by whole swathes of the world?

Anti-US rants are traditional here on PPRuNe. Check out an American pilot forum, we don't spend our time putting down England. And we don't worry too much about what other nations think of us while they are trying to copy our exceptional success in every area. The waiting list for green cards grows longer every year.

Don't have such an inferiority complex, England has a great history and nobody does a better parade!:)

[Flap62]

Airbubba

And we don't worry too much about what other nations think of us

That's the problem!!

Maybe you should fella!

By the way, I'm British,not English - there is a difference.

[His dudeness]

what other nations think of us while they are trying to copy our exceptional success in every area.


Thanks Airbubba, that one made my day.....you are a great comedian, sir! :D :D :D

[FrequentSLF]

SLF here

Reading the last posts, I do wonder how some highly qualified professionals are wasting their time arguing if Europe is better than USA or vice versa.
You ask us (SLFs) to trust your professionalism and judgement...while you get involved in this backyard fights?
I do not expect that a professional pilot is so emotional

[Flap62]

Hardly rabid rants - you really ought to lighten up a bit. Oh and Rainboe, your schoolmasterish tone makes you sound like a pompous prat. Oh I give in!

[His dudeness]

Frequent SLF,
professional pilots are humans, with the same failures than 'the rest'. Thus some ranting against oversized egos is just plain normal, even here.

OnT: the signs, lights and their placement should be same all over the world. Wether US or ICAO style, the russian or Chines system - I don´t care, but I´d like to have a single system.
Any pilot that has landed at some not too familiar place at night, after a long flight with sometimes sort of inadequate charts (even the Jepessen charts leave a LOT to be desired when it comes to airfield layout charts) maybe rain and with reflexions of strong lights that often seem to be mounted with the single purpose to blind pilots, knows that **** like that happens.

[FrequentSLF]

His dudeness


professional pilots are humans, with the same failures than 'the rest'. Thus some ranting against oversized egos is just plain normal, even here.

Yes, you are right...
Is what I was thinking..but please read the full thread and you will see that few of the professional believe that they are immune to failures because of their professionalism and training.
Of course, my post will be bashed by those same people because I am not a pilot and thus not qualified to express my opinion on such issues...
All the best

[His dudeness]

Is what I was thinking..but please read the full thread and you will see that most of the professional believe that they are immune to failures because of their professionalism and training.

I did that and I think you are is wrong. There is one guy that does not make ANY mistakes and has a comment on any error/mistake/incident that is discussed here. He never ever makes mistakes. IF that his real opinion and assesment of his flying than he is a really dangerous aviator. However, rest assured that most pilots know that they are not unfailable and try to learn from every mistake they or others make. That is, for me at least, true proffesionalism, in ANY profession.

[Tight Accountant]

"Often, these VIP charters are done with management pilots who don't fly that much from what I've seen at other carriers".

Not quite sure where this came from. As far as I know, BA209 is a scheduled flight.

[FrequentSLF]

I did that and I think you are is wrong. There is one guy that does not make ANY mistakes and has a comment on any error/mistake/incident that is discussed here. He never ever makes mistakes. IF that his real opinion and assesment of his flying than he is a really dangerous aviator.

Yes, I did you use a wrong word, instead of most I shall have used few...post edited to correct that.

However, rest assured that most pilots know that they are not unfailable and try to learn from every mistake they or others make. That is, for me at least, true proffesionalism, in ANY profession.

Best sentence of this thread. Would be my honour to buy a drink to you. :D
I mean it!

[Simeng]

From the BA Intranet - My bold :D

BA sets record straight on 747 incident

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has amended a report into a minor ground incident involving a British Airways aircraft, which had wrongly placed some blame on the flight crew.

The incident involving a Boeing 747 happened at Miami International Airport on December 26, 2006.

After a normal landing the flight crew took the precaution of requesting assistance because the lights guiding aircraft from the runway to the taxiway were unclear.

When airport ground personnel arrived, the flight crew were informed that the aircraft had made contact with two of the ground lights.

The aircraft had not left the runway, no passengers or crew were injured and the aircraft was undamaged.

Tim Steeds, head of safety and security, said: "The original report into the incident placed some of the blame with the BA flight crew. This was incorrect and totally unjustified.

"We raised our concerns immediately with the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The NTSB has since corrected its report."

The updated report, now published on the NTSB website, makes it clear the incident was caused primarily by inadequate and non-standard lighting on the runway

[forget]

"We raised our concerns immediately with the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The NTSB has since corrected its report."

The updated report, now published on the NTSB website, makes it clear the incident was caused primarily by inadequate and non-standard lighting on the runway

Real third world stuff. Where's our very own steely eyed sky-god - aka 411a.

[411A]

We raised our concerns immediately with the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch. The NTSB has since corrected its report."

In other words, Big Airways were unable to accept responsibility for their inept action, and went crying to the AAIB.
Par for the course, I expect.
Odds are, it was a First Officer who was taxiing the airplane...always a large mistake.

[forget]

411A, at times, you could be amusing with your over inflated ego. But I can't remember when the amusement stopped.

After a normal landing the flight crew took the precaution of requesting assistance because the lights guiding aircraft from the runway to the taxiway were unclear.

These people were operating an aeroplane (a really big one remember) with real passengers on aboard. The statement above shows that they were well up to the job. Their company had paid navigation and landing fees in the expectation that the airport would be equipped/configured in a first world fashion. Bad mistake on their part. :mad:

[411A]

After a normal landing the flight crew took the precaution of requesting assistance because the lights guiding aircraft from the runway to the taxiway were unclear.

You missed the part about having taxied over lights prior.
IF the crew had doubts, seems to me they should have held position prior to making contact with frangible lights, and then asked for assistance.
That they did not, brought problems.
Perhaps a little retraining is in order.

[FullWings]

You missed the part about having taxied over lights prior.
IF the crew had doubts, seems to me they should have held position prior to making contact with frangible lights, and then asked for assistance.
You missed the part about them not being able to see the lights because they weren't the right type or in the right position... It was dark, you know? Please tell us how you would have avoided an invisible obstruction on the runway so we can all learn from it. :rolleyes:

[Simeng]

Please tell us how you would have avoided an invisible obstruction on the runway so we can all learn from it.

Step 1 - Remove head from backside

[TopBunk]

Re 411a:
Step 1 - Remove head from backsideThe problem is that he is so far up his own backside, it is so large and he has been there so long that he has come to think of it as the real world:p

[safetypee]

Why initially, did a reputable investigation (NTSB) came to such a poor conclusion. Taken at first sight, the focus on the crew was little more than blame culture.
This could of course be due to a ‘rushed job’, or ‘an incident of little consequence’, these are too reflect human weakness, which probably have latent deficiencies at their root.
The first report was not the standard normally expected, but in conjunction with some of the contributions to this thread, it could be an indication of national culture, although hopefully not a professional one.

[Shaka Zulu]

Am I going to bite.....maybe a little then.
411A you are a tw*t. If you had bothered to read the frangible lights weren't visible from the flight deck. But you wouldn't know because you've never taxied a 747.
And about your FO taxiing remark, yes sky god....live in your own little world but stop commenting of stuff that you know nothing about. Your training is from the dinosaur age and it must be hard to change and go with the times.

[L337]

Odds are, it was a First Officer who was taxiing the airplane...always a large mistake.

Honestly 411A, comments like that only serve to demonstrate just how dated and out of touch you are.

Trust me the world has moved on. First Officers, are not only human, but they are responsible adults as well.

In my experience Captains who refuse to trust the First Officer, irrespective of demonstrated ability, are always without exception poor under confident Captains themselves. Captains with ability have the capacity and the skills to let the FO be P1. Note I said P1 not the Captain.

I can only conclude that your determination to control every aspect of the operation is because you did not have those skills or the capacity required.

[GearDown&Locked]

I'll step in and help old 411a save the burned ego a little...

Odds are, it was a First Officer who was taxiing the airplane...always a large mistake.

...if the plane doesn't have a tiller on his side of the deck :}


which is not the case I'm led to believe

GD&L:ok:

[overstress]

My interest in this is that I also operate into MIA for the company concerned.

Some of the markings/lights in the USA are very poor at night, I'm thinking of JFK in the dark and rain. I have actually shut down and been towed onto stand in those conditions.

BTW, I have 411a on ignore (I recommend it!), but am curious as to how he is permitted to continue spouting drivel on these forums? One can be wound up by him simply by observing the reactions of those who have chosen to not use the ignore function!

[Dan Winterland]

The updated report, now published on the NTSB website, makes it clear the incident was caused primarily by inadequate and non-standard lighting on the runway

And lighting is inadequate and non standard at many other US airports. I mentioned this and the 411a response was that as the US 'invented aviation' they could do what they liked. That unprofessional attitude seems to prevail in the US. They don't follow ICAO standards and don't seem interested. They still get incidents and the attitude seems to be like 411a's - "Can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen".

[411A]

"Can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen".

Yup, about sums it up, quite nicely.

Now then, here is a a reasonable alternative...

I'm thinking of JFK in the dark and rain. I have actually shut down and been towed onto stand in those conditions.


If careless folks go taxying over frangible lights, when a reasonable alternative is a tow, expect to find yourself mentioned in the eventual NTSB report.

Simple as that.

[llondel]

If careless folks go taxying over frangible lights, when a reasonable alternative is a tow, expect to find yourself mentioned in the eventual NTSB report.

My reading of the situation is that had they stopped to wait for a tow before hitting the lights, they'd have sat on the end of the runway and annoyed a lot of other people who then couldn't land or take off. I bet that would have had an overall cost far higher than replacing a couple of lights.

[411A]

My reading of the situation is that had they stopped to wait for a tow before hitting the lights, they'd have sat on the end of the runway and annoyed a lot of other people who then couldn't land or take off

Who is taxying the airplane?
The concerned pilot, or 'a lot of other people'?

I presently operate to some rather poorly lighted airfields in Africa with a large wide-body airplane, often times with congested apron areas, and to go blindly pressing ahead while taxying the airplane, when either a follow-me vehicle or a tow would be the better alternative, is foolhardy in the extreme.

Apparently, BA feel differently, so they ended up with damage to ground lighting equipment.

The concerned pilot was, in three words...not especially bright.

[fullyspooled]

411A,

I guess you must have missed post #52 by pedropedro, or perhaps you chose to ignore the facts as subsequently stated by the NTSB, and their admissions that the airport lighting was not correctly configured, and that it was not possible for the crew to have actually seen the lights they overan. The lights were not only incorrectly placed, but were also of the wrong directional type, and as a result of this they have since been changed and brought up to ICAO standard. Furthermore, and perhaps much to your annoyance, the crew of a respected airline have been relieved of any blame.

The NTSB in this instance have admitted "rushing" out a flawed report, but unlike them you prefer to stick to your first take - even if subsequent evidence or facts fail to support it.

Any reading of your past postings leads me to form the opinion that your particular personality trait is not of the type best suited to the role of being an aircraft commander in this current day and age. You appear to be balanced in only one respect - that you have a chip on both shoulders. My guess is that you were abused as a co-pilot - and I'll guess further that it was because you were an over confident under achiever in the right hand seat - and deserved what you got!




.

[L337]

411A, you are a broken old record.

If it's British, and or BA you just cannot help yourself. Your prejudice renders any opinions about either worthless.

[JazzyKex]

A very interesting observation fullyspooled!

The old adage 'empty vessels make the most noise' seems to be more than appropriate when describing 411... Vacuous as a Captain relegated to the minor leagues of African aviation in an antique machine, reliant on bluster and pomposity. Where else and for which modern day forward thinking operators could so empty a noise maker ply his now almost extinct form of our (to most) open and constructively self critical trade!

I'm sure such a challenging Captain could have only been the product of an extremely challenged FO, the sediment always finds it's way to the bottom...maybe it's time to drain the sump!

Happy landings :ok:

Jazzy

[411A]

My guess is that you were abused as a co-pilot - and I'll guess further that it was because you were an over confident under achiever in the right hand seat - and deserved what you got!

You perhaps might like to guess again, fullyspooled, as I have never been a co-pilot in a jet airplane...and have been flying heavy jet transport types as a Commander since 1974.
Nice try, wrong conclusion, on your part.
To be expected.

You perhaps might not like my style, but on the other hand, I haven't taxied over frangible light bits, either.

Pilots who simply do not watch what they are doing, while on the ground, especially when they are unsure of ground lighting or other issues with regard to unfamiliar taxiway/apron layouts, and further do not ask for assistance, will find grief, sooner or later.
Clearly, some of the pilots at BA have their beaks well above ground effect, and go into unfamiliar areas unaided, regardless.
Also, to be expected.

[Jumbo Driver]

... as I have never been a co-pilot in a jet airplane...

Aaahh ... that would explain the level achieved in the practical part of the Inter-Personal Skills Course, then ...


JD
;)

[411A]

...practical part of the Inter-Personal Skills Course...

Just another name for the psycho-babble nonsense practised today, by many airlines.
BA included, no doubt.
Clearly, it doesn't prevent taxi incidents.
Perhaps actually looking out the window might work slightly better.:rolleyes:

[hunterboy]

I'm still astounded that the NTSB would make an error like this. It was either pilot error or it wasn't. A phone call from the BA Head of Safety shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the report if the NTSB are publishing the facts. It makes you wonder how many other NTSB reports are works of fiction that haven't yet been challenged. Sadly,I feel that the NTSB have lost a lot of credibility here. It almost smacks of a pro-American institutional bias within the NTSB ?
Perhaps 411A works for the NTSB?

[Dan Winterland]

They're just an incompetant organisation working in what is rapidly becoming a third world country :E

[GearDown&Locked]

Everybody makes mistakes - and that includes the prodigal son of gawd himself, aka 411a (must me his son, 'cos gawd owns the airline, otherwise how on earth can you land on the RHS directly without the FO experience)

Mistakes can be called by other names depending on the POV.

1-Well first of all MIA, for not having the lighting system up to international standards as per regulations.:zzz:
2-The NTSB, because they rushed things.:\
3-The classical "Laissez-faire" American attitude when it comes to evaluate their own sub-standard aviation industry but keen on keeping the foreigners under close scrutiny.:=
4-these pilots for choosing MIA over HKG as long haul route:ugh:

411a,
theoretically you can go on forever without making a single mistake, but at the same time you can be forcing others to make them in your behalf, ain't it?
Be well fly safe and take good care of that good old Tri-Star... we need her back at the museum in one piece.

GD&L :ok:

[Jumbo Driver]

Just another name for the psycho-babble nonsense practised today, by many airlines.
BA included, no doubt.


I think everybody else will understand what is meant 411A - but that just illustrates the problem with you, doesn't it ... ?

JD
:)

[411A]

but that just illustrates the problem with you, doesn't it ... ?


ROFL.

If there is a so-called 'problem', it must be shared by quite a few older Commanders, JumboDriver, as many of us have the same opinions.
When we all retire, then you can double the psycho-babble training, for what it's worth (which ain't much)...:rolleyes:

[chuks]

Our sky-god operates a large aircraft to Africa and wants to diss others for their presumed mistakes while boasting that he, sorry, He has never made one himself. That is bold!

I must have flown with his twin brother as a thin layer of scum on the RHS of a DC-3. Forget CRM, his twin brother didn't even believe in headsets!

I look forward with interest to the story about the L-1011 parked on top of the Airport Commandant's Peugeot 504 and what happened afterwards. It will make this bickering about squashing a measly set of taxiway lights pale in comparison.

[Jumbo Driver]

You are, dear 411A, somewhat expectedly, rather missing the point. The problem is not with the opinions you hold but with the way they are put over.

I'm not speaking for "psycho-babble training", those were your words, not mine. However, getting on with your fellow aviator is always fundamental to safety. There is little room these days for "one-man-bands" in aviation.

I have seen flight decks where there is arrogance in the LHS and they are seldom happy (or indeed safe) places to work. An attitude of "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" usually means it is the time to retire, before someone gets hurt.

I wish you a happy retirement.

Kindest regards,


JD
:)

[fullyspooled]

411,

I really didn’t want this to turn into a pissing competition because I thought I may lose due simply to having youth on my side. A glimpse back at your posts however is quite revealing, and I must say delighted me immensely.

Despite the forever changing years of experience that you so often like to quote in one form or another –

11th April 2006: “I've been in command for 20+ years now in both military and commercial ops. And I might add for a major carrier...”

19th April 2006 …”Having been in the airline industry for over forty years......

9th October 2008….” I have never been a co-pilot in a jet airplane...and have been flying heavy jet transport types as a Commander since 1974.

- you don’t appear to have amassed a great deal of actual flying time, so it is hardly surprising that you have thus far managed to avoid those mistakes that us mere mortals make from time to time.

If you made 2,000 hrs since 23rd April 06 (when you clsimed to have 12,000 hours) it puts you under 15,000hrs to date, which in this day and age is not such a vast amount. I can therefore piss quite a bit further than you, and I am sure that many here can piss a LOT further than me – the difference I suspect though is that unlike you we are human, and therefore make errors of judgement - like reading the crap that you spout, and bothering to respond to it!

[AMEandPPL]

This started out as a discussion about a nosewheel breaking two runway lights !

Now it could be called "The 411A bashing thread" ! Mind you, from what I've read, the bashing does seem fairly well deserved.

But don't be too hard chaps - - - he can't help it, he's a foreigner !

[411A]

11th April 2006: “I've been in command for 20+ years now in both military and commercial ops. And I might add for a major carrier...”


Oh dear, fullyspooled, you do seem to have your knickers in a twist.
I've never been in the military, for starters.
Clearly you are totally misinformed.
The msg must have been from a CX imposter, who went by the psedo-name of 41IA...must clean your specticles, old boy.

Since 1966, yes, in alirline flying, for a variety of operators, overseas since 1971.

9th October 2008….” I have never been a co-pilot in a jet airplane...and have been flying heavy jet transport types as a Commander since 1974.


Quite true, since 1974, LHS. Plenty of co-pilot time in 4-engine piston/turbopropellor types, however

So, it would appear that not only can you not properly count, but fail to grasp facts, as well.
Recent public schooling, perhaps?

It is interesting to note, that Virgin flies quite a lot to America, yet fails to have the problems that BA apparently has, from time to time.

Perhaps it is time to turn over these BA routes to the bearded one...to keep the surface lights at MIA in (more or less) one piece.:D

One more time, if BA cannot stand the heat, stay firmly out of the kitchen...and especially with the 3-engine ferry, with passengers on board.
They were silly fools, in the extreme.

[Carnage Matey!]

Yet cleared by the investigations and still completed the flight with as many engines as you take off with. There are certainly silly fools out there, only closer to home than you realise.

[Ralph Cramden]

Wow! 411A can wind you guys up like a cheap watch. You have just one problem...He's usually right which drives you nuts. Very amusing!

[Dan Winterland]

Quote 411A It is interesting to note, that Virgin flies quite a lot to America, yet fails to have the problems that BA apparently has, from time to time.

Virgin has had it's moments in the US. I know - I used to fly 744s for them and have had a couple myself! The problem is not the always the operators, it's usually the airports. No matter how much you expound your attitudes that if your worried about making mistakes stay away, if you look deeper at the problems you will find common threads of runway incursions, taxiing problems, lost or ambiguous communications, TCAS RAs etc. (Of the 4 TCAS RAs I've had in my career, two have been at JFK.)

The FAA needs to look here to improve safety. Errors are part of avaition. And no matter how immune you think you are, they will happen. Threat and Error Management is the latest "psycho-babble" keyphrase and it's down to everyone to make an attempt to identify the threats and manage them. It's not just down to the crews.

And the American skygods who fly to Europe aren't immune from making mistakes. For example, the AA 777 crew who sent me around at LHR because they hadn't read their Jepps about who has priority when vacating and blocked the runway. Or the crew who landed at Brussels instead of Frankfurt.



And as for 411a being usally right! :rolleyes:

[411A]

And the American skygods who fly to Europe aren't immune from making mistakes. For example, the AA 777 ...

Oh, I would agree, totally.
Especially AA, but that is my personal opinion, of course.
As for the infrastructure at many very busy US airports, this could certainly be improved, just as it certainly could at, for example, LHR, MAD, FCO etc.
No one airport is immune....most anywhere.

[Flintstone]

>>I've been in command for 20+ years now in both military and commercial ops. And I might add for a major carrier....<<

(To totallyspooled) I've never been in the military, for starters.
Clearly you are totally misinformed.

Both posts are accurate in fact. 411A made the first post but the format of the archives doesn't show that the '>>...<<' symbols indicate a quote. Fullyspooled could not have known that when he read it and reasonably thought 411A was writing in the first person.

As you were, carry on.

[fullyspooled]

411A,

I believe I owe you an apology. Flintstone correctly points out that one of the quotes I attributed to you was in fact you quoting someone else. I therefore take back the false accusation, and trust that you will accept that it was a genuine mistake - of the kind that "most" of us make from time to time.

I'm pleased however to have won the pissing competition in terms of hours!

[411A]

...of the kind that "most" of us make from time to time.


Fully understood., and accepted.
Best regards, to you Sir.

I'm pleased however to have won the pissing competition in terms of hours!

Sorry, not even close.
Twenty six thousand...and counting.
Two years to go.

[20driver]

Ralph, you hit it on the head. Makes the bunfights so much more interesting.

Maybe it is a national thing, he goes at the AA guys as much as the BA guys.

20driver