BA pax tried to halt 777 take-off after taxiing error

[CaptAirProx]

Slickster,

Thanks for that. Well perhaps this is something BA should look into. With my operator we encourage interaction with the staff the other side of the door no matter that they have been told 'seats for take-off'. Clearly after this point it has to be pretty signifcant in their opinion.

If I got a 'ding' just setting the power up or not long after, I would stop. If it was close to V1 . . . hmmmm leave that to consider,when it actually happens. (obvious noises/vibrations/smells/indications would affect this)

Infact I hear of a medium turboprop operator that had to go around because a local pax kept telling the cabin crew it was the wrong island they were landing at . . . . she gave in eventually and called the flightdeck. . . . they went around and flew to the correct one!

411A has a point with regard to BA, however his apparent attitude and 'modus operandi' appears to suggest that he would dis-approve of interference from such people. Unless I have miss-interpreted his posts. But hey, I recognise I am human and we all interpret personal behaviour differently.

So 411A can we perhaps agree that BA like all operators have something to learn from each other, and maybe you therefore, have something to learn to???

[BOAC]

Not to mention the significant torsion on the main wheel tyres.

[suninmyeyes]

411A I have enjoyed many of your previous posts and agreed with many of them. You obviously have a wide experience going back to the 707 days and before. However you disappoint me in this thread with your extreme bias that makes you look ridiculous and destroys your credibility.

You appear desperate to knock BA's safety record and the comparison with Air France is ludicrous. BA's forerunner BOAC had a hull loss in the 1960s when a Boeing 707 came apart in midair. BA long haul have not had a fatality since then. The only long haul hull loss since the 1960's was the 777 which as you well know was a very rare and hitherto unknown engine fault that was not the fault of BA or the pilots.

When another airline takes off or lands by mistake on a taxiway there are a few pages on Pprune. When BA takeoff from the intended runway one intersection further down than they intended all the BA critics come out of the woodwork and use this incident to attack everything they don't like about BA.

Incidentally I have lined up in the Caribbean from an intersection on several occasions and thought the runway remaining seemed quite short. These were when the aircraft was very light as in the St Kitts incident and there was only about 10 seconds from "power set" to Vr and we lifted off with about half the runway remaining.

The St Kitts pilots certainly made a serious mistake and many on this forum seem to want to see them hung drawn and quartered for it. However the same mistake was also made by several other airlines yet the posters have not expressed any desire to have these pilots punished. One of these other aircraft was a 737. In this instance air traffic told the aircraft he was not where he thought he was at which point he backtracked.

If anyone is genuinely interested in aviation safety they might ask the following questions:

With this error being made so frequently why did the airport not have marker boards by the intersection?(They went up pretty quickly after the incident).

If one of the controllers knew the 777 was not at the intersection that the pilot thought and said he was at why did the controller not say anything? Is this not negligence?

There are rumours that at the start of the takeoff roll the two controllers had a conversation that implied they had doubts the aircraft would be able to get airborne. This also demonstrates a serious lack of CRM and safety culture.

At the end of the day the Captain is responsible for the error and has carried the can and has been demoted. However the airport authorities seem to have assisted in lining up the swiss cheese holes like an expert lining up the squares of a rubik cube.
　

[Basil]

AD,
Thanks for the illumination. Just seemed a bit odd.

[411A]

...and willingness to think outside the box, on occasion, but it won't always happen
Especially, it would appear, at British Airways.
A typical c*ck-up from the start...and they still did not notice.:ugh:
Is anyone really surprised?:hmm:

[411A]

411A I have enjoyed many of your previous posts and agreed with many of them.
Thank you...I call 'em as I see 'em.


Now...
When BA takeoff from the intended runway one intersection further down than they intended all the BA critics come out of the woodwork and use this incident to attack everything they don't like about BA.


Quite true, and I'll tell you just why.

Perceived arrogance, on the part of many of the specific FD crew that have been met on numerous occasions...both on duty, and off.

The exact same arrogance that is displayed (to this day) by FD crew from AA...American Airlines.

It has a common source, namely...

'Our procedures are never suspect, we are the best.'

AA found out with their A300-600R, that their policies and procedures are not only suspect, but totally deficient, in many respects.

BA?
Likewise, although the BA folks are not quite so arrogrant, in my opinion.
A small credit to the BA flight deck crew..

So, we are left with the following (IMO)

BA.
Some
crappy procedures, however...extremely pleasant FD crew down route.

AA.
Not only cr*p procedures (A300-600R, sans rudder/vertical fin, all die...pilot actions responsible, make no mistake:{), but the largest hull loss record amongst US flagged airlines...not an especially envious record.

And yes, I will continue to mention AA, because....of the GROSS neglegence displayed by the AA B757 FD crew at Cali, Colombia...so long ago.

[Shaka Zulu]

This incident has nothing to do with BA or procedures.
This should be a lesson for us all that no matter how robust procedures appear to be human error can rear its ugly head around EVERY corner.

I can personally vouch for the PIC on the day as being a very talented and sharp individual. A professional through and through.

BA's response in terms of demoting him was an appropriate action (although how the opinion was formed was slightly suspect but we will leave that out of the debate)

I'm sorry but this whole fingerpointing exercise and 411A grudge against BA are both pretty sad and ignorant. Generalising has not helped our profession one bit.
LEARN from eachothers mistakes. Saying it will never happen to you is just dumb.

[411A]

This incident has nothing to do with BA or procedures.


WRONG.
It has everything to with BA, and their suspect procedures...IE: allowing intersection takeoffs without sufficient runway remaining.

A BA flight deck crew was 'in charge' therefore, it has everything to do with BA.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

[Timothy Claypole]

Except BA procedures (and indeed I'd imagine the procedures of any reputable airline) don't allow intersection take offs with insufficient runway remaining, which seems a distinction you are struggling to cope with.

[MrBernoulli]

Some self-important folk on this forum! :rolleyes:

[WhatsaLizad?]

Yesterday....411A:
And, oh by the way, bringing B737 aircraft into the discussion has absolutely NO relevance to the subject, because...a B737 was NOT involved in this incident.




Yesterday....411A:
I approve.
However, this discussion is not about the B747-400, nor about departing from LHR.
No B747 involved.
Not LHR.
Please do try to stick to the relevant facts.
Yes, I know it's difficult, but do try.:rolleyes:


Yesterday.....411A:
No idea what you are on about, and in any case, hardly has relevance to the present discussion, re: intersection departures with a heavy jet transport airplane, and the BA incident referenced in this thread.


Of course we now have 411A today:

The exact same arrogance that is displayed (to this day) by FD crew from AA...American Airlines................

AA found out with their A300-600R, that their policies and procedures are not only suspect, but totally deficient, in many respects..........................


AA.
Not only cr*p procedures (A300-600R, sans rudder/vertical fin, all die...pilot actions responsible, make no mistakehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif), but the largest hull loss record amongst US flagged airlines...not an especially envious record...........................

And yes, I will continue to mention AA, because....of the GROSS neglegence displayed by the AA B757 FD crew at Cali, Colombia...so long ago..........................................



411A, I suggest you converse with the Pprune Mods. Apparently someone has hacked your login since surely you couldn't contradict yourself so badly within 24 hours. It's that or i suggest we merge this thread with the Age 70 discussion regarding the early signs of dementia. :E

[411A]

411A, I suggest you converse with the PPRuNe Mods.
No need, because, the relevant facts speak for themselves.

With the BA777 under discussion, it was not TACA, nor Iberia, nor (any other) airline...it was, British Airways, that did the deed.
With, BA pilots at the helm.

NO surprise, certainly.:{

[ZimmerFly]

Spot on ! :ok:

[Shaka Zulu]

411A that is just plain idiocy. Of course BA don't allow intersection take offs with no perfomance figures for them! Do you ever operate out of Heathrow? They nowadays ask if you can accept intersection take offs.
It's a well used procedure and something all crews are well used to deal with.

What has happened here is Human Error. I cannot see for the life of me where BAs procedures have caused this incident.
BA rams it home to us not to get distracted whilst manoeuvring on the ground.
Did they **** up? Yes
Were there circumstances surrounding the incident that made it more likely to happen?
Abso-bloody-lutely.
Has this got anything to do with BA ops? No (Several US operators make the same mistake at that airport on countless occasions)

[c130jbloke]

I would love to meet the BA mate who cranked 411A's handle:eek:

Whoever you were, not so hard next time please.

As for your reference to the Cali accident being gross negligence - sorry fella, still don't see it. A massive loss of SA and the Cmdr got fixated on a beacon (IIRC and I am not going to re-read the report so I stand to be corrected) yes, but to pin that mantle on them, when once again they did not realise the true extent of their situation - to their ultimate cost, is wrong.

Be very careful of tagging dead guys (and COMPETENT BA pilots) with that. And if you want to know where it leads to read this - The Campaign for Justice for the Pilots of ZD576 (http://chinook-justice.org/)

PS Having just Googled a definition of Gross negligence legal definition of Gross negligence. Gross negligence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence) I suggest you get your head out of your :ooh:

[411A]

What has happened here is Human Error

Without a doubt.

I cannot see for the life of me where BAs procedures have caused this incident.

I certainly can, namely, this 'role reversal' complete and utter nonsense, whilst on the ground, taxiing for departure.
It set up this crew up for an incident, no doubt about it.

BA rams it home to us not to get distracted whilst manoeuvring on the ground.

But this crew certainly did, and I expect for the reason I mentioned above, a daft BA 'role reversal' procedure, whilst taxiing.
This type of scenario is an easy way for crews to get distracted, whilst maneuvering on the tarmac, no doubt about it.

Did they **** up? Yes
Were there circumstances surrounding the incident that made it more likely to happen?
Abso-bloody-lutely.


We certainly agree.

Has this got anything to do with BA ops? No (Several US operators make the same mistake at that airport on countless occasions)

Ok, let us presume that this statement is correct.

Then, how do you explain the many other airlines that operate at this airport, who do not make these same mistakes?
Could it be that these other air carriers have slightly better situational awareness, due to better operating procedures, whilst on the ground?
I would speculate...absolutely.

I will repeat, IF this incident had been done by any other than a large well established European air carrier, many commentators here would be all over said airline, like flys on a honey pot, denouncing their daft operational procedures, and complete lack of a safety culture.

Well, the shoe is on the other foot, now...and many of these same folks can only make lame excuses for the airline in question.

Sorry, it doesn't wash.

[Slickster]

Most people on here, and elsewhere, put this down as a Human Factors incident. It's nothing at all to do with procedures - regardless of how your airline operates, FO's taxying, starting engines, or not. Hey, if that's how you want to operate, knock yourself out!

And, can we put the intersection business to bed too? Either it can be done, or can't, just as reduced thrust take offs can be done, and flights taking off without their fuel tanks full.

Jeez, is anyone else bored of this bloke?

[Tokyo Geoff]

Yes, bored of him about 10 pages ago. :rolleyes:

[stepwilk]

You people are picking on one of your own. I don't care where he domiciles, no American would ever write "whilst," particularly four times in the same post, any more than a Yank would say "jolly good." Nor have I ever heard an American refer to a "honey pot."

[stilton]

411a calling other Pilots arrogant is a little bit of a stretch.


You really are the personification of the word old chap, but more than that, your opinions on everyones faults or procedures change from day to day.


You do seem a little confused but in a pattern that seems to repeat itself.


What's the word for it again, oh yes, here it is :



'Schizophrenia ( or ) is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction. ...'



It's not too late to get help !

[wetbehindear]

I believe every company worth to mention has a quality assurance programme. The programme we run requires us to audit our suppliers and if they are not up the scratch we cannot employ their services.

In this case airport being the supplier of BA how that supplier can be allowed to operate with deficient marking of taxiways ? Any input please.