View Full Version : Runway Lights taken out AKL

18th May 2013, 09:14
Who took out 8 runway edge lights on departure from NZAA this morning? Perhaps someone lined up with the edge lights instead of the centreline?

bloated goat
18th May 2013, 09:36
Wasn't me.......!

18th May 2013, 10:12
Shit hope no one saw me...

18th May 2013, 10:35
LAN :ok::ok::ok:

18th May 2013, 11:27
Don't they depart at 6am?
It was about 9am till we heard of it. Maybe they were keeping quiet about it!!

18th May 2013, 13:02
What was the weather like? fog?

Steve Zissou
19th May 2013, 07:25
Oh dear, that explains why the captain wouldn't buy me a coffee...:(

19th May 2013, 09:15
I heard that someone departed with a locker open and distributed items along the runway, sounded like it might have been something a bit lighter than LAN though.

24th May 2013, 11:23
TAIC showing an investigation into an A340 runway excersion.

25th May 2013, 22:29
Runway lights wrecked


The LAN Chile Airbus A340 which hit runway lights at Auckland Airport.

A plane has smashed runway lights during a take-off described as "extremely abnormal" at Auckland International Airport.
An investigation has been launched into the Chilean airline LAN flight last Saturday, which later landed in Sydney on damaged tyres.
The Transport Accident Investigation Commission confirmed the incident this week, in which the aircraft strayed from the middle of
the runway during take-off and smashed several lights which stand 30cm high and line the tarmac."It appears that a LAN Chile A340 on
take-off from Auckland at about 6.20am on Saturday morning was incorrectly lined up on one edge of the runway, rather than the centre line.
"As a result there was some damage to airport lighting," commission spokesman Peter Northcote said.
The lights were about 20cm to 30cm off the ground and 60m apart along the length of the runway, airport spokeswoman Katie Moore said.
Aviation commentator Peter Clark said, "For an aircraft to be that far off the centre line, I would be concerned. To do that in a take-off is not normal at all.
I would say it's extremely abnormal."
Clark said the pilot "would've known he was off to the side of the runway, definitely". The Airbus website said A340 plane models had four engines and could seat 240 to 359 people.
Airways Corporation, the State-owned enterprise responsible for the runway and lights, confirmed an Airbus A340 broke about seven runway lights.
"They were repaired as soon as they were discovered," corporation spokeswoman Philippa Sellens said. The lights were worth about $355 each, putting the cost of the damage at more than $2,500.
Northcote said the plane continued on, although he understood "some tyre damage" was discovered in Sydney. He said LAN was co-operating with the investigation.
The commission's investigation into the "runway excursion" could take until next April to complete.

Red Jet
26th May 2013, 00:06
An Air New Zealand 744, did pretty much the same thing a while back from RWY 25R in LAX. To their credit, they did a most excellent write-up in their own Flight Safety magazine. Powerful illusions can be created in difficult conditions and the power of 'Confirmation Bias' can be be extremely compelling.

26th May 2013, 00:30
I think it was Etihad who did something similar at Abu Dhabi last year during LVPs. Not as uncommon as all that. Good 'ol confirmation bias. There but for the grace of...
etc etc
Who are these aviation "commentators" the media always quote?

27th May 2013, 01:59
He is a former Television New Zealand sound operator who has a PPL.
Self appointed expert who specialises in stating the bleeding obvious.
NZ media are under-resourced and lazy - so run to him for an extra soundbite whenever anything aviation related pops up.

training wheels
27th May 2013, 02:17
For a wide body aircraft, if they lined up on the runway edge lights, wouldn't one of the main bogies be on the grass during the take-off roll?

.. and not to mention some kind of "boing" noise from the nosewheel each time they collected a light. :hmm:

Capt Fathom
27th May 2013, 02:30
It was an Airbus, so there would be no 'boing' noise.

27th May 2013, 02:54
For a wide body aircraft, if they lined up on the runway edge lights, wouldn't one of the main bogies be on the grass during the take-off roll?

For a 340 you are looking at about 10 metre outer main gear. At most Code E/F runways you'll have a 7.5m sealed shoulder capable of supporting an aircraft, so 2 to 2.5m to spare! No dramas.

27th May 2013, 04:26
Quote from previous post: "Clark said the pilot "would've known he was off to the side of the runway, definitely""
So Clark is not only an aviation expert, but a mind reader. Perhaps he can tell us what the Captain was thinking when he applied T/O power, already knowing he was lined up on the runway centreline?

Seriously, if the quote above is true, then it is like Mr Clark accusing said crew of negligence, in the very least. Whomever chose to publish those remarks, and credit Mr Clark with any sort of title, should reconsider the vetting of their sources. Off with his head! ;-)

27th May 2013, 05:36
It's interesting because that comment shows that Mr Clark doesn't understand why incidents like this occur.
If the Captain had " definitely known" that he wasn't on the centerline then he or she simply wouldn't have taken off.
At best it shows a laymans lack of understanding about aviation human factors. If he did say that he has just proved he is no aviation expert.

27th May 2013, 10:25
"Expert" - noun - pronunciation, ex-spurt

Which if you boil it all down is

Ex, - as in has been
Spurt, -a drip of water under pressure.

Sums it all up really

27th May 2013, 11:04
A qlink dash 8 managed to do it at Townsville a couple of years ago as well.

27th May 2013, 20:54
I wonder why all these Captains wanted to risk their careers and their passengers by rolling when they would've known they were off to the side of the runway, definitely.

Steve Zissou
28th May 2013, 01:47
'Ex, - as in has been'. I suspect you'll find he never was.

28th May 2013, 03:34
Geez you guys are picky... :suspect:

Do you have a complete transcript of what Mr Clark said?
Do you know what context he said it in?
Do you know what question was asked of him to elicit that response?

I can guarantee the answer to all the above is a resounding NO! :hmm:

28th May 2013, 04:23
Come on FA.
Is that why there's a pilot's locker at what was Air Nelson with his name on it?
He's well known in the industry for not knowing much.

28th May 2013, 14:35
The commission's investigation into the "runway excursion" could take until next April to complete

Allowing of course for the investigators long service leave, annual sick leave, week-ends and public holidays, extended lunches, vetting of the draft report by the legal fraternity who themselves have long service and recreation leave entitlements etc etc to take care of. Next April sounds like a reasonable date for the report especially as the cost of the runway lights was remarkably cheap. Do they sell them at Bunnings?

28th May 2013, 17:05
Is that why there's a pilot's locker at what was Air Nelson with his name on it?He's well known in the industry for not knowing much.

Excellent, I'm going to make a point of it next time I'm in Nelson to take a dump in that locker after my next TOD through Bombay...

Seriously can't one of you take one for the team and replace him as a " aviation commentator"? Put the idiot out of business.

I would volunteer but I'm not fluent in idiot ...

28th May 2013, 19:31
Yes, you are.

28th May 2013, 20:07
The reason they keep going back to Peter Clark is that he is the only joker willing to put his name behind his commentary. I agree that many of his comments are later shown to be pretty wide of the mark. That's what you gelt when a ppl gives opinions on transport aircraft ops. I have a few mates in the media and they have asked me several times to comment on various issues but no way am I standing up and passing judgment on the six o'clock news. First of all I'd probably lose my job, and secondly get torn to pieces by the pilot fraternity. If someone has more courage than me, then pick up the phone, call the news desk and offer your opinion. Boom, you're an aviation commentator just like old pete.

Old 'Un
28th May 2013, 23:30
Do they sell them at Bunnings?

Yes they do! I was in there the other day....

No, wait. Those were solar garden lights. Sorry..

(But they do look similar :})

Le Vieux

29th May 2013, 01:42
There's an additional little known factor that also explains why the `commentator' features so regularly.
In a nation as small as Un Zud, a certain airline features regularly in aviation stories - because not much else happens.
That certain airline likes him very much, because they can quietly tell him exactly what to say - and then he says it.
So anytime a journo is doing a story on said airline and seeks an `independent' third party viewpoint on the issue - they go to Mr Clark and whaddya know - he agrees with the airline!

29th May 2013, 04:03
Actually - I heard he help land an Air Nelson a/c when the FO suddenly became violently ill.
Apparently the amusement at said claim led to him being given the honorary locker.

4th Jun 2013, 13:59
Of course an A340 wouldn't make a " boing" sound when the nose wheel hit the rway edge lights, it's an airbus!!

Pure gold!

27th Mar 2016, 22:31

13th Apr 2016, 06:46
The New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) published their findings regarding an incident in which an Airbus A340 commenced a night time takeoff at Auckand while misaligned with the runway.

On 18 May 2013 an Airbus A340 operated by LAN Airlines, Chile was making an early-morning departure (LA801) from Auckland Airport for a scheduled return flight to Sydney, Australia. In addition to the captain and the first officer, there were eight cabin crew and 196 passengers on board.

It was dark but the visibility was good. The captain taxied the aeroplane from the gate toward taxiway A1 for a take-off towards the west. As the aeroplane neared taxiway A1 the tower controller gave clearance for it to line up on the runway. As the aeroplane was entering the runway the tower controller gave clearance for it to take off.

The two pilots performed the remaining tasks and before-take-off checks while the aeroplane was taxiing. The captain then turned the aeroplane sharply to line up with what he thought were the runway centreline lights, but which were actually the right-hand runway edge lights, and applied take-off thrust.

While accelerating towards take-off speed, the captain realised that the aeroplane was not aligned with the runway centreline. He steered the aeroplane back onto the runway centreline and continued with the take-off. The pilots did not report the incident to air traffic control at the time.

A routine runway inspection later that morning found that seven of the elevated runway edge lights were damaged and required replacement. The runway was closed for 20 minutes while the debris was removed. When the aeroplane was inspected after it arrived in Sydney, two of the tyres were found to be damaged and had to be replaced.

TAIC found that at some point while the pilots were conducting last-minute checks and tasks before the take-off, the captain lost awareness of precisely where his aeroplane was in relation to the runway centreline.

The Commission also found that three other factors contributed to the misaligned take-off: the potential illusion created by the illuminated manoeuvre area guidance signs parallel to the runway; no other means were used to confirm positively the aeroplane’s position prior to take-off; and the rolling take-off which reduced the time available for either pilot to realise the error.

The Commission identified two broader safety issues relating to: the intensity settings for aerodrome lighting; and administrative errors and potential ambiguity in the way relevant International Civil Aviation Organization standards for airport design and operations might be interpreted. The Commission could not determine whether either of these safety issues contributed to the incident. Nevertheless, the Commission has made recommendations to the Director of Civil Aviation and the chief executive of Auckland International Airport Limited to address these safety issues.

Key lessons arising from this inquiry are:
– entering an active runway is a critical phase of flight. Pilots must give the manoeuvre their full attention and use all available means to confirm that they are lining up in the centre of the correct runway
– it is essential that pilots report as soon as practicable any suspicion that a runway is contaminated with debris.

13th Apr 2016, 14:39
Quote..."While accelerating towards take-off speed, the captain realised that the aeroplane was not aligned with the runway centreline. He steered the aeroplane back onto the runway centreline and continued with the take-off. The pilots did not report the incident to air traffic control at the time"

I just love that part.....surprising that both pilots did not realize the obvious,(I presume they had a relief)in the Jumpseat .....that makes 3......one has to wonder where yr attention actually is.....

Many years ago,based in Anchorage,I personally watched an Air China cargo job,747..... Take off on the north taxi way,demolishing most of the taxi lights,etc.......whilst the tower controller barked at them for several minutes about their position,and to reject the takeoff.....which the did not.......the crew,repeating several times .....cleared for takeoff!!!!..... As hilarious as it was,because it was like watching a guy Fawkes display for several minutes,much to the applause of holding aircraft......it was an awesome display.......my point,there were 4 crew members in that cockpit.......not one of them realized they had lined up on the taxiway.........it begs the question,where were they???? ,how does this happen???......hard to understand at any level,as this particular exercise requires everyone to be onboard and alert......personally,I have made taxi errors,....but not being able to "line up and wait,"on the correct rwy,in the correct position is not one of them...