Qantas Lines Up On Wrong Runway
 

Anyone else able to shed some light on the Qantas flight that lined up on 23R at Auckland With runway works in progress and were then advised to re-position to 23L?

Happened about 3-4 weeks ago and when it did depart, rotated after the works area.

QF 164 maybe.

Quite a hot topic of conversation here in certain quarters.

Not defending my fellow Aussies ....... but there's those that have done it ..... and those yet to do it.......... :\

So, no problem then?? Everyone did their jobs. Of course rotation was "after the works area" - wasn't that the point of changing runways?
Do I smell a trawler around?

what were the conditions like? foggy? rainy? night? typhoon?

First question is did it actually happen?

Given that 05L/23R is the bit of tarmac you actually taxi along, I would find it at least a bit odd to then turn around at the end of the taxiway expecting to take off.

It is likely that some day some one will do it or try to do it, especially from the 05 end. Why does it have to be made so difficult for the occasional visitor? White pages, yellow pages, ramp control, ground control, FMS arrivals, but only for the initiates etc. etc.

Woomera,

What are you trying to say??? You defend when you say you're not defending, otherwise why mention it? Yes, you are being defensive.
Why those cop-out comments? Not exactly useful for future preventions of similar incidences.

So he taxied out and did a 180 at the runway end?!?! That's essentially what you're saying BCF! Did anyone see it or did you just 'hear' it on the radio? I've had a bunch of comms in AKL with the runway works active that if someone wasn't actually watching the aircraft could make it appear that we were taxiing out into the bay!

Mustafa,
One can also taxy along "bravo" to proceed to the 23L threshold. However, this is not a regular occurence for "heavys" from the international terminal and perhaps causes more confusion than is intended.
Whether the alleged incident occurred or not, you may be interested to know that QF has recently issued an Intam alerting crews to "somewhat confusing" taxiways and apron areas at NZAA !!

Well, if he did do it, and it's a big "IF", then I would be having a verrrrry close look at the ATC system and the ground facilities.

It has been obvious for a long time now that NZAA's airport is woefully inadequate - the taxiway system is rubbish - the SID's and STARs are insane - NZ ATC will happily descend you OCTA without a care in the world.

You want to throw stones BCF? Take a look in your own back yard. Get you mate Helen to grow some balls (ooops sorry, he already has!:} ) and fix it!

Oh and BTW? It could well have been one of your highly paid Jicinnict brothers....

Interesting replies. Quite a mix of the standard, No, it can't be us. Oh maybe it was J/C (lets blame the poor semi-Aussies...which it wasn't).
It's BS, well it did happen.

My point was to see if there was anyone worthwhile out there with maybe a reason why it happened and possibly a fix if required..

So then you get the blamers.
AKL isn't perfect, tough. Get over it. Theyre just putting taxiway markers in at CHCH....

And in defence of ATC, it was them who stopped the Airport auth from getting the second-hand marker boards from SYD to use in NZ!!

You want to throw stones BCF? Where did that dribble come from?? :mad:

If you want to prevent a Singapore jobby have a good input not some of this aero-club cr@p. Or no it cant happen to QF, "Cause we all know it can to anyone!

shades of singapore airlines B744 crash at Taipea a while ago!
Do companys use the ILS to correctly ident the right runway when taxiing to the active runway, in low viz conditions?

BCF Breath.........if true he made a mistake, we all make them on occasions and luckily in this case ATC picked up on it.

Having operated into and out of AKL numerous times in the last few months, making a mistake there is not all that hard, especially if you have not been there for a while. The AKL signage would have to be some of the worst I've seen.

Without better signs, it's crazy to have so close to a main runway, a taxiway which substitutes as a standby runway (Markings and all). Accident waiting to happen!

edited because I could not spell misstake! :D

Oh, I dunno... what's so hard about "Continue through M4, proceed via D6, B8, taxi along 05L, hold at A1, 23R"? :confused:

It's very common for heavy aircraft at AKL to use Bravo while taxiing for departure, esp when 23L is in use.

For those who may be a bit defensive about Auckland airport, as one who has operated extensively through Auckland over the last month, let me try to consolidate the information that has been mentioned by others.

Qantas has been going through the LOSA audit process now for about 18 months. This system examines threat/error environments and how pilots manage the threats that they are confronted with to avoid making potentially serious errors.

Auckland airport, in my opinion, presents several threats to the unsuspecting/unfamiliar pilot. These are:

1) A taxiway which is marked as a runway and is called a runway (05L/23R) even when it is being used as a taxiway.

2) Taxiway signage that is very poorly positioned - the signage is placed almost perfectly between the taxiways so that you are not sure whether the sign refers to the next taxiway or the previous taxiway.

3) The taxiway designations are extremely confusing - from memory, taxiway B8 aligns with D6 (even though both are little more than inverts). As bad as these designations are, they are an improvement on the "FIRST" taxiway and the "MAIN" taxiway designations of previous years at Auckland.

4) With the works in progress at the International Terminal, the pavement markings and lead-in lighting for entry to Bay 8 (in particular) are very difficult to see at night, and are almost impossible to see at night in the rain - this point is freely acknowledged by the maintenance personnel who meet the aircraft on arrival.

5) Despite undergoing regular maintenance for over 10 years (that I can remember), often with major disruptions to existing procedures (necessitating the green and yellow Jeppesen pages) runway 05R/23L is still very rough, ungrooved, covered in rubber deposits and has ICAO runway markings that are very difficult to see. Runway 05R/23L is due to be closed again next month for several weeks.

If an incident did happen as described above, I would not be surprised. I know that there are plans for a major parallel runway complex at Auckland (to the north of the existing terminal) with a cross runway also mentioned. I hope that these developments will render the current 05L/23R redundant - and the sooner the better.

three bars has summed it up nicely...
and when you are admist the chaos (for an unfamiliar one like myself) ATC get rather narcy when you double check or slow down to get it together :mad: as if we should all be at one with this harmonius sh!tfight :yuk:

3 ||| s..... You are absolutely correct.

And another smallish but significant point - there's a small error in the Jepp charts at the moment: if you look at W-10-9B it appears that 05L COMMENCES at B10/A9. In other words, when taxiing via B, B10 for an A10 departure off 05R you appear unable to turn right onto 05L/23R to get to that takeoff point. You appear only able to go straight ahead onto A9. From the same chart you cannot see the start of 05R. It's deceptive - conscious that the threshold of 05L is alongside the A10 departure point for 05R you could erroneously think that by taxiing straight ahead from B10 that you are approaching your desired dept point, A10. But you're not, it's A9. Look at the reality on the full airport chart: W-10-9. A9 is significantly short of A10. And consider it in the context that most of the other A and B pairs line up! By this I mean B1 lines up with A1, B2 with A2, B3/A3, B5/A5, B7/A7 - but B10 DOESN'T line up with A10, but A9 instead.

Couldn't make a mistake? An easy error to catch? Really should study the charts better? Yes, probably. Well, I made this exact error and couldn't believe how I'd done it. Swiss cheese: early start, tired, poor weather, hadn't been there in ages - and a chart that is in error. Figures had been calc'd and set for departure at A10 but using W-10-9B I rolled straight forward at B10/A9 thinking we'd arrived at A10. And given that A10 is significantly displaced anyway, at first glance the A9 picture doesn't look massively different to the A10 picture. Fortunately we quickly realised our (my) mistake and recalc'd the figures for an A9 departure. But imagine a heavier aircraft making this mistake and not picking it up.....

This type of thing and all your points, 3 ||| s, really ought to go into a Flight Crew Report/Safety Observation Report/Whatever Report, instead of here. Why not send send them something and maybe, just maybe, things will improve over the ditch?

Be careful out there.

R&E,

Unfortunately, I have a - how should I say this - healthy scepticism about the reporting process.

So far I have lodged three flight crew reports over the years. The first one received a prompt and polite statement that nothing would change and the second one was ignored. The third, and most recent involved collection of an unpaid meal allowance and was actioned very efficiently.

Regarding Auckland, I imagine that nothing would happen to a FCR/SOR since an INTAM has already been raised - probably as a result of the incident already described. Whilst all of the issues I have raised are "threats" I feel that they would be assessed as only requiring "increased vigilance" by the powers-that-be.

Finally, I doubt that my input as a lowly F/O would be as well received as the words of wisdom eminating from a vaunted four-striper.

I look forward to the challenges of operating into Auckland with the dreaded green charts again next month!

:mad:

Well, thats gotta be an all time classic quote from a kiwi. Thats like saying, "well our engines fail. Tough..."

BCF, you are a troll. Thats all you were doing.

AKL is a shambles, and its clear that I'm not the only one who finds this to be true. It is an accident waiting to happen.