EVA Air taking off from the taxiway
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Blighty - On secondment
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Point GlueBall!
"Cleared visual approach 27L"...as your turn onto finals you are greeted by 27L, 27R and the bloody well put on in the centre aswell...ooh and the two parallel taxiways!
ILS ident should always be used as a fail safe.
"Cleared visual approach 27L"...as your turn onto finals you are greeted by 27L, 27R and the bloody well put on in the centre aswell...ooh and the two parallel taxiways!
ILS ident should always be used as a fail safe.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
klink
Your chart is way out of date - TWY Y extends down to 07L as also indicated on Jep ANC 10-9.
uncle dickie
We use the term "into position and hold" in the States.
For more info, go to www.nankantraz.org (EVA Flight Crew)
Your chart is way out of date - TWY Y extends down to 07L as also indicated on Jep ANC 10-9.
uncle dickie
We use the term "into position and hold" in the States.
For more info, go to www.nankantraz.org (EVA Flight Crew)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only a humble PPL so please don't shoot me down in flames. Is it not in some way possible to tune in to the ILS of a particular runway to prevent this from happening ?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Weapons Hot, you do use the phrase "into position and hold," in place of our "line up and wait." Both seem to me to be pretty well understood and unambiguous, but in the US aircraft are often cleared to take off well before they reach the hold, and I've even been cleared to land prior to reaching the FAF. These are practices I personally disagree with, although admittedly they mainly occur at less busy times.
Re using localiser to confirm correct runway - I was taught to do this for ALL night, Low Viz and Intersection departures, and at any time you could not actually SEE the r/w number as far back as the 1980's, and I am surprised this is not SOP for ALL operators, and FTO's.
Re using localiser to confirm correct runway - I was taught to do this for ALL night, Low Viz and Intersection departures, and at any time you could not actually SEE the r/w number as far back as the 1980's, and I am surprised this is not SOP for ALL operators, and FTO's.
Most aircraft have or had the facility to position update the INS or IRS position on selection of take off thrust. But now as most aircraft use GPS this position update doesn't actually happen now. Surely it must be an easy modification to trigger a warning if take off thrust is selected at somewhere other than the threshold of the programmed runway.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedalive and Well Hung:
RWY 32 in ANC does not have an ILS - PAPI only.
RWY 14 does have an ILS, although I cannot confirm if it was operational at the time.
As for weather conditions at the time, nothing I have read indicates that LVP were in effect.
I believe that RWY 32 has a displaced threshold for landing, with the runway/landing threshold markings some 1200ft beyond the extension, which commences in RWY 07L. Therefore it is improbable that the crew would be able to see the departure runway markings "32" at the commencement of the takeoff run, which was from the extension.
Dan Winterland:
Update occurs when the thrust levers (throttles) are advanced beyond about 80%. It updates the IRS to the threshold of the departure runway, as set in the FMC, unless there is GPS signal, in which case, the GPS derived position is the default value (with a few exceptions - loss of RAIM, etc.)
RWY 32 in ANC does not have an ILS - PAPI only.
RWY 14 does have an ILS, although I cannot confirm if it was operational at the time.
As for weather conditions at the time, nothing I have read indicates that LVP were in effect.
I believe that RWY 32 has a displaced threshold for landing, with the runway/landing threshold markings some 1200ft beyond the extension, which commences in RWY 07L. Therefore it is improbable that the crew would be able to see the departure runway markings "32" at the commencement of the takeoff run, which was from the extension.
Dan Winterland:
Update occurs when the thrust levers (throttles) are advanced beyond about 80%. It updates the IRS to the threshold of the departure runway, as set in the FMC, unless there is GPS signal, in which case, the GPS derived position is the default value (with a few exceptions - loss of RAIM, etc.)
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point, this type of incident can happen easier than one thinks.
I'm not saying this is what happened because I dont know but try this scenario.
Delayed flight....crew tight on duty time....usual corporate pressure...LVP's......long taxi to runway......offered runway with much shorter taxi....f/o told to get figures for new runway and insterts them( head down )....captain allows himself to get distracted looking at new sid or whatever( head down )....lines up... heads back up....see what you want to see....long concrete...Toga!
This is neither to berate the crew nor to defend them, just to highlight the importance of constant vigilance.
I'm not saying this is what happened because I dont know but try this scenario.
Delayed flight....crew tight on duty time....usual corporate pressure...LVP's......long taxi to runway......offered runway with much shorter taxi....f/o told to get figures for new runway and insterts them( head down )....captain allows himself to get distracted looking at new sid or whatever( head down )....lines up... heads back up....see what you want to see....long concrete...Toga!
This is neither to berate the crew nor to defend them, just to highlight the importance of constant vigilance.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from their Nankingtraz website:
Was fatigue a factor here?
The flight in question was BR635 on Nov 5, from ANC to TPE with a crew compliment of 3 - PIC, RCA and FO.
The PIC and RCA had in the previous 48 hours, flown ANC/JFK/ANC, and we calculate that from Nov 3, until sign-on on Nov 5 for BR635, had effectively, 21 hours rest. All 3 crew members met CAA minimum rest requirements.
We are unaware of the actual meteorological conditions at the time of the incident.
We know that the airplane, a MD11, was cleared to RWY 32 via TWY K.
However, the crew were advised of a RWY change - RWY 07L, and were cleared to RWY 07L via TWY K.
On entering TWY K, the crew were again advised of a RWY change - RWY 32 extension, and were cleared to taxi on RWY 07L to RWY 32 EXTN. The crew believed upon line up, they were in the line up position for RWY 32 and subsequently took off.
Eventually after takeoff, they were instructed to telephone ANC ARTCC.
Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).
All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.
The PIC and RCA are on leave; the FO had previously resigned and was his last flight before commencing employment with a UAE based carrier.
The PIC and RCA had in the previous 48 hours, flown ANC/JFK/ANC, and we calculate that from Nov 3, until sign-on on Nov 5 for BR635, had effectively, 21 hours rest. All 3 crew members met CAA minimum rest requirements.
We are unaware of the actual meteorological conditions at the time of the incident.
We know that the airplane, a MD11, was cleared to RWY 32 via TWY K.
However, the crew were advised of a RWY change - RWY 07L, and were cleared to RWY 07L via TWY K.
On entering TWY K, the crew were again advised of a RWY change - RWY 32 extension, and were cleared to taxi on RWY 07L to RWY 32 EXTN. The crew believed upon line up, they were in the line up position for RWY 32 and subsequently took off.
Eventually after takeoff, they were instructed to telephone ANC ARTCC.
Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).
All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.
The PIC and RCA are on leave; the FO had previously resigned and was his last flight before commencing employment with a UAE based carrier.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 76
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANC has often heavy ice fog this time of year.....it would be interesting to know the conditions, the TW is easy to mistake for the runway.......perhaps the ground radar should have been monitored?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will: "Thanks Mike Jenvey, I'm amazed it's not a SOP for all airlines. It would have prevented the Singapore incident at Taiwan some time ago."
First, that was an accident, not incident.
Second, would you believe that the ILS WAS tuned? This was because the crew had elected to use the "Para-Visual Display" in the reduced visibility. And yet, all these cues that you allude to were missed! There is apparently no 100% foolproof procedure yet that will protect in all situations. No matter what system you come up with, it seems there's always gonna be someone who can slip through!
First, that was an accident, not incident.
Second, would you believe that the ILS WAS tuned? This was because the crew had elected to use the "Para-Visual Display" in the reduced visibility. And yet, all these cues that you allude to were missed! There is apparently no 100% foolproof procedure yet that will protect in all situations. No matter what system you come up with, it seems there's always gonna be someone who can slip through!
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on :
quote :
------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).
All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------
All this is then based on an APP radar trace recording ? Knowing the precison of such (old) radars, and the lateral distance between Y and the RWY , one has to be a bit more careful before sentencing the crew.
The article at the begining of this thread does not affirm this either.
If the crew stick to their story and the TWR did not notice anyhing wrong, I doubt anyone can prove anything.
What was the wind BTW ?
quote :
------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the crew learned that there was some indication that a radar trace had the airplane departing from TWY Y (which extends into RWY 07L). ANC TWR were unaware of such infringement of TWY Y (departure on TWY Y).
All 3 crew believed that they were on RWY 32 EXTN. The radar trace, statements, etc. have gone to the NTSB for investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------
All this is then based on an APP radar trace recording ? Knowing the precison of such (old) radars, and the lateral distance between Y and the RWY , one has to be a bit more careful before sentencing the crew.
The article at the begining of this thread does not affirm this either.
If the crew stick to their story and the TWR did not notice anyhing wrong, I doubt anyone can prove anything.
What was the wind BTW ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting anything
I'm certainly not pushing any theory but I know for a fact that the tower at PANC has a ground radar system installed (I've personally toured the tower).
The resolution is remarkable. You can see aircraft *and* ground equipment.
Whether or not it was operational at the time of this incident I have no idea.
Be careful out there.
The resolution is remarkable. You can see aircraft *and* ground equipment.
Whether or not it was operational at the time of this incident I have no idea.
Be careful out there.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Engineer
Flight Engineers are sterling fellows but not a catch-all.
The Tenerife KLM crash was not prevented by one - why not?
Because the crew (CRM uninvented...) did not listen to him and he did not push his point.
FC.
The Tenerife KLM crash was not prevented by one - why not?
Because the crew (CRM uninvented...) did not listen to him and he did not push his point.
FC.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use the term "into position and hold" in the States
It would seem that this was not a factor.
Regards,
Old Smokey