Pilots blamed INITIALLY in 2006 British Airways crunching of lights at MIA
Thread Starter
Pilots blamed INITIALLY in 2006 British Airways crunching of lights at MIA
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does the headline only blame pilots as usual, when the report ALSO includes :
so not entirely the pilots' fault at all, then ?
inadequate lighting to designate where the runway ends
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here's the NTSB narrative of the incident:
MIA07IA031
And here's the probable cause:
MIA07IA031
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.
MIA07IA031
And here's the probable cause:
MIA07IA031
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely NO excuse for pilots taxying over lights, if they are illuminated. None, nil, zip.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United Arab Emirates
Age: 49
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Often, these VIP charters are done with management pilots who don't fly that much from what I've seen at other carriers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Sorry I'm not perfect either 411A
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self Explanatory ??????
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
He contributes very little to this forum.
With luck his latest wind-up will be deleted. Just like his last one was.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.'
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.'