|
JAL 767 crew mistook Changi taxiway for runway
From Flight Global
By: GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE Source: a day ago' Japan Airlines (JAL) has suspended the crew of a Boeing 767-300ER that mistakenly commenced their takeoff run on a taxiway at Singapore’s Changi International airport. The incident occurred while the aircraft was operating flight JL38 to Tokyo Haneda at roughly 02:30 on 12 July, says JAL in an email to Flightglobal. The carrier only learned of the incident on 23 July when it was contacted by Singapore authorities. It adds that immediately after starting the takeoff run, the crew realised their error and aborted the takeoff. The aircraft was subsequently directed to the runway and departed without further incident. There were 10 crew and 198 passengers aboard the aircraft during the incident. Flightglobal’s Ascend Fleets database shows that the aircraft involved bears registration JA606J. It was delivered in 2003 and is powered by General Electric CF6 engines. |
Incredible!
I was just curious how is it possible. From a satelitte imagine of the airport, the rwy 02C looks like 02R, then taxiway becomes 02C, just trying to find a plausible excuse... |
Did they follow the greens to line up on EP instead of 20C perhaps? :confused:
SIN is a great airport but I hate that maze near the departure end of 20C with A6, A7, EP, EN etc. As with interstate highways, limited access is a good thing in my opinion. |
Well, 20R and 20C are on opposite sides of the terminal, so probably no confusion there. But as Airbubba says, it is a rat's nest of taxiways.
And the main cross taxiway NC2 from the W to the E doesn't actually link up with 20C, so one has to make an extra jog right-left-right to reach the runway. An eerie resemblance (but with a better outcome) to Singapore 006 in Taipei - big jet, creeping along in the dark, makes a right turn, gets take-off clearance - and the crew thinks they're on the runway. |
Another account of the miscue:
JAL jet mistakenly accelerated on taxiway at Singapore airport Jul 29, 2015 A Japan Airlines aircraft nearly tried to take off from a taxiway at Singapore’s Changi Airport on July 12 as pilots mistakenly thought the Boeing 767 jet was on a runway, an act that could have led to a crash with other planes, JAL said Tuesday. The aircraft, JAL flight 38 bound for Tokyo’s Haneda airport, gathered speed to take off for a few seconds in the early hours of the day, although the act was prohibited. The incident did not cause any injuries to the 208 passengers and crew members on board. There were no other aircraft on the taxiway at the time. The 58-year-old captain and a 50-year-old copilot of the aircraft failed to report the incident to JAL. The airline learned of it following a report from Singaporean authorities, the company said. JAL suspended the two from working aboard aircraft and is considering punishing them, the company said, adding that the pilots did not think the incident was something worth reporting. On July 12, the plane received clearance for takeoff from the airport traffic controller when it was running near the end of a taxiway, located parallel to a runway, about 25 minutes behind schedule, according to JAL. The pilots misunderstood that they were at the end of a runway, and ran for a few seconds using takeoff thrust. But since the captain realized that the plane was running on the taxiway and after receiving an order to stop from the controller, the aircraft put on the brakes, JAL said. |
Good to see the captain realized his mistake but chose to continue until the controller intervened. He was just testing the controller, no Asian face saving here.
Reminds me of that recent article about Asian carriers under reporting safety incidents. |
.....and never reported it to the company. Company found out when the authorities got in touch.
|
Yes, every incident that happens in Asia is due to inferior cultural attributes, while every incident that happens in the west is due to a complex nexus of multiple factors.
The racism on this forum is ignorant and tedious. |
bud leon
The racism on this forum is ignorant and tedious. Besides, this isn't the first wrong runway/taxiway incident at Changi. |
JAL suspended the two from working aboard aircraft and is considering punishing them, the company said, adding that the pilots did not think the incident was something worth reporting. I'm sure the JAL OMA has the words "non punitive" in it, but if the culture is one of punishment, the pilots will try to bury most incidents if they think they can get away with it. A lot of airlines operate like this. |
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
(Post 9063365)
If the first action from the company is punishment, are they really surprised this event was not reported?
I'm sure the JAL OMA has the words "non punitive" in it, but if the culture is one of punishment, the pilots will try to bury most incidents if they think they can get away with it. A lot of airlines operate like this. But when the first your employer hears about the incident is from an overseas authority... that's the worst possible look. R1 |
Pay to fly?
|
Surely rather than suspending the crew there should be an non disciplinary investigation.
I would suspect any company that did not have a frank and honest open police of admitting mistakes. A company which first seeks to blame is not a healthy one. |
There should be on every taxiway, large brightly painted taxiway identification letters/numbers on all taxiway centrelines approaching, through and immediately after all corners and every X distance on straight ways.
Auckland New Zealand and Bangkok Thailand do it well. Best practice and all that. |
Reading it again and not knowing the system at JAL I wonder if they were suspended because they didn't report it; rather than because they made a mistake.
I hope JAL has an open and honest, no threat, reporting system. |
But when the first your employer hears about the incident is from an overseas authority... that's the worst possible look. We've been warned at my company - EVERY aborted takeoff, no matter how slow, is now reported by ATC to our FAA inspectors. They look to see if there is a pilot report for each. If there was a maintenance reason for the abort, there better be a write-up in the maintenance log. |
It seems strange to me that someone would contemplate not putting in a report for an aborted take-off ( no matter how slow) . But I am with an airline that would simply email back saying " received your report. Thank you ." And that would be the last I would hear unless they really needed extra information. If I was likely to be ' punished' I might think about rolling the dice. Very glad I'm not in that type of company.
|
On the NG it is not uncommon for the spoiler lever to be slightly out of stowed position. This will trigger a take off warning the moment thrust is set. You close the thrust levers, give the spoiler lever a push, then take off.
I would never write a report about this. |
about 25 minutes behind schedule |
On the NG it is not uncommon for the spoiler lever to be slightly out of stowed position. This will trigger a take off warning the moment thrust is set. You close the thrust levers, give the spoiler lever a push, then take off. I would never write a report about this If you had a takeoff warning and didn't document it, even though you know what caused it and corrected the problem, you might be hanged these days. You'd better contact dispatch, maintenance, flight ops, and write it up in the logbook. Then decide whether it is a discrepancy or a comment, close the writeup somehow with corrective action like 'cycled spoiler lever, subsequent operation normal' and get a bunch of codes and employee numbers. And for CYA purposes, within 24 hours file an event report, an ASAP safety report and maybe a NASA form. And, since you may have rolled a down the runway a little, make sure you have data for takeoff from the next intersection and run the numbers again just to make sure. Or, roll the dice since you are on the runway at PVG with twenty planes behind you for an afternoon departure. As Dirty Harry said: "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" The company 'self-discloses' these events to the FAA and like Huck says, they go through QAR and other data to see if it matches with the logbook and event reporting. Remember when we were told that all this data collection was totally anonymous and would never be used for enforcement or punitive purposes? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.