Indeed often there are. I do not know if it is local 'bon ideé' or EASA/FAA thing, but it surely is a great idea. However, if you line up at the end of the runway, universally, you will see TWO BIG numbers in front of you, plus all the landing point white paint indicators. If all you see is black-top and a few centre line stripes then you ain't where you think you are. That's basic.

@ Rat 5

You did read the report?

From the AH version:

"As they taxied along S the commander decided that the aircraft could depart from the runway intersection T1. He could not recall why he made that decision, but believed it may have been because the printed information displayed ‘Runway 09#T1’ in a compelling way. The printed information contained no reference to the fact intersection departures were not permissible from this runway (Figure 3), and contained the message ‘No NOTAM data found’. The commander requested the operating first officer to advise ATC that they were able to depart from intersection T1. The first officer glanced at his notes and saw he had written ‘09/(T1)#’, which made him believe that this was an acceptable line-up point for take-off, [therefore] he called ATC advising them that they were able to take T1 for departure from Runway 09..."

They were exactly where they thought they were (intersection T1), and had no reason to expect to see the runway threshold or numbers from that location.

The problem was the TO performance calculations were for full length, but the "typography" of the electronic pad shorthand was - ambiguous.

BTW the electronic airport map , as depicted on AH, seems to have a major error. It shows taxiway T as running the full length of 09/27, but T actually dead-ends at the T1 intersection where this flight chose to TO.

@ Smilin_Ed

Not sure whether you mean before, or after, the TO roll, but the report points out that ATC was asking them to expedite their TO:

"The aircraft was then cleared to line-up with another aircraft reported on final approach, requiring an expeditious departure."

Interestingly, there was even an attempt at CRM, that was misinterpreted and thus failed:

"As this was not what relief crew recalled had been briefed, they queried T1. The commander made a hand gesture and said something which he thought was seeking reassurance from the crew that everything was OK. The operating first officer confirmed that he was content with T1, but the relief crew interpreted the commander’s communication as him confirming he was content with a T1 departure so, thinking they had missed the operating pilots recalculating the take-off performance from T1... did not voice any further concerns."

PIC always bears the ultimate responsibility - but this is another of those cases where the universe conspired against him. "Murphy's Law" will sneak through any crack in your defenses, if you let it. Be hyper-vigilant. Excuses don't count if you're dead.

Not always
 

RAT5,

If you line up full length RW09 at MIA, you are a couple hundred meters in front of the displaced threshold, so the big numbers will be out of sight in front of you. You will still be in the approach light area with barettes, no centreline lights yet, etcetera. (still, of course, enough clues available for correct identification of position)

Qatar Airways Chairman says:

Is he kidding? Is not the top man supposed lead the safety culture at any airline?

Count me out - I won't ride QR again!

The NTSB delegated the investigation to the Qatar CAA, and the preliminary report appears to be straightforward and to flag up some serious misunderstandings.

First, it makes sense for the Qatar people to make the report as they will understand what was said on the flight deck. The good news is that the relief crew did question the captain, but he carried on regardless and took off from a taxiway intersection, causing a small rip in the 777 fuselage. This was compensated by the aft outflow valve maintaining correct pressure during the flight back to Qatar. A long way to fly with a hole in your aircraft...after an encounter with a light fixture on takeoff!

In a perfect world, the Captain would have listened to the doubts of the relief crew and rejected the marginal takeoff. Seems to me that ATC could have raised some doubts as well, instead of piling on the pressure with traffic on approach.

Culture of denial?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...iami-c-419912/

Qatar chief points to air traffic control in Miami collision 09 December, 2015
| BY: Edward Russell
| New York


Qatar Airways chief Akbar Al Baker says instructions from air traffic controllers resulted in the September runway light collision in Miami, despite evidence of confusion in the cockpit.

“It was an instruction given to our pilot by the air traffic control, which he should have refused to accept,” says Al Baker at a media event in New York today. “However, he had enough runway for getting airborne and it was only an unfortunate incident. At no time was the aircraft or the passengers put in any harms way.”

Al Baker’s comments differ markedly from preliminary findings from the Qatari civil aviation authority on the incident earlier in December.

Investigators found that the captain of the Qatar Boeing 777-300ER chose to depart from the T1 intersection of runway 09 at Miami International airport despite carrying out the calculations for a full-length runway departure and despite a prohibition on intersection take offs from this runway.

Neither the captain nor the three other crew members in the cockpit realised that the T1 intersection was some 1,000m from the beginning of runway 09, leaving the 342t aircraft with only 2,610m available for the departure, the investigation finds.

No where do the initial findings suggest that air traffic controllers told the pilots to take off from the T1 intersection. They do say that the first officer advised air traffic controllers that the intersection was an acceptable line-up point for take off.

The Qatar 777, operating flight 778, continued to Doha even after overrunning running 09 and striking the approach lights on departure.

“Such kind of incidents happen quite often, either it is a tail strike on the runway or it is contact with the landing lights,” says Al Baker. “It is nothing out of context.”

Oh yes... Super normal to overun the runway and take some approach lights with you. Happens every day. Dangerous? Of course not! A perfectly calculated manoeuvre!

Sad to say the least, hearing this from their top man.

I nominate Al Baker to be the next inductee into the Charles Darwin Hall of Fame. Al Baker, being so stupid, will consider this to me a monumental honor.:ugh:

But wait a minute. Calling Al Baker stupid is an insult to those who are just plane stupid:}

This is probably the scariest thing I have seen in Aviation in years.
An admittance that practices are not just poor but dangerous to anybody travelling.
I doubt I will be using.

There is no error - Figure 2 is a screen shot of airport information chart, as displayed on the commanders EFB - It is not the full chart - At that time it was zoomed in and it is very possible the captain thought using T1 was giving full length or so for runway 09.
Is it a case where using the 'old' conventional paper chart would have saved the situation ... ?

Upon further review - you are correct, sir.

(What did I say about the universe being out to get us, if we let it? :\ )

Scary if that is the response from the top.... Makes you doubt about the safety culture. Nowadays the PR 101 on accidents for CEO's is simple: apologize for any inconvenience/casualties etc and say that you await the full report... :=

The fact that you made that mistake, pattern is full, after looking at the same info available to the Captain, is revealing. Our own aircraft were fitted with on airport nav system a while back. On the face of it, it makes this sort of mix-up impossible. In reality, turn offs and intersections aren't marked very clearly; while the system is valuable in helping prevent runway incursions, it's not so useful at identifying a particular entry/exit point.

I blame the NTSB for letting the Qatari authorities investigate. There is no way they can be impartial, just look at what their ignoramus CEO thinks of such an event. The man should not be allowed within 50ft of a safety related job after such garbage spewing from his pie-hole.

Unbelievable. The FAA and the NTSB should be fully involved in this investigation. Had this aircraft crashed (and it came about as close as you can without actually crashing), who knows how many people on the ground would have been hurt. Miami is a pretty densely populated area.

A 777 rotates on the grass, and it Qatar's excuse is "it happens all the time".

CEO of Qatar Airways is not the head of Qatar CAA.

Qatar CAA seems to be doing a good job with the investigation so far. They could've "buried" the initial report if they wanted to -- e.g., delay its production ad infinitum -- but they didn't.

Perhaps they have been told in no uncertain terms by the NTSB that they will fully review the report and create a dissenting report if needed. Like was done with the Silk Air report from Indonesia.

Staggering to see the innate response.
These guys made a mistake. **** happens.
last thing required is a volley of armchair warriors most of whom have never got further than microsoft flight sim poking their noses in.
As a pilots forum this place has become a joke

Says the Head of Safety, Flybynightairlines.com :D

Its not the mistake that people get upset or annoyed about its the cover up and white washing of it that grates.

Bingo.
That award goes to EK407 in YMML, The structure they hit was below the height of the runway. ie if they were on a runway that didn't have terrain that falls away beneath the aircraft they would have gone in.
As for the CEO's statement....... Tosser.