Worth a read:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2229778/ar2009052.pdf - "Take-off performance calculation and entry errors: A global perspective", study carried out by the ATSB following the Emirates incident at Melbourne.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/353172...l%20report.pdf - Final report on the incident itself

For the first time , ever, I think, at last , this CEO seems to be supporting his pilots. Gotta be a first.

It does nobody any favours, least of all his pilots, for the CEO to be in denial about the safety implications of a very near miss.

Is that so? I don't see "his pilots" waving this away as just one of those things that happen...

Found It!
 

Yup! Stuff happens.
My question is why tablecloth Al Baker's claims are about 180 degrees at odds with the DFDR and DCVR? Does Akbar really believe that anyone believes his 'spin?' I cannot believe that he is that ill-informed. The the pilots were unfortunate enough to be expat contractors of some kind, I'd guess that they were escorted out of Qatar months ago, never to return. If they are U.S. certificated, I'd hope that they have made themselves known to NTSB. Again, yes, stuff happens, but burying it in the sand is not the way to improve anything. (Qatar has more than enough sand for Akbar's head.) If even one of these fellows was a U.S. licensed pilot, he owes it to the safety record to discuss the event with FAA and NTSB.
As for the flight itself, continuing without a thorough inspection was stupid. Everyone aboard likely knew that a collision had occurred. If only to please Akbar, they took the airplane home and probably hid it. If there is no damaged airplane to view, Akbar can (try to) sell almost anything he wishes. What a bad joke.:=

Yes Bloggsie; That IS so. Not talking about the pilots or the incident but about the CEO who, in the past, would never stand up and legitimise for ANYTHING done by pilots for whom he has profound disrespect. In THAT context, it IS a first. Not saying it was right either. Just a first for this fella. Need more help ?

Nah, thanks SJ. I think I now know where you're coming from...

Seems to me the CEO is saying that (his) pilots are such unprofessional idiots that these kinds of incidents happen all the time.

Hard to characterize that as being "supportive"...

Peek ; you are missing it too. I am with Bloggsie in seeing where SJ is coming from.

SJ . I see nothing where he is supporting anything the pilots do/did .

This was an accident and his statements appear to be neutral , probably carefully advised , so as not to point a finger at the airline and at the same time deflect attention away from a very public event in a failed attempt at being facetious . He actually said that the pilots SHOULD have refused ATC . Doesn't seem like he is defending their actions . At this point he cannot publicly throw the crew under the bus as it would have implications for "his" airline .

Its got nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the pilots.

It has everything to do with damage limitation to the brand.

Back to main points----

This from the ever wise (i.e good analysis!) Airbubba (post #127 in original thread). Surprised there has been very little comment on this, either on this forum or in the report itself. (Yes I know, it is only preliminary, and they cannot speculate).

However, we all know it is VERY EASY to end up on the wrong taxiway, especially at unfamiliar airports with confusing signage and poor lighting (not saying this was the case at MIA though); happened many times before and will continue to happen.

Take another look at the airport chart; (sorry, not checked out on how to paste in here—so, go to Jepps)

Taxiing along T (thinking you are on S), you come to the end, with a left turn onto the runway. As somebody else has previously pointed out, it is easy to believe you are at the full length of the runway. Add the unfortunate nomenclature confusion of OPT "#T1" versus runway intersection "T1" and the holes start to line up. No heavy jet Captain would knowingly take off from such an intersection on a 12 hour long haul.

The EFB airport moving map is a great tool, but there are also traps; often, you need to "zoom in" to see detail, which means losing peripheral stuff, the Big Picture. Which is why it was my habit to have the hard copy 10-9 paper chart out on the clipboard as a backup, (even though that chart was available on the EFB and normally would be displayed by the other guy on his screen, and it was easy to switch back and forth between the two).

However, Sods Law says the EFB map will pack up just when you need it, (not a rare event). It also kept the old brain tuned in to basic chart reading while navigating around big airports, rather than relying solely on all that great electronic stuff.

Bottom line; we all make mistakes, and I do feel sorry for the guys .S—t does happen. But with 4 of you on the flight deck, there really are no excuses....

FAA taxiway naming memorandum.
 

https://www.faa.gov/airports/enginee...edia/EB-89.pdf

See para e sub para 2.

This requires the suffix to be 1 from one end of the runway to the other. The picture here is more confused having parallel taxiways. It does lead you to think that you could be at full length when you are not.

If you look at the Chicago airport diagram, the suffix 1 is used well for 14R but not for 09L. There is not a lot of consistency applied.

Perhaps the stub taxiways (not at a runway end) should be numbered with suffix starting at 2 if they are not the full length.

If you read the ATC transcript (in the original thread), it's pretty clear that the pilots knew they were at intersection T1 and would be conducting an intersection take off. The preliminary report also made this very clear, with the relief pilots questioning the intersection takeoff.

So whether they were originally on S or T is kinda a moot point.

Except that in the mind of the captain (due to the setting for his own chart), that T1 intersection was costing him only at most 200 feet of the full length. Do we know how many times before that captain used rwy 09 for take off in MIA ... ?

The report mentions a few times they were using S taxiway - Is it really the case ... ?

Could be time to go back to the "always use full runway"... That'll be "better safe than sorry".

Are there any reports out there, when it comes to overruns during departure, that actually mentions that as a recommendation?

Sure, I'll find it dumb having to taxi a few kilometres in a Piper 28 just to get the whole 2810 metres available on an airport I know quite well. But I do see quite a lot of pilots not familiar doing it though...

The three most useless things to a pilot:

1. Altitude above you

2. Runway behind you

3. Sondy on Sunday

add the real third:

3. Air in the fuel tanks. :ok:

4. Finance Director on the flight deck

5. The Daily Mail in...well, anywhere actually.

PDR

BLOGGS
 

the third one is actually:

3. Fuel in the fuel truck...