Tenerife (sorry, but I just can't help myself)
 

For commercial pilots especially,

It's anniversary time for Tenerife, and Youtubers are in full swing with their endless Van Zanten the arrogant, ego-driven pilot, or even murder posts.

Today there was this

Albert Johnson: "the KLM guy took off WITHOUT CLEARANCE"

me: "But not on purpose. That is absolutely key to understanding this accident."

Albert Johnson "Uh.. yes on purpose.. he did not want to stay.. he did not want to be responsible for the costs an over night delay would have cost KLM.... thought you said you studied this?"

me: "GO TO PPRuNE, the pre-eminent pilot forum and ask some real commercial pilots their opinion on this. Then get back to me. You will quickly realize how mistaken you are."
-------

OK, I'm putting myself on the line. Am I correct in saying what I believe to be rather obvious, that the consensus among commercial pilots and aviation professionals is that it is virtually unthinkable that Captain Van Zanten took off KNOWING he did not have the clearance? If I am proven wrong, I will go back with tail between legs and report back to the other forum.

Thank you

Given that there is no known way to get inside the head of a dead pilot, the argument seems likely to continue ad infinitum.

I'm a controller, not a pilot.

It would seem to me that the captain was the victim of one of several human processing errors referred to as confirmation bias.
When asked by one of his crewmembers if the PanAm flight was clear of the runway, he replied with certainty.

Nobody, no matter how arrogant, would take off in fog knowing (or even suspecting) that the runway wasn't clear.

As you're probably well aware, there were several contributing factors, including jammed or blocked transmissions as the crew performed their final departure checks.

to DaveReidUK

Thank you,

Are you suggesting that it is still widely debated? I am under the impression that the consensus view in the industry is that VZ was convinced he had the clearance and it was all a terrible lapse. To suggest otherwise seems to me tantamount to saying VZ was effectively on a suicide mission.

cheers

.


And would it be your guess that yours is the "standard" view among commercial pilots and ATCs? I cannot conceive of many that would disagree with you. On the other hand, the view that VZ "bent" the rules seems to be standard among lay Youtubers. I blame it partly on the docudramas, which all seem to depict VZ as the devil incarnate.

Thanks

Oh, there will be as many views as there are people asked, varying in the details or description or human factors elements, but I think most would probably fit into that general picture.

Common sense, really, isn't it? Don't take off on a blocked runway.

Clearly he didn't appreciate it was blocked; he believed what he wanted and expected to believe. His conviction (and maybe with a touch of arrogance) was strong enough that he was dismissive of the crew-members' question.

No, not "widely debated", but as you yourself have illustrated, there is still a school of thought that seeks to impute motives to the captain's incomprehensible decision to take off.

My point is simply that there is no way of definitively establishing what was going through his mind.

That's a fair assessment.

It's possible that he thought the elements of the route and departure clearance he'd received also gave him grounds to believe he had an actual take off clearance.

I've lost count of the number of times a pilot (usually not an airline pilot) has commenced departure after receiving a departure clearance (route and level to follow) but without a takeoff clearance.

His once chance to be pulled up on it was when the message from the controller "stand by for take off, I will call you" was jammed by the PanAm crew advising they were still on the runway. Neither call was intelligible. Radio discipline overall was not at it's best that day. Sometimes a little patience and considered timing goes a long way.

Thank you again.

While we're at it, maybe you could help solve one more mystery for me. It has been mentioned from time to time that the KLM was given this message from ATC:

"Cleared for Takeoff Position"

I have never come across those words in any transcript before. Have you?

From a previous PPRuNE Tenerife discussion:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...-1977-a-4.html

If you know what is being referred to here, do let me know.

Thanks

Are you aware of this incident?

There was a case of a Lufthansa crew at London who commenced take off after receiving a delayed airways clearance. So confident were they that they had received a TO clearance, they radioed back ATC telling them it "wasn't a good idea to have given a TO clearance with other traffic so close." !!!!

cheers

No.

There is no reference to such an instruction in the investigation report. In fact it's hard to believe that any ATC SOPs would contain a phrase with such a potential for dangerous misunderstanding.

Nor has any such claim been made by KLM, whose position AFAIK was that the takeoff clearance was implied by the pre-departure clearance.