AA Plane lands on taxiway at SEA [Archive]

Shore Guy

29th Mar 2003, 13:55

No editorial comment here...just reposting from a source

FAA investigates errant plane
JOHN GILLIE; The News Tribune

Federal aviation authorities are investigating why an American Airlines jetliner with 111 on board landed on a Sea-Tac Airport taxiway - instead of a runway - earlier this month.

American Flight 1763, an MD-80 twin jet from Dallas, landed on taxiway C in clear weather at 4:21 p.m. March 15, the Federal Aviation Administration acknowledged this week.

FAA spokeswoman Holly Baker said the FAA's Flight Standards Office is investigating the incident, which caused no injuries to the passengers or to the plane.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it too has launched an investigation of the errant landing.

Taxiway C is west of Sea-Tac's two active runways. Fortunately for those aboard the flight, the taxiway, which was built to serve the incomplete third Sea-Tac runway, has infrequent aircraft or vehicular traffic.

The taxiway serves aircraft storage sites on the airport's west side and a Weyerhaeuser Co. corporate aircraft hangar.

The taxiway parallels the existing runways and matches the west runway's 9,500-foot length.

Sea-Tac spokesman Bob Parker said that after the incident, airport crews checked the visual markings on both the taxiway and the nearby runway, 16R-35L. Both the runway and the taxiway were properly marked.

American Airlines spokeswoman Tara Baten said the airline likewise is investigating the landing.

"We're doing an investigation. There's not much else I can say about it," she said.

She declined to disclose the status of the flight crew or to speculate why they landed on a taxiway that was clearly marked.

Runways have special markings and lighting, including numbers that clearly indicate their designation.

In addition to the clear markings, runways typically sport characteristic black tire marks where landing aircraft tires contact the pavement. Because it is a new taxiway, taxiway C is still light-colored concrete.

In recent years, the mistaken identification of taxiways and runways has caused particular concern in the aviation community.

As recently as last year in Anchorage, for instance, a China Airlines A-340 jet mistakenly took off from a taxiway instead of an adjacent runway.

The jet barely lifted off by the end of the 6,800-foot taxiway, leaving tire tracks in a snow berm at the taxiway's end. The plane and its passengers escaped injury.

In October 2000, a Singapore Airlines 747 crashed, killing 83, when the pilots mistook a closed runway for the runway they were supposed to use for takeoff.

The plane crashed into construction equipment midway down the closed runway

B Sousa

29th Mar 2003, 20:42

Unfortunatly considering todays job market and head hunting attitudes, I think that a few days off will be the least of the crews problems. It will probably be something like what other type of work can you do for the rest of your life.
I can almost feel the nausea when they discovered their mistake.

Huck

29th Mar 2003, 21:07

I remember when we started layoffs at my last carrier - an older captain said, "Watch yourselves, boys. This is when people have accidents."

He meant that the stress from shaky financials can make everyone sloppy - from the mechanics to the rampers to the cockpit. Hard to keep your mind on business when your company is on CNBC looking for bankruptcy financing....

skidcanuck

29th Mar 2003, 22:00

Speaking of KSEA, if there's any KSEA ATC people online, please answer this question - if you are cleared the VOR/DME 34 L/R approach, and cleared to land on 34L, is it SOP to turn the approach lights off on 34R? This was 'debated' in a sim session recently.

:confused:

WhatsaLizad?

30th Mar 2003, 01:23

411A,

"Sky Gods", That is odd. As an AA pilot, I have never heard the term in the cockpit. In my previous job experience in non-AA aviation, I did hear comments like yours now and then. What was consistent about those who made such comments was that they were generally pathetic crybabies who blamed everyone but themselves for their failures. If by chance they had in the past been actually slighted by those they hold in contempt, it was probably due to the "sky god" sniffing out a decrepit individual rather than some alleged over blown self esteem problem.

In my past, I worked at a cheesy charter outfit with management personalities that seem to match your many posts. They used to refer to the well run corporate flight department across the field as "stuck up sky gods" who never associated with them. I realized quickly the alleged "sky gods" acted this way because the guys I worked for were incompetent pricks, and not because they thought they were "sky gods". I figured it out, the alleged "sky gods" figured it out. The only guys who never figured it out were the pricks.

Any proctologist could tell you, you can't see nor hear any common sense as long is your head is where its at. ;)

later

Idunno

30th Mar 2003, 07:40

WhatsaLizad? the common pattern with all 411a's posts is that he enters a thread where a reasonable debate is occurring - ****s on it, and then retires to watch the reactions he has stirred up through his preposterous remarks.

As a result of that behaviour he has undermined any credibility he ever had. The day anyone gives credence to a single thing he says will be a sorry one.

Have a chuckle and then ignore the SOB.
:D

arcniz

30th Mar 2003, 11:53

Right, Idunno. 411A occasionally talks the talk, but consistently seems lacking in regard to any manifestation of good character. Provides a point of reference for where one does not want to go.

411A

30th Mar 2003, 12:30

WhatsaLizad,
Of course you never heard the term 'sky God' in an AA flight deck, most of 'em have their heads up and locked...Cali Colombia and pedal-bike with the rudder pedals over New York are two prime examples. Even their management has a problem...Little Rock ring a bell?
Serious lack of very basic airmanship is a common thread with all these incidents/accidents.
Their present financial situation may well lead to more 'incidents'.

Lou Scannon

30th Mar 2003, 17:42

Any pilot who doesn't accept that he might one day land on the wrong strip of concrete, be it a taxy-way or wrong airport, is a pratt.

As B.Sousa remarked, he could almost feel the nausea the guys must have felt.

As the airport authority have tacitly admitted to the possibility of the taxy-way being mistaken for a runway why on earth didn't they mark it with a cross, or better still, write "Taxyway" as they did in Bangkok?

Skaz

30th Mar 2003, 21:56

411A having recently completed a Embry- Riddle course with indepth study of the AA Cali accident, I find your attitude shocking, your knowledge lacking and your post an insult to the memories of the crew and passengers onboard that 757.

There is never only one contributing factor to any accident. Communications, language difficulties, procedural differences in the naming of the navaid fix and STAR, training, L-S interaction re the FMS and its flawed database.....all these are contributing factors, there are more.

Serious lack of very basic airmanship is a common thread with all these incidents/accidents

your words have more bearing on your attitude...sir:yuk:
wind your neck in

411A

30th Mar 2003, 23:08

Skaz,
Lets look at the AA Cali accident from a slightly different perspective.

Incorrect FMS database, yes.
Poor language/understanding by ATC in Colombia, yes.

OTOH, the AA crew failed to note the warning signs....for example, accepting a last minute change of landing runway, hurried descent, poor/none approach briefing, inserting the desired NDB in the FMS and then when noting that the indicated course was off to left field followed it anyway, apparently did not even look at the RMI to ascertain if it was indicating correctly....and right up to the end, tried to respond to a GPWS warning by trying to climb away with full power with the spoilers extended.
A multitude of FAILURES on the part of the crew, which can hardly be dismissed.
Flying jet transport aircraft requires that the crew actually pay attention to what they are doing, clearly the AA crew at Cali did NOT.

As for the New York A300-605 accident, the AA crew clearly had NO understanding of the forces that can be applied to the vertical fin by rapid/large rudder movements. These lessons had been learned MANY years ago in the earlier days of jet transport flying, yet the AA training department found it necessary to instruct their crews to use the rudder in a most unsatisfactory manner.

And then we come to Little Rock. Poor weather, long duty day, poor landing technique, wet runway...which resulted in an accident where the Captain (management, who should have known better) apparently made up his mind to land anyway, regardless of the circumstances.

Suspect that the AA flight ops management needs a KE style audit.

RRAAMJET

31st Mar 2003, 01:17

411A, I always find it strange that you hold grudges against certain carriers in particular - ie: the US Majors, Cathay Pacific. The average joe in these airlines has done nothing personal to you...I just can't get worked up enough about someone else's "patch" to keep harping on at them, ad nauseum. Something must be really eating away at you...I did a search - anytime there is a posting on AA, 411a has something to say, and he doesn't fly for them. Yet he won't mention the name of the carrier he flies for.

I challenge you, 411a, to hereby post your flying background by carrier and type, and your current outfit. Stop hiding behind the internet like a coward, bleating at everybody else.

Here's mine:
RAF
The Queen's Flight
British Midland (subsidiary)
Cathay
AA
Loads of folks on this forum know me anyway, and I answer a lot of enquiries through the Mentor Program. No anonimity here - I've no reason to hide, and I make a point of NEVER CRITICISING SOMEONE ELSE'S CARRIER in a personal manner.

The ball's in your court.... :p

By the way, as usual in your posts, there are a few valid nuggets which have to be sorted out from the trash; IMHO, the problem is not with AA Management, but with the unions in general in the US carriers, that protect individuals who flagrantly under-perform. I'm not saying any of these crews were guilty of anything like that - my point, having spoken to many managers, is that they feel they have one hand tied behind their backs in enforcement of standards; of course the union officers say they are protecting the workers from managers who underperform, and the merry-go-round continues.... Despite your comments, 411A, I would say that CX flew to the highest standard I have ever seen, backed-up by strict enforcement - and I'm not talking about labour-relations post-'94 - there was a great deal of self-critique in the bar and RANDOM checking to provide those standards. You could be scheduled for crew-up in a sim at any time, and you'd better perform. Operating out of Kai Tak in a typhoon demanded nothing less. We all make mistakes, but there seems to be an un-willingness to confront it in the US, partly because the FAA behave so childishly and in-extremis that it's a rule of fear. I reckon AA could benefit from more random checks by those within, and that FAA inspectors should be made to fly the occassional route sector with a regular line crew as a regular crewmember for their own critique, just as it's done overseas... Some intelligent comment from others on this thread would be welcome....

norodnik

31st Mar 2003, 02:39

interesting thread and despite an air of not liking AA, I have to say I would concur with 411a.

I have flown in the RAF but not commercially except as a passenger and have run up well over 500K miles.

In those miles there have been various incidents and given a choice I would avoid AA at all costs as they have caused the worst moments I have had.

1) AA coming into JFK flew past centre line, over did the correcting turn and then went round went 10 feet off the ground almost perpendicular to the runway.

2) AA agin into JFK waiting for over an hour to land due to fog despite EWR being completly clear. Despit RVR in the 767 being 500ft and vis at JFK 0-250ft the pilot came in anyway, we broke the cloud just over the runway and then went round. I asked the pilot why he didn't land after we had diverted to EWR and he informed me he would have lost his license. Why did he even try.

3) flying the red eye SFO-JFK on AA there were huge storms over the mid-west and I was wtching attentively as the cloud top slowly crept towards us. Just before we went into it I told the passenger next to me to hold on and the we had violent turbulence follwed by immediate climb. The cloud top had been creeping towards us for over 30 mins and it was obvious the crew were payiing no attention.

I could mention others but in short, AA seem to have a culture different to most other Western airlines. Call it a perception if you want but other colleagues of mine feel the same way. I am sure you can post stats to disprove this but I for one will not fly AA

RRAAMJET

31st Mar 2003, 03:50

Sorry, Mate, but 2 & 3 above are the view out the rear windows, and I learnt long ago not to critique unless I was on the flightdeck with all the facts....
I shall not go into the complexities of a divert over a hold, availability of gates, legalities of starting and continuing an approach, initiating a go-around and then seeing the deck - ignore it, EWR being even more congested than JFK and frequently requiring a longer hold for an approach slot, 1000+ mile-long thunderstorm lines in US and trying to pick your way through on radar at night (did you see the radar display?-no). Even in 1) above, I saw many a BA jet and others, including an RAF VC-10, screw the turn into HKG and continue with a bad situation, and I've seen the same with others on the Carnarsie at JFK. At least this AA crew went around...

As you say, a perception....from the rear windows....

I'm still waiting for 411a to step up to the plate....

norodnik

31st Mar 2003, 04:12

RRAAMJET,

I agree that I was not upfront when any of these events happened but one can make certain assumptions.

1) The go around at JFK was poor airmanship and to attempt to get back on the runway was foolhardy (he wasn't even close).

2) The pilot at fog bound JFK told us over the PA that EWR was clear and that we could get in there. He wanted to get into JFK as the flight continued on to LHR. Can't blame him for wanting to keep the passengers happy but if the weather has been below minimums all morning it seemed stupid to give it a go before fuel forced a divert to EWR.

3) On the thunderstorm. No I wasn't up front and from flying straight and level it was clear as we sailed over the weather that there was no problem. I knew he was not paying attention as one usually puts the seat belt signs on before flying into the top of a storm. They were only put on afterwards. Would you take the risk or would you just put the signs on ? You could argue that he thought there was no need, which would then be bad judgement.

I may just be unlucky on AA as some are unlucky on UA but as I mentioned, many of my colleagues also avoid AA for similar reasons. Percetpion is reality, and most passengers don't even care.

411A

31st Mar 2003, 04:30

Unfortunate that you did not do a search RRAAMJET, but have mentioned before where I have worked.
In case you missed same...
SQ, SV, UL....heavy 3/4 engine line and training Captain.

And after more than thirty four years in heavy jet transport aircraft (almost all in command) I find it disgusting that AA still has problems. Not only that, but in their acquisition of TWA, they literally threw away DECADES of international flying experience, for when the present cadre of AA pilots were in diapers, TWA was learning the very hard lessons of international operations...and the problems that they can create.

Whenever possible, AA is to be avoided, IMO.

Suspect that Roger RRAAMJET is a rather junior AA guy who has determined (mistakenly) that AA is the be all/end all of civil aviation...nothing could be further from the truth. Their 'record' speaks volumes...wonder when he will wake up?

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 04:42

Norodnik,

Being a JFK based pilot for AA currently ( and a former pilot for Airworld, Flying Colours, JMC, Ryan International and a few others) I can tell you you are wrong on a couple of things.

First off, a diversion to EWR from JFK will virtually guarantee a sit on the ramp for 6 hours waiting for a gate with no one able to get off the aircraft and no ability to fuel the aircraft to get it on its way. Do you think that you would be the only aircraft diverting into EWR? Which is larger EWR or JFK? So which one will swamp the other one? Having done it in the past I can guarantee the result of the divert. AA has 20 widebody gates at JFK. it has 5 gates at EWR that are always in use, where would the plane go?

Taking off to fly up to an airport is completely legal even if the airport is closed as long as other requirements are met. The purpose of an airline is to get pax from point a to b. If that includes a stop at a mid point, the pax continuing to B (LHR in this case) will NEVER get to LHR if they don't meet up with their connecting flight.

The Carnise approach at JFK is now probably the most diffucult since hong kong changed. Its not that the approach itself is tough, its that noise contraints dictate its use even when the winds would seam to rule it out. It is very common that close to the water to have a 25-40 knot quartering tailwind during the whole approach which dies out at 200 feet but since the winds on the ground are less than a 10 knot tail wind that makes it "legal" and the Port Authority of NY will only authorize its use. AA doesn't "Miss" anymore or less than any other airline that shoots that approach.

It is very common to see airplane after airplane miss on that approach. So you were on board an AA plane when it happened, big deal...

BTW I sincerely doubt you missed from 10 feet off the ground almost perpendicular to the runway. as there are 70 foot high hangars on boths sides of the runway right there, and a couple of taller hotels very near by.

2) AA again into JFK waiting for over an hour to land due to fog despite EWR being completly clear. Despit RVR in the 767 being 500ft and vis at JFK 0-250ft the pilot came in anyway, we broke the cloud just over the runway and then went round. I asked the pilot why he didn't land after we had diverted to EWR and he informed me he would have lost his license. Why did he even try.

An approach is initiated past the Final approach fix based on the tower's report of conditions on the field which can be determined a number of ways and almost never exactly representative of what a pilots sees at the missed approach point. Even RVR is over the runway while the missed approach point is often 3/4 of a mile away from the runway (at 200 feet on glideslope ). The Tower's report of visibility which is often used can be several miles from the landing runway. So the tower can report legal landing minimums but if at MDA the pilot doesn't determine for himself that he has the legal requirements to continue to a landing he cannot land.
2) The pilot at fog bound JFK told us over the PA that EWR was clear and that we could get in there. He wanted to get into JFK as the flight continued on to LHR. Can't blame him for wanting to keep the passengers happy but if the weather has been below minimums all morning it seemed stupid to give it a go before fuel forced a divert to EWR.

If that is what the airline wanted the pilot to do and flight planned accordingly what is the big deal? More times than not it will work out. As far as fuel forcing a divert. One of two scenarios apply, the plane was flight planned over NY to another airport with an alternate beyond that. Or the whether forecast to be good enough in which case 1 or two alternates were provided. When the decision was made to go to the alternate it wasn't like the airplane was going to flame out when it got there. There was still holding and contigency fuel there. Its a commercial decision made by the airline to try and get the plane and its pax to its destination. Diversions are enourmously expensive. You can hold for HOURS and still save money over the cost of even a five mile diversion, if there are not gates and whatnot. The knock on effects of a diversion can last for days.

Getting airplanes out of position is so expensive for an airline that during the Flight attendant strike in 1993 AA flew the airplanes around EMPTY for several days rather than have to be in the position of trying to put the system back together when the strike was over!

Cheers
Wino

411a,

Not only that, but in their acquisition of TWA, they literally threw away DECADES of international flying experience, for when the present cadre of AA pilots were in diapers, TWA was learning the very hard lessons of international operations...and the problems that they can create.

I hate to break it to you, but Carl Icahn threw most of that experience away long before AA picked up the remnants. There wasn't much left of what you thought of as TWA by the time AA got there.

As to your shot at the 587 crew, You know better than that. You know damn well the airbus has a problem. It is the only aircraft in the world with a blocker type rudder load limiter and 3000 PSI available to the rudder at all times in all regimes of flight.

There have been zero incidents of tail structural damage in 75 years of AA flying aircraft other than 3 Airbus aircraft. FEDEX found one as well. The airplane is ****ed up, there is no nice way to say it. It turns out that it is strong enough to survive 1 event with hidden damage to the tail, but the second event will take the tail off. That is one of the problems with composits, they don't show damage like metal does, they HIDE it. As the A300605r fleet ages there WILL be other events.

Cheers
Wino

zerozero

31st Mar 2003, 04:59

NTSB Identification: SEA03IA046
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of American Airlines
Incident occurred Friday, March 14, 2003 in Seattle, WA
Aircraft: Boeing DC-9-82, registration: N298AA
Injuries: 111 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On March 14, 2003, at 1620 Pacific standard time, an American Airlines DC-9-82, (MD-82) N298AA, landed on an active taxiway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington. There were no injuries to the flight crew, the cabin crew, or any of the passengers. The aircraft, which is owned and operated by American Airlines, Inc., was not damaged. All occupants exited the aircraft at the passenger terminal using normal procedures. The 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger flight, which departed Dallas-Fort Worth Airport at 1435 central standard time, was being operated in visual meteorological conditions at the time of the incident.

According to American Airlines, the flight was executing the ILS for runway 16 right, and during the transition to a visual landing, the flying crewmember inadvertently misidentified taxiway Charlie (C), which is located to the west of runway 16 right, as the assigned runway. According to the flying crewmember, the position of the sun and wet terrain from a recent rain shower played a role in his misidentification of the appropriate landing surface.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030327X00405&key=1

[Some confusion earlier in the thread about which rwy was used. Emphasis mine.]

375ml

31st Mar 2003, 05:14

ATSB Occurrence number 200102619 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=319)

The link above contains a final report into a parallel taxiway landing at Sydney airport a couple of years back. Possibly similar themes are covered in this report. At the least it's an interesting read.

bigbeerbelly

31st Mar 2003, 05:56

After reading all the posts, it is my guess that in the rest of the world no one has heard of JSAP (Joint Safety Action Program). It is a program similar to the NASA ASRS incident reporting program, only better. The JSAP program is a crew report that protects the crew from certificate or diciplinary action when they immediately report any policy or regulation violations voluntarily. By documenting what led to the mistake and recommending how the incident can be avoided in the future. A board of JSAP comittee members (FAA, ALPA, management) review every report (after it has been de-identified by ALPA) and decide how to handle the corrective action. The worst thing that can happen is get sent back to the sim with a letter of warning by the FAA. This is a very general explanation of the JSAP, it is actually very technical and strict. Just from the very very few ;) reports that I have filed the MEL book has been revised and a few pilot read files have been issued to warn others of potential problems. I highly recommend all of you to contact your unions and safety department about setting up a similar program.

411A

31st Mar 2003, 06:14

Wino.

In fact, AA had the very first 'problem' with rudder/vertical fin incidents.
AA B707 rudder hardover and descent straight down into Flushing Bay...do a search.

To try and blame the AirBus aircraft for the 'loss of vertical fin' is nonsense.

Heavy size elevens...more than likely.
Senior guys retire...lessons easily forgotten, plain and simple.
And as for landing on the parallel taxiway, well unless the runway was closed and the taxiway notamed as available for landings, there can really be NO excuse, now can there?

WhatsaLizad?

31st Mar 2003, 06:16

And after more than thirty four years in heavy jet transport aircraft (almost all in command)

I love it, 34 years of flying with his favorite Captain, and that was started in his low to mid 20's. I'm sure of plethora of leadership skill was observed before the jump to the left seat.

Adios,

Thanks for the laugh

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 06:44

411a,

So tell me if the 707;s tail came off IN FLIGHT!

If it didn't its not the same.

Cheers
Wino

411A

31st Mar 2003, 06:54

Wino,
But OTOH, the power of the rudder in large heavy jet transport aircraft is surely not appreciated, at least not by newer pilots...but NOW they know.

These lessons were learned a very long time ago, yet seem to be forgotten until just recently.

For the AA training department to teach their guys to use large rudder inputs, without due understanding of the consequences, is approaching gross negligence, IMO.
It surely is not rocket science...or maybe it is, for the newer guys.
The older guys in the training department (IF any are left) have no excuse.

Suspect that the AA "we can do no wrong" philosophy is at work.

scanscanscan

31st Mar 2003, 08:04

Whatsalizard......

Your profile reads 757/767 First officer, located Florida.

Thus I wonder if you have any record of employment with majour airlines worldwide, or indeed any command time or experiance on worldwide routes.
Have you held any majour airline training positions on any aircraft or simulator?

411a has been there and done all of the above and done it well enough to have survived.

Presently I am inclined to favour his opinions over yours.

Please feel free to post your aviation track record todate so I can get a balance on your mutual backrounds.
Kind regards
scan

PaperTiger

31st Mar 2003, 08:19

16R does make a bit more sense, the configuration of Twy C at the 34 end doesn't look much like a runway. Not sure I buy the sun as a factor, at 1621 it should have been high and to the right but maybe coming in through the eyebrow windows ? Absence of approach lighting ought to have been a clue too, I mean you can't really miss those effing great towers sticking up out of the valley for the 16s.

Without wanting to get into the AA/TW slagfest, remind me which airline overflew their destination in Colorado and landed at an entirely different airport with a different runway alignment ? Okay so they did use the runway.

TR4A

31st Mar 2003, 08:21

As for the New York A300-605 accident, the AA crew clearly had NO understanding of the forces that can be applied to the vertical fin by rapid/large rudder movements. These lessons had been learned MANY years ago in the earlier days of jet transport flying, yet the AA training department found it necessary to instruct their crews to use the rudder in a most unsatisfactory manner.

Must be an armchair NTSB investigator.

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 08:54

411a

As a graduate of AA's training, I can tell you for CERTAIN what you think you know about AA's training is a gross distortion put out by Airbus to cover their ass.

AA never taught me anything other than coordinated rudder and knowing Both Captain Ed States and F/O Sten Molin I am sure they didn't jack the rudder back and forth 5 times.

In fact it has never been demostrated that THEY moved the rudder at all, and one of the incidents that resulted in damage to the tail was caused by the inability of the rudder channel of the autopilot to disengage resulting in large rudder pedal motions and violent swings of the aircraft back and forth while the autopilots switches were disengaged. That came very close to a loss of the aircraft and lead to an A/D that found more aircraft with the same problem.

It is nice of you to LEAP to the conclusion that the pilots did this, but I can demonstrate proven cases where the autopilot has done it. I have NEVER seen a pilot act that way.

The only thing the crew of 587 didn't know was that the rudder gets exponentionally more sensitive with speed. Its the only aircraft in the world like that and a lifetime of flying big jets would just set you up to get killed in an A300605R. The Sim didn't model it and the aircraft manuals said exactly the opposit. When questioned at the NTSB hearings the reply from Airbus was basically that it got lost in the translation. If Airbus can't put out a manual in English (the language of aviation) that is factually correct, their license to manufacture aircraft for flight outside of French Airspace should be lifted untill they can.

SCANSCANSCAN,

I don't know him personnally but I do know that American won't hire you without command time. Infact the fact that he was hired by AA makes his background more credible as I know it was researched. (Note I don't doubt 411a's background)

I was an Airbus captain for many 4 different companys, but at AA I am a copilot and I think that is what my profile says now. I don't have to live on past glory, and I suspect whatsalizad doesn't either.

Cheers
Wino

411A

31st Mar 2003, 09:56

Wino,
In my long years in the middle east on the TriStar, personally knew many pilots on the A300-600 (from about 1986) , none of which to my knowledge mentioned any autopilot/dis-connected autopilot problems with the rudder, nor do I remember any adverse incidents with the aeroplane (other than ground mishaps).
Instrument/avionics cooling problems yes, flight control problems...no.

Why is it then that AA has had these particular problems?

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 10:26

For one, AA operates MORE than anyone else (they had 35 of them, now 34 obviously, though I think We have been passed up by FEDEX and soon will be passed by UPS) operated at an enourmous utililzation rate.

Number 2 is that Airbus is not as good as Boeing at diseminating information between the operators. When we got together with other operators (like Fedex) single events at FEDEX when combined with other events indicated a pattern of events.

The main point is that Airbus feels that inspections beyond visual are not warranted on the composit tail. Well that is just flat out dangerous. So events where the aircraft came back and might not have seamed that terrible actually the aircraft sustained hidden damage. If the aircraft had a repeat event then the tail could be lost (as was 587). Right up till we pulled the tails AIRBUS was screaming at us not to do it. We looked at 6 aircraft (including 587) and found severe structural damage in 3 of them. NOT GOOD. All of these aircraft had severe turbulence inspections in the weeks before we pulled the tails. Though they were structurally unsound, the airbus mandated inspection didn't determine it. The problem is that pulling the tail off the aircraft (the only way to inspect the 6 lugs) is a HUGE job that makes the aircraft completely uneconomical to fly if you do it regularly.... Airbus has similar tails on the A320/330/340 btw, and if it turns out you have to actually inspect them...

But back to the AA A300600s. In the first 10 years of the aircraft the odds of having 2 events on the same aircraft are pretty small. But as time goes on... The tails are still not inspected to this day. In the AA fleet 29 aircraft still haven't been inspected.

One of the things about AA that is different then many of the other operators is the length of time we keep our aircraft. AA buys an aircraft for a 20-30 year life. Airbus made their bread and butter on shorter duration leases. So we tend to keep em in service longer, so we have a longer institutional life and memory. We started getting our controll problems (off the top of my head) around or so (after the aircraft had been in service for 7 years)

Cheers
Wino

RRAAMJET

31st Mar 2003, 11:05

411a, read my post again and you will clearly determine that in no way do I regard AA as the "be-all" of aviation...any outfit and pilot has the room to learn, including your airline, which IS by the way....? You STILL haven't said who you currently fly for.

The very,very best training Captains I have known were all completely humble to their trainees, and all claimed to still be learning. What I find extraordinary about you,411A, in my 20+ years of professional flying I have never come across such a pompous self-proclaimed know-all, so willing to take personal shots at others unknown. I just can't imagine standing at the bar lecturing folks from another airline about the way they should operate, or the standard of their flying, when I don't even know them and are not prepared to declare who I currently fly for. "Welllll, I've been flying for 34 years, so I know everything...listen-up kids, Daddy's going to read you a story. Once upon a time, when pilots could fly, unlike you whippersnappers ..."

B****r-off, mate, the training Capts that trained me were flying well before you (1949) and managed it with skill and humility, skills I suspect you dumped with your first issuance of 4 bars. I pity your co-pilots. Quite incredible...

What amazes me about this and many other threads, is the sheer invective being levelled at AA currently by other aviators. I just cannot see the point at whining at another carrier...unless you held some deep grudge against them. 767300ER'S position I can understand as he flew for TWA, but 411A, what's eating you? Why the continued attacks on your fellow aviators? :confused: Spell-out, please, what AA, CX, UA have done to you personally, so we can all sympathise... :rolleyes:

411A

31st Mar 2003, 13:04

No particular 'problem' with any of the airlines you mention RRAAMJET, but some of the folks that work for 'em that I have personally met, that's a completely different story altogether.

For example, had dinner a few months back with two retired Captains, one from TWA, the other from AA.
The AA guy was just full of himself and his company, mentioning to me ad nausiam about how AA developed many of the newer ideas in use today...AA's planes were better maintained, their pilots were better trained, their company better managed...the list goes on.
The TWA guy on the other hand, was positively correct in his assertions that the international services that TWA had pioneered over the years were started before anyone at AA could even spell 'international'. This particular fellow has over 1600 atlantic crossings under his belt, yet the AA guy was lecturing him on the 'better' ways that AA operates.
Also the subject of salaries came up. The AA fellow mentioned that he thought the AA pay was the best in the industry...well perhaps it once was, but the AA folks are about to find out shortly that it won't last long.
As for the other airlines you mentioned, the CX folks have had a very good ride over the years, but the gravy train has run out of steam...and double the same for the UAL folks. Leaner, and certainly meaner airlines are going to eat 'em alive, especially UAL.
OTOH, it looks as though the folks at USAir will survive, for they have appeared to have bitten the bullet just in time.

Ignition Override

31st Mar 2003, 13:27

Whoa horse! Many attacks annd counter-attacks are similar to a few (pro) basketball players who display impulsive aggression, or John Wayne in a bar fight. Most of us can spot opinions for what they are and I've certainly got too many of my own, which appear to be "carved into stone". Lots of these verbal assaults can quickly drag educational debates downhill. Many laymen and brand-new pilots read these topics.

Overall, the factual aircraft and procedural information in this (awkward) debate is very interesting, if some "line judge" can decide what all of the true facts are.

However, we can not change the tendencies of people to stereotype other company's operations or erase their lasting impressions, and we also can't quickly erase another person's conscious (or unc.) biases or preferences, whether in a simple "soundbyte" remark or a graduate thesis.

1) Attempts to smear an entire flight ops/airline culture can never be done, even in several paragraphs, with any claim of thorough objectivity. An outside analysis by experts is very long and complex.

2) Reacting defensively to such attacks often involves one's ego and results in nothing but counter-attacks and accusations.

As for mistakes in the short-haul business, yesterday was my first time into Wash National Airport since the "troubles", and it was very busy. Things went well, we kept nothing secret from each other, but I never liked the cramped little airport and never will. Only the view of the city is nice. Isn't it interesting how such a questionable airport (runway lengths), its size and location make absolutely no difference, when the convenience of the most powerful people in the US is THE first priority, even though they often use Andrews AFB, which has long runways? We could easily have screwed something up (never mind eating some bad fruit), even on departure today. If I ever became resistant to any advice from any FO (or FA), smirked at any suggestion or became too proud, I could quickly be in real trouble.

:uhoh:

B767300ER

31st Mar 2003, 13:42

Wino, sorry to disagree, but your analysis of Icahn and TWA is all wrong. Other than selling AA the LHR routes (and NWA & US the LGW routes, except STL-LGW), Carl Icahn only took the company private. He did'nt lay off 60% of the employees, close domiciles, ground wide-bodies and utterly destroy the core of the airline.

So far, Carty and AA (along with AA unions' tacit approval) have systematically dismantled the major airline TWA was, layed-off 60% of the 21,000 employees, closed all domiciles (except STL), closed reservation centers, hangars, terminals, stations; grounded 60 of TWA's 190 jets, taken over ALL intn'l routes TWA flew, all transcons, all Caribbean/Mexico flying and now is taking over STL-domestic flying. In other words, the AA employees have gained a gigantic windfall from the TWA acquisition, and not suffered the furloughs post 9-11 like other airlines, and TWA employees have had their careers and livelihoods destroyed.

If I had my choice, I'd take Icahn over Carty any day.
http://www.starmanauctions.com/twa.gif

HotDog

31st Mar 2003, 14:10

411A,

05 March 2003
Cathay Pacific announces full-year results for 2002

Cathay Pacific Airways today announced its full-year results for the year 2002. The Group reported a profit attributable to shareholders of HK$3,983 million compared to a profit of HK$657 million in 2001. Turnover rose by 8.7% to HK$33,090 million.

the CX folks have had a very good ride over the years, but the gravy train has run out of steam...and double the same for the UAL folks. Leaner, and certainly meaner airlines are going to eat 'em

Run out of steam? Fact is, the pressure is rising in the boiler chum! Beats Chapter 11 anyday.

411A

31st Mar 2003, 14:43

All very good news for the folks at CX HotDog, but suspect that the renumeration train for the flight crew is running on empty...bit like a super Connie on 100LL....poorly.
But hey, they might get lucky.

And for those that did not know (perhaps just a bit too young), the TWA common stock price was at its highest just before Howard Hughes was forced to sell all his shares...downhill ever since until it disappeared.

HotDog

31st Mar 2003, 14:46

It's still very competetive and certainly much better than a 30% pay cut a la UAL.

411A

31st Mar 2003, 14:52

Absolutely correct, HotDog. Perhaps the company and the AOA will bury the hatchet sometime in the near future. The one very bright spot in aviation today is Asia.

And just to drag this thread more toward the original topic...surely if the runway of intended landing was served by an ILS, why would the crew land on the parallel taxiway?
No one watching perhaps?
Use all the aids...just might save your butt, and paycheck.

zerozero

31st Mar 2003, 15:24

"Use all the aids...just might save your butt, and paycheck"

I guess he does have some redeeming value. Who knew?:p

norodnik

31st Mar 2003, 15:43

Wino,

if AA examined 6 out of 35 of the Airbus fleet and found "severe structural damage in 3 of them", would you not think it prudent to ground the other 29.

Lets say one of the 29 has another incident similar to 587 (God forbid). Sure, Airbus may be in the dock, but AA will get sued out of existence probably before it reaches chapter 11.

HotDog

31st Mar 2003, 16:36

Well 411A, as you steered it off topic, I would expect you to steer it back. It does save face.

OldAg84

31st Mar 2003, 19:25

B767300ER- Based on other posts I've read, I would suppose the AA pilot is flying and the TW pilot is furloughed.

With regard to landing on a taxiway- it seems a basic mistake. Without reflecting directly on this crew (whom I sympathize with), what are some of minor factors that might additively lead to basic mistakes (like this)?

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 22:40

Norodnik

That has been the pilot's position all along! However, Airbus threatened to pull support for the aircraft if we yanked the tails.
Furthermore, AIRBUS's position is that pulling the tails is an unauthorized procedure, so if their is an incident on the inspected aircraft AA will be sued out of existance.

That is one of the reasons the aa NEEDS to go to bankruptcy. It the only way they can afford to get rid of the airbuses. (3.5 billion dollars worth of aircraft)

Cheers
Wino

Ahhh how quickly they forget.

767 Icahn sold the routes but not the pilots. That is Icahn's fault. He gutted the airline. TWA was a small predominantly domestic airline when he was done with it. Yeah, you had some trancons and a few routes into the carribean. Big deal. The days of the TWA round the world flights were long gone. The European based 727s (remember Beruit with Testdrake stickin his head out the window with a 45 held to it?) were long gone.

TWA was NOT the glorious airline of the early 80s when AA bought it.

Furthermore, what was done to you was entirely predictable and there was no way the APA could have stopped it. What you suffered through was pretty much the same as the "Transition plan" that AA suffered through in 93 where most of the domestic flying was transfered to Eagle and the international routes were consolidated at a few hubs. Your network was brought into line with the game plan.

What was done to you was no different then the closing of the Reno, Raleigh and Nashville hubs, and entirely predictable. Infact the APA warned you guys that you were being bought most likely as a "capacity pulldown". You would have been wise to oppose the buyout instead of supporting it, but the upside potential was too great for you guys so you took it.

Sup CC gave you an enourmous upside potential (far greater than the AA pilots) in exchange for the risk. Sorry it didn't work out for you. You pays your price and you takes your chances. Had the economy not tanked 100s of TWA pilots would have been captains years junior to AA pilots getting the chance.

Furthermore, I guess that huge paycut and retirment hits that Icahn imposed on TWA don't count for anything. He "just took TWA private"

Cheers
Wino

411A

31st Mar 2003, 22:50

Wino,

Yes, that is possible. Airlines have done so in the past.
OTOH, if AA desires to rid themselves of the A300-600, suspect that there is a ready market for freighter conversions.

Wino

31st Mar 2003, 23:17

yes there is 411a,

but only at a HUGE discount off the price of the aircraft, and then you have to pay for the conversion which costs several million as well.

Cheers
Wino

dudly

1st Apr 2003, 00:50

"So far, Carty and AA (along with AA unions' tacit approval) have systematically dismantled the major airline TWA was, layed-off 60% of the 21,000 employees, closed all domiciles (except STL), closed reservation centers, hangars, terminals, stations; grounded 60 of TWA's 190 jets.

B767300ER, I have great sympathy for yours and other TWA employees current predicatment. But to say that a union gave its tacit approval to the dismantling of a once great airline begs the question. Employees have no say in what management does or does not do. They may think they do, but when you get down to the fine hairs, management controls it all. It is easy to blame other employees, and that is exactly what management counts on. From reading other posters on this subject, and from my brother in law, it seems this is what AA has always down to acquired carriers. Dismantle and gut them. A wrenching position to be an employee in. The employees do not do this, the management team does. Good luck.

B767300ER

1st Apr 2003, 00:52

Wino, you're misinformed. Just like the APA spin doctors planned, you have no idea what value TWA brought to the buyout when AA purchased it for $750 million, when it was worth over $2.5 billion. Maybe it was to 'get rid of duplicate route competition', but that does'nt gve AA/APA the right to systematically throw away all the workers involved.

TWA was'nt as large as it was in the late 80's (225 jets, 3 hubs, 45% of its routes intn'l), but it was still a MAJOR airline with billions in annual revenue, 4% worldwide market share, 21,000 employees and routes to 4 continents and 190 jets. It was'nt in any shape or form resembling previous AA acquisitions of regional/local service carriers RenoAir/AirCal/TransCaribbean, none of which had more than 300 pilots or 35 aircraft. By the way, all those pilots, none of which would have flown wide-body intn'l/oceanic routes, had/are having great careers. TWA had both, and now our pilots don't fly ANY wide-bodies (which we brought to the deal) OR ANY intn'l routes (which we brought to the table). Sounds like a gigantic windfall and seat-grab to me. 45% of TWA's 2400 pilots are FURLOUGHED, while less than 4% of AA's much larger list are.

Icahn did'nt 'gut' the airline, he sold LHR routes, bought into Worldspan and downsized slightly after trying to grow. He did slash labor costs, but only after bankruptcy forced him to. He was most definately greedy and never cared to re-invest in the airline, but there were'nt thousands of layoffs, either. TWA's pilots did take 45% pay cuts, after 2 bankruptcies, but got 45% of the airline's stock in return and board seats, which APA has yet to negotiate. Compared to Carty, Icahn is a white knight.

Your statement that Supplement CC (the TWA/AA integration cramdown) 'gave us enormous potential' is LAUGHABLE. It will be the DEATH of most of the TWA pilot group and horribly constraining, inefficient and unproductive for AA (just when they need it, before bankruptcy). APA never intended to negotiate a fair/equitable deal; they intended to take our seats, take our jets, take our routes, take our flying and TAKE OUR JOBS, which is exactly what has happened.

I hope you're proud of yourself and your 'union'; you'll never see any solidarity from me or my colleagues.

Oh, and that $45 million fine you owe AA after that illegal-sickout? That will be due in FULL when AA declares chapter 11. Better save up, they won't be able to pay it without payroll deduct.

Wino

1st Apr 2003, 03:00

Actually, the TRO goes away with the new contract out today, and most likely so does the fine.

Again, if you are unhappy, boo hoo. APA exists to lookout for its members, You were represented by ALPA who existed to look out for your members. Your proposals were equally egregious. Well you lost, big deal. get over it. APA did NOT represent the TWA pilots at that point in time and would have faced a lawsuit from its own pilots had it not looked after its own constituents. TWA didn't treat OZark any better so get off your high horse.

There won't be any strikes any time soon (and the way legislation is going there are never going to be strikes) so the value of your "soliidarity" is exactly ZERO anyway.

I hope you find a job that makes you happy. Obviously AA is going to make you a bitter old man. Go to Jet blue and do your best to put us out of business. You won't be missed. Frankly in a company the size of AA there isn't anyone anywhere that would be missed if they left.

As to the APA spin doctors. I know exactly what TWA brought to the table, and you can make all the excuses you want, but FACT is that throughout the biggest boom in airline history TWA couldn't make money if it was hauling COCAINE!

Cheers
Wino

411A

2nd Apr 2003, 14:27

Well the other shoe dropped today.
AA anounced that 1 in 5 pilots would be out of work shortly.

Boo hoo all 'round I would think.

My names Turkish

12th Apr 2003, 21:22

411a, your attitude is very misfortunate. To talk about people who have lost their lives in accidents, in such a disrespectful way is disgusting, you as a pilot should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sure should you be involved in an unfortunate mishap your attitude would change rapidly. Gloating at people who will be made redundant is also very sad, why such a very large chip on your shoulder?

411A

14th Apr 2003, 10:53

No chip Turkish, just an observation that the AA guys will have to ride out the storm, just like everyone else in the industry.
Notice now that the AA folks are starting to object to managements cost reduction proposals.
Suspect bankruptcy may well ensue. The employees really have no say in the matter, either the company or the courts will decide, one way or another. And there is no arguing with a bankruptcy court judge. Their rulings have the force of law.

My names Turkish

14th Apr 2003, 11:40

You seem to dodge the questions when it suits you..

How can you talk about airline accidents as "a fiasco". What about acusing the New York Airbus pilot of being like a cyclist on the Rudder pedals? Your talking about hundreds of people losing their lives. Regardless of which airline these people worked for they were just people like you or me. Would you like someone to talk about you like that. It really is unfortunate.

To slate others like that you must have a very high opinion of yourself? I would love to fly with someone who makes Zero mistakes, you must be very competent.

411A

14th Apr 2003, 13:49

Have survived for a very long time in the airline/exec aviation arena Turkish, so suspect it is more than luck...competence plays a very large part.
And, if you study past accident reports, you will find many human failures, some unfortunately as a result of poor training.
As I have been in a training capacity in several airlines, I have seen these problems every day. The upset training that AA apparently offered their pilots, with large rudder inputs, has been known for many years to be not a good idea. But many times the young turks in the training department seem to forget...or never knew in the first place.
Lessons learned the hard way in the past should never be ignored.

My names Turkish

16th Apr 2003, 01:24

411A

I find your attitude to be incredibly arrogant, and the way you talk about people who have perished sickening. I feel I'm not alone here, I've noticed others getting upset also,and I wonder if you do it for the attention sometimes. If you can see these problems so clearly why don't you do something about it?

He who does not make mistakes usually does not make anything at all?

I don't want this to be a private thread of my opinions so this will be my last post.

B767300ER

20th Apr 2003, 09:48

"TWA did'nt treat Ozark any better, get off your high horse".

This is what I was talking about---SPIN. APA convinced you that TWA screwed OZ, and that OZ pilots were disadvantaged. Nothing could be further from the truth, Wino.You obviously have no idea what the TWA-Ozark merger and subsequent seniority integration involved. Allow me to educate you:

*Ozark was bought by TWA in 1986, merged into TWA's operation within 6-8 months and all pilots integrated.

*Ozark flew 54 DC-9s, all variants, and 6 MD-80s, and had a STL hub with domestic flying to both coasts. TWA had 160 aircraft, 747s/L1011s/767s/727s and 2 hubs, one in STL, one in JFK. Over 40% of TWA's routes were international, and 45% of its fleet were wide-bodies.

*Ozark had 580 pilots, TWA had 2500 pilots and F/Es.

*The seniority list was constructed using...DATE OF HIRE for ALL pilots, with bump-and-flush restrictions in both domiciles and the fence that only allowed 16% of wide-body Captain positions to go to OZ pilots until last OZ pilot could hold it.

*Some OZ Captains, even with DOH, lost their DC-9 Captain bids, and were bumped to 727/DC-9/MD80 F/O. But, all OZ pilots could bid wide-body F/O, and 16% of the WB Captain flying was reserved for OZ Captains. Up to 60 OZ pilots were furloughed following industry downturns, but were recalled within months.

*All OZ pilots could bid 747/1011/767 Intn'l F/O, and 16% of the Captain bids on these aircraft could be flown by OZ pilots. OZ pilots could also bid ANY domicile and ANY aircraft their seniority could hold, except the 16% restriction.

Now, consider your statement about TWA treatment of Ozark, and the current situation of AA destroying the TWA pilot seniority list. See how ridiculous it is? You're way off base, mate.

More facts from TWA/AA integration:

* 60% of TWA's pilots STAPLED to bottom of AA new-hire sen. list
(including 150 Captains with 13-years)
* 1100 of TWA's very senior Captains ratioed into AA list with 8-1
ratio, favoring junior AA Captains and hurting senior TWA ones
* Furlough protection of all AA pilots
* NO furlough protection for stapled TWA pilots (1300)
* NO TWA pilot can bid outside STL
* NO TWA pilot can bid 777/MD11/A300/737/F100
* AA pilots currently fly all STL-Intn'l flights
* AA pilots fly 25% of STL domestic flights
* AA pilots can bid STL, and bump TWA pilots down in seniority
* 45% of TWA's pilots (950) are furloughed, more going soon
* 4% of AA's pilots are furloughed (386)

Tell me, Wino, WHERE can I sign up for the TWA-OZark agreement RIGHT NOW? Give me my Date-of-hire NOW, and let me bid anywhere my seniority allows me.

I know your retort; that was'nt negotiated. Now you see why your comments are so inaccurate. Make sure your colleagues understand---OZ got DOH, okay? Now, give us the same, and we'll be happy.