Air Canada Tokyo Incident

[Rockie]

If I knew the facts Pelmet, I wouldn’t feel obliged to feed them to a pair of internet trolls interested only in painting Air Canada as an unsafe airline. Innuendo is the tool of cowards afraid to come right out and make an accusation. If Air Canada is unsafe why don’t you and . put your heads together and state in clear terms why?

[rookiepilot]

Rockie I'm curious if you think posters on an internet blog should be allowed to comment:

1) On all incidents.
2) On no incidents
3) On all incidents except Air Canada.

Fwiw I think this one is much ado about nothing.

[Old fella]

If I knew the facts Pelmet, I wouldn’t feel obliged to feed them to a pair of internet trolls interested only in painting Air Canada as an unsafe airline. Innuendo is the tool of cowards afraid to come right out and make an accusation. If Air Canada is unsafe why don’t you and . put your heads together and state in clear terms why?

This incident is much to do about nothing outside of possible embarrassment, that is if you can call it such. The appearance I got was there were questionable if any notams on the new construction activity, no barricades no obstructing lighting to indicate a no entry area. The aircraft wasn’t damaged from what I read, just the inconvenience of a tow out and deplaning the passengers after a 12 hr flight. Not the first time such incidents happened and won’t be the last. You can bet that Japanese Airport Authority is reviewing their procedures, Air Canada no doubt as well. The Aviation Herald had a very good written expose as I saw.

Slow AVCanada Newsweek in the hot August summer wx I guess that generated three pages and counting commentary. Anyway, carry on chaps.

[C.W.E.]

Innuendo is the tool of cowards

I love the above statement.

Written by someone who hides behind a made up name.

At least I have the self worth to post using my real name .

. ..

[altiplano]

Really? . ./C.W.E./Cat Driver?

Is that what makes a comment any more or less valid?Or gives an individual worth?

Whether I agree or not in this case...

There is a lot of great perspective on this site and the internet in general from anonymous contributors... of course there are equal parts lot drivel from named and unnamed contributors too.

There is a prejudice apparent in some posts, and from some posters... not really discussing at all but obviously with an agenda... is AC the only airline that takes a wrong taxiway? of course not... the reason why everyone here is all over it vs. another incident? or why pelmet or yourself are so keyed on it? only you know...

Probably 60+ years of combined experience and uneventful flying at AC in those seats that day... they made a mistake. I posted earlier what I thought the trap was from looking at the information available. What do you think?

[Cat Driver]

Really? . ./C.W.E./Cat Driver?

Is that what makes a comment any more or less valid?Or gives an individual worth?

My comment re using my real name was aimed at Rockie who called me a coward and I said at least I don't hide behind a made up name, is that against the rules?.

I posted earlier what I thought the trap was from looking at the information available. What do you think?

I have said it was possible to make that mistake, I also find it interesting that Air Canada seems to do it more than the other airlines, especially that SFO one that was really, really close to an aviation disaster.

[pelmet]

If I knew the facts Pelmet, I wouldn’t feel obliged to feed them to a pair of internet trolls interested only in painting Air Canada as an unsafe airline. Innuendo is the tool of cowards afraid to come right out and make an accusation. If Air Canada is unsafe why don’t you and . put your heads together and state in clear terms why?

It is not for me to say whether AC is safe or unsafe. The facts, good and bad stand for themself. But seeing as you have confirmed that you won't publish any lessons learned to any of us here....ever(which understandably could be done under another handle for anonymity), using the excuse that a couple of posters here have an agenda, I would say that this shows more about your attitude toward promoting aviation safety through lessons learned than mine.

However, as much as I am now a coward, I can guarantee you that the act of identifying a taxiway sign to confirm that they would go onto the taxiway they had been cleared to go onto was not done. Perhaps most of us would have done the same(and I seriously believe that I would have fallen into the same trap) but it is still a part of what happened. You know it and so do I. Hurling insults will not change that fact and the fact that identifying a taxiway sign can prevent what happened.

[pelmet]

I posted earlier what I thought the trap was from looking at the information available. What do you think?

So did I...as seen here.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=125781&start=25#p1047414

There is a lot of great perspective on this site and the internet in general from anonymous contributors... of course there are equal parts lot drivel from named and unnamed contributors too.

There is a prejudice apparent in some posts, and from some posters... not really discussing at all but obviously with an agenda... is AC the only airline that takes a wrong taxiway? of course not... the reason why everyone here is all over it vs. another incident? or why pelmet or yourself are so keyed on it? only you know...

And you know my perspective if you review my posts. It is simply to distribute ideas and informaton to prevent again. This includes for myself as discussing it drives home in my memory about an incident and may be something that ten years from now gets vaguely remembered at the right time to save the day as I am well aware that I can make the same mistake.

It is interesting when you consider the large number of incidents that I have commented on over the years that whenever an AC incident comes up, I am accused by the AC guys of having an agenda. Didn't see any WJ guys saying similar on the St, Martin incident thread when I made comments on how it might have been prevented. A few challenged me but not from an "I have some sort of anti-WJ agenda". It just makes you look childish.

While I can understand challenging someone making general bad-mouthing of the company statements, when are you and Rockie going to admit you have an instinctive defend your employer at any cost, even the cost of discussion of legitimate items to promote aviation safety. It is a knee jerk insult/conspiracy reaction to any comment about an incident at your company. My current and past companies have both had more than one incident thread on this forum. I guarantee you, that I have not been doing some sort of bulldog kind of defense where you insult seemingly anyone who discusses an incident with legitimate statements.

[pelmet]

If I knew the facts Pelmet, I wouldn’t feel obliged to feed them to a pair of internet trolls interested only in painting Air Canada as an unsafe airline. Innuendo is the tool of cowards afraid to come right out and make an accusation. If Air Canada is unsafe why don’t you and . put your heads together and state in clear terms why?

This incident is much to do about nothing outside of possible embarrassment, that is if you can call it such. The appearance I got was there were questionable if any notams on the new construction activity, no barricades no obstructing lighting to indicate a no entry area. The aircraft wasn’t damaged from what I read, just the inconvenience of a tow out and deplaning the passengers after a 12 hr flight. Not the first time such incidents happened and won’t be the last. You can bet that Japanese Airport Authority is reviewing their procedures, Air Canada no doubt as well. The Aviation Herald had a very good written expose as I saw.

Slow AVCanada Newsweek in the hot August summer wx I guess that generated three pages and counting commentary. Anyway, carry on chaps.

I disagree with your no big deal attitude. Whenever an aircraft accidentally enters a construction area, a closed off area or possibly even a taxiway that they were not cleared onto, there can be significantly elevated risks. Usually it will only lead to embarrasment and delay but the incidents posted below show what has happened to others....

http://www.indianaviationnews.net/decis ... e-culprit/

https://www.google.com/search?q=british ... Y8ACqUVAfM:

[Lightchop]

Innuendo is the tool of cowards

I love the above statement.

Written by someone who hides behind a made up name.

At least I have the self worth to post using my real name .

. ..

Easy to do when you're retired, have nothing to worry about and have already burned all your bridges in Canada.

[C.W.E.]

Let me correct some of your comments Lightchop because some of them are completely untrue and you obviously do not have a clue as to my background.

Easy to do when you're retired,

I started posting on these forums long before I retired because using my real name was very good for my business especially on Pprune where most of my clients were.

You should do a little research before you make statements that are not true.

have nothing to worry about

You did get that part right.

and have already burned all your bridges in Canada.

I have no idea what bridges you are referring to, what do you know that I don't?

Am I getting senile? Try as a may I can not recall any bridges I have burned in aviation in Canada, the last flying job I had working for someone else was as a fire bombing captain with " The Flying Foreman " in Victoria B.C.and I was with them for twelve years and quit the fire bombing business in 1986 so I could be home in the summer time.

In 1986 I started a flying school that offered both fixed wing and helicopter training and from that point on I was self employed.

So please jolt my memory and tell me what " bridges " I burnt.

[Old fella]

If I knew the facts Pelmet, I wouldn’t feel obliged to feed them to a pair of internet trolls interested only in painting Air Canada as an unsafe airline. Innuendo is the tool of cowards afraid to come right out and make an accusation. If Air Canada is unsafe why don’t you and . put your heads together and state in clear terms why?

This incident is much to do about nothing outside of possible embarrassment, that is if you can call it such. The appearance I got was there were questionable if any notams on the new construction activity, no barricades no obstructing lighting to indicate a no entry area. The aircraft wasn’t damaged from what I read, just the inconvenience of a tow out and deplaning the passengers after a 12 hr flight. Not the first time such incidents happened and won’t be the last. You can bet that Japanese Airport Authority is reviewing their procedures, Air Canada no doubt as well. The Aviation Herald had a very good written expose as I saw.

Slow AVCanada Newsweek in the hot August summer wx I guess that generated three pages and counting commentary. Anyway, carry on chaps.

I disagree with your no big deal attitude. Whenever an aircraft accidentally enters a construction area, a closed off area or possibly even a taxiway that they were not cleared onto, there can be significantly elevated risks. Usually it will only lead to embarrasment and delay but the incidents posted below show what has happened to others....

http://www.indianaviationnews.net/decis ... e-culprit/

https://www.google.com/search?q=british ... Y8ACqUVAfM:

You are certainly allowed to disagree with me. Carry on!!!, I am done though.

[Rockie]

., keep telling yourself your self worth rests on posting on an aviation forum under your real name...

[Lightchop]

., keep telling yourself your self worth rests on posting on an aviation forum under your real name...

[pelmet]

My first time in Narita I noticed some green taxiways and thought it was some new type of material they were using instead of concrete. Upon closer inspection they weren't in very good condition and that is when I realized they were under construction and painted green to look like infield (in a shade not very similar to grass). It's an interesting idea aesthetically but not very intuitive. After all most people don't associate green with stop.

Interesting info can be found when reviewing Jeppesen charts prior to going to an airport whether before the flight or on the long flight over. Frequently, there is not a lot of extra info on airports in North America, but in other parts of the world, there can be many pages of info with hidden key items. Take a look at Paris or London. Temporary taxi charts can also have pertinent info as well. It can take a while to sift through all of this stuff. I like to mark important info down onto my own airport info notes for review and frequently add info after visiting an airport again. I have notes for each airport I fly into for work as a quick reference and review.

Jeppesen page 20-8B for RJAA(NRT) is titled "Prevention of Taxiway Incursions at Narita Airport". It talks about abolished taxiways. In part it says "Aircraft should pay special attention not to enter the abolished taxiway". It also says "Artificial turf markings are installed on the abolished taxiway."

This appears to be a new taxiway but the turf info appears to have been just as applicable this taxiway as it is to the abolished ones. Sometimes the important info is there but takes time to find.

[Cat Driver]

Lightchop.


I am waiting for you to back up this untrue statement you made about me and my career.

Easy to do when you're retired, have nothing to worry about and have already burned all your bridges in Canada.

That statement is way beyond acceptable because it is untrue, so show proof of what you are accusing me of.

Either show proof or retract your statement regarding me burning all my bridges in Canada.

[NotDirty!]

Jeppesen page 20-8B for RJAA(NRT) is titled "Prevention of Taxiway Incursions at Narita Airport". It talks about abolished taxiways. In part it says "Aircraft should pay special attention not to enter the abolished taxiway". It also says "Artificial turf markings are installed on the abolished taxiway."

This appears to be a new taxiway but the turf info appears to have been just as applicable this taxiway as it is to the abolished ones. Sometimes the important info is there but takes time to find.

You are correct about the text on page 20-8B, however you fail to mention that they list where the abolished taxiways are on the same page, and reference the diagram on page 20-8C, neither of which mention the incident taxiway, between B5 and B7.

42A77AB3-A0E9-4F8F-B1D4-93CE85D3543F.png (310.1 KiB) Viewed 1901 times

A6F04572-813E-4499-A5E5-ADAD8CE01625.png (629.42 KiB) Viewed 1901 times

So remind me again how this was supposed to help prevent this incident... I do see that they also mention closed markings, red lights and unserviceability lights installed on the abolished taxiway earlier down the same runway, between B4 and B5; one might think that would be standard procedure in this type of situation.

To be clear, I wasn’t there, I am glad it didn’t happen to me, but I hate seeing the crew involved being vilified here for missing NOTAMs or Jepp pages that do not exist!

[pelmet]

Jeppesen page 20-8B for RJAA(NRT) is titled "Prevention of Taxiway Incursions at Narita Airport". It talks about abolished taxiways. In part it says "Aircraft should pay special attention not to enter the abolished taxiway". It also says "Artificial turf markings are installed on the abolished taxiway."

This appears to be a new taxiway but the turf info appears to have been just as applicable this taxiway as it is to the abolished ones. Sometimes the important info is there but takes time to find.

You are correct about the text on page 20-8B, however you fail to mention that they list where the abolished taxiways are on the same page, and reference the diagram on page 20-8C, neither of which mention the incident taxiway, between B5 and B7.

To quote what I said again....
"This appears to be a new taxiway but the turf info appears to have been just as applicable this taxiway as it is to the abolished ones. Sometimes the important info is there but takes time to find."

I certainly might have ended up doing the same as what happened. You are correct that one might assume certain things are standard procedure based on what was written in the Jepps. I am simply pointing out an example of hidden little items that can save the day. I assume that the same applies elsewhere in Japan and regardless of what happened in NRT, this could be valuable info for people flyng over to Japan and elsewhere...don't taxi on the green turf markings.

Jeppesen page 20-8B for RJAA(NRT) is titled "Prevention of Taxiway Incursions at Narita Airport". It talks about abolished taxiways. In part it says "Aircraft should pay special attention not to enter the abolished taxiway". It also says "Artificial turf markings are installed on the abolished taxiway."

This appears to be a new taxiway but the turf info appears to have been just as applicable this taxiway as it is to the abolished ones. Sometimes the important info is there but takes time to find.

So remind me again how this was supposed to help prevent this incident...

The point is to bring important info to light as a result of this event and prevent a future ones not prevent the one that just happened. Those in this forum who might be the most likely to find out why it happened, appear to be unwilling to ever give us information on how to prevent again(one even stated as much). Fine, I can't change that hazardous attitude but I can try to bring bits of info to light that might help prevent a repeat of something that could be dangerous under certain circumstances. I suspect anybody reading this thread who happens to fly to Japan in the future will be a little more prepared for what appears to be a potential hazard, which may not have been the case if a couple of posters here had not discussed the green turf paint markings. That is a good thing.

And it is more important than potential hurt feelings due to suspicions of innuendo(something that is more important than aviation safety to some).

[pelmet]

I do see that they also mention closed markings, red lights and unserviceability lights installed on the abolished taxiway earlier down the same runway, between B4 and B5; one might think that would be standard procedure in this type of situation.

I do notice upon careful reading of the Jepp page in what we know is a hazardous situation setup for pilots operating at this airport that for the taxiway in item (4), it says "only has turf markings". While for the taxiway in item (2), it mentions lights, markings OR artificial turf markings. Perhaps a translation into english error as (4) doesn't really make sense. Or maybe the markings used could change over time. And of course, no mention of the new but closed taxiway. Just some of the hazards we as pilots have to deal with. Never trust anybody.

[Rockie]

May I suggest Pelmet that you contact the airport authority in Narita and harass them until they paint large yellow X’s on their unusable surfaces like they’re supposed to. They’ll be happy to hear from someone as dedicated to flight safety as you are.