BWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1109 times:
That's right, and I found that responsibility lies solely with the taxiway because it was mistakingly in the spot where the runway obviously should have been. Therefore, the CI A340 took off from a taxiway that should logically have been a runway, as planes only take off from runways, not taxiways.
Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1081 times:
I thought the CI pilots couldn't fly the A340s anymore because they used up their tokens.(needed when they sit down at the controls, otherwise the planes wouldn't move) Unfortunately, their mommies wouldn't let them buy more tokens...
BWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Here is an NTSB update:
"The fault lies not with the taxiway per se, but rather with the taxiway lights. They found it convenient to change color from blue to white as the CI A340 approached. This must be the absolute gospel truth. This is the story that the pilots gave the investigation team. If the plane had crashed and the pilots died, then it would have been much easier and more convenient to blame pilot error (we would have done this), but since the pilots gave the one and only side to the story (The taxiway lights took the fifth amendment and refused to testify, fearing criminal action), then we must go on their story. Furthermore, the A340, with a reputation of having poor takeoff performance, was saved from certain collision with the snow berm only when Superman can out of nowhere and lifted the plane above the berm. This must be the truth. It's what the pilots said, and we know they would never lie to us. So the pilots are not guilty of any wrongdoing, and will be restored to normal flight status without further delay"