MU Plane Took Off W/O Clearance & Despite Stop Order

Gonzalo · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:31 pm

OK, confusing a Line Up and wait clearance with a take off clearance, I can understand.... but continuing the take off roll when the Tower says "STOP" is beyond my understanding capacity ( unless they were already at a very high speed...)
Anyone has more info about this ??

It was a China Eastern A 332 from Osaka to Shanghai

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=446d2b62&opt=0

Rgds.

G.

Navigator · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:39 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
OK, confusing a Line Up and wait clearance with a take off clearance, I can understand.... but continuing the take off roll when the Tower says "STOP" is beyond my understanding capacity ( unless they were already at a very high speed...)

Take offs without clearence happens now and then. Standard ATC phraseology has been constructed to minimize the risk here. The worlds worst air disaster was caused by a KLM 747 taking off without clearence. Confusion can be minimized with use of proper standard ATC english and good knowledge of the english language.

rjm777ual · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:42 pm

They could have been going too fast without enough runway to abort.

babybus · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:43 pm

I think any pilot understands the word 'stop!'

There are new English tests for pilots who fly international legs which should help to stop this kind of thing happening.

bennett123 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:46 pm

Is there much difference between English spoken with a Chinese accent and with a Japanese accent?.

The pilot had better have a good explanation.

Motorhussy · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:54 pm

Mmmm wasn't the plane's fault, try blaming the pilot. Saying the A332 did something wrong kind of blemishes the aircraft when it was the human in charge of it that piloted the plane out of KIX to PVG without clearance and ignored the STOP order.

Horstroad · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:57 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
It was a China Eastern [...]

I'm sorry for the bias, but from what I've heard and seen, this says it all.

bennett123 · Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:57 pm

Unless the radio or brakes failed of course.

rjm777ual · Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:35 pm

If the radio failed, they wouldn't even have left the gate.

B747forever · Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:37 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 7):
Unless the radio or brakes failed of course.

Well they landed safely, so the brakes must have worked.

ikramerica · Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:44 pm

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 5):
Mmmm wasn't the plane's fault, try blaming the pilot. Saying the A332 did something wrong kind of blemishes the aircraft when it was the human in charge of it that piloted the plane out of KIX to PVG without clearance and ignored the STOP order.

But according to the newspapers, SUVs kill people all the time. Headline always says SUV kills 4. And of course we know that guns kill people, people don't kill people...

catiii · Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:48 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
OK, confusing a Line Up and wait clearance with a take off clearance, I can understand.

I'm not so sure I can. Even if you have basic knowledge of the English language, "China Eastern 516, runway XX line up and wait" doesn't sound a lot like "China Eastern 516, wind xxx at xx, runway XX cleared for takeoff." But then again, who know what else was going on in the cockpit from CRM on down...

usafdo · Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:58 pm

The pilots need to be suspended immediately, and perhaps fined.

CRM is apart of their responsibility and if they are not paying attention and "hearing things" then their capacity to continue being employed as pilots needs to be serious reevaluated!

kc135topboom · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:12 am

Quoting rjm777ual (Reply 2):
They could have been going too fast without enough runway to abort.

Nope.... normal take-off performance prior to V2 should still allow to abort within the confines of the runway

Quoting usafdo (Reply 15):
The pilots need to be suspended immediately, and perhaps fined.

Why not fire them too? Departing without take-off clearance makes them a hazard to other aircraft.

art · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:24 am

The avherald article finishes thus:

"Japan's Ministry of Transport have opened an investigation."

If the crew are judged to have disobeyed an instruction from the controller, what sort of sanction is there?

N1120A · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:26 am

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4):

Is there much difference between English spoken with a Chinese accent and with a Japanese accent?

Yes, but stop is pretty easy to understand.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 10):
But according to the newspapers, SUVs kill people all the time.

Actually, there was a time when their tires and suspension did.

flight152 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:34 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Nope.... normal take-off performance prior to V2 should still allow to abort within the confines of the runway

Umm. No. V2 is takeoff safety speed. The speed typically flown in the event a one engine inoperative situation occurs.

You were thinking V1, the aircraft must be able to stop on the remaining runway prior to and including V1. Just because the aircraft was still on the runway doesn't mean he was under V1. So false on both accounts.

ltbewr · Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:05 am

Of course there will have to be an investigation. There could have been confusion or misstatement in the ATC, tower, or by the pilots on the a/c allegedly involved. I am quite sure the Audio recorders in both the airplane in question and in the tower will be able to help figure out what happened. I do hope the airline takes some action on these pilots, mainly suspending them, and does their own investigations to see if there is a problem in the training and rules as to these pilots. We also need to know if there were airport curfew, duty hours, and related issues that may have caused the alleged unauthorized movement without clearance.

GentFromAlaska · Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:16 am

Quoting Babybus (Reply 3):
I think any pilot understands the word 'stop!'

Osaka ATC may have used Alto, Alto in error to meet the dual language placarding requirement.

vaus77w · Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:44 am

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 21):
There could have been confusion or misstatement in the ATC, tower, or by the pilots on the a/c allegedly involved

Like in this case http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmOL2hNbiEU. Can't understand this guy too well but lucky for reading back ATC instructions no mistakes were made

DeltaMD90 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:30 am

Quoting usafdo (Reply 15):
The pilots need to be suspended immediately, and perhaps fined.

CRM is apart of their responsibility and if they are not paying attention and "hearing things" then their capacity to continue being employed as pilots needs to be serious reevaluated!

Who is to say it wasn't the controller that didn't clearly enunciate the words correctly? If the controller has the issues, he/she may cause more incidents like this in the future. Perhaps it is not the pilots at fault.

*****Too early to make a fair assessment guys! Stay tuned before we blame anyone!*****

ac033 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:39 am

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
OK, confusing a Line Up and wait clearance with a take off clearance, I can understand.... but continuing the take off roll when the Tower says "STOP" is beyond my understanding capacity ( unless they were already at a very high speed...)
Anyone has more info about this ??

According to the Pilots... They misunderstood line up and wait for takeoff with line up and clear for takeoff and they claimed they didn't hear the stop.

All 3 crews member are now suspended UFN...

spudsmac · Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:24 am

I teach Chinese flight students and while I'm fortunate that my students are pretty good, I see a lot of issues when the Chinese have issues understanding an unfamiliar instruction. It's not their fault, it's just the way they have been brought up, they are very, very good at memorizing, but when it comes to critical thinking, that's where they often come up short. I'm not saying they're all like that, (my guys are pretty good) but a lot of them are.

This video shows the mentality of a lot (again, not all) of the Chinese pilots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFv48IWhJw

[Edited 2011-11-28 20:31:16]

wingman · Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:28 am

On a more serious note, is this the same airline that drove an A300 into the dirt maybe some 10-15 years ago and the pilot is heard on the CVR asking the FO, "what does it mean..PULL UP, PULL UP?" I think that anecdote was in the Foreword of a book on CVR transcripts. Not light reading but pretty sobering nonetheless. Pilots can get distracted, face language barriers, make simple mistakes, or be grossly negligent.

These guys are lucky. It could've been foggy or raining with another aircraft on the runway but out of sight until too late. Just when you thought another Tenerife could never happen again..

c680 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:29 am

Our SOP is abort above 80 kts is only for Fire, Failure, Roll back or loss of directional control. A controller saying "STOP" requires a very quick judgement call. An aborted take off at high speed (in our case over 80 kts) is one of the more dangerous maneuvers you can do in a jet. If the crew cannot see an obstruction, imminent collision, or some other catastrophic problem, its probably best to keep going.

IMHO it is much safer to continue the take off and avoid the helicopter traffic that the Japanese controler was worried about. But I don't think anyone on this forum was actually there, so this is all just standard A.NET armchair quarterbacking fun....

ferminbrif · Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:48 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 5):
Mmmm wasn't the plane's fault, try blaming the pilot. Saying the A332 did something wrong kind of blemishes the aircraft when it was the human in charge of it that piloted the plane out of KIX to PVG without clearance and ignored the STOP order

I totally agree!!!

Sean-SAN- · Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:56 am

Anyone listening to ATC at large airports know Chinese pilots, on average, have a very very poor grasp of English. Add Japanese accented English, and who knows. Add the general poor aptitude for flying most Chinese pilots have (saved only by the extreme automation thanks to airbus), and it's easy to see how this happened.

Cerecl · Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:02 am

Quoting Sean-SAN- (Reply 30):
dd the general poor aptitude for flying most Chinese pilots have (saved only by the extreme automation thanks to airbus), and it's easy to see how this happened

Lucky those Chinese airlines don't operate Boeings, otherwise they would be falling out of the sky like flies. Oh, wait...

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:10 am

After applying take off thrust and after IAS 80 knots pilots typically do not take any external orders and ATC are normally instructued to be silent until the plane is safely in the air. I think this applies even if the plane takes off without clearence as long as there are no obstacles in its way... An interuption could be a serious hazard and distraction for the pilots. When the plane has finished the take off procedure ATC comes back with frequency change or whatever but it is common sense to let pilots concentrate on the take off. I would guess that if the take off roll had progressed pilots would not have listened to any stop order.

But chinese pilots are not known for their language skills and sometimes they even have/ had? a separate radio operator onboard to help pilots operate on international routes even if they lack basic english skills. Extraordinary but 10 years ago it happened, I do not know if it still happens. Chinese airlines have a way to go to come up to international standards both when it comes to operations and communications I think.

Mir · Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:30 am

Quoting usafdo (Reply 15):
CRM is apart of their responsibility

We have no proof that this was a CRM failure. It's more likely that it was just poor radio skills.

-Mir

spacecadet · Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 am

Quoting ac033 (Reply 25):
They misunderstood line up and wait for takeoff with line up and clear for takeoff

So glad we changed the standard phraseology from "position and hold" to "line up and wait" specifically to avoid situations like this! It seems to be working perfectly!

The phraseology really needs to be looked at here. "Taxi into position and hold" is impossible to mistake for "clear for takeoff". Even if the phrase "hold for takeoff" is used, it is impossible to mistake the word "hold" for "clear" regardless of pronunciation.

Some of us were arguing when this change was made that something just like this was inevitable, and it's especially likely in non-native English speaking countries where it seems only the pronunciation and misunderstanding of a single word - "wait" - was responsible for this incident. It's just lucky that no other planes were on the runway at such a busy airport.

RobK · Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:09 am

Quoting Navigator (Reply 32):
But chinese pilots are not known for their language skills and sometimes they even have/ had? a separate radio operator onboard to help pilots operate on international routes even if they lack basic english skills. Extraordinary but 10 years ago it happened, I do not know if it still happens. Chinese airlines have a way to go to come up to international standards both when it comes to operations and communications I think.

I often listen to Manila and Singapore FIRs on HF and the Chinese are definitely the worst, closest following by the Korean's. I could probably fill an entire hard drive with audio clips of heated exchanges between ATC and the crews because the crews can't understand basic instructions. Weather deviation clearances can go on for many minutes as they try time and time again to read it back correctly.

The flight has changed to a 737 now where the crews have a reasonable grasp of English, but going back 12 months+ when CZ388/7 CAN-CGK-CAN was an A321, there were a couple of regular crews that always seemed to be on that run that simply could not pronounce any English at all. The best they could manage when saying the callsign was "Tanatudda fe-ay-ay". 80% of the time it would result in MNL or SIN asking them to spell their callsign phonetically because they simply couldn't understand what the crew were saying. Crazy...

The Chinese 737 delivery flights from BFI to Hawaii are always a laugh a minute on the NPAC as well. SEDAR ZANNG ZAGER ZINNO ZEMON ZOULU ZIGIE is the usual routing, but they pronounce each one exactly the same when giving their AIREP. San Francisco ARINC radio operators are INCREDIBLY patient people, it has to be said..

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:13 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34):
The phraseology really needs to be looked at here. "Taxi into position and hold" is impossible to mistake for "clear for takeoff". Even if the phrase "hold for takeoff" is used, it is impossible to mistake the word "hold" for "clear" regardless of pronunciation.

Even if the phraseology is changed and seems to work someone could make a mistake anyway. So if you change phraseology everytime you have an incident like this you end up with changes all the time. Just one mistake is not always an indication there is something wrong with procedures or phraseology. There could be other problems.

By the way it seems non english speaking pilots function better verbally with non english ATC since they tend to stick to standard phraseology. Also UK ATC is pretty diciplined which is good for the understanding. However some american ATC tend to complicate things by deviating from standards both in COM and procedures, The more standardized the less room for misunderstanding in an international environment.

zeke · Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:18 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34):

So glad we changed the standard phraseology from "position and hold" to "line up and wait" specifically to avoid situations like this! It seems to be working perfectly!

Actually it is just the FAA joining the rest of the world. ICAO was already "line up and wait" or "line up and wait behind".

I take it you have actually operated in an out of KIX before yourself ?

PITrules · Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:25 am

Quoting catiii (Reply 11):

I'm not so sure I can. Even if you have basic knowledge of the English language, "China Eastern 516, runway XX line up and wait" doesn't sound a lot like "China Eastern 516, wind xxx at xx, runway XX cleared for takeoff."

If you look at the two phrases in your example, not only does about half of each phrase "sound a lot like", but they are 100% identical! ("China Eastern 516", and "runway XX")

It might look distinctively different to you while the text is read on this nice blue and white Airliners.net text field, but when being listened to when English is not your primary language and its spoken to you by someone who's primary language is not English... it may not always be so blue and white when considering the many other issues/distractions which may have been going on. Especially when half the words of these two very different clearances are the same.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 30):
"Taxi into position and hold" is impossible to mistake for "clear for takeoff".

No its not... its not like these types of incidents never happened under the old US phraseology.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 30):
Even if the phrase "hold for takeoff" is used, it is impossible to mistake the word "hold" for "clear" regardless of pronunciation.

Again, of course its possible. Furthermore, the word "takeoff" should never be used when communicating with ATC (clearance delivery/ground/tower) before being cleared for takeoff. "Departure" should be used. "Hold for takeoff" is a bad idea.

Quoting C680 (Reply 24):
Our SOP is abort above 80 kts is only for Fire, Failure, Roll back or loss of directional control. A controller saying "STOP" requires a very quick judgement call. An aborted take off at high speed (in our case over 80 kts) is one of the more dangerous maneuvers you can do in a jet. If the crew cannot see an obstruction, imminent collision, or some other catastrophic problem, its probably best to keep going.

IMHO it is much safer to continue the take off and avoid the helicopter traffic that the Japanese controler was worried about. But I don't think anyone on this forum was actually there, so this is all just standard A.NET armchair quarterbacking fun....

Quoting Navigator (Reply 28):
After applying take off thrust and after IAS 80 knots pilots typically do not take any external orders and ATC are normally instructued to be silent until the plane is safely in the air. I think this applies even if the plane takes off without clearence as long as there are no obstacles in its way... An interuption could be a serious hazard and distraction for the pilots. When the plane has finished the take off procedure ATC comes back with frequency change or whatever but it is common sense to let pilots concentrate on the take off. I would guess that if the take off roll had progressed pilots would not have listened to any stop order.

bluejuice · Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:49 am

In this pilot's defense, he seems to understand just fine and gets a little better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kYtli7HD8c

RobK · Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:35 am

Quoting BlueJuice (Reply 35):
In this pilot's defense, he seems to understand just fine and gets a little better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kYtl...7HD8c

Personally I thought that the pilot handled those comms really well even though his spoken English was poor. The ATC was just as bad as the pilot, calling him "Air China Freight seventy six heavy" for the duration and very slack ATC phraseology in general.

Mir · Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:38 am

Quoting RobK (Reply 36):
The ATC was just as bad as the pilot, calling him "Air China Freight seventy six heavy" for the duration

Which is the correct phraseology (unless the "freight" shouldn't have been in there - I'm not sure about that, but "Air China seventy six heavy" is absolutely correct).

-Mir

RobK · Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:47 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 37):
Which is the correct phraseology (unless the "freight" shouldn't have been in there - I'm not sure about that, but "Air China seventy six heavy" is absolutely correct).

Umm, no, it's not, and I guess that just proves my point. The flight callsign is Air China Freight 1056 [Heavy].

ARCID/CAO1056 RMKS/ R/T AIR CHINA FREIGHT

Mir · Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:37 am

Quoting RobK (Reply 38):
The flight callsign is Air China Freight 1056 [Heavy].

Listening to the tape again, that's exactly what he was saying. "Air China Freight ten fifty-six heavy."

-Mir

BlueShamu330s · Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:56 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 30):
The phraseology really needs to be looked at here. "Taxi into position and hold" is impossible to mistake for "clear for takeoff". Even if the phrase "hold for takeoff" is used, it is impossible to mistake the word "hold" for "clear" regardless of pronunciation.

Totally disagree.

We're veering OT, as it's not established that phraseology had any cause or effect on this incident.

Reference some years ago, stuck behind a JAL B744 at LHR, who was instructed to "Line up and hold," to which he replied "Roger, Line up and ROLL."

The modulation of accents and speed of speech on the RT caused the mistake, not only by the crew, but also ATC who didn't pick up on the incorrect readback. A nudge to the TWR that the Japanair misread the instruction prevented a similar incident occurring on that occasion.

It happened a lot, especially with asian carriers, and will still happen if non-standard phraseology maintains to be used by cowboys who think their way is better.

It's standard, so use it

Rgds

RobK · Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:05 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 39):
Listening to the tape again, that's exactly what he was saying. "Air China Freight ten fifty-six heavy."

Quoting Mir (Reply 37):
but "Air China seventy six heavy" is absolutely correct).

Make your mind up!

Quite simply this proves what I said. US ATC phraseology is abysmal. I was born here in England and am - unsurprisingly - a native English speaker and at times even I struggled to understand the instructions being barked out by the ATC in the audio, so what chance does a non-native have? As I said, I think the CAO pilot did very well under the circumstances.

I know that the trip number is 1056 for that flight but it sounds like the ATC says seventy six heavy in every communication in the audio clip. I expect you will retort that twinning up the numbers is essential in the US due your airspace being busier than anyone elses

(which is the standard reply from our US members), but we have our own busy airspace here in the UK yet we can still manage to address all the dots on the screen correctly using their full callsign and correct phraseology without any of them crashing into each other and people dying. The slack way of doing things in the US comes down to one thing : laziness.

(awaits flak)

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:30 am

Quoting RobK (Reply 41):
but we have our own busy airspace here in the UK yet we can still manage to address all the dots on the screen correctly using their full callsign

From what I have heard the UK ATC is one of the best in the world given high traffic volumes and still managing to keep things calm and in perfect order. European traffic volumes are very high by all standards so there is no need for excuses. UK ATC clearly shows that even native english speaking controllers can communicate with asian crews without constantly creating confusion by talking fast with local accents.

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:37 am

Quoting BlueJuice (Reply 35):
In this pilot's defense, he seems to understand just fine and gets a little better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kYtl...7HD8c

This Air China guy is the worst I have heard so far. The Air China pilots we hear here at ARN are far better than this. This freighter guy should have stayed in China!!

RobK · Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:49 am

Quoting Navigator (Reply 43):
This Air China guy is the worst I have heard so far. The Air China pilots we hear here at ARN are far better than this. This freighter guy should have stayed in China!!

You should listen to the Pacific oceanic comms some time! This sort of thing is quite a regular occurence with the Chinese and Korean airlines.

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:16 am

Quoting RobK (Reply 44):
You should listen to the Pacific oceanic comms some time! This sort of thing is quite a regular occurence with the Chinese and Korean airlines.

No wonder this debate is going on. What I thought was bad ATC english before comes in another perspective when I hear this... I doubt ATC here would put up with such low standards. And they send this to Chicago!! One of the busiest airports in the world!! Simply amazing... When hearing this I think Chicago ATC is doing a great job continuing talking to this guy in the calm way they do here. Very professional ATC. But after hearing this I would not be surprised if ATC sent a report. Or maybe they are told to avoid sending such reports for diplomatic reason?

DLH344 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:20 am

@Navigator: Absolutely, the british ATC is very professional. They always work in a very silent and serene way, compared to the extreme dense traffic situation, they are the best in the world.

To take off without a proper clearance is fully incomprehensible!!
Since the disaster of Tenerife in 1977, the wording is clarified and the term "take of" is only used as part of the take off clearance, for nothing else. (For example: "xxxxx line up and wait...number two for DEPARTURE).
So all line up clearances, hold short clearances or delay clerances will never include the term "take off".

Furthermore every pilot should have that common sense of good airmanship to confirm everyhting which is in doubt, especially in that cirtical situation.

In my opinion there are numerous countries which pilots do not have that language professionalism they should have, I listen to that every day.

kc135topboom · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:02 pm

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Nope.... normal take-off performance prior to V2 should still allow to abort within the confines of the runway

Umm. No. V2 is takeoff safety speed. The speed typically flown in the event a one engine inoperative situation occurs.

You were thinking V1, the aircraft must be able to stop on the remaining runway prior to and including V1.

Oops, fat fingers....again. Sorry

soon7x7 · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:18 pm

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
confusing a Line Up and wait clearance with a take off clearance, I can understand

How can one be confused with the other...given differences in language cultures is not an excuse to misconstrue an ATC's command to NOT take off. "You are cleared for take off" are probably the most important words a pilot from any country should understand, other than "Pan,Pan,Pan or "We are declaring an Emergency" or "Captain!,...we are out of coffee!"...... An why they (FAA) did away with "Position and hold" is just nonsense. When I have heard China Eastern over the JFK frequencies they (pilots) are very difficult to understand and JFK tower has to demonstrate extra patience with them as the A346 does not move easily around JFK. Patience has not always been the case...

Navigator · Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:37 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
When I have heard China Eastern over the JFK frequencies they (pilots) are very difficult to understand and JFK tower has to demonstrate extra patience with them as the A346 does not move easily around JFK.

Even if it may sound like crap it is ATC controllers job to always be patient and very very clear in their communication. If they get stressed by these chinese guys I think they should not be controllers at all. That said I think China should do more in educating their pilots in the english language. There must be ways to improve the standard.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net