Air Canada Tokyo Incident

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Rockie » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am

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 Chuck put your heads together and state in clear terms why?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by rookiepilot » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:16 am

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Old fella » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:01 am

Rockie wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am
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 Chuck 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.
:drinkers: :drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by C.W.E. » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:11 am

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 .

Chuck Ellsworth.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by altiplano » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:59 am

Really? Chuck Ellsworth/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?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18919
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Cat Driver » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:12 am

Really? Chuck Ellsworth/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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:29 am

Rockie wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am
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 Chuck 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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:39 am

altiplano wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:59 am
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
altiplano wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:59 am
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:17 am

Old fella wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:01 am
Rockie wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am
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 Chuck 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.
:drinkers: :drinkers:
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:
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lightchop
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:03 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Lightchop » Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:40 pm

C.W.E. wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:11 am
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 .

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

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by C.W.E. » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:31 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by C.W.E. on Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Old fella » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:16 pm

pelmet wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:17 am
Old fella wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:01 am
Rockie wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am
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 Chuck 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.
:drinkers: :drinkers:
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Rockie » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:24 pm

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

Lightchop
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:03 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Lightchop » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:15 pm

Rockie wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:24 pm
Chuck, keep telling yourself your self worth rests on posting on an aviation forum under your real name...
:lol:
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:10 pm

98 Corolla wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:27 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18919
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Cat Driver » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:14 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

NotDirty!
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by NotDirty! » Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:34 pm

pelmet wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:10 pm

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
42A77AB3-A0E9-4F8F-B1D4-93CE85D3543F.png (310.1 KiB) Viewed 930 times
A6F04572-813E-4499-A5E5-ADAD8CE01625.png
A6F04572-813E-4499-A5E5-ADAD8CE01625.png (629.42 KiB) Viewed 930 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!
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:36 pm

NotDirty! wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:34 pm
pelmet wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:10 pm

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.
NotDirty! wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:34 pm
pelmet wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:10 pm

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).
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:01 pm

NotDirty! wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:34 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Rockie » Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:02 pm

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.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:06 pm

Rockie wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:02 pm
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.
I would suggest that you send this message directly to your Director of Flight Operations. All I can do is what many others do on this forum, learn the realities of the world and that one should not assume that all markings conform to what we expect of feel they are supposed to be.

I guess not everyone is suited for flying in Africa(or even internationally).

For those that haven't been or won't be coddled all their life, you might want to start with the first post in this thread....

https://www.pprune.org/african-aviation ... -when.html

I can just see Rockie complaining to the tower in Lagos about things not being in accordance with ICAO.... :smt014
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:06 am, edited 4 times in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by Rockie » Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:40 pm

Be careful out there.

Thanks Pelmet...got it and will pass it along to the troops.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by C.W.E. » Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:50 pm

Reading that brought back many memories of Africa pelmet, and I see I offered a comment on that thread.

I have a pile of old passports in my stuff drawer and there are visas for over twenty African countries in them.

There is even one for Madagascar dated 19 Aug. 1996.

You may not believe this but there are airports in Africa that are more difficult to fly into than KSFO!

Chuck E.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:10 pm

Rockie wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:40 pm
Thanks Pelmet...got it and will pass it along to the troops.
Like so many times previously....your welcome.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Tokyo Incident

Post by pelmet » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:11 am

C-GHPV, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA005 from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to Tokyo/New Tokyo Intl, Japan (RJAA) with 11 crew members and 201 passengers on board. Following the landing on Runway 16L at RJAA, the flight crew were given instructions to exit to the right when able, and proceeded to what they thought was Taxiway B7. Subsequently, the flight crew stopped the aircraft as there appeared to be dirt and grass ahead, and advised ATC that they were on a taxiway under construction. The aircraft came to a stop onto a hard surface, a short distance after exiting the runway. Reportedly, there were no markings indicating that the taxiway was closed or under construction. Maintenance personnel attended to the aircraft to get it towed to the gate. There was no damage and no one was injured.

The operator is investigating the incident.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”