I am amazed that there has been no further coverage than a marginal footnote in the 5-11 February issue of Flight International on the China Airlines near-disaster in Anchorage, Alaska, on 25 January at 02:43.
As a Boeing 747-400 pilot myself, and being familiar with this airport, I find this dereliction to be far worse than that which afflicted the Singapore International Airlines (SIA) crew in Taipei on 31 October 2000, even though there were no casualties on the China Airlines flight - unlike in Taipei.
In the Taipei incident, the crew at least attempted to take off on a runway and in the direction of the clearance issued. How, in the name of sanity, can three crew (two captains and a first officer), facing forward, accept a clearance to take off on runway 32 and take off on taxiway K heading 240°, with blue lights visible?
It is particularly salient that the SIA crew are facing criminal prosecution from the Taiwanese authorities with the imminent publication of that report in April, as Taiwanese law dictates that if pilot culpability factors in any accident, criminal prosecution must follow. This has parallels with the tail wagging the dog situation that prevails in France as your "No Concord" editorial (Flight International, 22-28 January) illustrated.
If one was to take an objective perusal of the relevant points of the two cases above and subtracted the 82 casualties of the SIA "accident" and apply the law impartially, which would the jury find to be more criminally negligent?
David Connolly
Brussels, Belgium
Source: Flight International
