nystate wrote:Looks like I need to correct my previous statement. The KLM aircraft thought that it was cleared for takeoff, and proceeded down the runway. The tower told the KLM aircraft to hold, but a noise in the cockpit of the KLM aircraft prevented the crew from hearing the Pan American aircraft. CVR transcripts are below......
That's exactly right NYSTATE. There was a language barrier and big big misundertanding. Not too cool when there are almost 600 people in those jets. During the investigations, the FAA and other groups were looking into the KLM pilot's bravado and the reluctance of his co-pilot to continue to challenge his decision. The facts you stated are correct. Some additional findings - albeit cleaned up and sanitized for the final report:
In its official conclusion as to the contributing factors in this accident, the Secretary of Civil Aviation, Spain reports:
"The fundamental cause of this accident was the fact that the KLM captain: 1. Took off without clearance.
2. Did not obey the "stand by for take-off" from the tower.
3. Did not interrupt take-off when Pan Am reported that they were still on the runway.
4. In reply to the flight engineer's query as to whether the Pan Am airplane had already left the runway, replied emphatically in the affirmative."
And it goes on. Here was an example of several key communication requirements gone wrong all simultaneously, when in fact, these comm requirements all needed to dovetail together in order to proceed with a safe takeoff.
So to cut to the chase, it is better to challenge authority than to slink like a down doggie with its tail between its legs into the corner and shut up. It was not only evident in this case, but also in the case of 9/11.
