I spoke with my brother on the topic - he had heard about the incident but no more than that. He did say that the full report on that incident and all others can be found here
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfmWhile it's "easy" for us to sit here and pontificate about things, my brother has reminded me (not only for this incident, but the many aircraft accidents and near-misses that he and I discuss regularly) of 2 things:
1) There are always a series of things that lead up to an incident or accident. That sounds obvious at first blush, but I think we all (myself included) do well to be very mindful of the fact that no aircrew is foolish enough or lacking sufficient training (with the exception of some of the known "cowboy" operators) to deliberately make a fatal error. And very often, there are a number of people outside the confines of the flight deck who have contributed to the error. And then there are other factors like birds and weather. I know I'm "preaching to the choir" somewhat with this stuff, but I know for myself that it can be temptingly easy to assess everything well after the fact, with "all" of the "facts" established, with the luxury of time and hindsight to critique an "error".
2) Most airlines train their pilots to a VERY high standard, and check them regularly. I don't know what procedures Quantas and Air New Zealand have in place, but I know a little about BA thank to my brother. And while I'm not at liberty to share the insights (at my brother's request), I can speak to 3 things for BA aircrew and BA itself: A) The selection / training process is VERY rigorous. Only the very determined and disciplined make it through. B) BA is a very professional, "serious" airline who zealously guard their image (in a good way) - they are NOT Kalula airlines. And the people who fly for them fly for BA because of who BA are (largely) - inasmuch as they are attracted to the BA culture and "agree" with it. C) The demands for professionalism, current training, testing and performing to very high BA standards are rigorous, to say the least. While this might also be true for most airlines, BA pilots seem to pretty much eat, sleep and "live" BA philosophy and standards 24/7.
So with all that in mind, I still have a very high degree of confidence, respect and admiration for the men & women who pilot the steel tubes with wings all over the planet - whether they be BA, Quantas, Air NZ, United or whomever. I accept that humans make errors in judgment day in and day out. But I also understand that commercial pilots make a supreme effort (and are "induced" to do so by their employers...) to do their jobs very well. After all, we're not talking about someone trying to loop his helicopter. I'm not saying that errors ought not to be investigated or individuals reprimanded where appropriate, but I for one am going to be more circumspect in any "observations" I make about incidents and accidents: I wasn't there, I didn't feel the pressure of the situation and the lack or deluge of information at the time, and it could have been me missing something "obvious" and trying to take off from half way down the runway...
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:24 pm
I dont understand is the conditions were clear so how is it they didn't notice there was another 1000m or so of runway avail and another taxiway to their left heading in that direction. They surely had access to a Jeppersons plate or similar for the ground/aerodrome layout right? But still they both believed they were at intersection-A?
I wonder whats going on in the prrune forums about this event? There are likely to be blokes like your brother chewing it over there
Yes, a bad habit using the "quotes" liberally. My brother gives me a hard time about that when it suits him to. 
