What happened
On 29 June 2014, a Malaysia Airlines Airbus 330-200F, registration 9M-MUC, was operating a cargo flight from Istanbul to Astana, Kazakhstan. After landing on Runway 04 at Astana International Airport, the crew received instructions from Air Traffic Control to vacate the runway via Taxiway ‘C’ and proceed to Gate 2 via the apron.
Upon entering the apron area, the crew encountered two unnamed taxi lanes. Observing a wide-bodied aircraft being pushed back near Gate 10, the crew chose to taxi along the outer lane to maintain clearance from the stationary aircraft. While following the centerline of this outer lane, the left wing of the aircraft struck a lamp-post, causing it to topple. The impact also involved a secondary pole supporting a CCTV camera, which resulted in damage to the number 6 slat leading edge.
The investigation
The AAIB Malaysia investigation examined the airport's infrastructure, the crew's actions, and the available aeronautical documentation. Investigators found that the airport's ground charts and the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the unnamed taxi lanes were not identified on charts, and there were no documented restrictions regarding the use of these lanes for large-capacity aircraft.
Analysis of the cockpit voice recorder revealed that the crew was performing after-landing checklists at the time of the collision. While the crew believed they had sufficient clearance, the investigation noted a lack of specific training or assessment regarding wingtip clearance estimation during taxiing. Furthermore, there was a discrepancy between ATC records and the cockpit recordings regarding when the instruction to "Hold Position" was issued.
Findings
- The flight crew operated the aircraft on a taxiway that was not suitable for its size due to a lack of clearly defined restrictions.
- There was a misjudgment of wingtip clearance by the flight crew.
- The crew accepted ambiguous taxi instructions without seeking further clarification from ground control.
- The airport's aeronautical charts failed to depict the actual layout of the apron taxi lanes or provide names for the unnamed lanes.
- The crew operated under the mistaken belief that staying on the taxiway centerline would inherently provide enough separation from fixed objects.