Recent Runway Incursion at FLL

[LeslieDEN]

I saw this NTSB report discussed on an airline pilot forum, and even the pilots were spooked by it. A Delta plane did a go-around to avoid hitting a United plane on the runway and flew over it by less than 100 feet.

Here's the report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070712X00919&key=1

Capt. Hutch, do you have any thoughts on how this could have happened? I know the info is preliminary, but does it sound as if the UA pilots screwed up? Or did they get bad instructions? I don't understand the reference to taxiway B at all.

Thanks for any insight!

[scottr0829]

I saw this NTSB report discussed on an airline pilot forum, and even the pilots were spooked by it. A Delta plane did a go-around to avoid hitting a United plane on the runway and flew over it by less than 100 feet.

Here's the report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070712X00919&key=1

Capt. Hutch, do you have any thoughts on how this could have happened? I know the info is preliminary, but does it sound as if the UA pilots screwed up? Or did they get bad instructions? I don't understand the reference to taxiway B at all.

Thanks for any insight!

Hi Leslie,

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I went an looked up some more info on FLL. Let me start by saying I am NOT a pilot nor have any training, so this would be pure guessing. On this PDF (http://www.takingflight.us/images/FLL-marked.pdf), you see the airport layout for FLL. The arrow points to taxiway T7 - which I assume is how GC asked the UA flight to get to taxiway D and then B to get to rnwy 9L (the straight rnwy that runs left to right). You see that there is a circle where taxiway B and D intersect (where the UA flight should have turned left), but the UA pilots apparently missed it and followed to about the red line I put in on rnwy 9L.

Capt Hutch and all others 'in the know' - please correct me if I am wrong (usually the case).

You can get any airport diagram from http://www.flightaware.com.

One more comment - I find it a little bit more comforting that the controllers were paying attention and averted disaster by telling the Delta flight to go around - and the Delta pilots complied immediately. I also find it amazing they were going fast enough to be able to just lift off again.

[LeslieDEN]

Scott, thanks much for that. The PDF layout, with your markup, makes it clear. Holy smokes though, that was close! The controllers and those fast-acting Delta guys saved the day.

[aerobat]

Scott beat me to it, and pegged it; I was just about to post the same .pdf, which makes what happened disturbingly clear.

They missed the left turn onto Taxiway B and blundered onto the runway at the intersection with D. :eek:

That is spooky. One has to wonder if the pilots were totally unfamiliar, or didn't have the diagram in hand, or what.

Ghosts of Lexington...?:(

whew...:mg:

[LeslieDEN]

Should there have been an instruction from the controller to turn left on taxiway B rather than an instruction to head to runway 9L without mentioning the turn?

[aerobat]

Yes, that's the way it's usually done; the whole taxiway sequence is specified by the ground controller. And the pilots should have the airport diagram right in front of them unless they know the airport very well.

It's hard for me to believe that ATC only mentioned T7 and not D or B. The report does not make that very clear, though.

[Barb-SAN]

"DAL1489 was inbound for landing on runway 9L when LC determined that UAL1544 was not going to hold short of the runway. LC instructed DAL1489 to go around. When the crew received the instruction, the main landing gear was on the ground. According to the crew statement, they noted the urgency in the controller's voice so they knew they had to get the aircraft airborne. FAA reported DAL1489 flew over UAL1544 by less than 100 feet."


So, looking at the airport diagram that Scott put up, where the UAL plane was, was quite a ways down the runway. As I'm reading this report, the DAL plane had already touched down, and then took off again and flew over the top of the UAL plane, clearing it by less than 100 ft. :eek: Dang....:tiphat:

[spiffyone]

I must say I always wonder how pilots find their way around on the ground. The signs seem small and crytpic to me, and driving one of those things on the ground must be like driving a nightmarishly large bus with inadequate mirrors. If it were me I think I would be driving over the grass and whacking the ends of the buildings with my wings.

[Barb-SAN]

I must say I always wonder how pilots find their way around on the ground. The signs seem small and crytpic to me, and driving one of those things on the ground must be like driving a nightmarishly large bus with inadequate mirrors. If it were me I think I would be driving over the grass and whacking the ends of the buildings with my wings.

You are definitely a candidate for a Cessna discovery flight, and a lesson or two! :lol: Surely that is not how you drive your car!!

I'd be curious to hear from the commercial pilots about how they get a sense of their "big bodies". I'd think it would actually be similar to learning to drive any vehicle...that you eventually get a sense of where your vehicle is in space and how you need to maneuver.

I've been interested at the airshows to watch some of the big WWII taildragger planes taxi...as the angle of the cockpit is such that the pilot can't see the ground straight ahead of the plane. They don't taxi straight, but rather make slight s-turns down the taxiway to help them see what is ahead (looking out the side windows, as they face forward in the s-turn).

SpiffyOne, If you'd like a quick lesson in what those signs mean...check out this link: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nappf.com/10Holding.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nappf.com/nappf_airport_markings.htm&h=442&w=496&sz=12&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=DKzWocUdrmiyeM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dairport%2Brunway%2Bsigns%26gbv%3D2%26 svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

One could print out the pages, and take them on one's next flight...educational entertainment identifying signs out the window as the plane is taxiing around the airport. ;) In fact, one could also print out a diagram of the airports one was flying out of, and to, and follow the route right along with the pilots (the ultimate in back-seat driving!).

[Barb-SAN]

Hi Leslie,

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I went an looked up some more info on FLL. Let me start by saying I am NOT a pilot nor have any training, so this would be pure guessing. On this PDF (http://www.takingflight.us/images/FLL-marked.pdf), you see the airport layout for FLL. The arrow points to taxiway T7 - which I assume is how GC asked the UA flight to get to taxiway D and then B to get to rnwy 9L (the straight rnwy that runs left to right). You see that there is a circle where taxiway B and D intersect (where the UA flight should have turned left), but the UA pilots apparently missed it and followed to about the red line I put in on rnwy 9L.


There are several questions that occurred to me upon further reflection:

1.) Presumably the UAL pilots had received taxi instructions to proceed to runway 9L, which included instructions to cross runway 13 before arriving at the END of runway 9L. Knowing that they were going to take off on 9L....it seems like seeing the red runway 9L sign approaching the MIDDLE of 9L would have been a major clue to the UAL pilots that they were in the wrong place. I wonder if that sign was in fact there, and visible, not covered by unmown grass? (something that will surely come out in the investigation).

2.) Perhaps since they claimed they missed their turn onto taxiway B, they decided to continue on to taxiway A and turn left there to taxi to the end of runway 9L, and weren't lost at all. What other option do they have when they miss a turn? Maybe they were taxiing fast hoping to beat the descending Delta plane. Would they have cleared the runway in time if GC hadn't told them to stop ON the runway?

3.) The Delta plane...as it was descending to land...did the pilots not see the UAL plane heading for the middle of 9L? Did they assume the pilots would hold short and not cross 9L? Is there any point in the flare when the pilots in the landing plane can't actually see the runway?

4.) The UAL plane....wouldn't the pilots look both ways before crossing the runway, and see the Delta plane descending?

5.) Do you suppose the UAL pilots had Channel 9 on for the passengers to be listening in on their communications? What do you suppose were their first words upon seeing the Delta jet passing 100 ft. overhead? :shocked: :uhoh:

[aerobat]

It will be fun to see what Captain Hutch says about this...


2.) Perhaps since they claimed they missed their turn onto taxiway B, they decided to continue on to taxiway A and turn left there to taxi to the end of runway 9L, and weren't lost at all. What other option do they have when they miss a turn? Maybe they were taxiing fast hoping to beat the descending Delta plane. Would they have cleared the runway in time if GC hadn't told them to stop ON the runway?In this situation, the pilots are not in a position to make any legitimate independent decisions at all.:nono: Ground control calls all the shots. Had they decided on their own to just mosey across 9L to A without a clearance, they committed a much bigger sin and should, IMHO, be tarred and feathered...:)

3.) The Delta plane...as it was descending to land...did the pilots not see the UAL plane heading for the middle of 9L? Did they assume the pilots would hold short and not cross 9L? Is there any point in the flare when the pilots in the landing plane can't actually see the runway?Presumably they saw UAL and assumed it would hold short. They were monitoring Tower, not Ground so would not have known what UAL was told to do. S'far as I know they'd have seen the runway all the way home.

4.) The UAL plane....wouldn't the pilots look both ways before crossing the runway, and see the Delta plane descending?One would think...but then there had been a previous brain-fart when they missed B. I think they were, if not lost, then "confused".:rolleyes: Bad situation, actually, and I wonder what the repercussions will be.


5.) Do you suppose the UAL pilots had Channel 9 on for the passengers to be listening in on their communications? What do you suppose were their first words upon seeing the Delta jet passing 100 ft. overhead? :shocked: :uhoh:Those classic favorites..."Oh, $#!t!". However, this would presumably not be heard by the pax unless the pilots keyed the mike. :rolleyes: I am guessing that at this point they did not have Channel 9 on for the passengers. If they had, the pax would have heard ATC yell "STOP, STOP, STOP!!" and that would have gotten their attention, I suppose. It's pretty rare to hear anything like that on the radio at a big airport.

[LeslieDEN]

I am guessing that at this point they did not have Channel 9 on for the passengers.
Why not?

If they had, the pax would have heard ATC yell "STOP, STOP, STOP!!" and that would have gotten their attention, I suppose. It's pretty rare to hear anything like that on the radio at a big airport.This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGVxXZGnHug) is pretty funny.

[aerobat]

Why not?The pax listening would have spilled the beans that night on the evening news...? :)

Yes, that ATC tape is pretty funny; I hope it's not like that every day!

[LeslieDEN]

Oh, you mean they would've turned it off after the "STOP STOP STOP"? That's likely.

Yes, that ATC tape is pretty funny; I hope it's not like that every day!
The JFK ATC guy is famous on the LiveATC board. His name is Arnie. Apparently JFK isn't like that every day, but he is. I don't think the LiveATC folks are very happy about their recordings showing up on YouTube.

[scottr0829]

The pax listening would have spilled the beans that night on the evening news...?

I wonder what the passengers looking out the left side windows of the plane saw and how they reacted.

According to the report, the plane was 30 feet from the centerline. At a 150 foot wide runway, that would mean the centerline would be at 75 feet. 30 feet away means the plane was still 45 feet onto the runway - which means some passengers saw the plane landing and coming at them! :eek:

[aerobat]

Yep, the ones who were looking would have had quite a shock!:eek: And if they were also listening to Channel 9, they would have had a few beans to spill.

My understanding is that the event was not disclosed to the media...is that true? Lucky for UAL.:)

Arnie is a hoot. I wish we had somebody like that at AUS.

[LeslieDEN]

My understanding is that the event was not disclosed to the media...is that true?
It got some local coverage, e.g., http://kdka.com/topstories/topstories_story_194035756.html, and somebody on the pilot board said he saw an ABC news report about it, but the story died quickly because nobody, well, died.

[Barb-SAN]

It got some local coverage, e.g., http://kdka.com/topstories/topstories_story_194035756.html,


Thanks for posting that, Leslie. The video makes it quite clear what happened (chilling indeed). It does make me wonder though why Ground didn't have the UAL plane speed up and cross the runway rather than stop on the runway if it couldn't stop at the hold-short line...it looked like a sitting duck waiting to get hit. Probably Ground thought the plane WOULD stop before getting so far out on the runway...and then there probably wasn't time to give a new order to move forward quickly. From the re-enactment, it looked to me like there would have been time for the plane to cross the runway if it wasn't trying to stop. Easy to say after the fact.....:rolleyes:...and from a totally non-professional point of view...just looking at the video.

Perhaps there is a certain protocol that ATC is expected to follow in cases like this?

[aerobat]

I just took a look at the airdisaster.com thread about this incident.

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85243

All you ever wanted to know, and more. :)

[tusphotog]

...Ghosts of Lexington...?


I don't think this would qualify as a "ghost of LEX." Seems to me everyone was on the correct runway...just at the wrong time/place.

I'd probably need a new pair of underwear if I was on that UA 'bus. Not someplace I'd like to be at that moment.

...It does make me wonder though why Ground didn't have the UAL plane speed up and cross the runway rather than stop on the runway if it couldn't stop at the hold-short line...


You can't have an airplane inside the runway "safe zone" when another airplane is within a certain distance. So, if you're ground, you wouldn't want to send the UA plane across if the DL plane is <1 mile out or something like that. Even if ground tells UA to expedite across, they still run the risk of having the DL plane touch down and still having UA inside the "safe zone."

Obviously this happened anyway.

Runway incursions are happening more and more frequently. They were one reason LAX moved 25L/7R and extended the taxiways.

[Barb-SAN]

I don't think this would qualify as a "ghost of LEX." Seems to me everyone was on the correct runway...just at the wrong time/place.

Well, no...the UAL plane "missed their turn" on the taxiway. The pilots at Lexington also made a wrong turn on the taxiway. Perhaps that is the similarity she was referring to.



You can't have an airplane inside the runway "safe zone" when another airplane is within a certain distance. So, if you're ground, you wouldn't want to send the UA plane across if the DL plane is <1 mile out or something like that. Even if ground tells UA to expedite across, they still run the risk of having the DL plane touch down and still having UA inside the "safe zone."


So, it seems that Ground followed protocol then. If the plane had not made it safely across the runway...then it would have become the controller's liability rather than the pilot's (who was in the wrong place, and didn't have clearance to cross that runway).

[Falcon]

[quote=aerobat;72965]It will be fun to see what Captain Hutch says about this...


In this situation, the pilots are not in a position to make any legitimate independent decisions at all.:nono: Ground control calls all the shots. Had they decided on their own to just mosey across 9L to A without a clearance, they committed a much bigger sin and should, IMHO, be tarred and feathered...:)

[quote]

Pending Captain Hutch putting me right as it has been a while since I read Federal Aviation Regulations. If you are cleared to a holding point of a runway the clearance authorises you to cross any runway to get to the holding point your are cleared to. If ATC want to hold short of a particular runway they will specify. This doesnt come up much in England or Europe which usualy only has one runway but America is far more civilised and airfields there have five runways because they couldnt fit six.
It sounds like the poor UA crew have fallen foul of a Incursion Hot Spot. Large airports have them and ATC and crews that know the points to be carefull. We have charts that show the lay out but mistakes happen, local ATC would have kept an eye on them. Bottom line, no one got hurt.

[aerobat]

Good point, Royd; you are right about clearances to cross runways being assumed when one gets specific taxi instructions to a holding point, and the runway intervenes. What we don't know is the exact wording of the taxi clearance given to UAL in this case. I am assuming that Ground specified the sequence T7 to D to B to 9L (this is the sort of thing I usually hear), rather than just "taxi to 9L".

It certainly is a hot spot and for that reason, one would think Ground would have been quite specific, and also, that the pilots would have had the airport diagram on their laps.

[EyesSkyward]

To quote from FAR 19.129, paragraph i (emphasis mine):

"A clearance to 'taxi to' the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway."

- Jeff

[Falcon]

Thankyou, like I said it has been a while since I read the regulation.

[Captain Hutch]

Hi Guys,

Sorry I’m late weighing in on this one. First of all I am very familiar with the Bravo/Delta intersection at FLL and I believe that it is poorly marked. At Lauderdale the ground controller usually tells you what taxiway to exit the ramp and then the rest is usually up to you. If you have to cross the active runway to get to the departure end of the runway, as happens in MHT Manchester [no, not England], the controller will say, “Taxi to runway 17, hold short of runway 17 on Delta”, [as someone has stated, clearance to taxi to an active runway is not clearance to cross that active runway—it IS clearance to cross other runways, however] [“when in doubt, ask”] because there is no other way to get there from the commercial ramp except to cross runway 17 somewhere on an available taxiway that will get you to the east side of the runway. But this isn’t the case so unless the ground controller had some specific reason to direct United to follow something other than the normal route, he would have said, “Taxi to Runway 9 Left, exit the ramp at Tee 7”. Some airports like Boston Logan always give exact taxi directions because they have so many aircraft all the time. My bugaboo is when pilots read back the entire sequence, because it isn’t required except when a controller tells you to hold short of a certain runway. Other places like Jacksonville, Florida just tell you to “Taxi to runway 7”. Sometimes I take one way and sometimes I take another, it just depends on how I feel.
So maybe the scenario went something like this: United leaves the ramp on T7 and makes a right onto taxiway Delta. The pilots, maybe slightly unfamiliar with the layout, or maybe it’s been a while since they have been there, start counting and calling out the taxiways as they proceed northwest along Delta. “There’s Delta 2”, the captain says, then “there’s Papa”, and the copilot, “yeah, Tee 6 over here. Okay, the next one should be K-beck”. “Yeah, there it is.” Then they begin running the taxi checklist since it looks like there’s a stretch of taxiway with no intersections. They get a few items completed, then the captain sees the sign for D1, and possibly thinks he has a little extra time before coming up to taxiway Bravo. Maybe he glances down to catch one more item on the checklist. But the reality of that intersection is that it is confusing because the three of taxiways, D, B, and D1 all come together at the same time and there is extra asphalt and the signs are a little spread out. It can be extra confusing when a diagonal taxiway intersects and many times you have to do a double take to match the arrow on the sign with the actual direction of the taxiway. So on the chance that the Captain didn’t see the sign for taxiway Bravo, but the last thing he saw was “D1”, maybe a checklist item distracted him and he was thinking he needed to go a little further to get to Bravo. I’m not making excuses for the crew, I’m just thinking of what the possible sequence of events might be. Personally I can’t remember crossing a runway or taxiway without looking, but I’m sure that it happens. Sometimes the sun can be a factor, like close to sunset or sunrise, but the report says it was 1437, so the middle of the afternoon. So for the controller to catch the fact that United was going to miss his turn was pretty observant of the guy in the tower. By the way, when I hear “STOP”, I stop right where I am, even if I know I didn’t hear my call sign, since you never know if the controller has made a mistake with the call sign. One other comment about taxiing: my main theory about taxiing, even when I have the airport diagram in view, is to physically look out the window of the cockpit to where I want to go, and then start taxiing in that direction. It sounds almost overly simple, but it keeps you from constantly glancing down in the cockpit to see exactly what taxiways you are on, which is less important than running into another object. And you do get used to the size of the machine that you are driving, so you have a sense of where the wingtips, nose wheel, and tail are. By the way, there is no minimum visibility requirement for taxiing, other than if the captain thinks he can find the runway or not.
The diagram on the site that someone provided does not make it clear that there is a displaced threshold on both runway 09L and 27R, that is, one on each end of the runway, which I believe is marked with the three-loop “8”. In other words, airplanes that takeoff can use the full length of the runway from the very end, but the landing threshold is 1,000 [I’m not positive about this exact distance] feet down, marked by a series of red (as seen from the approach) lights set into the concrete that cross the concrete where on one side you can land and on the approach side of the lights you can’t, usually because the concrete on that side isn’t stressed for landing. When I am landing on 9L, as I approach the threshold, I usually glance down to make sure that I am crossing the threshold lights, then look up straight ahead. Possibly it was at this exact moment that United decided to enter the runway at taxiway Delta. Up until that time Delta would not have really noticed the United taxiing since there is usually a lot of activity along that parallel taxiway. I am fairly certain that at the point that United DID enter the active runway, that Delta pushed up the power to go around even without the tower saying anything. However, there really isn’t much runway space between where United entered and the threshold, maybe about 2000’, so indeed that was quick thinking by Delta. Even if both Delta pilots were looking straight down the runway the whole time, it would have been quite a surprise to see another aircraft entering the runway, and as short as that distance is, Delta could have reacted immediately—there is a lag time with jet engines from the time that you push up the power as to when the engines spool up to the power that the throttles are calling for—and the manuals will state that there is a definite possibility that the wheels will contact the runway on a go-around performed at low altitudes, and still barely have missed him like he did. It’s sort of like a car coming at you from a side street—there is a point at which there is no way that you can avoid the collision if that car doesn’t stop.
There are statistics on runway incursions, and I wouldn’t be surprised if something has happened at this intersection before. As one person said on that video from the Fort Lauderdale station, we do have the technology to have more preventive measures in place to keep things like this from happening. I for one would be heavily in favor of spending money to prevent runway incursions. However, as much as I hate to see it, I think it does boil down to a matter of economics. Like higher ticket prices, maybe, or taxes, and no one wants to spend money that they don’t think is totally necessary.
Oh well, that’s my take from the cockpit!

Captain Hutch :tiphat:

[aerobat]

It's good to hear about this from a pilot who knows the airport.

Cap'n Hutch, if you are still flying into FLL, please let us know if taxi instructions or ground control procedures have changed since this incident. Thanks!:)

[Captain Hutch]

Thanks, Barb. I hope I didn't get too long winded. I haven't been there in a few months but I will let you know when I go back if anything has changed.

Hutch :thumbsup:

[EyesSkyward]

I subscribe to an FAA safety announcement list. Every now and then, they send out little notices and tidbits. News of seminars in the area. That sort of thing.

In the past week, they've sent me the following, twice!

-- FAASafety.gov --------------------------------------------------------

Have A Current Airport Diagram AND Use IT!
Notice Number: NOTC0932

Have A Current Airport Diagram AND Use IT!
Line Safety Audits completed by the airlines revealed 23% of errors and 38% of the threats occur before ever leaving the ground.

A crucial part of the flight process is pre-flight planning. Accident analysis reveals that preflight planning is often inadequate or entirely ignored. An important part of this flight process is the obtainment of information for your departure, arrival, AND alternate airports. This should include utilizing a current Airport Facility Directory, obtaining current NOTAMs, AND having a current Airport Diagram.

Airports Diagrams are readily available at ww.naco.faa.gov .
It is not only important to have a current airport diagram, but to also USE THEM. You should review the airport diagram before taxi while stationary; and then after receiving your taxi clearance, review the diagram again to ensure that you are familiar with the taxi route and any hold short instructions. If there ever is a question.STOP and ASK!

See the link below for more information:
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2007/Jul/SPANS_-_July_07.pdf


Probably not a coincidence.

In the past while, the government has been really big on pushing runway incursion awareness and education. I remember when I took the oral exam for my private, a few years back, the examiner went over a bit of the usual stuff--airspace, currency regs, etc.--but spent a ton of time on airport signage, taxi procedures, and so forth. You know the powers-that-be are really up in arms about this latest debacle.

- Jeff

[Barb-SAN]

Thanks, Barb. I hope I didn't get too long winded. I haven't been there in a few months but I will let you know when I go back if anything has changed.

Hutch :thumbsup:

Long winded, yes....;)...however, I'm in the group of folks who like lots of details, so I enjoyed reading your long report. It's also in the details that we understand where the (various) potentials for problems could have occurred. I was trying to imagine myself taxiing in the place of the pilot, and what it would be looking like. :thumbsup:

Airports Diagrams are readily available at ww.naco.faa.gov .

Thanks for that additional information, Jeff. Perhaps we could add that to our links list. :)

[tusphotog]

...As one person said on that video from the Fort Lauderdale station, we do have the technology to have more preventive measures in place to keep things like this from happening....

I was reading an article somewhere that says even with the ground warning system in place, the controller still has to be on top of things. The article said the system doesn't actually alert the controller with callsigns, rather it just starts making a whole lot of noise. So, by the time the controller hears the alarm, figures out where the alarm is coming from and alerts the planes, it could take a few seconds. That's a long time when you have a plane moving at 150 mph.

[Captain Hutch]

Jeff, thanks for bringing up those points about the push for awareness on runway incursions. You are absolutely correct, and the airlines are making a big push on this subject. At my own airline, both pilots are required to have the airport diagram out and in view before taxiing, and any "hotspots", i.e., intersections especially known to be vulnerable to conflicts, must be briefed both prior to taxi and also included in the approach briefing for landing. However, as I stated in my above post, and this after studying the diagrams, possible taxi routes, hotspots, and discussions and briefings with the co-pilot, it is important to turn to common sense: look out the window and actually look for the departure end of the runway to which you are going to taxi, and think about how you would get there. In most cases the actual taxi route will fall into place. It's so simple I don't think it is written anywhere. I think it is sort of a basic airmanship thing that gets lost in the paperwork shuffle, but such a helpful thing to do at unfamiliar airports.

Thanks for appreciating the details, Barb-SAN. You seem like a very detail oriented person!

Hutch :)

[Barb-SAN]

At my own airline, both pilots are required to have the airport diagram out and in view before taxiing....


It is important to turn to common sense: look out the window and actually look for the departure end of the runway to which you are going to taxi, and think about how you would get there. In most cases the actual taxi route will fall into place. It's so simple I don't think it is written anywhere. I think it is sort of a basic airmanship thing that gets lost in the paperwork shuffle, but such a helpful thing to do at unfamiliar airports.


I think I'm going to add carrying the airport diagram with me as part of my procedure for my flying lessons, even for my home airport, MYF (which has 3 runways, two parallel, and one intersecting the other two on a diagonal). I'm still relying on my instructor to keep us from getting lost...and I find it easy to get confused at night. I've taken aerial photos of the runways from different directions too, which helps me to get a visual picture (memory) of the layout.



Thanks for appreciating the details, Barb-SAN. You seem like a very detail oriented person! Hutch :)


:lol: This is true...it's just how I'm wired. Sometimes it gets me into trouble too...but it has its benefits....:angel:

[aerobat]

I plucked this from today's AvWeb article about the NTSB findings in the Lexington crash. Italics mine.

Contributing factors in the accident were the crew's nonpertinent conversation and the FAA's failure to require that all runway crossings must be authorized by specific air traffic control clearances, the Board said.

I am wondering whether we may soon be seeing changes to taxi instructions, not only at FLL, but everywhere.

Hutch, you are never too long-winded for me! :) Thanks again!

[Captain Hutch]

Tusphotog those are good points about the ground warning system. I do not know anything about those systems. I believe a lot more could and should be done with adding warnings and alerts to taxiing aircraft when they stray into areas where they shouldn't, transmitted directly from some sort of electrical/optical fence to the aircraft, independent of the tower. I mean, even dogs have invisible fences.

Barb-SAN that is a good habit to get into, however, don't feel too bad when you use your instructor as a copilot, which is as it should be. It isn't uncommon for ground control to change your taxi instructions after you have started taxiing especially at night. I could stop, which I do if I am really confused, or I could try to glance down at my own diagram, which I think is too dangerous, but instead I ask my copilot where that "elusive" taxiway is that the controller just mentioned.

Barb--thanks for the encouragement! I would like to read that accident report. That seems like an unusual comment for a contributing cause re the FAA not having certain rules in place. They have been talking about that one for a while, but I really don't think that having that in place will change the situation much. BUT, they need to do something drastic soon. I sort of think that we have reached the limit of human imperfection, and now we need more electronic help.

Hutch :)

[LeslieDEN]

Thanks so much for the detailed response and analysis, Capt. Hutch! That's very interesting. I appreciate your sharing your knowledge about the FLL layout and your experience with it.

I heard a taxi mistake once on channel 9, but there was no danger involved. We'd landed in Omaha and were taxiing to our gate, and the controller said, "United 123, what gate are you going to?" Our pilot: "Gate 6." Controller: "You just passed it."

The airplane stopped. It was quite funny to those of us listening in.

Again, thank you very much. I'm going to reread the post several times to be sure I get it all.

[Barb-SAN]

Barb-SAN that is a good habit to get into, however, don't feel too bad when you use your instructor as a copilot, which is as it should be. It isn't uncommon for ground control to change your taxi instructions after you have started taxiing especially at night. I could stop, which I do if I am really confused, or I could try to glance down at my own diagram, which I think is too dangerous, but instead I ask my copilot where that "elusive" taxiway is that the controller just mentioned.
Hutch :)

Well, I am a low-hours student pilot, and San Diego airspace is complicated....so I don't see myself soloing any time in the near future. In fact, I really like the idea of a co-pilot instructor on a permanent basis. It's hard for me to find the time to fly frequently too. I've come to the conclusion that at least around here, it's much safer to have two brains and two sets of eyes in the plane (especially when one of them is experienced! ;))

[tusphotog]

Tusphotog those are good points about the ground warning system. I do not know anything about those systems. I believe a lot more could and should be done with adding warnings and alerts to taxiing aircraft when they stray into areas where they shouldn't, transmitted directly from some sort of electrical/optical fence to the aircraft, independent of the tower. I mean, even dogs have invisible fences.


Yes. Have you ever heard the line about having a dog in the cockpit? Since planes are so automated, the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything. :lol: Hold your applause, please.

I believe the FAA is testing several devices along these lines, but I could be wrong. Especially at airports with crossing runways or two sets of runways, something needs to be done. Just look at LAX: It's hard to see those ILS hold lines and such from the cabin when it's dark and foggy there, I can't imagine it's much better up front. In all honesty, I think it'll take a pretty big accident before something is done about the problem. I certainly hope they're proactive enough that this doesn't happen, but we all know what the FAAs history is in this area.

By the way, here's a link to the NTSB article re the Comair crash at LEX: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR-07-05.htm