Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
Thanks for the explanation BFSGrad, looking at the airport diagram , was the initial taxi clearance and pilot read back for Runway 1 or 33 ? If it was for holding point (bay) Runway 1 and it was read back as such , then it is another Pilot error picked up ny ATC, similar to the JFK one . . not really the same as Austin ., and not really ATC related except once again the use of expedited non-standard phraseology (if the "cross 4 at J " was the only instruction issued ) which seems to be one of the common contributing factor in all these
The plot thickens…
After push, the E75L (Brickyard 4736) queries ground about assigned runway. Ground essentially says (marginal audio) “if they said runway 33, expect it.” E75L requests taxi and ground instructs “runway 33, N, J, F, hold short of 1” (letters phonetically spoken). E75L correctly reads back taxi instructions.
Just prior to this instruction, ground incorrectly assigns runway 1 to GoJet (Lindbergh 4430) but uses runway 33 routing (1, K, F, hold short 1). GoJet queries this inconsistency and ground issues the correct taxi instructions (33, K, F, hold short 1).
The E75L subsequently is instructed “cross 4 at J, monitor tower,” which indicates ground is now incorrectly routing the E75L to runway 1. Appears that the E75L expecting to hear “cross 1 and 4 at F” executes this incorrect ground taxi instruction as part of its original routing to runway 33.
About 5 minutes after the incident, a new ground controller voice directs all aircraft to hold all push requests as a controller change is in progress. Planned controller changes are usually seamless with the only indication being a new voice.