Originally Posted by
JapanHanuma
I presume this could mean that the confusion derived from saying "no.1" then? It would be a big leap of faith to assume a queue number indicated not only runway clearance but also takeoff clearance!
I guess you could throw in a few recommendations:
- use of stopbars at all times
- attendant for the runway incursion warning system at all times (and audible alert if false positives are low)
- single direction runways
- replacing queue numbers with another terminology that implies the lack of runway clearance
- use of transponder for non-civilian aircraft at all times in most civilian settings
- use of only a single radio channel at a civilian airport (e.g. no authority given to coastguard radio when ATC is empowered)
But the issue in this situation would seem to be that the pilot was improper because he did not request specific keywords that indicate runway clearance and takeoff clearance, so I wonder if there really is any need to change airport procedures beyond pilot retraining and possibly an attendant on the runway incursion warning system.
There shouldn’t be any confusion generated by using Number 1. It’s not part of, or a take off clearance, so it shouldn’t be a trigger for a crew to enter a live runway, or be assumed/confused as permission to enter a live runway.
I’m surprised that the stopbars were not used 24/7/365 when serviceable in any weather conditions. I think that will be a key finding in the end report of what went wrong. I’m very interested in why they don’t use stopbars 100% of the time when serviceable,
if I understand their airport operation correctly.