Runway Incursion HNL
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
There's an additional remark on the chart supplement that says "WIDE BODY AND 4 ENGINE TBJTS LDG ON RY 04R ROLL TO END OF RY, NO LEFT TURN AT TWY K WO APVL", so it looks like they realize that exiting at K as if it were a true highspeed is going to be an issue. I suspect, as noted above, that once United got the instruction to exit at K, they figured they'd be rolling across the parallel, and by the time the order came to hold short, it was rather too late. From the audio on YouTube, you can sense a bit of hesitation when she reads back the hold short. I rather suspect that SOP for ATC there is not to take heavies off at K unless they do intend to keep them rolling, and the controller messed this one up. I notice again from the audio that while the pilot was asked to copy a number and call for a chat, there was no "Possible Pilot Deviation", at least as I heard it.
When you live....
There's an additional remark on the chart supplement that says "WIDE BODY AND 4 ENGINE TBJTS LDG ON RY 04R ROLL TO END OF RY, NO LEFT TURN AT TWY K WO APVL", so it looks like they realize that exiting at K as if it were a true highspeed is going to be an issue. I suspect, as noted above, that once United got the instruction to exit at K, they figured they'd be rolling across the parallel, and by the time the order came to hold short, it was rather too late. From the audio on YouTube, you can sense a bit of hesitation when she reads back the hold short. I rather suspect that SOP for ATC there is not to take heavies off at K unless they do intend to keep them rolling, and the controller messed this one up. I notice again from the audio that while the pilot was asked to copy a number and call for a chat, there was no "Possible Pilot Deviation", at least as I heard it.
Anyone Remembers This ? When & Where? My memory failed me.
https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=share
https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=share
After listening to LiveATC associated with this incident, some observations:
Female FO was PF for the landing, which implies PF/PM swap after landing.
At times I had a hard time understanding the local controller due to rapidity of his speech and allowing speech to trail off at end of each transmission. Pilots seemed to understand his instructions with no difficulty.
On landing rollout, local controller says “United ah 384, you got [at?] Kilo? Female FO quickly responds, “United 384, turning left on Kilo.” Local controller immediately says, “United 384, hold short Four Left.” Response is “Hold short of Four Left, United (long pause, mic unkeyed and rekeyed) 384.” About 25 seconds later, local controller says, “United 384, continue to cross Eight Left, contact ground, point niner.”
From ADS-B data, UAL384 had a ground speed of 35 kts turning onto Kilo, 24 kts as it crossed the midpoint of 4R/4L on Kilo, and 15 kts crossing the 4L/8L intersection. There was no stop.
My initial assessment is that, upon hearing “you got [at?] Kilo,” UAL384 took this query as instruction to use Kilo, and assumed that if the local controller approved use of Kilo, approval to cross 4L/8L was either included or would follow shortly. I think the local controller was asking UAL384 if they were able (groundspeed slow enough) to turn at Kilo. By the time the UAL384 crew read back the hold short of 4L instruction, they knew they were already over the hold bar and there was no way they could safely avoid entering 4L/8L with their groundspeed.
Female FO was PF for the landing, which implies PF/PM swap after landing.
At times I had a hard time understanding the local controller due to rapidity of his speech and allowing speech to trail off at end of each transmission. Pilots seemed to understand his instructions with no difficulty.
On landing rollout, local controller says “United ah 384, you got [at?] Kilo? Female FO quickly responds, “United 384, turning left on Kilo.” Local controller immediately says, “United 384, hold short Four Left.” Response is “Hold short of Four Left, United (long pause, mic unkeyed and rekeyed) 384.” About 25 seconds later, local controller says, “United 384, continue to cross Eight Left, contact ground, point niner.”
From ADS-B data, UAL384 had a ground speed of 35 kts turning onto Kilo, 24 kts as it crossed the midpoint of 4R/4L on Kilo, and 15 kts crossing the 4L/8L intersection. There was no stop.
My initial assessment is that, upon hearing “you got [at?] Kilo,” UAL384 took this query as instruction to use Kilo, and assumed that if the local controller approved use of Kilo, approval to cross 4L/8L was either included or would follow shortly. I think the local controller was asking UAL384 if they were able (groundspeed slow enough) to turn at Kilo. By the time the UAL384 crew read back the hold short of 4L instruction, they knew they were already over the hold bar and there was no way they could safely avoid entering 4L/8L with their groundspeed.
But I have to add, I guess you added the "female" because that is how you concluded that a PM/PF changeover had occurred. As gender is pretty much always irrelevant in these discussions, avoiding gender should be preferred, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the situation. Especially since it is invariably stated as "the pilot" versus "the female pilot", but never "the male pilot". Sure, it might sound silly to complain about this, but using only the minority gender when qualifying who it was is wrong, either both, or none. And would you have said "the black pilot" based on a picture of the crew after the event? (rant over. As an old, white, male in aviation)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 845
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got a question (and quietly hoping it's not a dumb one - the constant reluctance of SLF/attorney status here).
When the local controller says, "you got [at] Kilo?" -- does that not sound and read in reports like a question to UA 384, and not permission to taxi onto Kilo, just a question about location - but then the aviators respond by turning onto Kilo?
The question I'm teeing up here seems to follow from the CA reportedly stating he lost Situational Awareness.
When the local controller says, "you got [at] Kilo?" -- does that not sound and read in reports like a question to UA 384, and not permission to taxi onto Kilo, just a question about location - but then the aviators respond by turning onto Kilo?
The question I'm teeing up here seems to follow from the CA reportedly stating he lost Situational Awareness.
But I have to add, I guess you added the "female" because that is how you concluded that a PM/PF changeover had occurred. As gender is pretty much always irrelevant in these discussions, avoiding gender should be preferred, unless it is absolutely pertinent to the situation. Especially since it is invariably stated as "the pilot" versus "the female pilot", but never "the male pilot". Sure, it might sound silly to complain about this, but using only the minority gender when qualifying who it was is wrong, either both, or none. And would you have said "the black pilot" based on a picture of the crew after the event? (rant over. As an old, white, male in aviation)
Note that the NTSB preliminary report uses (by my count) the female pronoun “she” seven times associated with the FO, while there are no uses of he/him to refer to the male participants in the incident. Thus, it’s no secret that the FO was female (I’m assuming here, of course). You’re welcome to contact the NTSB and counsel them how to update their style manual to appeal to the sensitivities of their client base.
Regarding your statement, “sure, it might sound silly to complain about this…,” yes, it does sound silly because it is silly. Let’s all stop the silliness.
Got a question (and quietly hoping it's not a dumb one - the constant reluctance of SLF/attorney status here).
When the local controller says, "you got [at] Kilo?" -- does that not sound and read in reports like a question to UA 384, and not permission to taxi onto Kilo, just a question about location - but then the aviators respond by turning onto Kilo?
The question I'm teeing up here seems to follow from the CA reportedly stating he lost Situational Awareness.
When the local controller says, "you got [at] Kilo?" -- does that not sound and read in reports like a question to UA 384, and not permission to taxi onto Kilo, just a question about location - but then the aviators respond by turning onto Kilo?
The question I'm teeing up here seems to follow from the CA reportedly stating he lost Situational Awareness.
In the absence of that comment, the flight crew would likely have rolled to the end of the runway, and then remained clear of 4L. With that comment, the crew appear to have responded as it being a proposition, and have taken the exit, and that has compressed the time for comms and clearances to follow. It was not a clearance however, but it set up a temporal condition that did not help the crew and messed up the guys on approach of 4L. There is a desire to vacate a runway promptly, for the next flight, 4L & 4R are poorly arranged runways on a good day. The intersections around the taxiways off 4R, to 4L, and intersecting 8L and the taxiways to the north of 8L have been a hotspot for 40+ years. There is a point where perhaps the airport needs to review their setup, as it is contributing to a latent risk factor, that pops up too often.
HNL would have problems meeting the ICAO Doc 9157 aerodrome design manual criteria, as would KLAX and KSFO to name a few, and of course that bastion of brilliant design, KJFK, the first glimpse of the new world.... We continue to have issues that have potential for echoes of Tenerife, and not much is being done. The crew are involved in these events, as is ATC, as is the poor status of the aids as in Texas recently, which is unfortunate for the worlds most affluent country.
No need to guess. The female modifier in my post came about from my initial transcription from ear to paper of the LiveATC audio and carried over to my post. Given the distinctive sound of a single female voice among a group of male voices, “female” was an easy tag to hang on certain radio transmissions to help sort out the key participants.
Note that the NTSB preliminary report uses (by my count) the female pronoun “she” seven times associated with the FO, while there are no uses of he/him to refer to the male participants in the incident. Thus, it’s no secret that the FO was female (I’m assuming here, of course). You’re welcome to contact the NTSB and counsel them how to update their style manual to appeal to the sensitivities of their client base.
Regarding your statement, “sure, it might sound silly to complain about this…,” yes, it does sound silly because it is silly. Let’s all stop the silliness.
Note that the NTSB preliminary report uses (by my count) the female pronoun “she” seven times associated with the FO, while there are no uses of he/him to refer to the male participants in the incident. Thus, it’s no secret that the FO was female (I’m assuming here, of course). You’re welcome to contact the NTSB and counsel them how to update their style manual to appeal to the sensitivities of their client base.
Regarding your statement, “sure, it might sound silly to complain about this…,” yes, it does sound silly because it is silly. Let’s all stop the silliness.
captain took control and then used his tiller to begin a left turn onto taxiway K. Information
obtained by the ATC group indicated that about 1609, the LC asked UAL384 if they “got Kilo?”
UAL384 responded, “turn left on Kilo”. The LC instructed UAL384 to hold short of runway 4L and
UAL384 acknowledged the hold short request.
The CA indicated that he was surprised by the hold short instruction since he had told approach
control that they were unable to conduct LAHSO on runway 4R. He indicated that he lost
situational awareness as they exited runway 4R as he thought there was more distance between
the runways than there actually was. He was concerned about getting clear of the landing
runway and was focused on clearing the hold short line between runway 4R and taxiway K."
Maybe read the report again. That is just for the captain, I didn't check the rest of the report.
And the NTSB never said: "the female FO...", They used: "The FO indicated that she landed".
Maybe you don't find that to be different but I have yet to find a pilot who likes to have that tag added.
It is okay to say "she is a pilot", it isn't okay to say "she is a female pilot". Do you go to a "lady-doctor"?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
There is more than just a loss of situational awareness(in terms of knowing one’s location relative to a runway). There is a lack of attention focus on outside cues. There was a holdshort line and signs that was not seen despite the fact that they knew that there was a nearby parallel runway to hold short of.
Taxiing should be thought of as being similar to flying. The pilot operating the aircraft focuses on operating the aircraft, which includes looking at outside cues.
I would say this incident can be related to going through a stop sign or red traffic light. Why do those things happen? Not paying attention.
At some experience level, a pilot should be able to recognize when heightened attention is required.
I would not be surprised if the pilots had in their mind that there was a parallel taxiway to be crossed first resulting in reduced vigilance.
Taxiing should be thought of as being similar to flying. The pilot operating the aircraft focuses on operating the aircraft, which includes looking at outside cues.
I would say this incident can be related to going through a stop sign or red traffic light. Why do those things happen? Not paying attention.
At some experience level, a pilot should be able to recognize when heightened attention is required.
I would not be surprised if the pilots had in their mind that there was a parallel taxiway to be crossed first resulting in reduced vigilance.
Regarding the term “female pilot,” do a simple search and you will see that that title is widely utilized. Organizations from the military to airlines to unions proudly crow about their “all-female” flight crews, including the term "female pilot."
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller's plan was to have the C208 land close behind United but on 4L precluding the use of Kilo as an exit without a "hold short".
The controller knows the C208 will likely exit via Echo (or maybe even Delta if wake can be avoided)
To facilitate this plan I see a couple of options:
1 - United is instructed to exit at the end with the landing clearance; By the time they get there the C208 is no factor.
2 - Assuming no traffic close behind United on 4R, United is given the option of Kilo but with an expectation to hold short of 4L.Once United had landed, they could be issued a "hold short 4L".
Without passing on their plan, the controller did not give United the full picture. "You got Kilo?" is a pointless question if the controller doesn't intend to allow them to use it. If they allow them to use it then they either need to cross 4L & 8L as their speed will likely not allow them to hold short.
The chart remark “WIDE BODY AND 4 ENGINE TBJTS LDG ON RY 04R ROLL TO END OF RY, NO LEFT TURN AT TWY K WO APVL.” should have United either planning on the end or being given/seeking approval for a Kilo exit before landing so that there is time enough to plan its use.
The controller knows the C208 will likely exit via Echo (or maybe even Delta if wake can be avoided)
To facilitate this plan I see a couple of options:
1 - United is instructed to exit at the end with the landing clearance; By the time they get there the C208 is no factor.
2 - Assuming no traffic close behind United on 4R, United is given the option of Kilo but with an expectation to hold short of 4L.Once United had landed, they could be issued a "hold short 4L".
Without passing on their plan, the controller did not give United the full picture. "You got Kilo?" is a pointless question if the controller doesn't intend to allow them to use it. If they allow them to use it then they either need to cross 4L & 8L as their speed will likely not allow them to hold short.
The chart remark “WIDE BODY AND 4 ENGINE TBJTS LDG ON RY 04R ROLL TO END OF RY, NO LEFT TURN AT TWY K WO APVL.” should have United either planning on the end or being given/seeking approval for a Kilo exit before landing so that there is time enough to plan its use.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
2 - Assuming no traffic close behind United on 4R, United is given the option of Kilo but with an expectation to hold short of 4L.Once United had landed, they could be issued a "hold short 4L".
Without passing on their plan, the controller did not give United the full picture. "You got Kilo?" is a pointless question if the controller doesn't intend to allow them to use it. If they allow them to use it then they either need to cross 4L & 8L as their speed will likely not allow them to hold short.
.
Without passing on their plan, the controller did not give United the full picture. "You got Kilo?" is a pointless question if the controller doesn't intend to allow them to use it. If they allow them to use it then they either need to cross 4L & 8L as their speed will likely not allow them to hold short.
.
"you got Kilo" was an inadvertent set-up call that the controller added to the mix, during a critical phase of flight, the landing and rollout, it is still requiring timely input to the aircraft control from the flight crew. The crew being familiar with HNL and requiring to do route quals even if not, would have been planning on a roll through to the end, that is what the charts give in the notes. That would likely have been the briefing and the intent up to the point that Kilo was mentioned by ATC. Immediately thereafter, the crew in the best intentions would be altering their mental model to determine if Kilo was an alternative, and would be biased towards taking action to make that happen. The time available to recall that it requires approval by ATC to exit for the large aircraft off 4R is limited.
With the best of intent, a non standard phrase in a critical time can have unintended consequences. One wonders why Kilo got a mention if the controller still had the Caravan in his mind, it being on short finals to 4L and otherwise impacted by any expeditious efforts for the traffic on 4R.
Would be interested in knowing the wind direction, as it would seem that separation was awfully cavalier for a caravan behind a heavy.
With the best of intent, a non standard phrase in a critical time can have unintended consequences. One wonders why Kilo got a mention if the controller still had the Caravan in his mind, it being on short finals to 4L and otherwise impacted by any expeditious efforts for the traffic on 4R.
Would be interested in knowing the wind direction, as it would seem that separation was awfully cavalier for a caravan behind a heavy.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to AVHerald Incident: United B772 at Honolulu on Jan 23rd 2023, runway incursion there was a tailwind at the time.
Looking at the flightaware data for the C208, its flightpath brought it over the north side of the airport on a tight left base for 4L With the offset between the thresholds of 4L&R wake turbulence would mitigated with the C208 landing beyond the point where the B777 touched down. A sound plan flawed in its execution by offering United Kilo as an exit.
Looking at the flightaware data for the C208, its flightpath brought it over the north side of the airport on a tight left base for 4L With the offset between the thresholds of 4L&R wake turbulence would mitigated with the C208 landing beyond the point where the B777 touched down. A sound plan flawed in its execution by offering United Kilo as an exit.
