Vehicle incursion at Baltimore 12 Jan 2023
Vehicle incursion at Baltimore 12 Jan 2023
Another close call, apparently due to a mis-hearing and an uncorrected readback. Aviation Herald:
A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N212WN performing flight WN-471 from Baltimore,MD to Chicago O'Hare,IL (USA), was cleared for takeoff from Baltimore's runway 15R and commenced takeoff at 13:58L (18:58Z).
A fire and rescue vehicle (ambulance) was cleared to cross runway 10 and hold short of runway 15R at the ARFF road (about 5700 feet/1740 meters down runway 15R), the vehicle however read back to cross runway 10 and 15R. The controller did not correct that read back. The vehicle continued and crossed runway 15R while the Boeing 737 was in their takeoff run.
The Boeing 737 continued their takeoff, became airborne and continued to destination without further incident.
The FAA reported in their safety summit held as result of other losses of runway separation listing a total of 8 such occurrences, that the aircraft became airborne just before the intersection where the vehicle was crossing. The distance between aircraft and vehicle had reduced to about estimated 173 feet horizontally, by the time the aircraft went past the intersection the vehicle was already about 170 feet past the runway. The FAA rated the runway incursion as Category B (significant potential for collision).
A fire and rescue vehicle (ambulance) was cleared to cross runway 10 and hold short of runway 15R at the ARFF road (about 5700 feet/1740 meters down runway 15R), the vehicle however read back to cross runway 10 and 15R. The controller did not correct that read back. The vehicle continued and crossed runway 15R while the Boeing 737 was in their takeoff run.
The Boeing 737 continued their takeoff, became airborne and continued to destination without further incident.
The FAA reported in their safety summit held as result of other losses of runway separation listing a total of 8 such occurrences, that the aircraft became airborne just before the intersection where the vehicle was crossing. The distance between aircraft and vehicle had reduced to about estimated 173 feet horizontally, by the time the aircraft went past the intersection the vehicle was already about 170 feet past the runway. The FAA rated the runway incursion as Category B (significant potential for collision).
Assume that this event started in the vicinity of taxiway E? On the satellite map, there’s a road that connects E from the terminal complex to Y at the fire station and crosses 10 and 15R, but is not shown on the airport diagram. Assume this is the “ARFF road” referred to in the audio?
Looking at the map and description on AvHerald, the ambulance was 170 ft past the runway, and the aircraft was 175 ft above the runway. Tea and no biscuits for the controller and the ambulance crew.
So, once again, someone suggests that it's not such a big deal because through luck/good fortune/deity of your choice there was no collision. Haven't we, as an industry, moved on yet? Or are you just trolling?
Pegase Driver
Could someone with knowledge able to post the relevant R/T audio from LiveATC ? Would be nice to hear the actual authorisation and the read back before going into tea and biscuits.
Equivocal. If I had thought it wasn't a big deal then I wouldn't have mentioned tea and no biscuits. Traffic movement within the airport area must always be controlled. So both parties involved here must explain to there supervisors what went wrong and learn from it.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegase Driver
Thanks BFSGRad. Again very fast speech delivery for critical instructions For me the difference between "hold short of " and a "and " is not very distinct and probably lead to the confusion , the ambulance guy heard what he wanted to hear and repeated that, which was not picked up and corrected, by the controller. Not good. That said, no red stop bars protecting active runways in Baltimore?
Runway Status Lights at KBWI
Taking a spin through 7110.65, there doesn’t appear to be a requirement for ATC to specify a reason for a runway hold short instruction; e.g., landing or departing traffic. However, some of the examples for hold short instructions do include a reason. For example in this incident, ATC could have said, “ARFF 439, cross runway 10, hold short of runway 15R, traffic departing runway 15R.” I’ve also heard U.S. ATC use this format in practice
Pegase Driver
Thanks, BFSGrad, although additional info like " take off in progress in 15R" is helpful to add it is not a requirement , also not in the ICAO/Europe. phraseology. Here making sure the "Hold short of runway 15 R" instruction was received and ackmlowledged was essential but enough. Maybe they do this normaloly but here lack of time,to add additionla info prevented that , we do not know the surrounding ATC workload at the time.
A lesson from that one is the sentence used for this double authorisation to cross 2 different runways. If you speak very fast " hold short " it can be misunderstood for " and " in this sentence.with a totally different outcome . Separating the requests , one for each runway , and therefore separating the ATC instructions would have been the obvious solution here. Maybe that will be the NTSB recommendation in this incident..
A lesson from that one is the sentence used for this double authorisation to cross 2 different runways. If you speak very fast " hold short " it can be misunderstood for " and " in this sentence.with a totally different outcome . Separating the requests , one for each runway , and therefore separating the ATC instructions would have been the obvious solution here. Maybe that will be the NTSB recommendation in this incident..
