Runway Incursion HNL

[megan]

From AvwebThe day after Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen announced he wants to hold a Safety Summit next month, CNN reported that there was a serious runway incursion involving a United Airlines 777 and Cessna Caravan at Daniel K. Inouye Airport in Honolulu on Jan. 23. The network reported the 777 crossed the runway where the Kamaka Air Caravan cargo plane was landing. The Caravan came to a stop before the crossing point of the heavy but they came within 1,170 feet of each other. It was the fourth serious incident reported since December. This month there have also been serious runway incidents at JFK and Austin. In December, an aircraft on initial climbout from Kahului Airport dropped about 1500 feet to less than 800 feet above the ocean before the crew recovered, pulling 2.7 G’s in the process.In a memo to his senior management on Tuesday Nolen said he wants to bring together leaders from all corners of aviation to discuss what some have said are ominous signs the system is weakening. “A group of commercial and general aviation leaders, labor partners, and others will examine which mitigations are working and why others appear to be not as effective as they once were,” Nolen wrote. Nolen said he also wants to know if there have been any other close calls that haven’t been made public.

“We need to mine the data to see whether there are other incidents that resemble ones we have seen in recent weeks,” he said. “And we need to see if there are indicators of emerging trends so we can focus on resources to address now.” He also wants to look at the Air Traffic Organization with an eye to reinforcing “a collaborative, data-driven safety culture.” Nolen stressed the aviation system continues to be in a safe spell and he wants to keep that going. “Now is the time to stare into the data and ask hard questions.”

[WillowRun 6-3]

The first thing to say, and first thing to emphasize also, is that this post is not intended to demean or disparage the fine career of Phillip Washington, the Biden administration's nominee for FAA Administrator. As not only the cognescenti realize, his elevation from CEO of Denver Int'l Airport to the head of FAA has not drawn sufficient favor so far in the Senate.

Yet, without detracting at all from his career, take another reading of the quoted material above from Acting Administrator Billy Nolen. The point here (imo) is that in ordinary times, yes, some sort of uber-technocrat would be fine to head up FAA, even without significant aviation experience. But these times, my friends, these are not the ordinary variety. Pick a major issue, even just one, and try to convince your loyal neighborhood SLF/attorney that all you need is management finesse, even though your mind gets lost real, real fast when the discourse gets into the actual workings of the "NAS" and its many components. There are at present a good many open issues confronting the "NAS" and knowing how to manage in a general sense will not be the best choice for dealing with such issues.

And I'm putting "NAS" in quotation marks and leaving it there. The way in which Mr. Nolen articulated, or recited if you prefer, "NAS" at the Senate hearing proves something. I don' t mean pronounciation - I mean knowledge, familiarity, depth, devotion and just plain commitment. He's devoted his career to getting things right, and he knows what those things are, how they work. Like the old E.F. Hutton spot, he's acquired the right to the top job the old fashioned way - he earned it.

Bonus question at confirmation hearing: "Mr. Nominee, and I quote, 'There's no one on Two-Eight Right but you'. Discuss, please, and include your views on 'resiliency or redundancy' on one hand, and 'luck' on the other."

[BFSGrad]

That hotspot (HS2) at PHNL looks to be a bit of a gotcha. Upon exiting 4R at K, unless you also have clearance to cross 4L/8L, you really can’t treat K as a high speed exit. Would a heavy stopped at the K hold bar for 4L/8L even be considered clear of 4R? Consequence of a “high speed” exit stuffed between two very closely-spaced runways. However, I would also expect a United 777 crew operating to/from PHNL to be very experienced with PHNL ops.

[pattern_is_full]

Correct. In fact it is not possible to be clear of both runways simultaneously on any of the taxiways between 4R and 4L at HNL.

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/honolulu-airport-reversed-hold-short-markings/

[Andrewgr2]

If the runways at HNL are so close to each other are they both allowed to be active at the same time?

[BFSGrad]

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.

[pattern_is_full]

If the runways at HNL are so close to each other are they both allowed to be active at the same time?

Short answer - yes, given that the Caravan and 777 were in fact landing within a minute of each other.

Longer answer - 4R/22L and 4L/22R were, historically, the "smaller aircraft" runways, while 8L/26R and 8R/26L were the widely-spaced main runways for the big guys, and oriented into the prevailing easterly tropical trade winds.

However, for United in particular, 4R (northeasterly) and the exit at K are very convenient for landings, when possible, because they exit directly to United's gates at the east end of the terminal. Saving at least a mile (and often much more) of taxiing (and taxi fuel). And HNL ATC accomodates them when they can. I'm sure United crews are well-versed in the "special needs" of using 4R and K - they just bobbled it this time and crossed the wrong line.

HNL is an oddity. The main hub airport for the Hawaiian Archipelago, constrained in area by ocean, mountains (NE) and the city of Honolulu (E). As well as sharing its runways with the military aircraft of Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. It has a variety of abnormal procedures, including an LDA descent to 26L (with a 40° left turn on short final) to avoid overflying Waikiki (tourist) Beach, and Honolulu and its obstructions, and conducts LAHS Operations on 4L, 4R and 8L, the hold-short-of point being the intersection of K, 8L and 4L.

[MarkerInbound]

Looking at Google Earth exiting 4R at Kilo you would cross the hold line for 4L and 8L before you cross the hold line for 4R. So there’s really no space on Kilo between the runways. I would think if ATC wanted you to exit at Kilo they would have to include a clearance to cross 4L. We just always rolled to the end since most of the time we were going to the Diamond Head ramp.

[punkalouver]

A good example of the benefit of familiarizing oneself with the potential taxi route prior to landing. It can be just a brief glance to notice the hazard of the parallel runway with no taxiway in between and therefore to expect an almost immediate hold short line. Then one can plan to exit the landing runway at a fairly slow speed instead of at 60 knots or so.

That doesn’t mean that this scenario is what happened. There seems to be a tendency to let oneself get distracted doing things like after landing flow instead of focusing on taxiing/holding short.

Of course, there is always the simple “we forgot” scenario.

[MikeGranby]

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.

[Seat4A]

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1628840248158351365?cxt=HHwWisCztezk5potAAAA

[Hassan Bok]

Anyone Remembers This ? When & Where? My memory failed me.

https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=share

[Bksmithca]

Anyone Remembers This ? When & Where? My memory failed me. https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=sharevideo was posted two weeks ago and mentions San Francisco in the tags. As to when ?

[DaveReidUK]

I assume it's an attempt to reconstruct the well-known October 2017 incident at SFO.

[Chiefttp]

I wonder how long it will take until the American/Delta near miss at JFK preliminary report is published?

[BFSGrad]

That is a lot of detail for a preliminary report.

“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.”

I don’t understand the above statement. UAL384 received a clearance to land on 4R with no hold short instructions; i.e., there was no LAHSO for 4R. The full length of 4R was available to UAL384 for landing. What does a hold short of 4L instruction have to do with LAHSO?

“The CA also indicated that there doesn’t appear to be enough room for a 210’ long B777 to be fully clear of runway 4R and still hold short of runway 4L…”

Was this the first time this Captain (or FO) flew into PHNL? How was this geographical reality unexpected?

No mention of the Chart Supplement remark “WIDE BODY AND 4 ENGINE TBJTS LDG ON RY 04R ROLL TO END OF RY, NO LEFT TURN AT TWY K WO APVL.”

[BFSGrad]

I wonder how long it will take until the American/Delta near miss at JFK preliminary report is published?
Published 2/10/23. Posts 129, 130 on the associated topic/thread.

[JanetFlight]

Anyone Remembers This ? When & Where? My memory failed me.

https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=share

In that clip they didn't even hit the correct acft models...the AC was a 320, on that clip we can see a 787...the 320 vacated the same RET of previous SWA, on that clip it was passing behind the SWA to vacate on the next one(s)...here it is the correct one without any *inventions* »»»

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXNWwKx9c1o

[Chiefttp]

Published 2/10/23. Posts 129, 130 on the associated topic/thread.

Thanks BFSGrad,
I saw that report, but that was without the testimony from the American Crew. I guess I’ll have to wait for the final report 2 years from now!😤

[WillowRun 6-3]

Regarding the likelihood of waiting for the NTSB to complete its work and publish its final report on the JFK incident:
That would be the presumed timing, no doubt, but it appears quite possible for the current situation to call for a somewhat different - though also unique - approach.

Notice that NTSB currently is working on three incidents - Hawaii, Texas, New York. Yes I'm using the names of the states on purpose. FAA reauthorization, at times in the past, has been referred to as a kind of feeding frenzy at the trough of federal funding and appropriations. Not to profess naivete but this time around seems to be shaping up differently, to some degree at least. So the Congressional committees, including not just the legislators but also the professional Hill staffers who have acquired and earned significant knowledge, expertise and experience, could very credibly coax, or pressure, NTSB at least to supplement its JFK prelim report. Heck, the APA credibly could want this too, to show that after the initial resistance, the crew members did in fact provide all the answers in their (recorded) interviews that the Board investigators asked the crew to provide.

In making this assertion I'm relying partly on the formidable appearance yesterday of the NTSB Chair, albeit dealing with a major accident in a different industry. No one single Washington authority individually can bring about broad change, let alone in a sector of the U.S. economy as large, important, and complicated as commercial aviation. That said, do not be surprised if this current NTSB Chair.... to clean this up a bit.... is more than ready, willing, able and capable of proverbially kicking be-hinds and taking names.

[punkalouver]

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.
Never figure that you are cleared ago cross a runway when receiving a taxi clearance unless specifically cleared across that runway. All taxi clearances are hold short clearances unless stated otherwise.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

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.

The report does not read at all like the controller messed up - the Captain admitted losing situational awareness and that being asked to hold short of a runway whilst taxiing was somehow the same as a LAHSO clearance.

[hans brinker]

Anyone Remembers This ? When & Where? My memory failed me.

https://youtube.com/shorts/50i1oqf4cqc?feature=share

So the audio is from a different event apparently, but when/where was this video from? Edit: MSFS is a possibility 😒

[hans brinker]

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.

Agree with your assessment, based on what I see/hear, the controller wasn't necessarily surprised by UAL wanting to use K, even though on the charts it's is not allowed. Might have become an informal thing for UAL WB for convenience, that the controllers agreed to in the interest of convenience for both. Holding short of 4L should still have been the standard though, so I feel it was on UAL to have held short, and it looks like they were never slow enough for that to happen.

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)

[WillowRun 6-3]

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.

[BFSGrad]

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)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.

[fdr]

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.

nailed it. WR 6-3.

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.

[hans brinker]

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.

"At this time, the FO offered to transfer control of the aircraft to the captain as briefed, and the
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"?

[punkalouver]

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.

[BFSGrad]

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"?Actually I do go to a lady doctor. How did you know?

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."

[cossack]

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.

[punkalouver]

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.
.
I disagree. If you will not be able to hold short of a parallel runway due to speed while exiting the runway you landed on, then do not use that exit unless cleared to cross.Even if cleared to cross, it would be wise to adjust ensure that you can stop anyways as it can happen that a sudden hold short is required. If this is difficult, a simple rollout to the end is an easy option.

[fdr]

"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.

[cossack]

According to AVHerald Incident: United B772 at Honolulu on Jan 23rd 2023, runway incursion (http://avherald.com/h?article=505448d3&opt=0) 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.