Aborted takeoff, Car on Rwy, & More at LAX
 

I've had more close calls with collisions with ground vehicles at LAX than any other airport.

A Los Angeles World Airports Employee No Less
 

Good God!! An airport employee? If ANY unique group is (perhaps should be?) trained in how to operate ground vehicles at a Major Airport, it should be the airport's own employees. Now, the LAWA management wants to beat up on the employee. Was he thoroughly trained in ground operations? Did he have an operative radio tuned to South Ground? We will learn more, later. For now, I suspect that LAWA is wagging their finger on the wrong heading. Oh, I forgot... LAWA is a quasi governmental organization, by definition, unable to do wrong. :sad:

No GPS navigation?
 

How much can it cost to equip all vehicles authorized for airport operation to have a GPS navigation system. May not be perfect, but certainly good enough to avoid such blunders. And cheap compared to potential consequences, including an aborted takeoff.

Good on the alerts in the tower and quick controller reaction.

Did I hear the "consultant" right. "nothing will happen to the passengers if they run into a vehicle" ????

Taking off from Malé, Maldives, circa 100kn, Luton van drove across in front of us. I observed that, if it maintained heading and speed, it would be well clear and continued t/o. It did and we missed.
Subsequent rethink suggested that, had it, for some reason, stopped on the runway, an instant abort would have meant we'd have hit it less hard.
My finding at the cerebral Board of Inquiry was that I should have rejected.

Not nearly as dramatic as a runway incursion but I saw a 747 have to stop rather quickly on a taxiway at Toronto as a van ran out in front of him, obviously without looking. I spoke to a pilot about it later and he basically said that it was North America, these things happen.

Of course it was. Did they then shout you and your partner out to dinner for making a successful judgement call under significant time constraints whilst bearing total responsibility?
Didn't think so.
Just remember that not one of them has ever made a decision in a similar time frame with similar consequences whilst holding similar responsibility. They're just along for the ride.

BASIL


Your story reminds me of the 707 incident in the 1970's when a certain airline's flight training manager was taking off from Toronto and an aircraft taxied across the runway quite a long way further down. He realised he would be airborne before reaching it but applied more power, climbed over the offending aircraft and continued to London.


He was praised for avoiding the aircraft but was reprimanded for continuing to London having overboosted the JT3D's.With the RR Conway engines it would not have mattered as they had Ultra to limit the boost.

Me thinks that Basil was referring to a thought process inside his own head, rather than a formal Board of Inquiry.

Like this?

http://s18.postimg.org/nq3npn7g9/adsb_cars.jpg

Thinking... "just keep going, just keep going..." :E

Yes, I was but didn't make it very clear.
If we'd collided, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on - probably literally as well as legally.:ooh:

LAX like most major US airports has ASDE-X surface detection equipment. The system tracks aircraft and vehicle movement on runways and taxiways using a variety of sensors.

ASDE-X has safety logic to alert the controller of possible future collisions.

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/defau..._display-5.jpg
(Pictured: SAAB Sensis ASDE-X Terminal)

My close calls with ground vehicles at LAX almost always occurred on C-8 or C-7 during the transition from taxilane C eastbound to taxiway B.

Because of the extreme oversteer required during the hard right turn to keep the right main truck on the load bearing part of the pavement, most ground vehicle drivers presumed I was continuing straight ahead on taxilane C and would pull away from the stop signs on the roadway crossing C-7 or C-8 which ran parallel to B.

I used to tell my F/O's that if they saw what they felt was an imminent collision, to go ahead and apply the brakes because by the time I could react from them screaming at me to stop, it could be too late.

I’ve twice operated into LAX (in a 777-300: easy to miss :rolleyes:) and twice have had to do an emergency stop on the taxiway due to vehicles cutting in front of me. If this is normal here, then I’m not surprised by this incident at all.

And I thought New York drivers were bad.:)

It's a serious offense for the workers if the are cited for a driving offense (fail to yield or stop) on LAX roads and streets. They are considered the same as city streets and points are assigned to your drivers license record. After 3 points or something they lose the privilege to drive at LAX and most likely the job as well.
In this case it appears the technology worked as designed.

The ASDE-X surface detection system worked as designed.

If you haven't driven a car at a complex airport on manoeuvring areas, you have no idea how easy it is to drive onto restricted areas, or even the wrong taxiway.
Air-side topography is generally flat, the low driving height in a car relative to aircraft cockpit heights, plus the wide taxiways are factors that contribute to runway incursions. Also, ground controllers almost always want the vehicle operator to expedite.
At some airports, it is actually easier to drive on manoeuvring areas at night, because of the colour of air-side lighting delineating intersections, taxiways and runways.

A study of runway incursions will reveal that more pilots than vehicle operators have made wrong turns air-side.

The ho polloi have no idea how common incursions are. As a pilot who has landed at many unfamiliar airports in a high-wing tail-dragger, I truly appreciate the difficulty in taxiing towards the right exit and apron.

evansb, that's one of the things I liked about the B747: the high viewpoint of airport taxiways - still doesn't totally prevent errors :sad:

I cannot speak for LAX, but I can for LAS.

First point, all major airports in the US now have ASDE-X whereby controllers not only "see" aircraft on the movement area, but also vehicles (although they do not ident what type).

Second, all airport workers who drive on the movement area MUST be trained to a certain standard (it's mandated by FAR 139) of driving. It requires you be able to operate your vehicle safely at night (the night test covers both day and night). There is a written exam as well as the practical test. You must pass both to get the M designation on your badge. And......you only take this test if your work requires you to be on the movement area. Getting the R for ramp is a totally different ball game and restricts you to ramp only and you must use designated service roads ONLY.

What we don't (yet) know in this case, is which department this guy worked for and what he was doing out in the movement area. Also, if he was authorized to be there, was he monitoring the correct frequency? Was he new and just trained? A lot of unanswered questions so far.

Runway incursions do happen, they are rare. Having said that, there is always a reason for them and until we know what happened here, its speculation.

With regards to cutting off an aircraft, I can add a few pointers, too. In an airport environment, vehicles ALWAYS give way to aircraft (or should), that's the rule. However, for some folks it's hard to know whether an aircraft is about to move or not (even if he/she is on the correct frequency). Airport ops only ever get the one-sided story from the ATC folks and they do not usually get the pilot's version. Therefore, it is difficult to determine a fair judgment. Nevertheless, at most airports, if ops gets a call from tower (and finds the offender), then they have to respond and it is an automatic citation - with no defense/excuse/waiver.

We need to have far more info here than the LA times and even the airport "spokesperson" is relaying.............;)

alexb757:

It can said with confidence that those reasons are never good.

Fortunately, none have never come to a fatal conclusion at LAX (at least that I am aware of), which would be more likely during low-visibility conditions.

why do aviation experts think that the biggest risks when talkng about runway excursions are aircraft ones !. Well they are not its the amount of vehicles and drivers without proper training and technology available to them that are the biggest risk. The major airports have around 30 at any one time that are able to free range around an airfield. Carrying out various tasks.

There is technology out there and I just dont mean having transponders on vehicles which in effect only help ATC and do not stop runway incursions. And what ATC controller in their right mind would want 30 transponders from vehicles cluttering up his screen at once when he is supposed to be controlling aircraft ?

The technology involves a visual airfield map so that the driver is always aware of his position and the runways are ring-fenced so that an audible alarm goes off in the vehicle. Having experience of 25 years in Ops I have dealt with vehicles involved in runway incursions and some are from experienced staff of ground handling companies or contractors. (not airside Ops)

there is also technology with infrastructure and the way stop bars are operated. there is a currently a trial at Aberdeen with a second set of lights that will illuminate if the first set is driven over. Still technically an incursion but it stops the aircraft/vehicle from infringing the actual runway.

This I believe is all down to cost and the unwillingness of airports to have this technology in all vehicles capable oif driving on the manoeuvring area. Well one day it will come back to bite them on the backside.

Southern duel: I'm not sure where you're getting your info from or which particular airport(s) you are describing?

At my airport LAS, nobody and I mean nobody, is permitted to drive " free range" - least of all ground handlers. We have very strict rules and if you refer to my previous, you will see that there is an entirely different set of tests/exams and also privileges between "ramp" drivers on the non-movement service roads and anyone that is authorized to be anywhere near a runway! Another point, no aircraft engineer, mechanic or airline manager is allowed beyond the ramp area without being escorted by airport ops personnel.

I have not heard aviation experts say that incursions are either solely or mainly aircraft. Yes, pilots make mistakes as well as drivers. Again, we don't know what this person was doing out there. All we know is that it was a LAWA employee.
As for alarms, yes, we have them as well and they go off according to your approach speed and angle approaching the hold bar. In addition, we also have RWSL as another layer and at two hotspots, an RGL as well. And so do a lot of airports. And like LAX, we have 4 runways of which 3 intersect....:eek:

Alex I may put have my message across properly however airfield ops will not have the staff available to escort 30 odd vehicles around the airfield just to give you an example of who can free range at this European airport are not only airfield ops but police , fire service, engineers and maintenance teams . Ground handlers as in tugs . fod pickers surveyors, some contractors. Planning department. Atc. Airport duty manager. Some security staff, sweepers etc, and there are a few more !
Yes they all have training and are competent however human factors comes into it and all I was suggesting is that airports can do more and not worry about the finances for a change

At PQI, a number of years ago, a Northeast DC-9 narrowly missed a snowmobiler during landing on a snow covered runway at night. The copilot saw him pass under the right wing just as they were rolling through the cross runway intersection.

snowmobiler?
What was that person doing on the movement area/runway? What happened to security? Challenging suspicious or unbadged personnel? :confused:

Southern, if that is the case, maybe I should come over and reorganize that place. If what you describe is really happening, the whole airside division needs revamping!
First off, none of the people you mention should be out there in the first place on their own! Also, you need a dedicated escort division who's primary task is to escort contractors, police, ambulance and anyone else that does not have airport authority to be in the movement area. These persons drive dedicated vehicles with required logos and lights and are also in direct contact with ATC. And yes, even security personnel.
In essence, you NEED to have a reason to be out there on a daily basis and if your duties don't require you to be, then you are not authorized to be on even a taxiway, let alone a runway, period. Your described airport seems to be very lax with regards to who goes where and is an accident waiting to happen. I agree airports need to do more to prevent incursions. So, I have to ask, what are all these people doing out in the movement area? Do they NEED to be there? Have they passed an airport driving test? Do they know how to operate and speak on the radio? You would dramatically cut down the risk factor if they were kept to service roads on the ramp area only, nowhere else.
With regard to airfield mx, tech ops, electricians etc. at my airport, they are all trained, have radios, required badges. However, even they MUST call ops first requesting permission to go out to the movement area and also call ATC. No runway crossings! Most mx is done at night between 0200 and 0530L when one runway at a time is closed and minimal aircraft operations. Airport Ops closes and opens runways on the radio with tower, not ATC.
If you have a well-organized and trained team with everyone knowing what they need to do, you greatly mitigate the chances of runway incursions. If you let folks drive around "free range" with little control, I'm not in the least surprised on the frequency of incidents. I'd be happy to offer a few more pointers!

This was pre-1974. Security was very loose, to say the least.

The snowmobilers used to get drunk and race each other on the short runway (10/28), especially late at night.:E

Not much else to do during the wintah in Northern Maine for entertainment.:)

Well, thank goodness it's very different today! That's why we have much less runway incursions. Take appropriate action, tighten up the ship and it will yield results.

One night LIZ tower sent me around for a moose on the runway.:uhoh:

Your airports need fences and regular patrols! :p

KLIZ was a SAC base which had B-52's cocked on nuclear alert and ready to launch with a few minutes warning.

Even with all it's security, they couldn't keep a wayward bull moose from wandering onto the runway.

It happened on more than one occasion.:\

A friend of mine had to intercept a group of armed men who broke through the perimeter fence of a U.S. nuclear weapons facility. They had authorization to "shoot and kill" intruders.

Turned out to be a couple of drunk guys with rifles who thought that a nuclear weapons facility grounds might be a good place to hunt deer. :eek:

Back on topic, in the 1980s an Ozark DC-9 crashed into a snow plow while landing at Sioux Falls, separating the right wing and igniting a fireball. The snow plow operator was killed but miraculously all crew and passengers escaped with minor injuries. The probable cause was inadequate ATC service.

If you've ever been an airfield driver at LAX, you'll understand. The entire industry is in a race to the bottom and lowly airport workers are placed at the leading edge. The customer has spoken and this is what they are willing to pay for. Competency and quality don't matter as long as the illusion of being served and cared for is maintained to a minimally acceptable level. That level is determined by society at large more than by people who know what they're talking about. The film "Idiocrasy" aptly describes the condition we are rapidly approaching! :)


Really though, no amount of electronic technology will ever replace individual competency and sense of responsibility. While these technological aids may be of considerable assistance to the attentive and competent, it's doubtful that the performance of those individuals representing the lowest common denominator will be improved substantially. When typical pay for the majority of airfield drivers is near minimum wage, the lowest is exactly what you get. The better workers leave for better jobs at Mickey D's until they can get a job with the postal service or other government job.

At least Joe Public gets Cheap tickets and record airline profits (and CEO bonuses) are realized though. So we've got that going for us...

Be careful and hope for the best!:ok: