Runway Collision Narrowly Averted at LAX

[Capt737AA]

Flying out of LAX as my home base, I can certainly testify to the fact that you truly have to be watching where you're going there with the two parallel runways on each side... especially 25 L/R on the south side of the airport. It's not as simple a task as one would think. I have on more than one ocassion thought I was going to a taxiway only to look a bit harder and see that it was a runway hold line I was heading for.... amazing

Pat

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by ViciousSquirrel

This is not totally accurate, though it's definitely true that a lot of non-US pilots would be rightly a little nervous about this particular clearance issue. You also hear a lot of US trained crews (particularly biz jets it seems) that will request crossing clearance when it's not strictly required. Sometimes this actually pisses off the ground controller, but of course it's always far better to ask than risk a violation or possible aircraft in the face.

Anyhow, the caveat to the above statement is that you may cross any INACTIVE runway along your taxi route without a specific crossing clearance, an inactive runway being a runway that is not mentioned in the ATIS as a departing or arriving runway. Seems obvious, but it's a very important distinction and one that can be misunderstood. I've been cleared to taxi to an active runway where my route would have crossed a seperate active runway without being given a hold short instruction. Though it's rare, such an occurance is fraught with potential if the crew does not have a complete understanding of this particular rule and decides to cross an active runway without clearance.

It appears that I should revise my statement so as to include US pilots as well!

Here's the deal according to FAR 91.129(i). This information is repeated in the AIM:

FAR 91.129

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to “taxi to” any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

AIM 4-3-18. Taxiing:

5. When ATC clears an aircraft to "taxi to" an assigned takeoff runway, the absence of holding instructions authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all runways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned takeoff runway. It does not include authorization to "taxi onto" or "cross" the assigned takeoff runway at any point. In order to preclude misunderstandings in radio communications, ATC will not use the word "cleared" in conjunction with authorization for aircraft to taxi.
6. In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.
7. Air traffic control will first specify the runway, issue taxi instructions, and then state any required hold short instructions, when authorizing an aircraft to taxi for departure. This does not authorize the aircraft to "enter" or "cross" the assigned departure runway at any point.
NOTE-
Air traffic controllers are required to obtain from the pilot a readback of all runway hold short instructions.

This just might be the most commonly misunderstood ATC clearance on the books. There are many other "implied clearances" which are known to be commonly misunderstood of course, but this one is very well known in the instructor community. Don't feel too bad, you're not alone!

Bottom line: Absent any specific instructions to hold short of any point along the taxi route to any other point on the airport, clearance to taxi to an assigned departure runway or other point on the airport IS a clearance to cross all runways along the taxi route except the assigned departure runway. If you are not 100% sure what you are cleared to do, request clarification from ATC. It is always better to risk the ire of the busy controller than to risk the consequences of a runway incursion.

However, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that pilots should understand the nature of all standard clearances listed in the AIM which apply to the type of operation being conducted. I would tend to be more understanding of this deficiency of knowledge in pilots who do not hold a FAA issued certificate than those who do, since it is very likely that foreign pilots are not accustomed to operating under these rules. Charitable tendancies toward understanding aside, all pilots are indeed required be familiar with the rules in effect in whatever countries they conduct flight operations. A daunting, but necessary task for pilots who fly in many countries.

As I implied in my earlier post, I do not know this to be a factor in the incident which is the subject of this thread. I pose it as one of several factors which might be worthy of consideration and discussion. I hope some benefit is derived!

Best regards,

Westhawk

[av8boy]

Well said, Westie. Your correction of VS saved me a lot of typing!

[DC-Mainliner]

I was based in LAX in the late 90's flying Boeing and McD equipment. LAX is by far a very busy airport, with a lot of heavy aircraft and thick accents - in other words, it's a typical large international airport. The difference at LAX is that the control tower has several "blind" spots where they can't see traffic on the ground, and it also has a very high concentration of commuter airliners and corporate jet traffic. At LAX, there is a good chance you are going to see a very high density traffic operation taking place and you will also see complex airspace surrounding the airport with arrivals and departures with multiple altitude crossing restrictions and lots of traffic to spot in the air and on the ground.

I can't imagine LAX with fewer controllers than they have now. They are already over taxed - as the other guy said, you can hear the strain in the voices during the big traffic pushes.

Everytime I take a guy into LAX who's never been there, we spend a lot of time talking about LAX ops before we even take off for LAX.

To me, however, ORD (Chicago O'Hare) still seems more screwed up on the taxiways than LAX. That place begs you to commit a runway incursion.

[refplus20]

LAX GV Pilot Urged To Call the FAA
The FAA is trying to interview the pilot of a non-U.S. registered Gulfstream V involved in a Class A runway incursion at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on September 30. During the incident, a departing SkyWest Airlines CRJ700 stopped within about 100 feet of the Gulfstream, which was on the same runway. The Gulfstream then continued on its planned flight to Long Beach, according to an FAA spokesman. The pilot contacted the tower but did not have to delay his trip, the spokeman said. The pilot did provide contact information to tower controllers before departing for Long Beach, but telephone messages left by FAA flight standards inspectors have not been returned, according to the spokesman. The agency’s next step is to send a letter of investigation, which the agency planned to do yesterday. If the pilot responds to the letter within five days, he can participate in the FAA’s runway incursion safety program and avoid certificate action. At the present time, it was not known if the GV pilot holds an FAA pilot certificate.

[Danny]

Listen to the tapes here courtesy abc7: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...cal&id=4634099

Individual mp3 for Ground Freq: http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/ka...iss/GROUND.mp3
Tower Freq: http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/ka...iss/GROUND.mp3

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by Danny

Listen to the tapes here courtesy abc7: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...cal&id=4634099

Individual mp3 for Ground Freq: http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/ka...iss/GROUND.mp3
Tower Freq: http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/ka...iss/GROUND.mp3

Danny:

Thanks very much for providing that link to the tower and ground audio. It adds some clarity to the story.

First, Taxiway G ends at the entrance to the Landmark (formerly Garrett) ramp entrance. The ramp is shared with the Singapore Airlines cargo facility just west of Korean cargo and east of Landmark. As soon as you leave the ramp northbound and cross the vehicle service road, you are at the intersection of taxiways G and A facing to the North. A is perhaps 100 to 150' North of the ramp and a similar distance South of 25L. The turnoff from taxiway A onto the ramp is designated A5. Here is the link to the LAX airport diagram.(pdf)

The phraseology used to clear the Gulfstream to taxi to rwy 25R from Landmark was "Runway two-five right, taxi via Alpha and Golf, hold short of two-five right." This was then read back by an American sounding voice verbatim. A very short time later, ground informs BIP that they have missed taxiway G. The Gulfstream crewmember responds, indicating that he understands, but then his voice seems to trail off before the microphone button is released. A voice can be heard in the background at this time, but I'm unable to tell if it was the other Gulfstream crewmember or perhaps something else. After a short time,the ground controller then clears the Gulfstream to "Cross two-five left, hold short 25R." This too is read back verbatim. Gulfstream is then instructed to "Monitor tower one two zero point niner-five." This is also read back.

The southside local controller seems to have been relieved by another controller within less than a minute. (probably SOP after a "deal") The New controller instructs the Skywest RJ to finish clearing the runway. When the Gulfstream checks in on the tower frequency, he tells tower that ground cleared them across both runways.

This is where the question of misunderstanding the meaning of the clearance they were issued may come into play. Going back to the original taxi clearance issued, did the crew understand that clearance to mean that they were cleared to cross the departure runway as part of their clearance to taxi to 25R? The person operating the radio said they had been cleared across BOTH runways by ground control, yet no such clearance is heard on this recording. See my earlier post for the rule regarding the taxi clearance which IS on the recording.

I don't know that we'll ever learn what conversation took place in that airplane, or what the thought the processes of the crew were either. I guess the second controller heard on tower frequency said it best when he said that everyone was safe and that's the important thing.

Best regards,

Westhawk

[Airbubba]

Hmmm, the Gulfstream registration on the ATC tapes doesn't sound British at all, sounds like VP-BIP perhaps.

And, the pilot sounds like a gringo.

[Fokker28]

Originally Posted by westhawk

Danny:
The phraseology used to clear the Gulfstream to taxi to rwy 25R from Landmark was "Runway two-five right, taxi via Alpha and Golf, hold short of two-five right." This was then read back by an American sounding voice verbatim.

Nope, not read back verbatim at all. Listen again. I think the variance is actually the key to his misunderstanding. Sounded like he thought he was cleared all the way to the runway, via crossing the runway.

I've listened to the tape several times, and I really don't detect any ambiguity at all on the part of the controller. I think the controller used nearly perfect, if not perfect, phraseology. This guy taxiing BIP had his head up and locked and nearly killed a bunch of people.

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by Fokker28

Nope, not read back verbatim at all. Listen again. I think the variance is actually the key to his misunderstanding.

I listened again and noticed that the pilot dropped the "via" from the readback. Is that what you mean?

[Fokker28]

No, VP-BIP reads back, "Alpha & Golf, 25R, hold short of 25R." As though he believes he is cleared all the way to the departure end of 25R, at which point he is to hold short. Instead of, "Runway 25R. Taxi via Alpha & Golf, hold short of runway 25R [or very similar as cleared by ATC]"

[India Four Two]

After listening to the tapes and looking at the airport diagram (thanks Danny and Westhawk), I have a question about the taxi clearance. Was it a clearance to taxi and hold short for an intersection takeoff on 25R from Golf, or was it a partial clearance, with further instructions to follow after clearance to cross 25R at Golf? If it was a partial clearance, is that a normal procedure at LAX?

VP-B - is that Bahamas registry? If so, then that would explain the British reference. Obviously, the west coast media still think the Bahamas are a British colony.

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

I have a question about the taxi clearance. Was it a clearance to taxi and hold short for an intersection takeoff on 25R from Golf, or was it a partial clearance, with further instructions to follow after clearance to cross 25R at Golf? If it was a partial clearance, is that a normal procedure at LAX?

The wording used by the ground controller in the original (initial) clearance ("Runway two-five right, taxi via Alpha and Golf, hold short of two-five right.") constitutes the assignment of the takeoff runway (for planning purposes) and appears only to be a clearance for VP-BIP to taxi from it's present location to the hold line at the intersection of taxiway G and runway 25R. If the controller had used the words "taxi to runway two-five right", that would mean the BIP was cleared all the way to hold short line abeam the full length takeoff position of runway 25R. Referring to the rule regarding this clearance,

A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway.

they would still have been required to hold short of 25R on taxiway G since the clearance does not include authorization to cross or taxi ON any part of the assigned departure runway. Had the crew not missed taxiway G by making a wrong turn, the originall recieved clearance would have been the clearance in effect. Instead, following that, a revised clearance was issued by the ground controller to "cross two-five left, hold short of two-five right." (note that 25L has been closed for construction) This was correctly read back by the crewmember. Then they were instructed to monitor tower on 120.95. This is SOP at LAX. Ground clears you to a point where the runway(s) are to be crossed with instructions to hold short, then switches you to tower for the actual crossing.

I can't help wondering if the crew believed they were crossing 25L, when they were in fact crossing 25R. 25L is barely recognizable as a runway in it's current state. It might be possible to taxi across it without recognizing it as a runway.

So it seems to me that this incident may come down to one of two primary factors. Either a misunderstanding of the clearance that was issued, or a mistaken belief that they were crossing 25L (as cleared) when in fact, they were crossing 25R. (which they were to hold short of and await clearance from the tower to cross.) Only the crew can say which it was. As I said before, LAX is currently a real mess on the south side due to the construction project. I don't know how this may have affected the crew's perceptions. According to the tracking history on Flightaware.com, the aircraft had probably arrived from Narita earlier that day. I say probably because Flightaware tracking is only fully functional between US city pairs. Flight tracks arriving to the US from international airspace often begin at a lat/lon fix near the border. Is this the same crew who flew that leg? Again, no way to know. In any case, the crew in question did not have hours or days to consider this as we do here. We really have to know this stuff!

Originally Posted by India Four Two

VP-B - is that Bahamas registry? If so, then that would explain the British reference. Obviously, the west coast media still think the Bahamas are a British colony.

I believe ICAO annex VII identifies VP-B as currently being assigned to Bermuda. IIRC, the VP designation was formerly assigned as "protectorates and colonies of the United Kingdom" under an older version of annex VII. And yes, in the US, the distinctions between " the UK", "Britain" and "England" tend to be somewhat blurry. Sorry!

Best regards,

Westhawk

[India Four Two]

Westhawk,

Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. The reason for my interest in this particular incident is that (in spite of my current location), I occasionally operate light aircraft out of Calgary (CYYC), where I have often received taxi clearances for an intersection takeoff on 16, which sometimes include hold-short instructions for 07/25, when multiple runways are in use.

However, because of the airport layout, I have never had taxi instructions which required crossing my departure runway on the way to the cleared holding point, so I had never thought about this issue before.

After reading your post carefully, it seems that Ground could (ignoring the Tower frequency SOP for the moment) in theory issue a clearance along the lines of "Taxi to runway two-five right via Alpha, Golf, Bravo and Foxtrot", which would still require holding short of 25R on Golf, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the clearance. Is that correct?

With regards to Bermuda, Bahamas - they're all islands in the Atlantic - not much difference really And no apologies necessary about the UK, Britain, England distinction. Having grown up in southern England, I know a lot of people there who don't know the difference either - it really annoys my Scottish and Welsh friends!

Regards,
I42

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

Westhawk,After reading your post carefully, it seems that Ground could (ignoring the Tower frequency SOP for the moment) in theory issue a clearance along the lines of "Taxi to runway two-five right via Alpha, Golf, Bravo and Foxtrot", which would still require holding short of 25R on Golf, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the clearance. Is that correct?

Regards,

I42

Affirmative, 142. The clearance would not include authorization to cross the assigned departure runway, only to cross all other runways along the taxi route. In this case, the absence of any instructions beyond the intersection of G and rwy 25 would appear to indicate that the controller intended to clear the Gulfstream only to that point, not all the way to the takeoff end of 25R. Even if the full taxi clearance had been issued, it did not constitute authorization to cross 25R. You've got it right!

Best,

Westhawk

[Fokker28]

Originally Posted by westhawk

Even if the full taxi clearance had been issued, it did not constitute authorization to cross 25R. You've got it right!

Especially since he was told to HOLD SHORT 25R!

[westhawk]

Originally Posted by Fokker28

Especially since he was told to HOLD SHORT 25R!

I agree completely Fokker!

Best,

Westhawk

[DC-Mainliner]

This is a pretty typical taxi clearance out of Landmark at LAX. Also, the big red "RWY 25R" signs at the intersection serve as a good marker as to what runway was being approached, no mystery there. The Gulstream also affords good taxi visibility too, it stands nearly as tall as the smaller DC-9's and such at the cockpit, giving a better perspective of upcoming taxiways and markings than a typical business jet does. So on the surface, this appears to be an unfortunate example of the "black and white basics" coming into play, being set aside - in our sometimes otherwise complex world of navigating grey areas and judgement calls.

Where things would get interesting is the analysis of what sort of communication was going on between the Captain who was taxiing the airplane and the Pilot Monitoring, who was working the radios. The taxi briefing before the taxi request, the interperatation of the clearance, and the monitoring of the operation - the whole thing. That is where the real study in CRM, error management and such would be valuable to the industry.

The Feds will want blood but hopefully they can glean some understanding of the human factors behind this too.

[Astra driver]

Originally Posted by westhawk

I can't help wondering if the crew believed they were crossing 25L, when they were in fact crossing 25R. 25L is barely recognizable as a runway in it's current state. It might be possible to taxi across it without recognizing it as a runway.

I agree Westie, that could be a possibility. If the crew were somewhat familiar with LAX, in their minds they were expecting to cross 2 "runways"; crossing the first runway and hold short of the second one. Is it possible that this is what they were doing and hence did not pay attention to the red signs "25R"?

Of course the counter point to this is that the crew later stated "We were cleared across 25 left and right,..to join..errr...hold short of 25 right on the other side" which indicates to me they thought they were cleared across both runways, and that the "Hold short 25R" portion of the intial clearance applied to them holding short on the other side of the runway while waiting for takeoff clearance.

[DC-Mainliner]

Originally Posted by Astra driver

Of course the counter point to this is that the crew later stated "We were cleared across 25 left and right,..to join..errr...hold short of 25 right on the other side" which indicates to me they thought they were cleared across both runways, and that the "Hold short 25R" portion of the intial clearance applied to them holding short on the other side of the runway while waiting for takeoff clearance.

From an advocacy point of view, this very statement by the crew in question could be the most damaging evidence to their defense. It suggests a misunderstanding of elementary regulation on the books and shows clear intent to cross runway 25R.

I don't like pondering the misfortunes of others, but at least in this case we have not seen one piece of bent metal or one scratch to an innocent passenger, and this can and should serve as a catalyst to increased ground safety in the future.

"... whatever you say or do can, and will, be held against you..."