Runway Collision Narrowly Averted at LAX
Thread Starter
Runway Collision Narrowly Averted at LAX
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...iewed-homepage
Free registration required.
Free registration required.
A SkyWest regional jet taking off for San Antonio had accelerated to 115 mph when a Gulfstream business jet strayed in front, forcing the pilot to slam on his brakes. The SkyWest jet, with about 39 people on board, shuddered to a stop less than 100 feet from the Gulfstream... "SkyWest 6430, I apologize. We never talked to the Gulfstream. He crossed without a clearance,"...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another quote from the same article;
That's comforting then 
"Controller workload and controller staffing had nothing to do with this," Gregor said. "It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The system worked exactly as it should."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I am reading it seems to me that the original layout of LAX is a significant contributor in incidents like this? (there not being a taxiway on which traffic can hold prior to crossing the inner). The fact of the matter is that with human beings in the loop, mistakes will always be made and it is therefore ABSOLUTELY essential that we do not design airports or ATC systems with compromises in them. Of course, the ideal cannot itself prevent accidents but in our business every compromise on the ideal increases the probability that human error will lead to an accident.
The LTMA has one or two such compromises designed into it which have been identified as requiring urgent solution (quote) "...on the grounds of passenger safety." The solution is due in 2009, by which time this significant danger will have existed unaddressed for over 5 years.
Relying on human beings not to be human in a safety related business is insanity.
.4
The LTMA has one or two such compromises designed into it which have been identified as requiring urgent solution (quote) "...on the grounds of passenger safety." The solution is due in 2009, by which time this significant danger will have existed unaddressed for over 5 years.
Relying on human beings not to be human in a safety related business is insanity.
.4
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
October 6, 2006
In yet another dramatic incident at Los Angeles International Airport, two aircraft came so close to colliding on a runway Saturday that one pilot can be heard hyperventilating on air traffic control tapes.
A SkyWest regional jet taking off for San Antonio had accelerated to 115 mph when a Gulfstream business jet strayed in front, forcing the pilot to slam on his brakes. The SkyWest jet, with about 39 people on board, shuddered to a stop less than 100 feet from the Gulfstream.
After the incident, a shaken tower controller can be heard on the radio apologizing to the SkyWest pilot and asking him to immediately leave the runway to make room for a landing aircraft.
"SkyWest 6430, I apologize. We never talked to the Gulfstream. He crossed without a clearance," says the controller, who was so traumatized by the near-collision that she left her post seconds later. "I apologize. If you could make a right turn, please, and exit the runway."
The SkyWest pilot comes onto the frequency next.
"Exiting right," he says, exhaling heavily.
Controllers in the tower at LAX — the world's fifth-busiest passenger airport — said it was the closest they'd seen two airplanes come to each other at the facility without actually colliding. Aviation officials agreed that the incident is likely to be classified as the most serious close call at LAX since 2000. It was the eighth near miss there this year, compared with six in 2005.
The incident comes just nine weeks after a serious near-collision at LAX involving two airliners on the same runway and underscores long-standing safety issues with the airport's configuration. The unusual layout, which features two sets of parallel runways, requires pilots who land on an outer runway to cross the inner runway on a series of taxiways.
The rate of close calls at LAX has remained high despite years of efforts by local and federal officials to ensure that pilots and controllers follow federal rules allowing only one plane at a time on or near a runway. Among the nation's airports, LAX is unusual, because airplanes cross active runways about 900 times a day.
On Thursday, airport officials said such incidents should be prevented once construction workers finish moving the southernmost runway 55 feet and installing a center taxiway that pilots can use to turn and wait for clearance to cross the inner runway.
Starting in July 2008, when the center taxiway is scheduled to open, "pilots will be directed on a route that will reduce the likelihood of them inadvertently crossing an active runway without authorization," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city agency that operates LAX.
Such an inadvertent crossing is what happened Saturday about 6 p.m., officials said, when the pilot of the Gulfstream, registered in the United Kingdom, taxied from a hangar on the airfield's south side on his way to take off. Controllers told the pilot to cross the outer runway and then stop short of the inner runway.
The pilot repeated the instructions. Then he passed the taxiway that controllers had told him to use to cross the runways, prompting them to repeat their directions. The pilot again read them back, turned around, and proceeded to turn onto the correct taxiway. But rather than stop, he entered the runway that the SkyWest jet was using.
Federal Aviation Administration officials said the SkyWest pilot, the tower controller and the ground radar that audibly alerts controllers to impending collisions all noticed — at the same time — the Gulfstream crossing the runway.
"We had three layers of redundancy," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "This is just a clear and clean pilot mistake."
The Gulfstream pilot told officials he was certain that the controller had cleared him to cross both runways, even though he twice read back the "hold short" instructions correctly, Gregor said. Officials did not know if other people were aboard the business jet.
The FAA has yet to classify the incident — the agency uses a four-level system to grade close calls on the ground — but it will probably fall into one of the top two most serious categories, he said. Officials at the airport agreed that the close call would probably receive an "A" rating, meaning the pilot needed to take extreme action to prevent a crash.
The last close call at LAX to receive a similar ranking occurred March 5, 2000, when an airplane landed on the outer runway on the north side and failed to stop short of the inner runway, crossing into the path of a departing jet.
The last serious near-collision at the airport happened July 26 and received a "B" ranking, meaning there was a considerable danger of a crash. In that case, a SkyWest turboprop rolling for takeoff averted disaster by suddenly lifting into the air — risking a stall — to avoid a Mesa Air regional jet that had strayed onto its runway.
Officials later said the planes were not in danger of hitting one another because the nose of the Mesa Air jet was 50 feet away from the SkyWest plane as it flew over.
Controllers disagree, saying the planes came closer to each other than the agency's investigation showed.
In Saturday's incident, officials said runway construction — which involves hundreds of machines tearing up the south side of the airport, piling rubble and mounds of dirt just several hundred yards from the runway the SkyWest pilot used — had nothing to do with the close call.
The SkyWest captain, who has been with the airline seven years and eight months, mentioned in an after-action report that there was construction on the airfield at the time of the incident, said Sabrena Suite, a company spokeswoman.
Controllers said runway construction, which has forced them to funnel all traffic onto the airport's three other runways, and understaffing in the tower have left them less able to catch blunders by pilots that might lead them to cross an active runway.
"You're having controllers working too long and too hard on position," said Mike Foote, a controller in the LAX tower and a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Assn. "This was all pilot error — you can't say it wasn't — but the fact is this didn't use to happen. People would catch it. We still do … but more frequently it's not being caught."
The FAA disagreed, saying controllers' staffing and workload played no role in Saturday's incident, adding that the tower controller who instructed the SkyWest jet to take off had been on duty only 65 minutes when the close call occurred.
"Controller workload and controller staffing had nothing to do with this," Gregor said. "It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The system worked exactly as it should."
In yet another dramatic incident at Los Angeles International Airport, two aircraft came so close to colliding on a runway Saturday that one pilot can be heard hyperventilating on air traffic control tapes.
A SkyWest regional jet taking off for San Antonio had accelerated to 115 mph when a Gulfstream business jet strayed in front, forcing the pilot to slam on his brakes. The SkyWest jet, with about 39 people on board, shuddered to a stop less than 100 feet from the Gulfstream.
After the incident, a shaken tower controller can be heard on the radio apologizing to the SkyWest pilot and asking him to immediately leave the runway to make room for a landing aircraft.
"SkyWest 6430, I apologize. We never talked to the Gulfstream. He crossed without a clearance," says the controller, who was so traumatized by the near-collision that she left her post seconds later. "I apologize. If you could make a right turn, please, and exit the runway."
The SkyWest pilot comes onto the frequency next.
"Exiting right," he says, exhaling heavily.
Controllers in the tower at LAX — the world's fifth-busiest passenger airport — said it was the closest they'd seen two airplanes come to each other at the facility without actually colliding. Aviation officials agreed that the incident is likely to be classified as the most serious close call at LAX since 2000. It was the eighth near miss there this year, compared with six in 2005.
The incident comes just nine weeks after a serious near-collision at LAX involving two airliners on the same runway and underscores long-standing safety issues with the airport's configuration. The unusual layout, which features two sets of parallel runways, requires pilots who land on an outer runway to cross the inner runway on a series of taxiways.
The rate of close calls at LAX has remained high despite years of efforts by local and federal officials to ensure that pilots and controllers follow federal rules allowing only one plane at a time on or near a runway. Among the nation's airports, LAX is unusual, because airplanes cross active runways about 900 times a day.
On Thursday, airport officials said such incidents should be prevented once construction workers finish moving the southernmost runway 55 feet and installing a center taxiway that pilots can use to turn and wait for clearance to cross the inner runway.
Starting in July 2008, when the center taxiway is scheduled to open, "pilots will be directed on a route that will reduce the likelihood of them inadvertently crossing an active runway without authorization," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city agency that operates LAX.
Such an inadvertent crossing is what happened Saturday about 6 p.m., officials said, when the pilot of the Gulfstream, registered in the United Kingdom, taxied from a hangar on the airfield's south side on his way to take off. Controllers told the pilot to cross the outer runway and then stop short of the inner runway.
The pilot repeated the instructions. Then he passed the taxiway that controllers had told him to use to cross the runways, prompting them to repeat their directions. The pilot again read them back, turned around, and proceeded to turn onto the correct taxiway. But rather than stop, he entered the runway that the SkyWest jet was using.
Federal Aviation Administration officials said the SkyWest pilot, the tower controller and the ground radar that audibly alerts controllers to impending collisions all noticed — at the same time — the Gulfstream crossing the runway.
"We had three layers of redundancy," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "This is just a clear and clean pilot mistake."
The Gulfstream pilot told officials he was certain that the controller had cleared him to cross both runways, even though he twice read back the "hold short" instructions correctly, Gregor said. Officials did not know if other people were aboard the business jet.
The FAA has yet to classify the incident — the agency uses a four-level system to grade close calls on the ground — but it will probably fall into one of the top two most serious categories, he said. Officials at the airport agreed that the close call would probably receive an "A" rating, meaning the pilot needed to take extreme action to prevent a crash.
The last close call at LAX to receive a similar ranking occurred March 5, 2000, when an airplane landed on the outer runway on the north side and failed to stop short of the inner runway, crossing into the path of a departing jet.
The last serious near-collision at the airport happened July 26 and received a "B" ranking, meaning there was a considerable danger of a crash. In that case, a SkyWest turboprop rolling for takeoff averted disaster by suddenly lifting into the air — risking a stall — to avoid a Mesa Air regional jet that had strayed onto its runway.
Officials later said the planes were not in danger of hitting one another because the nose of the Mesa Air jet was 50 feet away from the SkyWest plane as it flew over.
Controllers disagree, saying the planes came closer to each other than the agency's investigation showed.
In Saturday's incident, officials said runway construction — which involves hundreds of machines tearing up the south side of the airport, piling rubble and mounds of dirt just several hundred yards from the runway the SkyWest pilot used — had nothing to do with the close call.
The SkyWest captain, who has been with the airline seven years and eight months, mentioned in an after-action report that there was construction on the airfield at the time of the incident, said Sabrena Suite, a company spokeswoman.
Controllers said runway construction, which has forced them to funnel all traffic onto the airport's three other runways, and understaffing in the tower have left them less able to catch blunders by pilots that might lead them to cross an active runway.
"You're having controllers working too long and too hard on position," said Mike Foote, a controller in the LAX tower and a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Assn. "This was all pilot error — you can't say it wasn't — but the fact is this didn't use to happen. People would catch it. We still do … but more frequently it's not being caught."
The FAA disagreed, saying controllers' staffing and workload played no role in Saturday's incident, adding that the tower controller who instructed the SkyWest jet to take off had been on duty only 65 minutes when the close call occurred.
"Controller workload and controller staffing had nothing to do with this," Gregor said. "It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The system worked exactly as it should."
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You're having controllers working too long and too hard on position," said Mike Foote, a controller in the LAX tower and a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Assn. "This was all pilot error — you can't say it wasn't — but the fact is this didn't use to happen. People would catch it. We still do … but more frequently it's not being caught."
You know, LAX ATC are very good, just like other major busy airports in the States. But this kind of incident is a warning sign, and I think they have used up all the warnings in LAX. It is a broken system and it needs a fix. You can't just fix it by telling pilots and controllers to be "extra" carefull. What do you think we do? You think we are only mostly carefull unless the FAA says we should be more??
How about hiring some more ATC for Christ's sake. You have loads of useless TSAs standing arround. Why don't you fire half of them and use the money where it would be really appropriate; train and hire new controllers. I can understand a small little airport tower being understaffed (then again, look at LEX with Comair??) but LAX is a major international airport with lots of heavies with 300-400 people on board. This is the gateway airport for flights from Asia and the Pacific regions. It's not only embarrasing, but dangerous and scary as well.
I don't care what it is; stop bars, a system like DFW has, or simply modding the instructions like not letting someone cross only one runway. Or make everyone go to the end before crossing.
I know that LAX likes using the outers for landings because it allows simultaneous ops. I think the FAA should look at this and allow simultaneous ops to the inner runways. It might not make the criteria (runways too close), but I think the risk of pilots straying from their approach on short final are very rare. Most of us are well established on centerline from 5 miles in. Just stagger them a bit, or even separate by altitude till established on the loc, and that should help out lots. Then you can depart on the outers, avoiding the trap of landing aircraft crossing the takeoff runway.
Something needs to be done. I don't want LAX to out-do Tenerife someday. You only get a few close calls before something goes majorly wrong.
You know, LAX ATC are very good, just like other major busy airports in the States. But this kind of incident is a warning sign, and I think they have used up all the warnings in LAX. It is a broken system and it needs a fix. You can't just fix it by telling pilots and controllers to be "extra" carefull. What do you think we do? You think we are only mostly carefull unless the FAA says we should be more??
How about hiring some more ATC for Christ's sake. You have loads of useless TSAs standing arround. Why don't you fire half of them and use the money where it would be really appropriate; train and hire new controllers. I can understand a small little airport tower being understaffed (then again, look at LEX with Comair??) but LAX is a major international airport with lots of heavies with 300-400 people on board. This is the gateway airport for flights from Asia and the Pacific regions. It's not only embarrasing, but dangerous and scary as well.
I don't care what it is; stop bars, a system like DFW has, or simply modding the instructions like not letting someone cross only one runway. Or make everyone go to the end before crossing.
I know that LAX likes using the outers for landings because it allows simultaneous ops. I think the FAA should look at this and allow simultaneous ops to the inner runways. It might not make the criteria (runways too close), but I think the risk of pilots straying from their approach on short final are very rare. Most of us are well established on centerline from 5 miles in. Just stagger them a bit, or even separate by altitude till established on the loc, and that should help out lots. Then you can depart on the outers, avoiding the trap of landing aircraft crossing the takeoff runway.
Something needs to be done. I don't want LAX to out-do Tenerife someday. You only get a few close calls before something goes majorly wrong.
Flying into LAX between about 7-10 years ago left some unique impressions on me. Not only was the 757 difficult to slow down anywhere, mostly on the Civet Arrival (it required a constant descent path), even with only one runway change at a very busy time. But once we were given three runway changes and SOCAL or Approach control gave us an EXTRA altitude restriction which was not published! At about 10 or 11,000', the Captain called for "gear down". Fortunately, he had flown there often on the B-727. After a very long leg from Asia or Europe, this might be more of a challenge, even without language difficulties. Leaving one morning at 0200 , I had no idea what an MD-11 pilot was saying on the radio, who taxied out for a very long flight westbound.
As a group, the voices of the LAX Approach and Tower Controllers back then, at least from my perspective, indicated more stress than I remembered hearing at any other US airport, including Chicago O'Hare, La Guardia, Boston etc. Atlanta (and STL etc) was designed with a parallel taxiway between each pair of runways, with time after landing to recheck a clearance and unwind just a little bit. Cleveland (CLE), Chicago Midway (MDW: also the length of each runway), Houston Hobby (HOU) and Boston (BOS), even Milwaukee (MKE) at times, can be just as hazardous as LAX, maybe more so. The trickiest and most hazardous runway layouts seem to be at CLE (three closely-spaced parallel runways, intersected by 10/28 on the north side) and BOS, most of all. Even crossing Milwaukee's runway 01L and 01R requires extra concentration just to finish the "taxi checklist" due to a controller constantly calling you.
Even a First Officer Instructor in the right seat was required to explain to the MKE controller that we needed to be left alone, so that we could remember where we were on the checklists. The weather was good, no traffic holding short for us, or that required us to hold short, no traffic on short final and no wheels up times issued - nothing that required us to hurry things up. He just wanted us to switch to the (for runway 25L) tower freq very early so that he could forget about us. Even my FO, an excellent highly-experienced jet simulator instructor and excellent line pilot with about fifteen-eighteen years of flying was forced to tell ATC to leave us alone for about 30 seconds. Talk about unnecessary distraction with low traffic volume!
This might be one extra reason why MKE is reported to be a high runway-incursion airport. Do some ATC guys believe that in a two-person 'steam-gauge' c0ckp1t, we have nothing to do on a short taxi route, as we cross two or even three runways? Soon this will combined with double-checking de-icing holdover times, perhaps next Wednesday for those in North Dakota (MOT or GFK) or Winnepeg. The tragedy in Lexington, Kentucky enlightened laymen and reminded flightcrews as to what can happen when an operation is rushed.
An article in a newspaper last week claimed that new US Controllers might be hired at 10% less salary and in the near-future might have a workload 10% MORE than many controllers have now. The theme of the article, often quoting a Controller directly or indirectly, suggested that their FAA bosses are indifferent and callous about the results, including two solid hours on the radar scope with no break during a peak workload period
, I had no idea what an MD-11 pilot was saying on the radio, who taxied out for a very long flight westbound.As a group, the voices of the LAX Approach and Tower Controllers back then, at least from my perspective, indicated more stress than I remembered hearing at any other US airport, including Chicago O'Hare, La Guardia, Boston etc. Atlanta (and STL etc) was designed with a parallel taxiway between each pair of runways, with time after landing to recheck a clearance and unwind just a little bit. Cleveland (CLE), Chicago Midway (MDW: also the length of each runway), Houston Hobby (HOU) and Boston (BOS), even Milwaukee (MKE) at times, can be just as hazardous as LAX, maybe more so. The trickiest and most hazardous runway layouts seem to be at CLE (three closely-spaced parallel runways, intersected by 10/28 on the north side) and BOS, most of all. Even crossing Milwaukee's runway 01L and 01R requires extra concentration just to finish the "taxi checklist" due to a controller constantly calling you.
Even a First Officer Instructor in the right seat was required to explain to the MKE controller that we needed to be left alone, so that we could remember where we were on the checklists. The weather was good, no traffic holding short for us, or that required us to hold short, no traffic on short final and no wheels up times issued - nothing that required us to hurry things up. He just wanted us to switch to the (for runway 25L) tower freq very early so that he could forget about us. Even my FO, an excellent highly-experienced jet simulator instructor and excellent line pilot with about fifteen-eighteen years of flying was forced to tell ATC to leave us alone for about 30 seconds. Talk about unnecessary distraction with low traffic volume!
This might be one extra reason why MKE is reported to be a high runway-incursion airport. Do some ATC guys believe that in a two-person 'steam-gauge' c0ckp1t, we have nothing to do on a short taxi route, as we cross two or even three runways? Soon this will combined with double-checking de-icing holdover times, perhaps next Wednesday for those in North Dakota (MOT or GFK) or Winnepeg. The tragedy in Lexington, Kentucky enlightened laymen and reminded flightcrews as to what can happen when an operation is rushed.An article in a newspaper last week claimed that new US Controllers might be hired at 10% less salary and in the near-future might have a workload 10% MORE than many controllers have now. The theme of the article, often quoting a Controller directly or indirectly, suggested that their FAA bosses are indifferent and callous about the results, including two solid hours on the radar scope with no break during a peak workload period
Last edited by Ignition Override; 8th Oct 2006 at 05:42.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again, trying to blame ATC for an obvious crew screw up.
The crew recieved and read back two seperate clearances to hold short of rwy 25R, and then crossed anyway.
Not much to discuss here.
The crew recieved and read back two seperate clearances to hold short of rwy 25R, and then crossed anyway.
Not much to discuss here.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. bazaar eh! 
.... seems to me that all the alarm bells are ringing, and the people who should be beside themselves with concern are seemingly more interested in other peoples attire!!!
.
.. **** oh dear
.... seems to me that all the alarm bells are ringing, and the people who should be beside themselves with concern are seemingly more interested in other peoples attire!!! .
.. **** oh dear
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Airbubba, use www.flightaware.com to search the G registered Gees. The one departing LAX would be the likely suspect.
Astra Driver:
That might have been the case at LAX, but when the Tower Controller, anywhere, calls you as you are still stowing the thrust reverser levers at 70 knots with a totally unexpected clearance at the wrong time, to cross an active runway, that is out of bounds and uncalled for.
We must then check and clarify this critical clearance
{this abrupt interruption} by ATC, after the plane has cleared the high-speed turnoff exit.
In such situations our plane was never on fire, which would have justified an immediate radio call.
That might have been the case at LAX, but when the Tower Controller, anywhere, calls you as you are still stowing the thrust reverser levers at 70 knots with a totally unexpected clearance at the wrong time, to cross an active runway, that is out of bounds and uncalled for.
We must then check and clarify this critical clearance
{this abrupt interruption} by ATC, after the plane has cleared the high-speed turnoff exit.
In such situations our plane was never on fire, which would have justified an immediate radio call.
I was just at LAX twice over the last month for pax pickups, and boy what a mess! This 25L closure throws a big wrench in the works. Most of the intersections normally available for use to cross 25R are closed due to the construction project. More of the freighter and bizjet traffic than ever must land and take off from the 24s, requiring even more than the normal amount of taxi traffic between the north complex and the south. All things considered, it's working more smoothly than I might have thought. ATC really has their work cut out for them, and IMHO, are doing an admirable job under difficult circumstances.
But there are some problems related to the taxiway A painted ground markings and taxiway signage. Since most of the north/south taxiways between taxiway A and 25R are closed for the rwy work, the signs along taxiway A have been removed and the closed taxiways marked XXX. Also the painted taxiway markings are faded or dirty, rendering them difficult to see and read. I don't know how you guys do it, but I like to follow along on the airport diagram comparing the charted taxiway intersections to the ones I am seeing out the window as an aid to positional awareness. Trouble is, this is darned difficult to do with the designation signs removed and the surface markings obscured or difficult to see.
I couldn't help wondering if this was a possible contributing factor to the part of the story where the Gulfstream crew missed their assigned turn at the north/south taxiway on which they were to hold short of 25R, requiring that they turn around and proceed back to that taxiway. That, and the fact that at 18:00L, the westbound taxiway is nearly aligned with the setting sun. (if not obscured by cloud) So the potential for a little confusion, frustration, embarassment etc... Distraction.
Note:In my experience, it is normal for south ground to issue taxi instructions to taxi to the departure runway and hold short of the runway to be crossed and to contact the tower for crossing. There may be certain exceptions to this normal practice, but this is usually how they handle it.
Now I know that more than a few non-US pilots have issues with our "implied" clearance to cross all runways as part of a normal clearance to taxi to the departure runway. Unless explicitly instructed to hold short of, or at, a point along your taxi route, you are cleared to cross all runways along your taxi route except the runway you were cleared to taxi to. So I cannot help but wonder if this could have, in some part, been a factor.
Okay, so much for the musings. That was a really close call! Very good SA and reaction time on the part of the Skywest crew, thank goodness. Apparently, good brakes too. Assuming for a moment that the news report is accurate, I really don't know what else the controller or anyone else could have done once the G taxied onto the runway. There would have been very little time to act once the RJ was rolling. How was anyone to know that the G would taxi onto a runway they had just read back that they would hold short of. Perhaps this is even the reason for LAX's normal practice of handing aircraft off to the local controller for crossing instead of ground clearing aircraft across, I don't know. The holes sure lined up here! It certainly appears that good eyes and quick decision making on the RJ flightdeck narrowly averted another conflagration at LAX. Good job!
As always, I await official information before I commit to any particular beliefs about what did happen, or what caused it. The above are just some thoughts that came to mind given the story as it has been told so far.
Anyone have anything else to add?
Best regards,
Westhawk
But there are some problems related to the taxiway A painted ground markings and taxiway signage. Since most of the north/south taxiways between taxiway A and 25R are closed for the rwy work, the signs along taxiway A have been removed and the closed taxiways marked XXX. Also the painted taxiway markings are faded or dirty, rendering them difficult to see and read. I don't know how you guys do it, but I like to follow along on the airport diagram comparing the charted taxiway intersections to the ones I am seeing out the window as an aid to positional awareness. Trouble is, this is darned difficult to do with the designation signs removed and the surface markings obscured or difficult to see.
I couldn't help wondering if this was a possible contributing factor to the part of the story where the Gulfstream crew missed their assigned turn at the north/south taxiway on which they were to hold short of 25R, requiring that they turn around and proceed back to that taxiway. That, and the fact that at 18:00L, the westbound taxiway is nearly aligned with the setting sun. (if not obscured by cloud) So the potential for a little confusion, frustration, embarassment etc... Distraction.
Note:In my experience, it is normal for south ground to issue taxi instructions to taxi to the departure runway and hold short of the runway to be crossed and to contact the tower for crossing. There may be certain exceptions to this normal practice, but this is usually how they handle it.
Now I know that more than a few non-US pilots have issues with our "implied" clearance to cross all runways as part of a normal clearance to taxi to the departure runway. Unless explicitly instructed to hold short of, or at, a point along your taxi route, you are cleared to cross all runways along your taxi route except the runway you were cleared to taxi to. So I cannot help but wonder if this could have, in some part, been a factor.
Okay, so much for the musings. That was a really close call! Very good SA and reaction time on the part of the Skywest crew, thank goodness. Apparently, good brakes too. Assuming for a moment that the news report is accurate, I really don't know what else the controller or anyone else could have done once the G taxied onto the runway. There would have been very little time to act once the RJ was rolling. How was anyone to know that the G would taxi onto a runway they had just read back that they would hold short of. Perhaps this is even the reason for LAX's normal practice of handing aircraft off to the local controller for crossing instead of ground clearing aircraft across, I don't know. The holes sure lined up here! It certainly appears that good eyes and quick decision making on the RJ flightdeck narrowly averted another conflagration at LAX. Good job!
As always, I await official information before I commit to any particular beliefs about what did happen, or what caused it. The above are just some thoughts that came to mind given the story as it has been told so far.
Anyone have anything else to add?
Best regards,
Westhawk
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really except to concur that LAX south side is very confusing right now (shades of LEX ?).
With only the media reports, I was trying to work out where the GV 'missed' the taxiway and where he was trying to go. I assumed from a 'hangar' (more likely just one of the ramps) on Imperial he was making for 25R so was cleared to cross one (closed 25L) runway. But if as you point out he was bound for the north pair on the straight crossing taxiway, it is just conceivable that 25R was the one he thought he was cleared across, the 24s being visible to him at the time.
How about some "Follow Me" jeeps during the construction ??
With only the media reports, I was trying to work out where the GV 'missed' the taxiway and where he was trying to go. I assumed from a 'hangar' (more likely just one of the ramps) on Imperial he was making for 25R so was cleared to cross one (closed 25L) runway. But if as you point out he was bound for the north pair on the straight crossing taxiway, it is just conceivable that 25R was the one he thought he was cleared across, the 24s being visible to him at the time.
How about some "Follow Me" jeeps during the construction ??
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, England
Age: 56
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbuuba,
Looked on flightaware yesterday and there were no G- registered G's out of LAX. The only one maybe VP-BIP a new G550 but I don't know who is operating it or where it is based. That departed KLAX at 2330z on Saturday.
YD
Looked on flightaware yesterday and there were no G- registered G's out of LAX. The only one maybe VP-BIP a new G550 but I don't know who is operating it or where it is based. That departed KLAX at 2330z on Saturday.
YD
Last edited by yellowdog; 9th Oct 2006 at 19:57. Reason: Extra details added.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The only one maybe VP-BIP a new G550 but I don't know who is operating it or where it is based. That departed KLAX at 2330z on Saturday.
Quite possibly the plane did not depart on the same day since the crew probably had some paperwork to fill out and maybe an interview with a fed or two. But for the grace of God it could have been any of us...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: US
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I know that more than a few non-US pilots have issues with our "implied" clearance to cross all runways as part of a normal clearance to taxi to the departure runway. Unless explicitly instructed to hold short of, or at, a point along your taxi route, you are cleared to cross all runways along your taxi route except the runway you were cleared to taxi to. So I cannot help but wonder if this could have, in some part, been a factor.
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.