Air Canada plane makes unauthorized runway entry as JAL plane arrives at Kansai
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never had a problem with Japanese ATC. In fact, for the most part, they are quite good at using standard phraseology, even though the accents may be a bit high pitched (esp. the women, they sound like they're perpetually giving birth). However, it seems that sometimes they get 'Americanized', as in using slang phrases more commonly seen at U.S. airports. Sometimes this may cause a bit of confusion.
Someone mentioned "into position and hold" as standard phraseology. It makes me wonder how many people actually know what actual standard ICAO R/T is.
Anyway, here's something on Eurocontrol on the very subject.
www.eurocontrol.be/runwaysafety/gallery/content/public/docs/runway_safety_newsletter.pdf
Someone mentioned "into position and hold" as standard phraseology. It makes me wonder how many people actually know what actual standard ICAO R/T is.
Anyway, here's something on Eurocontrol on the very subject.
www.eurocontrol.be/runwaysafety/gallery/content/public/docs/runway_safety_newsletter.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the ICAO terminology to be the logical one and easiest understood by all nationalities.
Taxi to holding point '?'. Line up and wait....
Also remember runway entry instructions are also given to vehicles etc. Using the same holding short - at a hold bar - instruction for all saves much confusion.
Taxi to holding point '?'. Line up and wait....
Also remember runway entry instructions are also given to vehicles etc. Using the same holding short - at a hold bar - instruction for all saves much confusion.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was probably our old buddy bruceelee
Wonder what ever happened to him? It's one of those things that could happen to anybody, any day. It boils down to basic airmanship, if in doubt,ASK
Wonder what ever happened to him? It's one of those things that could happen to anybody, any day. It boils down to basic airmanship, if in doubt,ASK
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again!
Let's talk about PJ2's post with published report for a second.
Although the languages everybody spoke were on the report, I fail to see where a single spoken language would have helped!
As far as the A320 crew was concerned, it didn't matter what language was used since they would only have assumed that the C172 was going to position only (I'm sorry: was going to line up and wait).
On the C172 side, we now have to assume that a pilot who took off without a clearance (in English or French) would have been aware enough of the whole picture to understand that an aircraft was rolling on a crossing runway? Please!!! Of course, that's assuming that he's proficient enough in english to stay in the loop.
If this was caused by language separation, why does it happen in other parts of the English only world?
Let's take our heads out of the sand and look at procedures also. Not only this silly language thing.
Meditate this for a bit: You're flying into an airport where everybody is using English but you're the only one whose native tongue it is. The controller is hardly understandable and will not understand anything fancy. Every other local pilot on the frequency is worse. Is this really your ideal scenario? Come ON!! I think I would rather have the controller have a good grip on the locals to be able to keep them away from ME.
Of course, I'm not a pilot AND I speak French, so I probably just don't understand.
Felix
ATC - CYOW
Although the languages everybody spoke were on the report, I fail to see where a single spoken language would have helped!
As far as the A320 crew was concerned, it didn't matter what language was used since they would only have assumed that the C172 was going to position only (I'm sorry: was going to line up and wait).
On the C172 side, we now have to assume that a pilot who took off without a clearance (in English or French) would have been aware enough of the whole picture to understand that an aircraft was rolling on a crossing runway? Please!!! Of course, that's assuming that he's proficient enough in english to stay in the loop.
If this was caused by language separation, why does it happen in other parts of the English only world?
Let's take our heads out of the sand and look at procedures also. Not only this silly language thing.
Meditate this for a bit: You're flying into an airport where everybody is using English but you're the only one whose native tongue it is. The controller is hardly understandable and will not understand anything fancy. Every other local pilot on the frequency is worse. Is this really your ideal scenario? Come ON!! I think I would rather have the controller have a good grip on the locals to be able to keep them away from ME.
Of course, I'm not a pilot AND I speak French, so I probably just don't understand.
Felix
ATC - CYOW
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the event that is subject of this thread - take these quotes from the link that PJ2 provided:
"The use of the word "position" in Canada and the United States is associated with a position on a runway, whereas the same word is used in ICAO phraseology to indicate a holding position short of the runway.
North American crews operating in parts of the world where ICAO phraseology is used may confuse the term "taxi to holding position"with "taxi to position." This confusion could result in a crew taxiing onto an active runway when they had been cleared to a point short of the runway."
"Canada and United States phraseologies used to clear an aircraft onto a runway are similar in wording to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) phraseology to hold an aircraft short of a runway. Those similarities open the door to misinterpretation by crews with potential for catastrophic consequences."
Why doesn't everyone (including Canada and the US) stick to ICAO - Phraselology?
After all, they are ICAO countires...
Nic
"The use of the word "position" in Canada and the United States is associated with a position on a runway, whereas the same word is used in ICAO phraseology to indicate a holding position short of the runway.
North American crews operating in parts of the world where ICAO phraseology is used may confuse the term "taxi to holding position"with "taxi to position." This confusion could result in a crew taxiing onto an active runway when they had been cleared to a point short of the runway."
"Canada and United States phraseologies used to clear an aircraft onto a runway are similar in wording to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) phraseology to hold an aircraft short of a runway. Those similarities open the door to misinterpretation by crews with potential for catastrophic consequences."
Why doesn't everyone (including Canada and the US) stick to ICAO - Phraselology?
After all, they are ICAO countires...
Nic
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree. I of course only fly in the UK most of the time but I have never understood "taxi runway 24L and hold short" as in the US - how do they know which way to go if there choices- mch better to be cleared to a specific point via other specifically named taxiways. Unambiguous.
If I listen to US air traffic via live atc feed etc. I really struggle - non -ICAO very quick loads of slang IMHO. What kind of test does the FAA ask pilots to pass there- Is the an equivalent of our CAP, full of slang.
If I listen to US air traffic via live atc feed etc. I really struggle - non -ICAO very quick loads of slang IMHO. What kind of test does the FAA ask pilots to pass there- Is the an equivalent of our CAP, full of slang.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear about the facts behind these US/Canada/ICAO RT discrepancies:-
The US definition of RT phraseology is quite detailed. A linguist name of Steven Cushing worked on a NASA project in the early 90's to look at phraseology and how it contributed to accidents. He produced a grammar of RT phraseology, published in his book Fatal Words (U. Chicago Press, 1997).
Some years ago, we looked at and redid Cushing's grammar. We simplified it into what is called EBNF (Extended Backus-Naur Form) and implemented a parser for it in the SW tool Bison. We also corrected a number of mistakes in the grammar.
So we know the following: as a formal language, it has an unambiguous grammar (this is a technical term), we did not check whether is semantically unambiguous.
The reports are to be found at http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de -> Publications -> Research Reports, numbers RVS-Occ-01-02, RVS-Occ-01-03 and RCS-Occ-01-05.
This of course does not address the question of semantic incompatibilities of international and U.S. phraseology; neither does it address the semantic discrepancies between similar phrases, as the TSB report referenced by PJ2 does. This problem has been around for a long time. For example, there is a discrepancy between what "maintain RWY heading [after TO]" means in the U.K. and in the U.S., if I remember rightly from a Bluecoat discussion some years ago. The U.S. expects you to head xx° on take off from RWY xx, and the U.K. expects you to track xx°. Could be a problem with simultaneous operations from closely-spaced runways.
As to the suggestion of solving the phraseology problem by everyone sticking/changing to ICAO terminology, that is about as realistic (maybe less so) than trying to establish English as the universal language of business. 70% of the world will do it in any case; the other 30% will refuse for various reasons.
U.K. and Asian countries may be more familiar with ICAO phraseology because a large proportion of commercial jet flights are international operations. Whereas in the N.A., the vast proportion of flights at any airport are N.A; there is more incentive to insist the non-locals learn your legal phraseology than to tell all your controllers to throw away the handbooks and learn something different.
PBL
The US definition of RT phraseology is quite detailed. A linguist name of Steven Cushing worked on a NASA project in the early 90's to look at phraseology and how it contributed to accidents. He produced a grammar of RT phraseology, published in his book Fatal Words (U. Chicago Press, 1997).
Some years ago, we looked at and redid Cushing's grammar. We simplified it into what is called EBNF (Extended Backus-Naur Form) and implemented a parser for it in the SW tool Bison. We also corrected a number of mistakes in the grammar.
So we know the following: as a formal language, it has an unambiguous grammar (this is a technical term), we did not check whether is semantically unambiguous.
The reports are to be found at http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de -> Publications -> Research Reports, numbers RVS-Occ-01-02, RVS-Occ-01-03 and RCS-Occ-01-05.
This of course does not address the question of semantic incompatibilities of international and U.S. phraseology; neither does it address the semantic discrepancies between similar phrases, as the TSB report referenced by PJ2 does. This problem has been around for a long time. For example, there is a discrepancy between what "maintain RWY heading [after TO]" means in the U.K. and in the U.S., if I remember rightly from a Bluecoat discussion some years ago. The U.S. expects you to head xx° on take off from RWY xx, and the U.K. expects you to track xx°. Could be a problem with simultaneous operations from closely-spaced runways.
As to the suggestion of solving the phraseology problem by everyone sticking/changing to ICAO terminology, that is about as realistic (maybe less so) than trying to establish English as the universal language of business. 70% of the world will do it in any case; the other 30% will refuse for various reasons.
U.K. and Asian countries may be more familiar with ICAO phraseology because a large proportion of commercial jet flights are international operations. Whereas in the N.A., the vast proportion of flights at any airport are N.A; there is more incentive to insist the non-locals learn your legal phraseology than to tell all your controllers to throw away the handbooks and learn something different.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.K. and Asian countries may be more familiar with ICAO phraseology because a large proportion of commercial jet flights are international operations. Whereas in the N.A., the vast proportion of flights at any airport are N.A; there is more incentive to insist the non-locals learn your legal phraseology than to tell all your controllers to throw away the handbooks and learn something different.
There is an international standard (ICAO), and some countries actively chose to ignore it, even though they are members of the organisation!
It puts just one more slice of cheese with a bunch of holes in it into the game...
Nic
edit:
PS: Have you ever flown over south east Turkey, listening to some "Reach" callsign babbling on in non standard RT Phrases, not understanding what the controller says, nor the controller understanding what they say... not getting altitude restrictions, direct clearances,... the whole lot.
I just wonder how they will communicate in a country where all the controller will understand is standard ICAO RT when having an emergency...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another incident !!
Another incident in Japan:
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/421402
Transport ministry investigates Chinese plane's unauthorized runway entry
Monday, November 12, 2007 at 12:48 EST
TOKYO — A transport ministry panel sent three inspectors Monday to Chubu Centrair International Airport in Aichi Prefecture to investigate an incident Sunday in which a China Southern Airlines (CSN) plane, without permission, entered a runway on which an All Nippon Airways airliner was about to land.
Although a collision was avoided as the ANA plane aborted the landing on the instructions of an air traffic controller, the ministry decided to dispatch the inspectors from its Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission regarding the case as a serious incident with the risk of an accident, ministry officials said. The air traffic controller at around 1 p.m. Sunday told the CSN's Airbus A319, carrying 42 passengers and crew members, to wait before entering the runway to depart for Shenyang, northeastern China.
The plane recited the instruction, saying it would wait, it said.
At the time, an ANA Airbus A320 carrying 59 passengers and crew from Fukuoka was about to land on the runway.
After issuing the ANA plane permission to land, the air traffic controller noticed the CSN plane passing the halt line to the runway and told the ANA plane to abort the landing.
The ANA plane was about before 5 minutes from landing but climbed again at a point about 8 kilometers from the edge of the runway. The CSN plane stopped with about half of its length on the runway.
The air traffic controller, who was paying attention to the movement of the CSN plane due to a series of recent air traffic control problems, immediately noticed that the plane had passed the halt line, the officials said.
The CSN plane later took off after obtaining permission, and the ANA plane landed after about 15 minutes.
© 2007 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/421402
Transport ministry investigates Chinese plane's unauthorized runway entry
Monday, November 12, 2007 at 12:48 EST
TOKYO — A transport ministry panel sent three inspectors Monday to Chubu Centrair International Airport in Aichi Prefecture to investigate an incident Sunday in which a China Southern Airlines (CSN) plane, without permission, entered a runway on which an All Nippon Airways airliner was about to land.
Although a collision was avoided as the ANA plane aborted the landing on the instructions of an air traffic controller, the ministry decided to dispatch the inspectors from its Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission regarding the case as a serious incident with the risk of an accident, ministry officials said. The air traffic controller at around 1 p.m. Sunday told the CSN's Airbus A319, carrying 42 passengers and crew members, to wait before entering the runway to depart for Shenyang, northeastern China.
The plane recited the instruction, saying it would wait, it said.
At the time, an ANA Airbus A320 carrying 59 passengers and crew from Fukuoka was about to land on the runway.
After issuing the ANA plane permission to land, the air traffic controller noticed the CSN plane passing the halt line to the runway and told the ANA plane to abort the landing.
The ANA plane was about before 5 minutes from landing but climbed again at a point about 8 kilometers from the edge of the runway. The CSN plane stopped with about half of its length on the runway.
The air traffic controller, who was paying attention to the movement of the CSN plane due to a series of recent air traffic control problems, immediately noticed that the plane had passed the halt line, the officials said.
The CSN plane later took off after obtaining permission, and the ANA plane landed after about 15 minutes.
© 2007 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.
