UnitedX CRJ go-around at uncontrolled airport
 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...mboat-airport/

Some extra details from the print edition:

"......Express flight ....came within 300 or 400 feet of a smaller plane on the runway before climbing away"

"Air traffic controllers in Denver cleared the smaller plane to take off because they thought the United Express plane had landed. United Express pilot radioed controllers that the plane was “on deck,” meaning it would be the next to land, but the controllers thought he meant “on the deck,” or on the ground.

The United Express crew was communicating with controllers in Denver, about 100 miles southeast, because Yampa Valley does not have a control tower."

Maybe they should start using standard phraseology in America.

Something doesn't sound right.
 

From your linked article: Without more specific information I'm going to assume that the journalist incorrectly characterized the airport manager's remarks to mean the CRJ crew advised ATC they were on the ground at HDN when in reality they likely canceled their IFR clearance while still airborne, which would allow ATC to issue the takeoff clearance to the King Air. A perfectly normal and run off the mill situation at uncontrolled airports throughout the US.

Also, I don't see any reference to "on the deck" in the linked article, has the wording been changed since your original post?

Maybe uncontrolled should mean uncontrolled.

Lasiorhinus is right, and alot of my Canadian colleagues need to start doing it too.

UnitedX CRJ go-around at uncontrolled airport
 

MU3100A couldn't find "on the deck".
The original post asserted it was in the print edition of the newspaper.

Agreed... a case of confused slang/metaphors

"On deck" from American baseball, meaning "next up, next in line, next to land" as opposed to nautical "on the deck".

"On the ground, clear of active, cancel IFR" is not as sexy and snappy - but does wonders in avoiding those sudden pull-ups or embarassing crunching sounds....

I agree!
Baseball talk should stay on AM radio, and STANDARD phraseology should be used when flying - even if ti doesn't sound that cool...

Next time they might just get the third "strike"!

Nic

FAR-AIM states clearly that an applicant for a licence should be able to read, speak and understand the ENGLISH language. Makes you wonder how most Americans managed to get a licence in the first place... Incoming!

Yeah, sure makes you wonder just how those thick cowboy yanks manage to safely operate 87,000 flights a day in an aviation market that makes the UK's 6000 per day (including all overflights to/from the obviously blighted North American continent) fairly pale in comparison. It's clearly pure luck that all those high density operations in the northeast corridor in some of the severest winter weather conditions imaginable don't result in utter carnage and calamity. They obviously need a sanctimonious pompous holier-than-thou git like the previous poster to straighten things out over there.
Get your CV going Olliew, they NEED you - or as Borat might say - NOT!

Far-aim
 

So who wrote the FAR-AIM? If it "clearly states", someone in the US must speak proper English.

But how all those Americans can meet the requirement baffles me. Of course I assume you refer to all the Mexicans, French speaking Canadiens, Portugese speaking Brazilians etc. Or are you talking about people from the US? It appears your message may not have conveyed the intended message. If I were to assume that you are talking about people from the US when you talk about Americans, I would interpret your post differently. Please be clear in your communications so that we avoid misunderstandings.

But your message is not clear to me as a non-native English speaker.

Want to pick nits some more???

Slow down Sandman you'll give yourself a nose bleed. The Devils Advocat attitude was there to encourage a debate, not a tirade. Having gathered 800 hours plus of instruction given and a few hours in other types of commercial flying in varied parts of the world I would concede that in general the system works remarkably well.

This whole thing seems like a non-issue. Especially as it is being reported by the local paper. Many times these small cities are trying to lobby for a control tower, and sensationalizing something like this is a good way to try and get FAA funding for a control tower. From what I read it sounds as simple as:

1) Landing aircraft canceled IFR on approach.
2) Departing aircraft received IFR release.
3) Departing aircraft took runway
4) Landing aircraft performed Go Around.

It isn't like this sort of thing never happens t controlled fields either.

Sounds like the only issue is the lack of comm. or late comm. on the CTAF.

coz96 seems to have it correct.

I wish slang had never been invented. if you are not " with it " (slang), you aren't cool, and if there is anything a pilot wants to be , it is cool.

and people yell at me for saying "wilco", "fife", "fo-wer" and the like. you should be uncool for using slang on the radio.

Some of the problem in the article is a journalist who has to edit remarks for non pilots. To have the journalist explain the difference between a takeoff clearance and an IFR release/clearance would take more room than a newspaper has to spare for an article.

Speaking of picking nits...

When I first heard mention of this story, that's one of the things that irked me. The Center is not issuing takeoff clearances to anyone. Given that the article(s) couldn't manage to get that right, I don't know why one would expect them to differentiate between being short final, landing and cancelling IFR. :ugh:

What's more, perhaps I don't get away from controlled airports enough, but in some 35 years of flying and doing ATC, I've never heard the phrase "on deck" used to indicate that an aircraft was next to land. "On the deck" (which I'd clarify to ensure that the a/c was on the ground) or "on the ground" or "canceling IFR" I've heard a lot. Further, keep in mind that, as the controller, if an IFR aircraft reports that he's next in line to land at an uncontrolled airport, that is of no use to me. In fact, I'd be wondering why he was telling me that instead of communicating on the CTAF because I've still got to protect him as IFR until he cancels or lands. Given that there is obvious potential for him running afoul of local VFRs operating on and around the airport, he needs to be communicating with them, not me, unless he wants to cancel.

I do wonder whether he cancelled IFR with the Center and then broadcast "on deck" on the CTAF, which the departure heard as "on the deck..." The Denver Center tapes will clear up what happened on the Centers freq anyway...

Huh?
 

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Airport in sight, cancel IFR. In this case, CTAF or VFR pertain. TCAS over ATC? Er, Fly the Plane.

I'm totally confused. I'm a soloed student and I fly my little 2-seater in and out of a large uncontrolled airport. Everything from 747's, C-130's, bizjets and helicopters fly in and out all the time. It's uncontrolled. I *never* talk to ATC. I presume the other planes never talk to ATC. We self-announce on CTAF, fly the pattern and scan for traffic. No problem.

What is the thing with ATC about? Did I miss something in my training?

Grumpy... It's an IFR thing - for precisely the reason this incident demonstrated.

ATC that is directing IFR operations at a remote uncontrolled airport**** generally only allows ONE ---IFR--- operation to be happening at a time in the airspace immediately around that airport (no effect on VFR planes).

The King Air (another IFR flight) was supposed to wait in the runup area until getting a "release" from Denver ATC - and ATC was not supposed to give that release until the United Express jet confirmed that it was on the ground or cancelling its own IFR.

Unclear language led the controllers to believe the jet had landed and give the King Air its release - while the jet was still on final approach (and perhaps in clouds or low visibility, not visible to the King Air).

Result - two planes trying to use the same strip of concrete at the same moment.

Your experience at your uncontrolled airport would have been rather different if you gone out there on a day with a 500'-ceiling and 1-mile visibility. There would have been no planes flying except on IFR flight plans under very strict rules and instructions.

**** Denver Center is in Longmont - about 90 NM east of the Steamboat airport, and on the other side of a 14,000' mountain range

Thanks pattern. That does indeed explain it.

There has been a significant slide in radio discipline and standard phraseology in the US in the last few years. I lay the blame for this on the hiring practices of the regional airlines. Too many 500 hr wonders.