Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2014, 03:37:49 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  FLL runway incursion chilling audio
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: FLL runway incursion chilling audio  (Read 15746 times)
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« on: April 09, 2008, 04:45:30 PM »

On July 11, 2007, a United Airbus (UAL1544) called ready to taxi for takeoff.  They were instructed to taxi to runway 9L, which involved taxiing on twy T then a left turn on twy B just prior to the point that T crosses 9L.  UAL1544 missed the turn and started heading across Rwy 9L.

At the same time, a Delta 757 (DAL1489) was on approach to RWY 9L.  DAL1489 had crossed the threshold and tower instructed FLG2973 to taxi into position and hold.  After DAL1489 had already touched down, the local controller noticed the United airbus crossing the runway.

The link below is a clip from the FAA of the actual gorund and local control audio tapes.  15:40 into the clip is ground yelling at the United Airbus to stop.  (ironic that it is 15:44 into the clip, and the flight number is 1544?).  27:45 into the clip is the chilling audio of the tower controller begging the Delta 757 to go around after he has already touched down.

Here's the clip from the FAA's website: http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/fll71107/media/P-SO-T-FLL-07-005_UAL1544.mp3
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
ect76
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224

EGPH


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2008, 08:54:35 PM »

Hey. Have chopped the clip in two and taken out a little dead air to make it under the file size limitation. It's in two parts, but saves the 77mb download and is now around 7! It's a really chilling clip.

E.
Logged
laylow
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2008, 06:22:29 PM »

Wow, that could have been really, really bad.
Logged
mk882004
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2008, 11:50:58 AM »

Do you think the controller that told the Delta to go around went on break because of the incident or because it was just his time to have his shift end? I would imagine he is taken off the position to get his side of the story or something.
Logged
Canadian eh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2008, 02:45:41 PM »

any operating irregularity (pilot or controller) we get pull from the postion and a union rep gets called in. there is a investigation and depending on the findings and how the controller feels he may go back to work the same day
Logged
inigo88
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2008, 05:59:30 AM »

I hate to say it but what kind of taxi clearance is "UAL1544, taxi to runway 9L, exit the ramp at Tango 7."?

I've never seen that kind of phraseology in the 7110.65. I wonder if the by-the-book phraseology, "Taxi to Runway 9L via Tango, Tango 7, Delta, Bravo," would have prevented the runway incursion? Even a "Exit the ramp at Tango 7, right Delta, Left Bravo" would have been more helpful. The ground controller was a trainee being supervised by the female controller at the beginning of the clip. Again, the enter and exit the ramp stuff with no mention of the taxiway routing TO the assigned taxiway gets her in trouble in the beginning, where there seems to be a mis-communication with a foreign pilot Avianca 036 who just exited Rwy 9L and asks for a clarification and another routing. Her clearance is "Avianca 036 enter at Tango 4 [being the taxiway] taxi to the ramp, hold short of Tango 8 [there is some ambiguity here as to whether T8 is a taxiway or gate - it's a taxiway] traffic's pushing off that gate now." and then "Enter at your next left hold short of Tango 8." But Tango is a taxiway and thus a movement area that is adjacent to, but not "the ramp" (a non-movement area). She could also mean Tango is the "Inner," but doesn't specify so, and wouldn't run into that problem if she just called it Tango to begin with!

I don't mean to split hairs or insinuate that controllers should hold the pilot's hands and progressively issue every taxi instruction at every airport, but FLL has intersecting runways (one is active and one of which isn't, and is being used for taxiing) and the taxi route to the active runway crosses the inactive one (need to cross 13-31 to get to 9L). In this situation, the pilots are thinking about the part of the AIM that states that "Taxi to runway 9L" implies that the pilot may cross all runways except the assigned runway. Now they're anticipating that they'll pass the red runway boundary signage and cross the hold short lines onto runway 13-31 WITHOUT CLEARANCE (since none is necessary) on the way to their assigned runway. With that forethought in mind, and a vague clearance that doesn't specify which taxiways to take after Tango 7 (or remind the pilots that there will be a LEFT turn onto bravo), one can begin to understand why they missed it.

It's not that they were idiots and didn't know airport signage and how to hold short of a runway, they were actually anticipating the runway crossing, got distracted by something (presumably thought they turned), didn't read the numbers on the signs closely enough and crossed the WRONG runway. I hope Rwy 9L at Delta got marked as an incursion hot spot, and that training at FLL ATCT has changed to promote more detailed taxi instructions in that vicinity of the airport to alleviate future incidents like this one. But hey, just one man's opinion. Smiley
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2008, 08:15:46 AM »

I hate to say it but what kind of taxi clearance is "UAL1544, taxi to runway 9L, exit the ramp at Tango 7."?


Well, its funny that you post that.  Back when this happened, a taxi clearance could legally and safely be exactly what the controller said.  A "taxi to..." clearance with no route given gives the pilot their choice of routes.  A "taxi to..." clearance for a departure restricts that aircraft from crossing the assigned departing runway at any point along the route.  So "taxi to RWY 9L, exit the ramp at Tango 7" is a perfectly legal clearance no matter what airport it is.  There is the standard taxi to instruction, with the added restriction of where to start the taxi from.  Controllers are not required to give, and will almost never provide, taxi instructions on a non-movement area.

But now (possibly as a bit of a result of this incident) controllers are required to give pseudo-progressive taxi instructions to everyone and everything.  Every taxi instruction will include the route and all taxiway identifiers that you are to take.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2008, 08:38:58 AM »

But now (possibly as a bit of a result of this incident) controllers are required to give pseudo-progressive taxi instructions to everyone and everything.  Every taxi instruction will include the route and all taxiway identifiers that you are to take.

This US requirement, excluding perhaps some early adopter airports, is very recent, no?   I just started getting these detailed instructions about 3-4 weeks ago out of my home airport.  First time I heard it I thought it was one of the many newbie controllers' requirements but then later read about the new taxi instruction from AOPA's site.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2008, 09:12:04 AM »

This US requirement, excluding perhaps some early adopter airports, is very recent, no?   I just started getting these detailed instructions about 3-4 weeks ago out of my home airport.  First time I heard it I thought it was one of the many newbie controllers' requirements but then later read about the new taxi instruction from AOPA's site.

Yes, are your time frame is jsut about right.  It was sometime in mid May when this requirement became active.  Any ATCSs on here recall the exact date?
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2008, 09:39:18 AM »

This US requirement, excluding perhaps some early adopter airports, is very recent, no?   I just started getting these detailed instructions about 3-4 weeks ago out of my home airport.  First time I heard it I thought it was one of the many newbie controllers' requirements but then later read about the new taxi instruction from AOPA's site.

Yes, are your time frame is jsut about right.  It was sometime in mid May when this requirement became active.  Any ATCSs on here recall the exact date?

05/19/08 was the effective date for the change.  The change to the new "Taxi and Ground Movement Operations" is available in N JO 7110.482.  A side-by-side comparison of the old and new directive is available in this document which essentially outlines the the change from 7110.482 into 7110.65S on March 12, 2009.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 09:43:05 AM by Jason » Logged
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2008, 10:02:27 PM »

well...the reason that we have to give detailed taxi routes is NOT because of this incident...BUT because the pilots were blaming runway incursions that were CAUSED by them...on controllers.

Controllers used to be able to say "(ACID), taxi to runway 31" if a route did not matter...but sometimes pilots didn't know where they were going and would cause some sort of incursion or other incident.

they would then say "well...atc never told us how to get there so it is their fault"

soooo....the faa not wanting to play the game said that we must issue detailed instructions from now on...


ooh yay....more confused pilots  grin
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2008, 10:20:50 PM »

ooh yay....more confused pilots  grin

Yep, there in an inequitable distribution of clarity within the pilot/controller relationship.   Maybe all those moron pilots will stop flying.  Ooh yay... no more job.


Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2008, 10:26:57 PM »

ooh yay....more confused pilots  grin

Yep, there in an inequitable distribution of clarity within the pilot/controller relationship.   Maybe all those moron pilots will stop flying.  Ooh yay... no more job.





haha....you took what i said wrong.
im not saying pilots are morons....im saying giving detailed taxi routes is confusing....no matter how smart you are...

when i have to say "LOF5561, taxi to runway 13 via A, P-1, R-1,R,B,D,D-6"  its confusing, and when its busy...its hard for a pilot to remember the instructions unless they are very familiar with the airport layout. 


so..i hope that its clear im not callling pilots morons....im saying that its moronic to have to give detailed instructions...because it is just making things worse...because we have to rattle off these stupid detailed routes.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2008, 10:33:45 PM »

haha....you took what i said wrong.
im not saying pilots are morons....im saying giving detailed taxi routes is confusing....no matter how smart you are...

Ah, so I did.  My mistake.   Sorry 'bout that.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2008, 10:38:38 PM »

haha....you took what i said wrong.
im not saying pilots are morons....im saying giving detailed taxi routes is confusing....no matter how smart you are...

Ah, so I did.  My mistake.   Sorry 'bout that.

not a problem  smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!