Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 29, 2015, 07:10:11 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook

+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

 51 
 on: June 18, 2015, 05:04:37 AM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by johnm1019
The plot thickens... turns out, this isn't the first time these two planes interacted with each other.

SWA3828 called ground to push off of gate B16 but was told to standby. Shortly thereafter, a SWA arrival checks in with ground for that very same gate. Ground then queries DAL1328 to check if B16 is open... meanwhile SWA3828 is still standing by for an approval to push off of that gate - a fact he later chimes in with after pausing briefly to give DAL a chance to answer (proper radio etiquette, of course). Guess what happens? Yep, they step on each other. rolleyes

At 2:25 in the clip, you hear ground fulfill 7110.65V's 2-4-15(a) by stating "Delta 1328, be advised similar callsign on frequency is Southwest 3828" followed by a crossing instruction for Runway 31C and 31L on his way to 4R. DAL acknowledged this at the end ("we'll be aware."). The latter half of the 2-4-15(a) advisory (to the other pilot - SWA3828) occurs a couple of transmissions later at 2:50 (and is similarly acknowledged).

Sorry, DAL1328, but for this armchair spectator who wasn't there... that's the final nail in a coffin that I thought was already approaching air-tight levels. Best of luck to you on your pilot deviation investigation, and may you not be operating as any position above flight attendant on the days I have connecting flights in MDW.
That's why I read this forum!  Of course you would never see this on a news station like CNN.... (I digress)
I pulled up the full 7110.65 rule out of curiosity
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO_7110.65V.pdf
2-4-15 states
Quote
2−4−15. EMPHASIS FOR CLARITY
Emphasize appropriate digits, letters, or similar
sounding words to aid in distinguishing between
similar sounding aircraft identifications.
Additionally:
a. Notify each pilot concerned when communicating
with aircraft having similar sounding
identifications.
EXAMPLE−
“United Thirty−one United, Miami Center, U.S. Air
Thirty−one is also on this frequency, acknowledge.”
“U.S. Air Thirty−one U.S. Air, Miami Center, United
Thirty−one is also on this frequency, acknowledge.”
REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2−4−20, Aircraft Identification.

FAAO JO 7210.3, Para 2−1−13, Aircraft Identification Problems.

b. Notify the operations supervisor−in-charge of
any duplicate flight identification numbers or
phonetically similar-sounding call signs when the
aircraft are operating simultaneously within the same
sector.
REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7210.3, Para 2−1−13, Aircraft Identification Problems.
NOTE−
This is especially important when this occurs on a
repetitive, rather than an isolated, basis.

and the fact this is clearly captured on the ground frequency is simply remarkable.

Great work, sometimes I think you people here are robots, that one FAA PDF is over 650 pages!

 52 
 on: June 18, 2015, 01:53:33 AM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Horizon_44
While the details are important, It really is worth adding that the controller deserves alot of praise for averting a disaster.

 53 
 on: June 17, 2015, 11:20:05 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Brad G.
Seems like Aircraft radio needs to be upgraded so one can't step on the other's transmission it could be done easily the tower could direct who they want to talk to same with the radio's in the aircraft, but still allow everyone to hear what is being said.
Such an upgrade already exists and is in use for some communications... it's call CPDLC. Wink

 54 
 on: June 17, 2015, 11:19:29 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by kell490
Seems like Aircraft radio needs to be upgraded so one can't step on the other's transmission it could be done easily the tower could direct who they want to talk to same with the radio's in the aircraft, but still allow everyone to hear what is being said.

 55 
 on: June 17, 2015, 11:09:35 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Brad G.
The plot thickens... turns out, this isn't the first time these two planes interacted with each other.

SWA3828 called ground to push off of gate B16 but was told to standby. Shortly thereafter, a SWA arrival checks in with ground for that very same gate. Ground then queries DAL1328 to check if B16 is open... meanwhile SWA3828 is still standing by for an approval to push off of that gate - a fact he later chimes in with after pausing briefly to give DAL a chance to answer (proper radio etiquette, of course). Guess what happens? Yep, they step on each other. rolleyes

At 2:25 in the clip, you hear ground fulfill 7110.65V's 2-4-15(a) by stating "Delta 1328, be advised similar callsign on frequency is Southwest 3828" followed by a crossing instruction for Runway 31C and 31L on his way to 4R. DAL acknowledged this at the end ("we'll be aware."). The latter half of the 2-4-15(a) advisory (to the other pilot - SWA3828) occurs a couple of transmissions later at 2:50 (and is similarly acknowledged).

Sorry, DAL1328, but for this armchair spectator who wasn't there... that's the final nail in a coffin that I thought was already approaching air-tight levels. Best of luck to you on your pilot deviation investigation, and may you not be operating as any position above flight attendant on the days I have connecting flights in MDW.

 56 
 on: June 17, 2015, 10:24:06 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by ATC4lyfe
That's such a major screw up on Delta's part it's angering to listen to the clip.

 57 
 on: June 17, 2015, 10:23:01 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Delta Echo
The liveatc.net recording might not be as clear at the transmissions on the field.

1) The recording sounds like the controller was "clipping" the callsign. This could be the liveatc recording. I suspect it is not as bad on the field
2) The controller was working 100mph and didn't perceive the chance of the callsigns being mixed up.
3) The controller told DAL that traffic was "holding on the crossing RY"
4) DAL took the SWA t/o clearance even though the controller stated the runway "31C" in the clearance. This should of prevented the clearance from being mixed up.
5) The controller told DAL to "STOP STOP STOP". It sounds like he said "DAL1328 STOP STOP STOP!" and both a/c took the stop.


I would of told DAL "Traffic departing the crossing, you'll wait for him".
This, hopefully, would of set a sequence in DAL's mind to expect to follow the a/c on the crossing.

I think the plan was to launch SWA on 31C then launch DAL on 4R to beat EJA on a 4mile final for 4L. (Since 4L and 4R are separated by less then 2500ft they are considered the same runway.)



 58 
 on: June 17, 2015, 08:08:54 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Brad G.
The combination of similar call signs and people stepping on each other on clearance read back has to be trained as a giant dayglo red flag.
I think that's already a given - as evidenced in this recording. The local controller noted that he kept detecting overlapping transmissions (hence why he bothered to try clarifying the clearance in the first place), so I'm guessing he was already scanning for a potential problem (more so than normal) when he stopped the two aircraft.

 59 
 on: June 17, 2015, 08:05:48 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by sonnycol
The combination of similar call signs and people stepping on each other on clearance read back has to be trained as a giant dayglo red flag. In this case it kept happening over and over.

 60 
 on: June 17, 2015, 07:56:15 PM 
Started by fholbert - Last post by fholbert
Sorry guys, I found it.

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/kmdw-very-near-miss-stop-stop-stop/ 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!