Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 04, 2015, 03:03:07 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!

+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 81 
 on: June 19, 2015, 05:43:09 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by w0x0f

So ultimately, what will happen here? Is this a deal on the part of the controller, or is this pilot error? And this will ultimately bring up the rule change made back in the .65P days where they won't allow ATC to lock and load with TIPH/LUAW procedures (which nearly every airport applied for waivers to circumvent that rule)..


This appears to be a pilot deviation on Delta's part.  They were alerted to the fact that a similar sounding call sign existed on another outbound aircraft, yet failed to hear that the take off clearance was not for them.  I've had this happen on intersecting runways in a similar situation but the call signs weren't even close.  The pilot, locked and loaded, going through final checks, only heard cleared for takeoff. 

My first thoughts are that there will be a knee jerk reaction to this high profile incident and limitations will be put in place in an attempt to mitigate the situation.  No simultaneous LUAW on intersecting runways, and just like Tyketto said, waivers will be applied at busier terminals like MDW.  So it ends up to be a wash.  I hope this doesn't happen, because only the smaller airports will end up paying the price, but based upon what I've seen in the new "FAA safety culture," I wouldn't be surprised to see these measures taken.

w0x0f

 82 
 on: June 19, 2015, 01:18:50 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by dfabish2
I agree - the controllers did a great job avoiding catastrophe.

Two things recommended by the FAA might have helped here:

1) Repeating the name of the airline after the callsign (e.g. Delta 1348 Delta)
2) Using individual digits rather than grouped digits (e.g. Delta one-three-four-eight vs. Delta thirteen forty-eight)

I've spent a lot of time flying in and out of MDW, and the combination of airline operations and heavy PA usage (two flight schools, last I knew), along with the crowded runway/taxiway configurations, can make it a bit hectic.

 83 
 on: June 19, 2015, 01:14:08 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by tyketto
Both the MDW Ground and Local controllers did an excellent job in this instance.  Kudos to them.

Similar sounding call signs on a frequency happen many times daily.  I had one earlier today that could have been a problem especially as I vectored one to follow the other on final.  The pilots were alert and very attentive to the situation. 

w0x0f

And this is the crux of the matter. If both aircraft were told that similar callsigns were on the same frequency, they should have been very alert and attentive to every call going out on that frequency until they diverged. That obviously didn't appear to happen.

So ultimately, what will happen here? Is this a deal on the part of the controller, or is this pilot error? And this will ultimately bring up the rule change made back in the .65P days where they won't allow ATC to lock and load with TIPH/LUAW procedures (which nearly every airport applied for waivers to circumvent that rule)..

BL.

 84 
 on: June 19, 2015, 11:50:49 AM 
Started by RonR - Last post by RonR

Video of an A350 evaluation flight...

http://aviationweek.com/video/lets-go-flying-airbus-a350

Ron

 85 
 on: June 18, 2015, 03:38:10 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by w0x0f
Both the MDW Ground and Local controllers did an excellent job in this instance.  Kudos to them.

Similar sounding call signs on a frequency happen many times daily.  I had one earlier today that could have been a problem especially as I vectored one to follow the other on final.  The pilots were alert and very attentive to the situation. 

w0x0f

 86 
 on: June 18, 2015, 02:49:04 PM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by gbccc
CPDLC is for taxi clearances, etc.  It is not intended for tactical situations like crossing runways, takeoff and landing clearances, etc.  So CPDLC would not have helped. 

Since the controller knew he had similar sounding call-signs, why tell both aircraft to lineup and wait on intersecting runways.  Simply, placing SWA on the runway and clearing them for takeoff and then you could immediately clear DAL for takeoff.  The time to taxi onto the runway and start takeoff roll would never have casued a problem.

 87 
 on: June 18, 2015, 08:38:49 AM 
Started by topgun966 - Last post by Delta Echo
Such an upgrade already exists and is in use for some communications... it's call CPDLC. Wink

This is not fast or efficient.

Nor is it in use nation wide.

 88 
 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!

 89 
 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.

 90 
 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

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 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!