ASA, DAL almost collide in ATL

[John Pennekamp]

As a controller, I actually appreciate the value of the old lights on, lights off practice. Many of us (espicially the oldtimers) watch (even during the day) what you have illuminated as you approach a runway with a hold short instruction. If you're all lit up, and have been told to hold short, I am going to say something....again...just to be sure.

I will say in this case, that given the particulars, that lights being off or on was proabbly not a contributing factor. However, just maybe, it will prevent the next one!! Just a thought.

BTW, today was really nice. I would like to thank everyone for the improved hold short readbacks! I do not think I had to ask anyone (except maybe 2 total out of my whole day - which is a true record) to read back their hold short instructions correctly! Almost 100% gave me correct and complete readbacks almost all day! Please keep up the great work. It makes my job infinitely easier, and will keep you a whole lot safer!!

I was wondering if y'all have gotten any guidance yet from this incident. For example, I figured they'd put the kibosh on the mass crossing of the inboards preceded with "all aircraft respond with callsigns only".

Have you guys in the tower heard any new procedures yet to safeguard this happening again?

 

[JoeMerchant]

From a good source, the crew read back "cross 27R" and the tower did not catch it..... Now NATCA is using this for their own purposes in negotiations..... Way to "stick together".....

IF this is true, ALPA should retaliate in the media.....

The way the quality of ATL ATC has deteriorated in the past few years, they really shouldn't be throwing stones......

 

[John Pennekamp]

From a good source, the crew read back "cross 27R" and the tower did not catch it..... Now NATCA is using this for their own purposes in negotiations..... Way to "stick together".....

IF this is true, ALPA should retaliate in the media.....

The way the quality of ATL ATC has deteriorated in the past few years, they really shouldn't be throwing stones......

ALPA shouldn't retaliate. Better to take the high road then to stoop to NATCA's gutter dwelling "play the media for personal gain" approach.

Agreed about the quality of ATL ATC. I really miss the days of Buzz and Smiley where no matter how busy it was nobody lost their cool.

Nowadays, somebody says "cleared to land" without mentioning the name of the runway, and everybody freaks out.

 

[JoeMerchant]

ALPA shouldn't retaliate. Better to take the high road then to stoop to NATCA's gutter dwelling "play the media for personal gain" approach.

IF it is true, the other side of the story should be put out in the media...... NATCA decided they want to debate this in the media..... let's play their game.....

Come on JP..... don't sound like a Herndon politician now.......

 

[atl pilot]

From a good source, the crew read back "cross 27R" and the tower did not catch it..... Now NATCA is using this for their own purposes in negotiations..... Way to "stick together".....

IF this is true, ALPA should retaliate in the media.....

The way the quality of ATL ATC has deteriorated in the past few years, they really shouldn't be throwing stones......

Joe,
Your good source is wrong. However, I agree with you that NATCA was out of line for making any comment at all.

 

[atl pilot]

I was wondering if y'all have gotten any guidance yet from this incident. For example, I figured they'd put the kibosh on the mass crossing of the inboards preceded with "all aircraft respond with callsigns only".

Have you guys in the tower heard any new procedures yet to safeguard this happening again?

John,
In answer to your question, no, and I don't suspect we will, b/c it doesn't really apply here. That was not the case in this event.
Generally speaking the only time we use that phraseology is when a hold short clearance is not required on the readback, i.e. when a group of you are inbound and holding short of rwy 9L/27R, and all we're doing is crossing you to taxiway L or M, as appropariate. There is no obligation or requirement on a simple crossing clearance, with no hold short provision, for you to do anything but acknowledge with your call sign. All were doing is trying to expedite you to the ramp (by omitting the unrequired long readbacks), while at the same time trying to minimize departure delsys. All those unrequired long readbacks take time. Time that really adds up! And time, in this game is a commodity.

 

[goahead]

John,
In answer to your question, no, and I don't suspect we will, b/c it doesn't really apply here. That was not the case in this event.
Generally speaking the only time we use that phraseology is when a hold short clearance is not required on the readback, i.e. when a group of you are inbound and holding short of rwy 9L/27R, and all we're doing is crossing you to taxiway L or M, as appropariate. There is no obligation or requirement on a simple crossing clearance, with no hold short provision, for you to do anything but acknowledge with your call sign. All were doing is trying to expedite you to the ramp (by omitting the unrequired long readbacks), while at the same time trying to minimize departure delsys. All those unrequired long readbacks take time. Time that really adds up! And time, in this game is a commodity.

atl,
I agree, this is a great procedure as it sames time.

 

[John Pennekamp]

John,
In answer to your question, no, and I don't suspect we will, b/c it doesn't really apply here. That was not the case in this event.
Generally speaking the only time we use that phraseology is when a hold short clearance is not required on the readback, i.e. when a group of you are inbound and holding short of rwy 9L/27R, and all we're doing is crossing you to taxiway L or M, as appropariate. There is no obligation or requirement on a simple crossing clearance, with no hold short provision, for you to do anything but acknowledge with your call sign. All were doing is trying to expedite you to the ramp (by omitting the unrequired long readbacks), while at the same time trying to minimize departure delsys. All those unrequired long readbacks take time. Time that really adds up! And time, in this game is a commodity.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that procedure, I just used it as an example. A better example would be to have the crossing aircraft contact the inboard tower rather than just monitor it. Many times, I cross, then when we switch over, the tower is half way through their crossing instructions. Then we're not sure if got crossed or not, and confusion (leading to unnecessary transmissions) ensues.

And of course, I realize that since the airplane was taxiing out, this issue really doesn't apply. It does seem like the crew just plain screwed up. Not trying to blame ATC, just addressing a new procedure that is a little bit confusing since we're having the discussion.

 

[Gulf-front]

Hello all,
I was number 4 or 5 to cross the runway that day. Behind the crew that had the close call. All I can say is it was close, but not as the Media made it out to be. I wish the crew the best of luck with this. P.S. How the heck did the news get a hold of this so fast! By the time I got back to ATL that day, the AJC had it on the web.
later.

 

[atl pilot]

John,
When we first started doing this monitor stuff, I too, was really skeptical. However, for the most part - it works well. You'd be surprised. The frequency congestion (espicially on 119.3/Rwy 27L.9R), when we have monitored approaches (meaning there is a final monitor and a Tower controller sharing the same frequency), plus having you PROFESSIONAL PILOTS (b/c you are professionals we can almost consistantly know that you're gonna be where you need to be when instructed to do so) check in, didn't really work. There was simply not enough time and space for everyone to get what they needed to say in without continuly stepping on one another. The monitor instruction has proven to work far better than I imagined or argued when it was first attempted. In an effort to try and somehat standardize the procedure, its just been extended to the whole process, rather than one position. Once we got the locals trained, it really has become an efficient operation - and btw, I NEVER thought that I would say that in the beginning. I was very much an advocate of the everybody checks in policy. But I was wrong. On the large scale there are really very few folks who are not on the right freq awaiting their next clearanace...some, but not many. Hope that answers your question!