ASA, DAL almost collide in ATL

[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!

 

[Speedtape]

Not sure, but turning on the taxi and/or landing lights while in position aren't going to do much to stop a plane approaching you from behind.

You are correct. However, at LA, somehow the metro that was holding in position was forgotten by ATC. In the aftermath, it was decided, in the future, that an a/c that was in position and hold should turn on all his lights so that it would be more visible from the Tower. It had nothing to do with the approaching a/c on final.

I have not been in the LA tower, but I can imagine that at night, that without high visibility, small aircraft could easily fade into all the other lights at that airport. This issue brought about that change. In addition, it seems that ATC subsequently was mandated to issue information to a/c on approach in the landing clearance, "Anyplane123 cleared to land R/W 27R, a B787 is holding in position for T/0 prior to your arrival."

It's my recollection that this accident happened late at night and in a low activity time period. LA, not unlike most large airports, works with reduced staffs because of reduced demand during these time periods. In addition, many times available runways are reduced to accomodate the lower activity and staffing. Many times this is when R/W inspections may occur. It poses it's own set of concerns and procedures.

 

[Speedtape]

Atl pilot,

It appears that you may be with ATC. If so, thanks for joining in and adding meaningful dialogue and insight. Since 9/11, it is nearly impossible to visit Tracon or the Tower. Those visits were always meaninful visits for me and to clear up misconceptions when I did not have the "Big Picture." It is quite helpful to know what Tracon knows and expects in the approach and departure process. It could make all our jobs (pilots and ATC) easier and more efficient.

Perhaps, other methods of interaction with ATC should be explored in addition to this forum to provide education, build trust, and cooperation between our work groups. Most pilots do not have a clue as to what you and your fellow workers do everyday with limited resources and technology that is just about as old as the electrical outlet.

Thank you for participating,

Everypilot

 

[John Pennekamp]

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!

Thanks for the info and the very insightful discussion. It's good to hear the perspective of the other side.