GVFlyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Posts
- 1,461
Runway Incursion Reported at LAX
4 hours ago
LOS ANGELES — Two airliners came within 8,000 feet of each other on a Los Angeles International Airport runway after an air traffic controller miscommunicated with the pilots, authorities said.
The runway incursion Wednesday night involved an American Airlines plane arriving from Mexico and a Mexicana Airlines plane preparing for takeoff. The arriving plane, an MD-80 from San Jose del Cabo, had just landed on the outer runway and was about to cross the inner runway, where an Airbus A319 was about to take off for Morelia, Mexico, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor.
The traffic controller told the American Airlines pilot to stop before crossing the inner runway, Gregor said. The pilot apparently misheard the direction and read back that he would go ahead and cross the runway. The controller did not catch the pilot's statement and cleared the Mexicana flight for takeoff before realizing that the American Airlines jetliner was about to roll onto the runway, the FAA said.
The controller immediately told both pilots to stop. No injuries were reported.
"We're logging this as a controller error and not a pilot error because the burden is on the controller to ensure that the pilot's read-back is correct," Gregor said.(Italics added)
The controller will undergo more training, authorities said.
Meanwhile, aviation officials in Illinois reported two errors in which airplanes flew too close to each other Thursday. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said the planes were not in danger of colliding in either case.
In one error at the FAA's Chicago Center radar facility in Aurora, traffic controllers gave clearance to an American Airlines plane coming from O'Hare International Airport and another plane heading to Milwaukee, but one of the pilots did not follow instructions, Molinaro said. The planes passed 4.17 miles away from each other near Goshen, Ind.; the recommended distance is five miles.
The same day, controllers improperly directed a Boeing 757 flown by United Airlines and another flown by American to fly 2.8 miles apart as they prepared to land one after the other at O'Hare, Molinaro said. The standard distance in that situation is four miles.
(This version corrects that the Illinois encounter involved an American jet leaving O'Hare, not approaching it.)
I italicized FAA spokesman's Gregor's statement because it seems to be a rather dramatic restatement of the 1999 FAA interpretive ruling on ATC Compliance. I will requote it here.
On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published in the Federal Register an Interpretive Ruling that reacts to a line of cases decided by administrative law judges from the National Transportation Safety Board concerning pilot compliance with air traffic control instructions.
In the Interpretive Ruling, the FAA restates its long-held policy that it is a pilot’s duty to listen attentively to and comply fully with all ATC instructions and that read-backs, even if incorrect and not corrected by the controller, do not excuse errors that result from not hearing or complying fully with an instruction. In cases beginning with Administrator v. Frohmuth, the NTSB has excused pilot errors in cases where pilots gave incomplete or incorrect read-backs which were not corrected by controllers. In the FAA’s opinion, these NTSB decisions substitute a duty to accurately and fully read back instructions for a duty to listen attentively and comply.
The FAA Interpretive Ruling states that this line of NTSB cases incorrectly interpret FAA regulations, which the FAA believes do not provide a shield from liability to a pilot who reads an instruction back improperly or incompletely and does not receive a correction from the air traffic controller. The Ruling further states that the FAA may consider the fact that the pilot gave a full readback in deciding the appropriate sanction for a violation of an air traffic instruction or clearance if, under the circumstances, the controller reasonably could have recognized the pilot’s error in receiving or interpreting the instruction or clearance and corrected it but failed to do so. The mere act of reading back does not, according to the FAA, shift the burden to the controller and cannot insulate the pilot from his or her primary responsibility under part 91.123 of the FARs to listen attentively, hear accurately, and construe reasonably a controller’s instructions.
Comments?
GV
~
4 hours ago
LOS ANGELES — Two airliners came within 8,000 feet of each other on a Los Angeles International Airport runway after an air traffic controller miscommunicated with the pilots, authorities said.
The runway incursion Wednesday night involved an American Airlines plane arriving from Mexico and a Mexicana Airlines plane preparing for takeoff. The arriving plane, an MD-80 from San Jose del Cabo, had just landed on the outer runway and was about to cross the inner runway, where an Airbus A319 was about to take off for Morelia, Mexico, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor.
The traffic controller told the American Airlines pilot to stop before crossing the inner runway, Gregor said. The pilot apparently misheard the direction and read back that he would go ahead and cross the runway. The controller did not catch the pilot's statement and cleared the Mexicana flight for takeoff before realizing that the American Airlines jetliner was about to roll onto the runway, the FAA said.
The controller immediately told both pilots to stop. No injuries were reported.
"We're logging this as a controller error and not a pilot error because the burden is on the controller to ensure that the pilot's read-back is correct," Gregor said.(Italics added)
The controller will undergo more training, authorities said.
Meanwhile, aviation officials in Illinois reported two errors in which airplanes flew too close to each other Thursday. Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Tony Molinaro said the planes were not in danger of colliding in either case.
In one error at the FAA's Chicago Center radar facility in Aurora, traffic controllers gave clearance to an American Airlines plane coming from O'Hare International Airport and another plane heading to Milwaukee, but one of the pilots did not follow instructions, Molinaro said. The planes passed 4.17 miles away from each other near Goshen, Ind.; the recommended distance is five miles.
The same day, controllers improperly directed a Boeing 757 flown by United Airlines and another flown by American to fly 2.8 miles apart as they prepared to land one after the other at O'Hare, Molinaro said. The standard distance in that situation is four miles.
(This version corrects that the Illinois encounter involved an American jet leaving O'Hare, not approaching it.)
I italicized FAA spokesman's Gregor's statement because it seems to be a rather dramatic restatement of the 1999 FAA interpretive ruling on ATC Compliance. I will requote it here.
AVIATION PRACTICE BULLETIN
APRIL 12, 1999
FAA Interpretive Ruling on Compliance with ATC Clearances
On April 1, 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration published in the Federal Register an Interpretive Ruling that reacts to a line of cases decided by administrative law judges from the National Transportation Safety Board concerning pilot compliance with air traffic control instructions.
In the Interpretive Ruling, the FAA restates its long-held policy that it is a pilot’s duty to listen attentively to and comply fully with all ATC instructions and that read-backs, even if incorrect and not corrected by the controller, do not excuse errors that result from not hearing or complying fully with an instruction. In cases beginning with Administrator v. Frohmuth, the NTSB has excused pilot errors in cases where pilots gave incomplete or incorrect read-backs which were not corrected by controllers. In the FAA’s opinion, these NTSB decisions substitute a duty to accurately and fully read back instructions for a duty to listen attentively and comply.
The FAA Interpretive Ruling states that this line of NTSB cases incorrectly interpret FAA regulations, which the FAA believes do not provide a shield from liability to a pilot who reads an instruction back improperly or incompletely and does not receive a correction from the air traffic controller. The Ruling further states that the FAA may consider the fact that the pilot gave a full readback in deciding the appropriate sanction for a violation of an air traffic instruction or clearance if, under the circumstances, the controller reasonably could have recognized the pilot’s error in receiving or interpreting the instruction or clearance and corrected it but failed to do so. The mere act of reading back does not, according to the FAA, shift the burden to the controller and cannot insulate the pilot from his or her primary responsibility under part 91.123 of the FARs to listen attentively, hear accurately, and construe reasonably a controller’s instructions.
Comments?
GV
~
Last edited:
:laugh: 
