Waaaay too close
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am
Waaaay too close
Somewhere out there is a tower controller wishing he would have had a better day.
http://media.aopa.org/asf/0809runway/AB ... 3AOPA.html
http://media.aopa.org/asf/0809runway/AB ... 3AOPA.html
Re: Waaaay too close
Sounds and looks like a 'deal' to me.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Re: Waaaay too close
Mental note to ISTP.
Before applying full power, look ahead of you to see if there's anything in the way.
-istp
Before applying full power, look ahead of you to see if there's anything in the way.
-istp

Re: Waaaay too close
tiny 172, halfway down the runway at night? might not have been the easiest thing to see, depending on weather and how well his lights were working. Not to totally excuse the CRJ crew if they didn't look, but if I heard a controller give an exit instruction to an aircraft, and then give me a clearance to depart a short time later, I'd be reasonably sure the controller watched the aircraft exit the runway. And if you're not expecting to see something, sometimes you don't.
Sounds like lots of blame to go around in this one, though.
Good to see everyone staying reasonably professional despite all the fuckups, though. Wonder if the 172 pilot had a clue what was going on until it was over.
Sounds like tower and ground were both in training:
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/press- ... spx?id=534
Sounds like lots of blame to go around in this one, though.
Good to see everyone staying reasonably professional despite all the fuckups, though. Wonder if the 172 pilot had a clue what was going on until it was over.
Sounds like tower and ground were both in training:
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/press- ... spx?id=534
ALLENTOWN, Pa. – A Mesa Airlines regional jet was forced to abort its takeoff and swerve on the runway to miss a Cessna on Friday evening at Lehigh Valley International Airport. There were two Federal Aviation Administration employees in the tower, both controller trainees.
The incident comes as the House Aviation Subcommittee prepares to hold a follow-up hearing this Thursday on runway safety. NATCA President Patrick Forrey will be testifying.
At approximately 7:35 p.m. EDT Friday, the Cessna landed on Runway 6. The Mesa Airlines regional jet (RJ), ASH7138 headed to Chicago O’Hare, was instructed to taxi into position and hold its position on the runway. The Cessna was told to exit the runway at Taxiway A4 and taxi to the ramp on the local control radio frequency.
The trainee working local control in the tower thought they saw the Cessna clear the runway and cleared the RJ for takeoff. But the Cessna missed its taxiway and was still on the runway as the RJ was picking up speed. The RJ saw the Cessna and aborted its takeoff but was close enough to the small plane that it had to swerve to the left to avoid a collision. The jet returned to the ramp and the flight to O’Hare was canceled.
Of the 31 on board in the tower and radar control room at this FAA facility, 11 are trainees. That is 35 percent, which NATCA believes is far too many trainees than a facility can safely train.
“This was a very serious incident that points out all of the problems with the ramifications of the FAA's understaffing issues nationwide and our concerns about allowing newly and partially certified controllers to work on their own,” Forrey said. “The FAA is so desperate to staff its towers they are forced to work trainees by themselves without adequate numbers of experienced controllers there to work with them. This has exposed the inexperience of our new workforce. These new hires are paying a heavy price for the continued failures of this reckless FAA management team. It’s unfair to these trainees and should be unacceptable to the flying public.”
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: Waaaay too close
Check Pilot, that is a very cool simulation. Where did you source it?
Re: Waaaay too close
Am I missing something?
Signed
Confused of Winnipeg
...doesn't make sense to me?!?! Not knowing the intricacies of the US/FAA system, were they actually "trainees" working by themselves or with a monitoring OJI/Instructor?There were two Federal Aviation Administration employees in the tower, both controller trainees
Signed
Confused of Winnipeg
Re: Waaaay too close
Yea, whenever I was training anyone, if I wasn't able to take over immediately I'd be in a world of shit. That was FSS, not ATC, but the idea is the same as far as training goes: trainees don't work alone, and the OJI is responsible for anything that happens. Seems totally messed up if there really were 2 unlicensed controllers working without direct supervision.
And if I was training someone, and didn't notice the runway incursion, I'd be in a world of shit for negligence.
And if I was training someone, and didn't notice the runway incursion, I'd be in a world of shit for negligence.
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
Re: Waaaay too close
A search of another "popular" aviation forum finds this
OK, now I'm scared........In the FAA you only need to be certified on a position to work it alone. The tower could have been staffed with two trainees, one certified on local control and one certified on ground control. But I would question where the supervisor was. Seeing neither controller was CPC (journeyman) they could not preform CIC duties.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am
Re: Waaaay too close
Rather than apportion blame for this one - sometimes it's too bad that the CVR stuff is privileged. I'll bet there were some words from the CRJ guys on the CVR that likely shouldn't be printed on this website. One can only imagine what was said inside the cockpit when they saw the other aircraft still on the runway. "er - hey what the fu.... REJECT NOW.." or something to that effect maybe? I'll bet there were other words too.
It's good to know that the CRJ pilot's were sharp and looking outside. Can anyone say HOT BRAKES!!!!! The aircraft brakes and probably the pilot's nerves all needed cooling down after that one.
It still boils down to "who ends up dead" - the controller? Nope.
It really is and always has been the guys up front to Captain the ship in the ultimate end. Good on those two guys for averting a bunch of mess!
It's good to know that the CRJ pilot's were sharp and looking outside. Can anyone say HOT BRAKES!!!!! The aircraft brakes and probably the pilot's nerves all needed cooling down after that one.
It still boils down to "who ends up dead" - the controller? Nope.
It really is and always has been the guys up front to Captain the ship in the ultimate end. Good on those two guys for averting a bunch of mess!
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: Waaaay too close
Down and clear on a4 not being heard by the controller or the crew should have been a good indication that there was still traffic on the runway. Should it not?
Re: Waaaay too close
I don't know how many people have noticed this but many small airplanes are very hard to see at night from behind. The strobes and all other lights show up well from head on or the side but from directly behind all you see usually is one small white light and a weak blinking red light. Navajo's are the worst. If the white tail light is out, it is almost impossible to see the airplane from directly behind. I have almost taxxied into one several times.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:14 pm
Re: Waaaay too close
No, down and clear is only required if requested. In this case the controller was working alone operating both tower and ground. He had asked the plane where he was going and gave him taxi instructions and to stay this frequency expecting him to exit right after the transmission. The airplane responded and should have taxied in as directed without saying anything else. He sounded confident and I don't think I would have had any alarm bells going off.freakonature wrote:Down and clear on a4 not being heard by the controller or the crew should have been a good indication that there was still traffic on the runway. Should it not?
On the other hand, once he said "We missed A4," I definitely would have told the RJ to abort and passed traffic. Unless the controller saw the RJ already stopping or past the aircraft, I'm not sure why he didn't say anything, other than a case of lock jaw.
I'm with Jerricho, if this was a trainee with no-one standing behind him ready to take control... something is wrong! It looks like it was pure luck that we're still talking what ifs here.
Situational awareness can be a life saver and could have made this a non incident if the cessna pilot had been aware of what was going on. The controller cleared a plane for take off on 06... the runway that he just landed and had not yet exited... where was his alarm bells??? Sounds like he had turned off his selective hearing and was busy looking for A4 only.
Re: Waaaay too close
Either way, the MD80 pilot on the radio may have been the coolest guy in that situation...
"we are gonna need to cool...........*chuckle* the airplane was still on the runway guys...."
"we are gonna need to cool...........*chuckle* the airplane was still on the runway guys...."