http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/national/29miss.html?ex=1285646400&en=5db17a2a84fa52cb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

September 29, 2005
Near Miss for 2 Jets on a Las Vegas Runway
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - An America West passenger jet taking off from Las
Vegas missed hitting an Air Canada jet by about 100 feet last Thursday
night, according to a preliminary report, because a controller in the tower
confused two planes and issued conflicting instructions.

The controller has been taken off duty and sent for more training, according
to the Federal Aviation Administration, and the episode is under
investigation.

America West Flight 539, departing for Cleveland, was cleared for takeoff
about 11 p.m. local time on Runway 25 Right. At the same time, Air Canada
Flight 593 had landed on Runway 25 Left, a parallel runway, on a flight from
Toronto, and had been cleared to taxi to the terminal, across 25 Right. A
collision was averted because the America West plane was airborne by the
time it reached the point where the Air Canada plane was crossing.

The America West and Air Canada planes were both midsized Airbus jets that
carry more than 100 passengers.

An F.A.A. spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency did not believe that
the America West plane had flown directly over the Air Canada plane, but
that investigators were still trying to determine how close the two jets
came.

Donn Walker, an F.A.A. spokesman, said the tower controller had cleared the
America West plane for takeoff. Then a different America West plane, a
Boeing 757, taxiing behind Flight 539, asked for a brief delay. The
controller responded by revoking the takeoff clearance for the 757 -
although he had never issued one for that plane - and cleared the Air Canada
plane to cross the runway. Meanwhile Flight 539, duly cleared, rolled down
the runway for takeoff.

"Our system is set up as much as possible to absorb human error and still
not have a collision," Mr. Walker said.

He said, as did others, that the aviation agency had computer systems in
place that would alert controllers to some kinds of human error, like pilots
not following directions because they misheard an instruction or got lost in
the field, but that it did not have an automatic system for warning
controllers about confusing two airplanes.

In July at Kennedy International Airport in New York, a DC-8 cargo plane
nearly hit a fully loaded Boeing 767 that blundered onto the active runway.
The tower controller could not spot the problem because of heavy rain and
clouds that cut visibility to near zero and made radar ineffective. The
aviation agency has a system for seeing through clouds and rain, using
signals given off by the planes themselves, as opposed to radar, which
bounces electromagnetic energy off the planes' skins. But the agency has not
installed it at Kennedy.

("H.P." wrote)
> September 29, 2005
> Near Miss for 2 Jets on a Las Vegas Runway
> By MATTHEW L. WALD
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - An America West passenger jet taking off from Las
> Vegas missed hitting an Air Canada jet by about 100 feet last Thursday
> night, according to a preliminary report, because a controller in the
> tower confused two planes and issued conflicting instructions.

[snip]
> He said, as did others, that the aviation agency had computer systems in
> place...

> The aviation agency has a system for seeing through clouds and rain, using
> signals given off by the planes themselves, as opposed to radar, which
> bounces electromagnetic energy off the planes' skins. But the agency has
> not installed it at Kennedy.


I thought it was odd, in a creapy kind of way, that the reporter kept
referring to it as 'the agency.' Very Matt Helm, ...or Our Man Flint. Either
one.


Montblack

I can't understand why a series of stop/caution/go lights has not been
implemented at intesections of runways and taxiways. Controller clears one
aircraft for takeoff, the intersection lights go from yellow to red.
Progessive taxiing is following a series of green lights. It seems so cheap
and easy -- much easier than cleaning up the wreckage of two jets.

But that's just like another idea I had, make all runway lights respond to
VHF Guard in addition to the CTAF or other published frequency. I was
flying back near Philly one night, juggling the usual combination of charts
and pencils in the dark. I was under a shelf, and not particularly high. I
thought if the engine quit, I'd be dead because even with a GPS, I wouldn't
have time to find the the frequency, turn on the lights, locate the airport,
etc. How nice to put in 121.5. key the mike and watch all of the lights in
the vicinity come on at the same time.

I called AOPA and ASF and they said it was a clever idea, but no one was
interested in implementing it.

>> WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - An America West passenger jet taking off from Las
>> Vegas missed hitting an Air Canada jet by about 100 feet last Thursday
>> night, according to a preliminary report, because a controller in the
>> tower confused two planes and issued conflicting instructions.

lets see if you read the article correctly.
Aircraft A is cleared to take off
Aircraft B is cleared to take off behind Aircraft A
Aircraft B says there will be a delay
Controller cancels Aircraft B take off clearance. (Changes your lights from
red to green for the taxing aircraft)
And then Clears Aircraft C to taxi across runway while Aircraft A is still
taking off.

That's what I read.. what did you read.. I don't think your lighting
thinking will work any better.
ATC controls the lights too.. radio or lights.. no different

BT

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>I can't understand why a series of stop/caution/go lights has not been
>implemented at intesections of runways and taxiways. Controller clears one
>aircraft for takeoff, the intersection lights go from yellow to red.
>Progessive taxiing is following a series of green lights. It seems so
>cheap and easy -- much easier than cleaning up the wreckage of two jets.
>
> But that's just like another idea I had, make all runway lights respond to
> VHF Guard in addition to the CTAF or other published frequency. I was
> flying back near Philly one night, juggling the usual combination of
> charts and pencils in the dark. I was under a shelf, and not particularly
> high. I thought if the engine quit, I'd be dead because even with a GPS,
> I wouldn't have time to find the the frequency, turn on the lights, locate
> the airport, etc. How nice to put in 121.5. key the mike and watch all of
> the lights in the vicinity come on at the same time.
>
> I called AOPA and ASF and they said it was a clever idea, but no one was
> interested in implementing it.
>
>>> WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - An America West passenger jet taking off from Las
>>> Vegas missed hitting an Air Canada jet by about 100 feet last Thursday
>>> night, according to a preliminary report, because a controller in the
>>> tower confused two planes and issued conflicting instructions.
>
>

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:05:38 -0400, "LWG" >
wrote in >::

>I can't understand why a series of stop/caution/go lights has not been
>implemented at intesections of runways and taxiways.

There is a system like that employs lights imbedded in the taxiways at
the hold bars called: Surface Movement Guidance and Control System.
http://www.gofir.com/aviation_accident_prevention_program/runway_safety_program/html/surface_movement_guidance_system.htm

>"LW" wrote in message
> I can't understand why a series of stop/caution/go lights has not been
> implemented at intesections of runways and taxiways. Controller clears
one
> aircraft for takeoff, the intersection lights go from yellow to red.
> Progessive taxiing is following a series of green lights. It seems so
cheap
> and easy -- much easier than cleaning up the wreckage of two jets.

The FAA has instituted a test program similar to what you describe. So far,
the test results are disappointing.

D.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote
>
> The FAA has instituted a test program similar to what you describe. So
far,
> the test results are disappointing.

Is there some way with existing technology, that a pilot could alert ground
personnel that he is on takeoff roll?

I picture some code be entered into a transponder, from the time the pilot
receives takeoff clearance, until (s)he goes wheels up, then goes back to
the assigned code. The computers and display would then clearly show the
location of the pilot, on which runway, and that he has begun rolling.
Perhaps that (in addition) could trigger the stop lights.

Could the same work for when (s)he has been given landing clearance, and is
on very short final?

Just an idea, and I'm sure there are problems, but could this, or something
like it work?
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:52:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Capt.Doug" > wrote
>>
>> The FAA has instituted a test program similar to what you describe. So
>far,
>> the test results are disappointing.
>
>Is there some way with existing technology, that a pilot could alert ground
>personnel that he is on takeoff roll?
>
>I picture some code be entered into a transponder, from the time the pilot
>receives takeoff clearance, until (s)he goes wheels up, then goes back to
>the assigned code. The computers and display would then clearly show the
>location of the pilot, on which runway, and that he has begun rolling.
>Perhaps that (in addition) could trigger the stop lights.
>
>Could the same work for when (s)he has been given landing clearance, and is
>on very short final?
>
>Just an idea, and I'm sure there are problems, but could this, or something
>like it work?

There is something like that available, only not for aircraft. When I
was a police officer we had mobile data terminals (MDT's) in our
patrol car. A signal would go off telling us that we had an incoming
call, I hit one button to acknowledge the call, The next button I
would hit would to tell the system that I was en route. When I got to
the scene, I would hit another button that told the system I was
there. Then when I was finished, I would hit another button that
told the system I was done and that I was back in service. I could go
from call to call to call all day long without even talking on the
radio. So I could easily see this implemented in aircraft as follows:
Button one: acknowledge cleared for take off, Button two: Cleared
runway. Button fthreer: acknowledge cleared for landing. Button
four: off of active. With this incorporated into the transponder,
the system would see which transponder sent the signal and change the
lights as so required. So it could be accomplished, I would just hate
to see what the cost would be to do something like that.



Scott D.

<Scott D> wrote

> With this incorporated into the transponder,
> the system would see which transponder sent the signal and change the
> lights as so required. So it could be accomplished, I would just hate
> to see what the cost would be to do something like that.

That's why I think there would have to be a system that would use existing,
already installed equipment. We need to get creative for this one,
everyone!
--
Jim in NC

One idea I had was to use GPS and a simple ethernet network topology to
allow planes to do some of the work themselves.

Each plane, large or small would have a computer onboard that would take the
GPS position data and broadcast it with some additional info such as
heading, airspeed, ground speed, altitude, etc. Using ethernet technology
each plane would send and receive information from all other active aircraft
in the area. In remote areas were transponders don't work well they could
even relay packets plane to plane. Rather then worry about transponder
codes, the computer would accept the aircraft call sign and broadcast it so
everyone who sees it can call them up if they have to. Ethernet technology
is sofisticated enough to pass large amounts of data between hundreds of
computers on a single network with minimal collisions and was originally
designed to be wireless. It also includes error correction so that the data
received can be reliablely decoded.

The incoming packets would be entered into the on-board computer and project
on the screen the image of a plane complete with a 5 min line (= to the
distance the plane will fly in 5 min.) on the intended flight path. If two
lines intersect, at least one of the planes will have a 5 min warning and
can change course. You could even do a security bubble where you have a
variable size bubble around the plane and if two bubbles touch you have a
warning message come up. With the current processing capability of an Intel
CPU, performing one task only, this should not be a problem. Not to mention
that you have multiple computers each looking around each plane for possible
threats.

On the ground each plane would be able to see where the other active
aircraft are on an airport diagram and even see if one is on a takeoff roll
the pilot waiting to cross the threshold could see that the plane is in
position and either ready to roll or rolling. He could then act as a backup
for ATC, and catch possible mistakes before they become bigger.

The system could even be used to provide WX info to the appropriate agency.
Imagine if the system could provide true airspeed and ground speed as well
as heading and the difference between heading and the way the plane is
pointing. A computer on the ground could calculate wind speed aloft all
along the flight path. I am sure the weather service would love it and be
willing to help with the cost.

A very simple idea really.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> <Scott D> wrote
>
> > With this incorporated into the transponder,
> > the system would see which transponder sent the signal and change the
> > lights as so required. So it could be accomplished, I would just hate
> > to see what the cost would be to do something like that.
>
> That's why I think there would have to be a system that would use
existing,
> already installed equipment. We need to get creative for this one,
> everyone!
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Morgans wrote:

> Is there some way with existing technology, that a pilot could alert ground
> personnel that he is on takeoff roll?

I have a system that has always worked for me but would not be universal. So
far, every time I've been cleared for takeoff, I've been sitting at the
hold-short line, ready to go. When I acknowledge the takeoff clearance, I add
the word "rolling" to the end -- as in "3162 Kebec, rolling."

As I understand this situation, though, one aircraft had already been cleared
for takeoff after another one. In that case, the clearance for that aircraft
would be issued some time before the aircraft actually starts the takeoff run,
so it would not be appropriate for the pilot to say he's taking off.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

>"Andre" wrote in message
> One idea I had was to use GPS and a simple ethernet network topology to
> allow planes to do some of the work themselves.

There are some other test programs in place similar to your idea. One is
ADS-B being tested in Alaska which has a lack of infrastructure. Already in
place is TIS. My C-414A has this installed and it is wonderful. The
compromise with it is when I go to the islands where the radar sites don't
send a TIS signal.

As for the runway incursion problem, Ground surveillence radar is being
tested in Providence (PVD) and Orlando (MCO). I hear that it is very
successful when combined with the new lighting program.

D.