This near-collision on the runway between a plane taking off and another that was about to cross the runway opens up a discussion about why clearances are given "on different frequencies" that can generate potentially serious accidents.

It happened last Oct 11th 2024 at San Diego APT when a Southwest Airlines 737-800, WN-1478 from San Diego, CA to Dallas Love, TX (USA), was cleared to line up with runway 27 for takeoff and hold "from the tower" but "on the ground frequency" a Southwest Airlines 737-700, flight WN-785 from San Diego, CA to Phoenix, AZ (USA), had received taxi clearance to reach the runway holding point but due to the closure of taxiway B between B4 and B6 for construction, it had to cross the runway at B6 to reach the holding point via taxiway C.

Ground control cleared WN-785 to cross the runway while WN-1478 was lining up with the runway.

Shortly after WN-1478 was cleared for takeoff by the tower while WN-785 was about to cross the short holding line.

In the audio of the video for a few seconds you can hear from the tower "Southwest 1478, Cancel takeoff clearance" and from the ground "Southwest 785, hold position", the crew reported that they had already crossed the short holding line.

WN-1478 did not react to the instruction to cancel the takeoff clearance, the tower repeated the instruction, only then the crew confirmed "refuse". The aircraft rejected takeoff at approximately 100 knots above ground and slowed to taxi speed before reaching B6, then turned via taxiway C6 onto taxiway C. WN-785 was then cleared to cross the runway onto taxiway C.

 

 

Edited October 18, 20241 yr by charliearon
embed video

This individual vehiculates statements and speculations of high-speed rejection without any data. It was interesting how convenient it was to talk with one of the airplane's passengers. Other than that, he's pretty close.

From this clip, the bottom line is that a ground controller issued clearance to cross an active runway, which is different from his area of responsibility. Before crossing an active runway anywhere in the world, you must be handed over to the tower controller unless the ground and tower controller are the same and only one frequency is used for both. JUST ANOTHER LUCKY DAY.  

 

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

This individual vehiculates statements and speculations of high-speed rejection without any data. It was interesting how convenient it was to talk with one of the airplane's passengers. Other than that, he's pretty close.

From this clip, the bottom line is that a ground controller issued clearance to cross an active runway, which is different from his area of responsibility. Before crossing an active runway anywhere in the world, you must be handed over to the tower controller unless the ground and tower controller are the same and only one frequency is used for both. JUST ANOTHER LUCKY DAY.  

 

Juan Browne (BlancoLirio) Is a 777 First Officer for American Airlines who also flew for the US Air Force so it's not like he's a first year Cessna pilot so I'd trust his speculation on what happened.

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

Before crossing an active runway anywhere in the world, you must be handed over to the tower controller unless the ground and tower controller are the same and only one frequency is used for both.

 I think it's an ICAO best practice, but that's about it. 

46 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

 I think it's an ICAO best practice, but that's about it. 

I can't find that reference, though we can get more information from one of our controllers in our forum. For example, I am based in KJFK, we are instructed to contact the tower before crossing any active runway and return back to the ground as necessary. Under ATC procedures for this scenario, our FOM explicitly mentions that we must be handed over to the tower frequency/controller if available or just transmit in blind our intensions. Yes, there are certain airports when the tower is closed after certain hours, and even if we fly 121, we revert to that procedure. That is approved by the FAA FSDO, but no other reference I can provide. My opinion is that even if the ground controller issues such a clearance, it should be in concert with the tower. Otherwise, we can have some nasty results. 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

I can't find that reference, though we can get more information from one of our controllers in our forum. For example, I am based in KJFK, we are instructed to contact the tower before crossing any active runway and return back to the ground as necessary.

 It comes down to different procedures for different units. JFK had that really nasty occurrence recently with multiple aircraft crossing all of which were on ground and then SWR gets cleared for takeoff. Having them all on the same freq certainly helps mitigate the possibility but it's still not a 100% that the holes in the swiss cheese don't line up.

If we talk about runway incursions during a takeoff, I remember that 47 years have passed since the Tenerife air disaster due to the collision on the runway between the KLM 747 taking off and the Pan Am 747 taxiing on the runway and which caused the death of 583 people and 61 survivors of the Pan Am 747 where the runway incursion, the fog and human errors were the causes of this disaster.

Unfortunately, there are many accidents due to incorrect runway incursions. I personally have a terrible memory of the disaster of October 8, 2001 at LIML because I had just arrived at the airport for work and there was a very thick fog, when a Cessna Citation CJ2 whose pilots instead of taxiing around the runway mistakenly took a reserved path at the exit of the runway and made an incursion onto the runway while an SAS MD-87 was taking off, which after the impact crashed into the baggage handling building. There were 118 deaths and numerous serious injuries in the building that caught fire.

The Tenerife disaster led to changes in procedures and communications between the Tower and pilots but, IMHO but after 47 years, with the enormous volume of current flights together with the development of technologies that have increased flight safety, I find it unacceptable that there are still quite a few runway incursions, given that recently the FAA opens audits into runway incursions at 45 US airports.

Who knows if, instead of electronic technology, we will have to think about making...underpasses to allow the planes to pass safely under the runway!

 

https://youtu.be/-E6zo0zVimw?si=UKkT1oJ5wuw1Xatztanza

3 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

 It comes down to different procedures for different units.

Based on what he says, the ground controller gave taxi instructions to cross the runway at B6 while the tower gave t.o clearance to the other airplane for t.o. To me, this indicates that no coordination between the ground and the tower took place (speculation on my part). Now, this is where I disagree with you that "there are different procedures for different units" when the ATC book and FOM clearly state under:

 

3-1-3 USE OF ACTIVE RUNWAYS

The local controller has primary responsibility for operations conducted on the active runway and must control the use of those runways. Positive coordination and control is required as follows:

NOTE-

Exceptions may be authorized only as provided in paragraph 1-1-11, Constraints Governing Supplements and Procedural Deviations, and FAA Order JO 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, paragraph 10-1-7, Use of Active Runways, where justified by extraordinary circumstances at specific locations.

REFERENCE-

FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 1-1-11, Constraints Governing Supplements and Procedural Deviations.
FAA Order JO 7210.3, Para 10-1-7, Use of Active Runways.

1. Ground control must obtain approval from local control before authorizing an aircraft or a vehicle to cross or use any portion of an active runway. The coordination must include the point/intersection at the runway where the operation will occur.

 

We don't have the ATC book, but we have extracts to highlight this issue. 

I wish I had that book available for educational purposes. This aviation business is a constant learning curve.

20 minutes ago, LRBS said:

To me, this indicates that no coordination between the ground and the tower took place (speculation on my part).

Exactly, just speculation. We need to wait and see what comes from the investigation.

 Just because the aircraft are on different frequencies doesn't mean that there was no coordination involved. Some unit procedures require switching aircraft needing to cross runways that they don't control to the Tower freq while others retain them on ground. There are positives and negatives to each method.

Edited October 18, 20241 yr by Dave_YVR