 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
First officer of government small transport started takeoff without coordinating action with PIC who was supposed to be the PF.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 106179 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198903 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : tus |
| State Reference | AZ |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | other |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport |
| Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff other |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government other |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time total : 1290 flight time type : 100 |
| ASRS Report | 106179 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government other |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : rejected takeoff |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Prior to taxi the PIC asked if I would handle aircraft radio communications, which I did, while he flew the aircraft. After runup I asked the PIC if he was ready for takeoff (using the aircraft intercom). After the PIC's affirmative response, tus tower issued a 'hold short for landing traffic.' then, after that landing, cleared us for immediate takeoff. The PIC failed to respond, so I proceeded to initiate a takeoff (I'm also rated as a PIC). The PIC retarded the throttle, questioning my action. I then learned that the PIC had not been monitoring aircraft radios, but had been attempting to contact other ground units on the agency's VHF radios. Of course tower cancelled our departure clearance! The PIC further advised, 'that's the way we always do it in miami,' as the reason for his failure to monitor ATC. This incident illustrated the necessity for organizations using multiple pilots, who may not always fly together, to develop SOP's, and for crew members to understand and adhere thereto. My impression was that it was extremely hazardous for the PIC not to monitor ATC, or to prioritize communications with ground units above ATC communications.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FO OF GOV SMT STARTED TKOF WITHOUT COORDINATING ACTION WITH PIC WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PF.
Narrative: PRIOR TO TAXI THE PIC ASKED IF I WOULD HANDLE ACFT RADIO COMS, WHICH I DID, WHILE HE FLEW THE ACFT. AFTER RUNUP I ASKED THE PIC IF HE WAS READY FOR TKOF (USING THE ACFT INTERCOM). AFTER THE PIC'S AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE, TUS TWR ISSUED A 'HOLD SHORT FOR LNDG TFC.' THEN, AFTER THAT LNDG, CLRED US FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF. THE PIC FAILED TO RESPOND, SO I PROCEEDED TO INITIATE A TKOF (I'M ALSO RATED AS A PIC). THE PIC RETARDED THE THROTTLE, QUESTIONING MY ACTION. I THEN LEARNED THAT THE PIC HAD NOT BEEN MONITORING ACFT RADIOS, BUT HAD BEEN ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT OTHER GND UNITS ON THE AGENCY'S VHF RADIOS. OF COURSE TWR CANCELLED OUR DEP CLRNC! THE PIC FURTHER ADVISED, 'THAT'S THE WAY WE ALWAYS DO IT IN MIAMI,' AS THE REASON FOR HIS FAILURE TO MONITOR ATC. THIS INCIDENT ILLUSTRATED THE NECESSITY FOR ORGANIZATIONS USING MULTIPLE PLTS, WHO MAY NOT ALWAYS FLY TOGETHER, TO DEVELOP SOP'S, AND FOR CREW MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND AND ADHERE THERETO. MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS FOR THE PIC NOT TO MONITOR ATC, OR TO PRIORITIZE COMS WITH GND UNITS ABOVE ATC COMS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.