Narrative:

We were taxiing toward runway 18R on cvg tower frequency. Two airplanes were on final, one on short and another a ways out. After the first airplane landed the tower cleared us for an immediate takeoff on runway 18R. I said our call sign and repeated that we were cleared for takeoff on runway 18R. As we taxied onto the runway the aircraft Y on final was far enough out to be considered no factor. As we advanced power for a rolling takeoff the aircraft behind us mentioned to tower that there was an aircraft on the runway. The tower acknowledged him and directed him to go around. I mentioned to the captain that the guy behind us had to go around, thinking either he was being conservative or the tower had decided there might not be enough space between us. The tower then questioned something about our takeoff. The captain and I weren't sure of tower's meaning, so I reconfirmed our clearance to takeoff as the captain prepared to abort. The tower said we were cleared to takeoff, so we completed the takeoff and flight uneventfully. About 5 hours later we landed at lax and contacted cvg tower. The controller was now off duty, but the on-duty supervisor had listened to the tapes and indicated there might have been a misunderstanding as to who received the takeoff clearance. A possible explanation is either the tower gave us clearance by mistake or I accepted clearance for another aircraft by mistake. Either way, radio misunderstandings are fairly common during line operations. What precludes pilots or controllers from acting on misunderstandings is a proper readback. I always make sure of a complete readback beginning with my call sign and ending with the runway. Possibly the readback was garbled by another transmission. What made this situation so deceptive is that the clearance for an immediate takeoff was the appropriate clearance for us at that time. An aircraft on short final. Nothing seemed odd until the tower transmitted during takeoff. Also, having crossing runways at a busy airport controled by one frequency contributed to this situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Flight crew inadvertently accepted takeoff clearance meant for air carrier aircraft on runway 27. The clearance readback by the flight crew referred to in narrative was garbled (on the tape), thus the tower was not able to prevent the occurrence. The FAA is pursuing the matter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TKOF WITHOUT CLRNC FOR ACR ADVTECH LGT LEAD TO GO AROUND FOR ACR ACFT ON APCH TO SAME RWY AT CVG.

Narrative: WE WERE TAXIING TOWARD RWY 18R ON CVG TWR FREQ. TWO AIRPLANES WERE ON FINAL, ONE ON SHORT AND ANOTHER A WAYS OUT. AFTER THE FIRST AIRPLANE LANDED THE TWR CLRED US FOR AN IMMEDIATE TKOF ON RWY 18R. I SAID OUR CALL SIGN AND REPEATED THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 18R. AS WE TAXIED ONTO THE RWY THE ACFT Y ON FINAL WAS FAR ENOUGH OUT TO BE CONSIDERED NO FACTOR. AS WE ADVANCED PWR FOR A ROLLING TKOF THE ACFT BEHIND US MENTIONED TO TWR THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT ON THE RWY. THE TWR ACKNOWLEDGED HIM AND DIRECTED HIM TO GO AROUND. I MENTIONED TO THE CAPT THAT THE GUY BEHIND US HAD TO GO AROUND, THINKING EITHER HE WAS BEING CONSERVATIVE OR THE TWR HAD DECIDED THERE MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH SPACE BTWN US. THE TWR THEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT OUR TKOF. THE CAPT AND I WEREN'T SURE OF TWR'S MEANING, SO I RECONFIRMED OUR CLRNC TO TKOF AS THE CAPT PREPARED TO ABORT. THE TWR SAID WE WERE CLRED TO TKOF, SO WE COMPLETED THE TKOF AND FLT UNEVENTFULLY. ABOUT 5 HRS LATER WE LANDED AT LAX AND CONTACTED CVG TWR. THE CTLR WAS NOW OFF DUTY, BUT THE ON-DUTY SUPVR HAD LISTENED TO THE TAPES AND INDICATED THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHO RECEIVED THE TKOF CLRNC. A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS EITHER THE TWR GAVE US CLRNC BY MISTAKE OR I ACCEPTED CLRNC FOR ANOTHER ACFT BY MISTAKE. EITHER WAY, RADIO MISUNDERSTANDINGS ARE FAIRLY COMMON DURING LINE OPS. WHAT PRECLUDES PLTS OR CTLRS FROM ACTING ON MISUNDERSTANDINGS IS A PROPER READBACK. I ALWAYS MAKE SURE OF A COMPLETE READBACK BEGINNING WITH MY CALL SIGN AND ENDING WITH THE RWY. POSSIBLY THE READBACK WAS GARBLED BY ANOTHER XMISSION. WHAT MADE THIS SITUATION SO DECEPTIVE IS THAT THE CLRNC FOR AN IMMEDIATE TKOF WAS THE APPROPRIATE CLRNC FOR US AT THAT TIME. AN ACFT ON SHORT FINAL. NOTHING SEEMED ODD UNTIL THE TWR XMITTED DURING TKOF. ALSO, HAVING XING RWYS AT A BUSY ARPT CTLED BY ONE FREQ CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SITUATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. FLC INADVERTENTLY ACCEPTED TKOF CLRNC MEANT FOR ACR ACFT ON RWY 27. THE CLRNC READBACK BY THE FLC REFERRED TO IN NARRATIVE WAS GARBLED (ON THE TAPE), THUS THE TWR WAS NOT ABLE TO PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE. THE FAA IS PURSUING THE MATTER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.