37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 251757 |
Time | |
Date | 199309 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : bos |
State Reference | MA |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1000 msl bound upper : 1000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : bos |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 4600 flight time type : 1500 |
ASRS Report | 251757 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : instrument |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : clearance other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | other |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Ambiguous |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Situations | |
ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Approaching bos TCA we were told to expect runway 22L for landing. Once inside the TCA we were told to expect runway 27 for traffic flow reasons. On the right downwind for 27 ATC pointed out traffic that we were to follow that was already on the localizer for 27. As we turned toward the inbound course ATC told us to follow the traffic visually to the runway, cleared for the visual to 27 to hold short of 22L, and contact tower. We acknowledged with the readback. Now on final about 6 mi out my first officer was researching the distance remaining to 22L intersection. Having some uncertainty of the distance and being dark we were not able to visually identify where runway 22L crossed 27. The lighting of the runways made it extremely difficult. At this point, approximately 3.5 mi from the runway we told the tower we were unable with the hold short clearance. He then told a widebody transport to cancel its takeoff clearance. Apparently he had just began his roll. After clearing the runway we were told to call the tower to discuss the matter. When I called, I told him basically what I wrote in this report. In closing, I would never continue an approach if there is uncertainty. Secondly, dark as it was, the runway crossing could not be clearly idented. I think improvement is needed with runway lighting identify, and hold short clrncs need to be better defined in areas of distance remaining and options in the event of a missed approach procedure in order to avoid departing traffic from crossing runways are important especially at night.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: COMMUTER ACFT UNABLE TO HOLD SHORT OF XING RWY AS CLRED. NOTIFIED TWR.
Narrative: APCHING BOS TCA WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 22L FOR LNDG. ONCE INSIDE THE TCA WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 27 FOR TFC FLOW REASONS. ON THE R DOWNWIND FOR 27 ATC POINTED OUT TFC THAT WE WERE TO FOLLOW THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE LOC FOR 27. AS WE TURNED TOWARD THE INBOUND COURSE ATC TOLD US TO FOLLOW THE TFC VISUALLY TO THE RWY, CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO 27 TO HOLD SHORT OF 22L, AND CONTACT TWR. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH THE READBACK. NOW ON FINAL ABOUT 6 MI OUT MY FO WAS RESEARCHING THE DISTANCE REMAINING TO 22L INTXN. HAVING SOME UNCERTAINTY OF THE DISTANCE AND BEING DARK WE WERE NOT ABLE TO VISUALLY IDENT WHERE RWY 22L CROSSED 27. THE LIGHTING OF THE RWYS MADE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. AT THIS POINT, APPROX 3.5 MI FROM THE RWY WE TOLD THE TWR WE WERE UNABLE WITH THE HOLD SHORT CLRNC. HE THEN TOLD A WDB TO CANCEL ITS TKOF CLRNC. APPARENTLY HE HAD JUST BEGAN HIS ROLL. AFTER CLRING THE RWY WE WERE TOLD TO CALL THE TWR TO DISCUSS THE MATTER. WHEN I CALLED, I TOLD HIM BASICALLY WHAT I WROTE IN THIS RPT. IN CLOSING, I WOULD NEVER CONTINUE AN APCH IF THERE IS UNCERTAINTY. SECONDLY, DARK AS IT WAS, THE RWY XING COULD NOT BE CLRLY IDENTED. I THINK IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED WITH RWY LIGHTING IDENT, AND HOLD SHORT CLRNCS NEED TO BE BETTER DEFINED IN AREAS OF DISTANCE REMAINING AND OPTIONS IN THE EVENT OF A MISSED APCH PROC IN ORDER TO AVOID DEPARTING TFC FROM XING RWYS ARE IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT.
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.