Using available chart information air carrier pushes off gate without ATC clearance. Local procedure requires clearance. Tower unhappy but company pushback crew's judgement prevents traffic conflict.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	442969
Time
Date	199907
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ric.airport
State Reference	VA
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : pushback
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 255 flight time total : 29000
ASRS Report	442969
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	incursion : taxiway non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Company ATC Facility Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication

Narrative:

We pushed back from gate at ric and didn't call ground control for pushback clearance because our route manual airport advisory page says: 'ATC pushback clearance is not required.' the 'not' is underlined (emphasized) on our page. Ric ground controller became noticeable upset because a DC9 was taxiing out for takeoff behind our tail position. The tug driver knew the other DC9 was there and had held our pushback until the other aircraft was no factor. The tug driver had informed us why he was delaying the pushback. The ric ground controller said that any pushback from gate (specifically) required ATC clearance and referenced a bulletin that I had never heard of and I don't believe I have access to. There was no information on ATIS or in our NOTAMS that mentioned the pushback clearance requirement from gate. I reported the incident to our chief pilot's office and the pilot I talked to was unaware of the gate pushback restr at ric. He said a pilot bulletin would be published. There was no conflict with the other aircraft. We were well clear prior to the pushback.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: USING AVAILABLE CHART INFO ACR PUSHES OFF GATE WITHOUT ATC CLRNC. LCL PROC REQUIRES CLRNC. TWR UNHAPPY BUT COMPANY PUSHBACK CREW'S JUDGEMENT PREVENTS TFC CONFLICT.

Narrative: WE PUSHED BACK FROM GATE AT RIC AND DIDN'T CALL GND CTL FOR PUSHBACK CLRNC BECAUSE OUR RTE MANUAL ARPT ADVISORY PAGE SAYS: 'ATC PUSHBACK CLRNC IS NOT REQUIRED.' THE 'NOT' IS UNDERLINED (EMPHASIZED) ON OUR PAGE. RIC GND CTLR BECAME NOTICEABLE UPSET BECAUSE A DC9 WAS TAXIING OUT FOR TKOF BEHIND OUR TAIL POS. THE TUG DRIVER KNEW THE OTHER DC9 WAS THERE AND HAD HELD OUR PUSHBACK UNTIL THE OTHER ACFT WAS NO FACTOR. THE TUG DRIVER HAD INFORMED US WHY HE WAS DELAYING THE PUSHBACK. THE RIC GND CTLR SAID THAT ANY PUSHBACK FROM GATE (SPECIFICALLY) REQUIRED ATC CLRNC AND REFED A BULLETIN THAT I HAD NEVER HEARD OF AND I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ACCESS TO. THERE WAS NO INFO ON ATIS OR IN OUR NOTAMS THAT MENTIONED THE PUSHBACK CLRNC REQUIREMENT FROM GATE. I RPTED THE INCIDENT TO OUR CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE AND THE PLT I TALKED TO WAS UNAWARE OF THE GATE PUSHBACK RESTR AT RIC. HE SAID A PLT BULLETIN WOULD BE PUBLISHED. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ACFT. WE WERE WELL CLR PRIOR TO THE PUSHBACK.

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.