Narrative:

While holding short of runway 30L at intersection romeo at stl I heard a clearance to taxi into position and hold runway 30L at romeo. I readback the clearance and we proceeded to taxi onto the runway. I then heard a clearance to takeoff and readback that clearance before we departed. There was an air carrier (abd) jetstream 41 behind us at intersection romeo holding short. ATC states that he cleared on air carrier Z into position and hold on runway 30L, but never cleared us, air carrier (abc) into position. Tower stated on the phone that the controller looked down and saw us on the runway and thought it was air carrier (abd). He then states that he cleared air carrier (abd) for takeoff from runway 30L at romeo and that he thought we air carrier (abc) were still holding short. He then stated that he did not know who had just departed until our tag came up on radar. I am certain that I readback all clrncs and readback our first turn to a 180 degree heading twice. It has been discovered that the aircraft I was in may have some type of radio problem as ATC described it as 3 out of 5 and broken on a subsequent flight on the same day. I believe the volume of traffic running into and out of stl is definitely a factor due to radio chatter. I also question ATC's procedures as they seemed not to know what was happening. They seemed willing, however, to clear whoever was on the runway for takeoff. Tower was aware of where I was because I requested the intersection takeoff, and had to wave the wake turbulence delay. He then asked air carrier (abd) if they could accept a romeo departure and they accepted and he told then to taxi and hold short behind the jetstream. This indicates that the tower controller knew who was number 1 and who was number 2. There was never any objection form ATC on either of my readbacks. I believe that if ATC did not want an aircraft on runway 30L at R0MEO they should have called and corrected the mistake instead of giving (as they say) a clearance for takeoff to an aircraft that was holding short at an intersection behind the aircraft on the runway. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that he did not learn of the runway incursion until the following day when he received a note at company dispatch requesting a call to the stl tower supervisor. The tower supervisor allegedly said that tapes indicated that he had taken a clearance for another aircraft, but that the error was not caught in readback by the controller. The supervisor also noted that training was in progress in the tower at the time of the incident reporter also admits that distraction from listening to company frequency contributed to a loss of situational awareness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ABC TAKES POS AND HOLD, AND TAKEOFF CLRNC INTENDED FOR ACR ABD. CTLR DID NOT CATCH ERROR IN READBACK. NO ACTUAL CONFLICT OCCURRED.

Narrative: WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 30L AT INTERSECTION ROMEO AT STL I HEARD A CLRNC TO TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD RWY 30L AT ROMEO. I READBACK THE CLRNC AND WE PROCEEDED TO TAXI ONTO THE RWY. I THEN HEARD A CLRNC TO TAKEOFF AND READBACK THAT CLRNC BEFORE WE DEPARTED. THERE WAS AN ACR (ABD) JETSTREAM 41 BEHIND US AT INTERSECTION ROMEO HOLDING SHORT. ATC STATES THAT HE CLRED ON ACR Z INTO POS AND HOLD ON RWY 30L, BUT NEVER CLRED US, ACR (ABC) INTO POS. TWR STATED ON THE PHONE THAT THE CTLR LOOKED DOWN AND SAW US ON THE RWY AND THOUGHT IT WAS ACR (ABD). HE THEN STATES THAT HE CLRED ACR (ABD) FOR TAKEOFF FROM RWY 30L AT ROMEO AND THAT HE THOUGHT WE ACR (ABC) WERE STILL HOLDING SHORT. HE THEN STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHO HAD JUST DEPARTED UNTIL OUR TAG CAME UP ON RADAR. I AM CERTAIN THAT I READBACK ALL CLRNCS AND READBACK OUR FIRST TURN TO A 180 DEG HEADING TWICE. IT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THE ACFT I WAS IN MAY HAVE SOME TYPE OF RADIO PROB AS ATC DESCRIBED IT AS 3 OUT OF 5 AND BROKEN ON A SUBSEQUENT FLT ON THE SAME DAY. I BELIEVE THE VOLUME OF TFC RUNNING INTO AND OUT OF STL IS DEFINITELY A FACTOR DUE TO RADIO CHATTER. I ALSO QUESTION ATC'S PROCS AS THEY SEEMED NOT TO KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING. THEY SEEMED WILLING, HOWEVER, TO CLR WHOEVER WAS ON THE RWY FOR TAKEOFF. TWR WAS AWARE OF WHERE I WAS BECAUSE I REQUESTED THE INTERSECTION TKOF, AND HAD TO WAVE THE WAKE TURB DELAY. HE THEN ASKED ACR (ABD) IF THEY COULD ACCEPT A ROMEO DEP AND THEY ACCEPTED AND HE TOLD THEN TO TAXI AND HOLD SHORT BEHIND THE JETSTREAM. THIS INDICATES THAT THE TWR CONTROLLER KNEW WHO WAS NUMBER 1 AND WHO WAS NUMBER 2. THERE WAS NEVER ANY OBJECTION FORM ATC ON EITHER OF MY READBACKS. I BELIEVE THAT IF ATC DID NOT WANT AN ACFT ON RWY 30L AT R0MEO THEY SHOULD HAVE CALLED AND CORRECTED THE MISTAKE INSTEAD OF GIVING (AS THEY SAY) A CLRNC FOR TKOF TO AN ACFT THAT WAS HOLDING SHORT AT AN INTERSECTION BEHIND THE ACFT ON THE RWY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT HE DID NOT LEARN OF THE RWY INCURSION UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY WHEN HE RECEIVED A NOTE AT COMPANY DISPATCH REQUESTING A CALL TO THE STL TWR SUPVR. THE TWR SUPVR ALLEGEDLY SAID THAT TAPES INDICATED THAT HE HAD TAKEN A CLRNC FOR ANOTHER ACFT, BUT THAT THE ERROR WAS NOT CAUGHT IN READBACK BY THE CTLR. THE SUPVR ALSO NOTED THAT TRAINING WAS IN PROGRESS IN THE TWR AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT RPTR ALSO ADMITS THAT DISTRACTION FROM LISTENING TO COMPANY FREQ CONTRIBUTED TO A LOSS OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.

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.