Narrative:

We taxied out of the terminal area Q stated our intention on unicom that we are taxiing out runway 6. On the other radio, we picked our IFR release from new york center. As we took position runway 6, we again stated our intention, position, runway 6, departing runway 6. As we started our roll runway 6 we stated that we were rolling runway 6. At about 20 KTS, estimated, we saw the light of opposite traffic rolling runway 24. Simultaneously as we heard the unicom person state that the other runway was rolling runway 24. We aborted the takeoff immediately at about 20 KTS and exited the runway. The other aircraft aborted their takeoff roll as well. The winds were 060/5 hence favoring runway 6, which is what we used. We reported our position on the field 3 times, but never heard anything from the other aircraft on unicom. New york center controller admitted fault by releasing both aircraft on IFR flight plans at the same time. Supplemental information from acn 610441: what I don't understand is why aircraft Y decided to use runway 24 over runway 6 when other aircraft departed runway 6 and the winds favored runway 6. I think that if all aircraft were using the same runway for departure, even with the double release from north.Y. Center, this type of thing will not happen in the future. Supplemental information from acn 610180: taxiing to runway 24, we ran our checklist and called new york center for our clearance and release. We had already announced over unicom our intent to taxi runway 24. We heard aircraft X announce intent to taxi runway 6. That was the last announcement we heard from them. We meanwhile monitored both clearance (center) and unicom frequency. Center came back on frequency and asked us how quickly we could be airborne. We said under a minute (we were at hold short line for runway 24.) he said 'ok' and gave us clearance and an immediate release. We read back the clearance and release, announced on unicom our intent to take runway 24 and ran engines up to takeoff power. While on the takeoff roll, unicom observer announced that 'an aircraft X was on runway 6.' at that moment, captain called for the abort. I aborted the takeoff and we exited runway 24 west/O incident. We told center what happened. They then took the blame for releasing 2 aircraft simultaneously and apologized. Supplemental information from acn 609810: departure clearance given to two aircraft without 'hold for release.' aircraft X calls and receives clearance for departure. Some time later aircraft Y calls for a clearance. Because it is a ZNY controled airport, there is no need to release aircraft. They are implicitly released unless controller sates 'hold for release.' a new CRT display at the sector was an additional distraction. Airport does not have a tower. ZNY provides IFR service and airport management provides unicom. The fact that 'yes, I can type in a flight plan' I think played in my mind and made it possible to 'yes' release the aircraft. Perhaps discouraging flight plan filing on takeoff would prevent a similar error. Make it an automatic hold for release unless the controller specifically issues a release, thus providing an additional level of safety. Callback conversation with reporter acn 610180 revealed the following information: the aircraft Y reporter said he elected to departure runway 24 because it was the 'prevailing' runway for operations, indicating his belief runway 24 was preferred because of experience and conflicting traffic from a near by airport. In addition, the reporter indicated the winds were below 3 KTS. He stated that his company had a long history of operating from the subject airport and that the other aircraft company was relatively new to the airport. The reporter said the controller seemed to be busy and working several frequency, but still volunteered to file a flight plan because of a company computer problem. After receiving the clearance, the controller reportedly asked the crew if they could departure immediately and they replied in the affirmative. The reporter could not recall if the departure runway information was given to the controller during the communication exchanges. Callback conversation with reporter acn 609810 revealed the following information: the ZNY reporter stated that he was not aware of the departure runway of either aircraft. He indicated that he believes he issued a hold for release to one of the aircraft involved, but could not verify it because he had not reviewed any recorded data. The controller said that aircraft deping this subject airport are automatically released because ZNY owns the airspace and no approach control facility is involved. The reporter suggested that the current automatic release procedure is confusing to pilots and recommended a formal hold for release policy be adopted by his facility.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW DEP FROM UNV/SCE OBSERVED OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC DURING TKOF ROLL. BOTH ACFT ABORTED.

Narrative: WE TAXIED OUT OF THE TERMINAL AREA Q STATED OUR INTENTION ON UNICOM THAT WE ARE TAXIING OUT RWY 6. ON THE OTHER RADIO, WE PICKED OUR IFR RELEASE FROM NEW YORK CENTER. AS WE TOOK POSITION RWY 6, WE AGAIN STATED OUR INTENTION, POSITION, RWY 6, DEPARTING RWY 6. AS WE STARTED OUR ROLL RWY 6 WE STATED THAT WE WERE ROLLING RWY 6. AT ABOUT 20 KTS, ESTIMATED, WE SAW THE LIGHT OF OPPOSITE TFC ROLLING RWY 24. SIMULTANEOUSLY AS WE HEARD THE UNICOM PERSON STATE THAT THE OTHER RWY WAS ROLLING RWY 24. WE ABORTED THE TKOF IMMEDIATELY AT ABOUT 20 KTS AND EXITED THE RWY. THE OTHER ACFT ABORTED THEIR TKOF ROLL AS WELL. THE WINDS WERE 060/5 HENCE FAVORING RWY 6, WHICH IS WHAT WE USED. WE RPTED OUR POSITION ON THE FIELD 3 TIMES, BUT NEVER HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE OTHER ACFT ON UNICOM. NEW YORK CENTER CTLR ADMITTED FAULT BY RELEASING BOTH ACFT ON IFR FLT PLANS AT THE SAME TIME. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 610441: WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY ACFT Y DECIDED TO USE RWY 24 OVER RWY 6 WHEN OTHER ACFT DEPARTED RWY 6 AND THE WINDS FAVORED RWY 6. I THINK THAT IF ALL ACFT WERE USING THE SAME RWY FOR DEP, EVEN WITH THE DOUBLE RELEASE FROM N.Y. CENTER, THIS TYPE OF THING WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 610180: TAXIING TO RWY 24, WE RAN OUR CHECKLIST AND CALLED NEW YORK CENTER FOR OUR CLRNC AND RELEASE. WE HAD ALREADY ANNOUNCED OVER UNICOM OUR INTENT TO TAXI RWY 24. WE HEARD ACFT X ANNOUNCE INTENT TO TAXI RWY 6. THAT WAS THE LAST ANNOUNCEMENT WE HEARD FROM THEM. WE MEANWHILE MONITORED BOTH CLRNC (CENTER) AND UNICOM FREQ. CENTER CAME BACK ON FREQ AND ASKED US HOW QUICKLY WE COULD BE AIRBORNE. WE SAID UNDER A MINUTE (WE WERE AT HOLD SHORT LINE FOR RWY 24.) HE SAID 'OK' AND GAVE US CLRNC AND AN IMMEDIATE RELEASE. WE READ BACK THE CLRNC AND RELEASE, ANNOUNCED ON UNICOM OUR INTENT TO TAKE RWY 24 AND RAN ENGINES UP TO TKOF POWER. WHILE ON THE TKOF ROLL, UNICOM OBSERVER ANNOUNCED THAT 'AN ACFT X WAS ON RWY 6.' AT THAT MOMENT, CAPT CALLED FOR THE ABORT. I ABORTED THE TKOF AND WE EXITED RWY 24 W/O INCIDENT. WE TOLD CENTER WHAT HAPPENED. THEY THEN TOOK THE BLAME FOR RELEASING 2 ACFT SIMULTANEOUSLY AND APOLOGIZED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 609810: DEP CLRNC GIVEN TO TWO ACFT WITHOUT 'HOLD FOR RELEASE.' ACFT X CALLS AND RECEIVES CLRNC FOR DEP. SOME TIME LATER ACFT Y CALLS FOR A CLRNC. BECAUSE IT IS A ZNY CTLED ARPT, THERE IS NO NEED TO RELEASE ACFT. THEY ARE IMPLICITLY RELEASED UNLESS CTLR SATES 'HOLD FOR RELEASE.' A NEW CRT DISPLAY AT THE SECTOR WAS AN ADDITIONAL DISTRACTION. ARPT DOES NOT HAVE A TWR. ZNY PROVIDES IFR SERVICE AND ARPT MANAGEMENT PROVIDES UNICOM. THE FACT THAT 'YES, I CAN TYPE IN A FLT PLAN' I THINK PLAYED IN MY MIND AND MADE IT POSSIBLE TO 'YES' RELEASE THE ACFT. PERHAPS DISCOURAGING FLT PLAN FILING ON TKOF WOULD PREVENT A SIMILAR ERROR. MAKE IT AN AUTOMATIC HOLD FOR RELEASE UNLESS THE CTLR SPECIFICALLY ISSUES A RELEASE, THUS PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 610180 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE ACFT Y RPTR SAID HE ELECTED TO DEP RWY 24 BECAUSE IT WAS THE 'PREVAILING' RWY FOR OPERATIONS, INDICATING HIS BELIEF RWY 24 WAS PREFERRED BECAUSE OF EXPERIENCE AND CONFLICTING TFC FROM A NEAR BY ARPT. IN ADDITION, THE RPTR INDICATED THE WINDS WERE BELOW 3 KTS. HE STATED THAT HIS COMPANY HAD A LONG HISTORY OF OPERATING FROM THE SUBJECT ARPT AND THAT THE OTHER ACFT COMPANY WAS RELATIVELY NEW TO THE ARPT. THE RPTR SAID THE CTLR SEEMED TO BE BUSY AND WORKING SEVERAL FREQ, BUT STILL VOLUNTEERED TO FILE A FLT PLAN BECAUSE OF A COMPANY COMPUTER PROB. AFTER RECEIVING THE CLRNC, THE CTLR REPORTEDLY ASKED THE CREW IF THEY COULD DEP IMMEDIATELY AND THEY REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. THE RPTR COULD NOT RECALL IF THE DEP RWY INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO THE CTLR DURING THE COMMUNICATION EXCHANGES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 609810 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE ZNY RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DEP RWY OF EITHER ACFT. HE INDICATED THAT HE BELIEVES HE ISSUED A HOLD FOR RELEASE TO ONE OF THE ACFT INVOLVED, BUT COULD NOT VERIFY IT BECAUSE HE HAD NOT REVIEWED ANY RECORDED DATA. THE CTLR SAID THAT ACFT DEPING THIS SUBJECT ARPT ARE AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED BECAUSE ZNY OWNS THE AIRSPACE AND NO APCH CTL FACILITY IS INVOLVED. THE RPTR SUGGESTED THAT THE CURRENT AUTO RELEASE PROC IS CONFUSING TO PLTS AND RECOMMENDED A FORMAL HOLD FOR RELEASE POLICY BE ADOPTED BY HIS FACILITY.

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.