37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 613185 |
Time | |
Date | 200404 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : abe.airport |
State Reference | PA |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Weather Elements | Windshear |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | MD-82 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : taxi |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 4500 flight time type : 600 |
ASRS Report | 613185 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Events | |
Anomaly | incursion : runway non adherence : published procedure non adherence : company policies non adherence : far |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Environmental Factor Flight Crew Human Performance Weather |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
I was the PNF on a scheduled charter flight from ZZZ to abe. En route, the decision was made to utilize runway 24 for arrival despite surface winds favoring runway 31. Winds were 330 degrees with gusts up to 27 KTS and we requested runway 24 for added available landing distance and increased safety margin. During landing and the subsequent after landing rollout tower advised us to contact ground clearing the runway 24. I acknowledged and added a comment that there was gain and loss of 10 KTS to the tower and then switched to ground. At that point the PF and myself were discussing the approach and landing and the aircraft's performance. As we taxied off of runway 24 we proceeded to the gate, which is our 'routine clearance.' I confused in my mind my discussion with tower regarding the windshear and the words the controller used 'contact ground clearing' and mentally heard, 'cleared to the ramp.' I did not even communicate with the ground controller and we subsequently taxied across the active runway 31/13 without ever talking to ground. The ground controller radioed to us using our call sign as we were taxiing across runway 31 and I assumed he was advising us of another aircraft taxiing out of the ramp terminal area and I responded 'I see the aircraft coming out.' at that time the controller said, 'no, you guys just taxied across an active runway,' and I told him that I thought we talked to you and you cleared us in. The PF also thought he 'heard' the same thing. In my opinion this runway incursion occurred due to complacency of routinely flying into the same airport and being conditioned to a particular clearance and basically not picking up and adhering to specific clrncs when they differ from the 'norm.' I understand the need to pay attention and be alert especially during high workload times of flying. Also, we were incorrect in discussing impertinent matters while on an active taxiway and taxiing at a controled airport. We did not adhere to sterile cockpit procedures and could have potentially jeopardized the safety of the aircraft and occupants. There were no aircraft departing or arriving and the controller advised us to be aware in the future.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MD82 FLT CREW HAS A RWY INCURSION AT ABE.
Narrative: I WAS THE PNF ON A SCHEDULED CHARTER FLT FROM ZZZ TO ABE. ENRTE, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO UTILIZE RWY 24 FOR ARR DESPITE SURFACE WINDS FAVORING RWY 31. WINDS WERE 330 DEGS WITH GUSTS UP TO 27 KTS AND WE REQUESTED RWY 24 FOR ADDED AVAILABLE LNDG DISTANCE AND INCREASED SAFETY MARGIN. DURING LNDG AND THE SUBSEQUENT AFTER LNDG ROLLOUT TWR ADVISED US TO CONTACT GND CLRING THE RWY 24. I ACKNOWLEDGED AND ADDED A COMMENT THAT THERE WAS GAIN AND LOSS OF 10 KTS TO THE TWR AND THEN SWITCHED TO GND. AT THAT POINT THE PF AND MYSELF WERE DISCUSSING THE APCH AND LNDG AND THE ACFT'S PERFORMANCE. AS WE TAXIED OFF OF RWY 24 WE PROCEEDED TO THE GATE, WHICH IS OUR 'ROUTINE CLRNC.' I CONFUSED IN MY MIND MY DISCUSSION WITH TWR REGARDING THE WINDSHEAR AND THE WORDS THE CTLR USED 'CONTACT GND CLRING' AND MENTALLY HEARD, 'CLRED TO THE RAMP.' I DID NOT EVEN COMMUNICATE WITH THE GND CTLR AND WE SUBSEQUENTLY TAXIED ACROSS THE ACTIVE RWY 31/13 WITHOUT EVER TALKING TO GND. THE GND CTLR RADIOED TO US USING OUR CALL SIGN AS WE WERE TAXIING ACROSS RWY 31 AND I ASSUMED HE WAS ADVISING US OF ANOTHER ACFT TAXIING OUT OF THE RAMP TERMINAL AREA AND I RESPONDED 'I SEE THE ACFT COMING OUT.' AT THAT TIME THE CTLR SAID, 'NO, YOU GUYS JUST TAXIED ACROSS AN ACTIVE RWY,' AND I TOLD HIM THAT I THOUGHT WE TALKED TO YOU AND YOU CLRED US IN. THE PF ALSO THOUGHT HE 'HEARD' THE SAME THING. IN MY OPINION THIS RWY INCURSION OCCURRED DUE TO COMPLACENCY OF ROUTINELY FLYING INTO THE SAME ARPT AND BEING CONDITIONED TO A PARTICULAR CLRNC AND BASICALLY NOT PICKING UP AND ADHERING TO SPECIFIC CLRNCS WHEN THEY DIFFER FROM THE 'NORM.' I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO PAY ATTN AND BE ALERT ESPECIALLY DURING HIGH WORKLOAD TIMES OF FLYING. ALSO, WE WERE INCORRECT IN DISCUSSING IMPERTINENT MATTERS WHILE ON AN ACTIVE TXWY AND TAXIING AT A CTLED ARPT. WE DID NOT ADHERE TO STERILE COCKPIT PROCS AND COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY JEOPARDIZED THE SAFETY OF THE ACFT AND OCCUPANTS. THERE WERE NO ACFT DEPARTING OR ARRIVING AND THE CTLR ADVISED US TO BE AWARE IN THE FUTURE.
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.