37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 632794 |
Time | |
Date | 200409 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : cma.airport |
State Reference | CA |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : sju.tower |
Operator | general aviation : corporate |
Make Model Name | Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | ground : holding ground : position and hold |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : cma.tower |
Make Model Name | Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Flight Phase | ground : takeoff roll ground : holding |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : corporate |
Function | flight crew : captain |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 5500 flight time type : 200 |
ASRS Report | 632794 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : corporate |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence other |
Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb other other : 3 |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance controller : issued advisory controller : issued alert flight crew : rejected takeoff |
Consequence | faa : investigated |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Situations | |
ATC Facility | procedure or policy : cma.tower |
Narrative:
As co pilot and PNF, I was heads down finishing the FMS and checklists while we approached and positioned on the active runway 26. While both of us acknowledged and repeated the takeoff clearance, we ended up aborting the takeoff due to tower's instructions. Unsure why we were aborted, we queried ground frequency after our exit and heard the tower controller condemning our actions in a garbled tone. We advised ground that we were having problems understanding the tower position and to relay any other information we could get. As curious as we were to figure out what happened, we decided to taxi back and depart to make schedule and let the controllers do their thing because of increasing traffic. We would call the facility at our destination. After reaching destination, we were unable to reach the tower over land line. On our return the following day, we finally were able to speak to the tower supervisor about our situation in person. He explained that after we were in position, a bonanza (don't have a clue where he came from) was instructed to taxi around us on the active runway and cleared for takeoff. We obviously did not hear of any of this dialog, only 'aircraft X, cleared for takeoff.' in retrospect, we were told to abort 3 times, which only one was heard by us. He also explained that after reviewing the tapes, there was not only garbled xmissions from the tower controller, but from us as well. Definitely a communication breakdown on both sides. Questions raised: why were some of the controller's and my xmissions understandable and some garbled? Why were they mixing multiple aircraft on the active runway simultaneously instead of one at a time like most facilities? (Plenty of room for aircraft to maneuver around others besides the active runway.) where did the bonanza come from? Maybe because of FMS and checklists (or was it bad transmission?) that we had no situational awareness of the bonanza. It appears the tower supervisor agrees with us, but cannot get the multiple aircraft in position procedure changed at camarillo. This time we were all lucky, the next time might not be so fortunate if they try sneaking a small recip behind a challenger or gulfstream. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter said he returned to cma the next day and talked with a tower supervisor about the incident. The tower supervisor said he had played the tapes and agreed that there was a communication problem between the tower and their aircraft because of garbled xmissions. When asked about the practice of controllers putting multiple aircraft on the runway at the same time, the tower supervisor agreed it was a problem and said he was trying to stop the controllers from using that procedure.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A CITATION CREW AT CMA WAS PUT INTO POSITION AND HOLD (TIPH) AND AFTER COMPLETING THEIR CHKLIST, THE CREW SAID, IN A GARBLED XMISSION THEY MISHEARD THEIR CALL SIGN AND A CLRNC FOR TKOF. ON STARTING THEIR TKOF ROLL, THE CREW RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS TO ABORT.
Narrative: AS CO PLT AND PNF, I WAS HEADS DOWN FINISHING THE FMS AND CHKLISTS WHILE WE APCHED AND POSITIONED ON THE ACTIVE RWY 26. WHILE BOTH OF US ACKNOWLEDGED AND REPEATED THE TKOF CLRNC, WE ENDED UP ABORTING THE TKOF DUE TO TWR'S INSTRUCTIONS. UNSURE WHY WE WERE ABORTED, WE QUERIED GND FREQ AFTER OUR EXIT AND HEARD THE TWR CTLR CONDEMNING OUR ACTIONS IN A GARBLED TONE. WE ADVISED GND THAT WE WERE HAVING PROBS UNDERSTANDING THE TWR POSITION AND TO RELAY ANY OTHER INFO WE COULD GET. AS CURIOUS AS WE WERE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED, WE DECIDED TO TAXI BACK AND DEPART TO MAKE SCHEDULE AND LET THE CTLRS DO THEIR THING BECAUSE OF INCREASING TFC. WE WOULD CALL THE FACILITY AT OUR DEST. AFTER REACHING DEST, WE WERE UNABLE TO REACH THE TWR OVER LAND LINE. ON OUR RETURN THE FOLLOWING DAY, WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE TWR SUPVR ABOUT OUR SIT IN PERSON. HE EXPLAINED THAT AFTER WE WERE IN POSITION, A BONANZA (DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHERE HE CAME FROM) WAS INSTRUCTED TO TAXI AROUND US ON THE ACTIVE RWY AND CLEARED FOR TKOF. WE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT HEAR OF ANY OF THIS DIALOG, ONLY 'ACFT X, CLRED FOR TKOF.' IN RETROSPECT, WE WERE TOLD TO ABORT 3 TIMES, WHICH ONLY ONE WAS HEARD BY US. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE TAPES, THERE WAS NOT ONLY GARBLED XMISSIONS FROM THE TWR CTLR, BUT FROM US AS WELL. DEFINITELY A COM BREAKDOWN ON BOTH SIDES. QUESTIONS RAISED: WHY WERE SOME OF THE CTLR'S AND MY XMISSIONS UNDERSTANDABLE AND SOME GARBLED? WHY WERE THEY MIXING MULTIPLE ACFT ON THE ACTIVE RWY SIMULTANEOUSLY INSTEAD OF ONE AT A TIME LIKE MOST FACILITIES? (PLENTY OF ROOM FOR ACFT TO MANEUVER AROUND OTHERS BESIDES THE ACTIVE RWY.) WHERE DID THE BONANZA COME FROM? MAYBE BECAUSE OF FMS AND CHKLISTS (OR WAS IT BAD XMISSION?) THAT WE HAD NO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF THE BONANZA. IT APPEARS THE TWR SUPVR AGREES WITH US, BUT CANNOT GET THE MULTIPLE ACFT IN POSITION PROC CHANGED AT CAMARILLO. THIS TIME WE WERE ALL LUCKY, THE NEXT TIME MIGHT NOT BE SO FORTUNATE IF THEY TRY SNEAKING A SMALL RECIP BEHIND A CHALLENGER OR GULFSTREAM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR SAID HE RETURNED TO CMA THE NEXT DAY AND TALKED WITH A TWR SUPVR ABOUT THE INCIDENT. THE TWR SUPVR SAID HE HAD PLAYED THE TAPES AND AGREED THAT THERE WAS A COM PROB BETWEEN THE TWR AND THEIR ACFT BECAUSE OF GARBLED XMISSIONS. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF CTLRS PUTTING MULTIPLE ACFT ON THE RWY AT THE SAME TIME, THE TWR SUPVR AGREED IT WAS A PROB AND SAID HE WAS TRYING TO STOP THE CTLRS FROM USING THAT PROC.
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.