37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 850326 |
Time | |
Date | 200908 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | DFW.Airport |
State Reference | TX |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Taxi |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Events | |
Anomaly | No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types |
Narrative:
I was gratified when plans were announced to build new taxiways at the south end of the east side runways. These taxiways; built for $66 million; would ensure that there are no runway incursions because no crossing of runways would be required. That's good news; in my view: I don't have to worry about causing or being victimized by a runway incursion. Incredibly; six months after completion of the project; the taxiways are rarely ever used - leaving me; the air traffic controllers and other aircraft vulnerable as usual. It is incomprehensible why this very expensive and effective means of eliminating runway incursions is not being used. In a south flow; all arrivals should land on the outboard 2 runways; then taxi in on these new taxiways; which 'eliminate' runway crossings. The departing aircraft can taxi as normal for takeoff on runway 17L; also without crossing any runways. On a north flow; departing aircraft could avoid any runway crossing by taxiing out to runway 35C and 35R on the new taxiway; arrivals could land on runway 35L and clear the runway; again; with no runway crossing required. I have landed on runway 17L and requested the new taxiway to taxi in (it wasn't offered; but it was approved). I noted another aircraft behind us took the old route; requiring the crossing of two active runways. We never stopped; taxiing smoothly; and by the time the aircraft on the traditional route had been cleared twice to cross; we were within 400 yards of him; having never stopped taxiing. The suggestions I have made do require a slight change to present north ops - but that is no way reduces capacity; it's just different. If dfw and the FAA are serious about reducing runway incursions; why is this $66 million dollar solution being ignored? As a pilot; I would welcome the safety margin provided by the new taxiways - I don't want to be the one who screws up a crossing or is the victim of someone else's mistake.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A MD80 pilot commented that the new DFW Taxiways P; ES; M and JS if utilized could prevent all runway incursions on the east side of the airport. They are currently not offered and unutilized.
Narrative: I was gratified when plans were announced to build new taxiways at the South end of the East side runways. These taxiways; built for $66 million; would ensure that there are no runway incursions because no crossing of runways would be required. That's good news; in my view: I don't have to worry about causing or being victimized by a runway incursion. Incredibly; six months after completion of the project; the taxiways are rarely ever used - leaving me; the air traffic controllers and other aircraft vulnerable as usual. It is incomprehensible why this very expensive and effective means of eliminating runway incursions is not being used. In a south flow; all arrivals should land on the outboard 2 runways; then taxi in on these new taxiways; which 'eliminate' runway crossings. The departing aircraft can taxi as normal for takeoff on Runway 17L; also without crossing any runways. On a north flow; departing aircraft could avoid any runway crossing by taxiing out to Runway 35C and 35R on the new taxiway; arrivals could land on Runway 35L and clear the runway; again; with no runway crossing required. I have landed on Runway 17L and requested the new taxiway to taxi in (it wasn't offered; but it was approved). I noted another aircraft behind us took the old route; requiring the crossing of two active runways. We never stopped; taxiing smoothly; and by the time the aircraft on the traditional route had been cleared twice to cross; we were within 400 yards of him; having never stopped taxiing. The suggestions I have made do require a slight change to present north ops - but that is no way reduces capacity; it's just different. If DFW and the FAA are serious about reducing runway incursions; why is this $66 million dollar solution being ignored? As a pilot; I would welcome the safety margin provided by the new taxiways - I don't want to be the one who screws up a crossing or is the victim of someone else's mistake.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.