Narrative:

Sdf tower cleared light transport X to taxi to runway 11. I asked my sic to verify runway because ATIS informed runway 29 in use. Sdf tower said runway 11 in used because they switched runways. (ATIS at sdf usually reports when multiple runways being used.) they also said cross runway 19 when taxiing to runway 11. When light transport X was approaching runway 11 approach, an medium large transport in front of us pulled off to the side to let us by. Sdf tower cleared us for takeoff, so light transport X took off. Shortly after takeoff, tower said we just made an unauthorized takeoff. We did not respond immediately because we were confused at the comment. I responded to the affect that the tower did clear us for takeoff. Sdf tower said, 'no,' that there was landing traffic for runway 19. We then proceeded as flight planned. No evasive action had to be taken to my knowledge, and tower did not inform us of this so-called unauthorized takeoff until after airborne, wheels up. Factors contributing was not knowing more than 1 runway in use, or other traffic in pattern . This situation could have been averted if the tower as it says would have not cleared us into position and hold west/O any traffic information. Also, if cleared into position and hold was used, instead of cleared for takeoff, position and hold should not be used unless timing is critical with aircraft spacing and sep. Supplemental information from acn 87388: we entered the runway and departed. To our astonishment we then heard the tower instruct another airplane to go around. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: enforcement action in progress from FAA flight standards for an unauthorized takeoff which forced another aircraft to make a go around. Reporter stated that he and first officer heard 'cleared into position and go.' reporter admitted that this seemed unusual wording, but neither pilot questioned it. Reporter contends that controller lured them into the error with non standard phraseology. First the aforementioned clearance which is certainly improper if said that way. Secondly, the reporter contends that the controller did not give traffic information about the traffic landing on the intersecting runway. The proper way to issue this instruction is, 'taxi into position and hold, traffic is landing on runway 19.' reporter also tried to make a case for the fact that the ATIS broadcast was incorrect. Analyst suspects that a runway change was in progress and the new ATIS had not been prepared, or the flight used the ATIS information that was copied when they were inbound because their stay at the terminal was very short. Either way, both the flight crew and controller could have done better jobs, and if they had, this error would not have happened.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT MADE TKOF WITHOUT CLRNC FORCING GO AROUND OVER INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: SDF TWR CLRED LTT X TO TAXI TO RWY 11. I ASKED MY SIC TO VERIFY RWY BECAUSE ATIS INFORMED RWY 29 IN USE. SDF TWR SAID RWY 11 IN USED BECAUSE THEY SWITCHED RWYS. (ATIS AT SDF USUALLY RPTS WHEN MULTIPLE RWYS BEING USED.) THEY ALSO SAID CROSS RWY 19 WHEN TAXIING TO RWY 11. WHEN LTT X WAS APCHING RWY 11 APCH, AN MLG IN FRONT OF US PULLED OFF TO THE SIDE TO LET US BY. SDF TWR CLRED US FOR TKOF, SO LTT X TOOK OFF. SHORTLY AFTER TKOF, TWR SAID WE JUST MADE AN UNAUTH TKOF. WE DID NOT RESPOND IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE WE WERE CONFUSED AT THE COMMENT. I RESPONDED TO THE AFFECT THAT THE TWR DID CLR US FOR TKOF. SDF TWR SAID, 'NO,' THAT THERE WAS LNDG TFC FOR RWY 19. WE THEN PROCEEDED AS FLT PLANNED. NO EVASIVE ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND TWR DID NOT INFORM US OF THIS SO-CALLED UNAUTH TKOF UNTIL AFTER AIRBORNE, WHEELS UP. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING WAS NOT KNOWING MORE THAN 1 RWY IN USE, OR OTHER TFC IN PATTERN . THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED IF THE TWR AS IT SAYS WOULD HAVE NOT CLRED US INTO POS AND HOLD W/O ANY TFC INFO. ALSO, IF CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD WAS USED, INSTEAD OF CLRED FOR TKOF, POS AND HOLD SHOULD NOT BE USED UNLESS TIMING IS CRITICAL WITH ACFT SPACING AND SEP. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 87388: WE ENTERED THE RWY AND DEPARTED. TO OUR ASTONISHMENT WE THEN HEARD THE TWR INSTRUCT ANOTHER AIRPLANE TO GO AROUND. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN PROGRESS FROM FAA FLT STANDARDS FOR AN UNAUTH TKOF WHICH FORCED ANOTHER ACFT TO MAKE A GO AROUND. REPORTER STATED THAT HE AND FO HEARD 'CLRED INTO POS AND GO.' RPTR ADMITTED THAT THIS SEEMED UNUSUAL WORDING, BUT NEITHER PLT QUESTIONED IT. RPTR CONTENDS THAT CTLR LURED THEM INTO THE ERROR WITH NON STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY. FIRST THE AFOREMENTIONED CLRNC WHICH IS CERTAINLY IMPROPER IF SAID THAT WAY. SECONDLY, THE RPTR CONTENDS THAT THE CTLR DID NOT GIVE TFC INFO ABOUT THE TFC LNDG ON THE INTERSECTING RWY. THE PROPER WAY TO ISSUE THIS INSTRUCTION IS, 'TAXI INTO POS AND HOLD, TFC IS LNDG ON RWY 19.' RPTR ALSO TRIED TO MAKE A CASE FOR THE FACT THAT THE ATIS BROADCAST WAS INCORRECT. ANALYST SUSPECTS THAT A RWY CHANGE WAS IN PROGRESS AND THE NEW ATIS HAD NOT BEEN PREPARED, OR THE FLT USED THE ATIS INFO THAT WAS COPIED WHEN THEY WERE INBND BECAUSE THEIR STAY AT THE TERMINAL WAS VERY SHORT. EITHER WAY, BOTH THE FLT CREW AND CTLR COULD HAVE DONE BETTER JOBS, AND IF THEY HAD, THIS ERROR WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.