Narrative:

A cessna 172 pilot completed the standard run up of a cessna 172 at intersection G1 at fll runway 09R. Subsequently; the pilot called the tower and reported; 'ready for takeoff.' the tower responded 'roger.' the cessna 172 pilot then began initial movement to taxi onto runway 09R; as if the 'roger' response from the tower was a 'clear for takeoff' clearance or a 'line up and wait' instruction. The CFI in the right seat immediately jumped on the brakes bringing the cessna 172 aircraft to an immediate full halt; after moving perhaps 2 or 3 ft. The cessna 172 aircraft remained behind the hold short line; but could have crossed the hold short line; had the CFI not acted promptly. If the CFI had not acted promptly to stop the cessna 172; the aircraft may have taxied onto runway 09R; introducing a runway incursion. About 10 seconds after the CFI stopped the cessna 172 from moving; a twin propeller-driven aircraft landed on 09R. Had the cessna 172 actually taxied onto 09R; at a minimum; a go-around by the landing twin would have been executed; either by instruction from the tower; or initiated unilaterally by the pilot of the twin engine aircraft landing on 09R. Also; a collision could have occurred in the worst case outcome. After the flight; the CFI had an extensive remedial discussion with the pilot about the meaning of the 'roger' phraseology; and that 'roger' does not mean; 'clear for takeoff;' or anything but; 'I understand.' the pilot of the cessna 172 was clearly in error; and the CFI averted what would have been a potentially serious runway incursion. While the runway incursion did not occur; it could have occurred. Formal flight training by the CFI was not the intended mission of this flight. The pilot in command of the cessna 172 was in the left seat; with a friend that happened to be a CFI was occupying the right seat. The flight was fundamentally a pleasure flight; however; the CFI had to intervene when the safety of operation was compromised. Recommended action: the tower controller could have said: 'roger; hold short for landing traffic.' this enhanced instruction would have emphasized the urgent requirement to hold short of the runway. The tower may not be required to issue this enhanced instruction; but the FAA should consider requiring this enhanced instruction in the situation of an aircraft holding short; with landing traffic on final approach; as described. The error that was interrupted by the quick action of the CFI on board was clearly that of the pilot in the left seat; but the enhanced instruction suggested above could add an additional margin of safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: After advising; 'Ready for takeoff;' a C172 pilot interprets the 'Roger' response from Tower as clearance onto the runway; but is stopped by the Instructor rated passenger.

Narrative: A Cessna 172 pilot completed the standard run up of a Cessna 172 at Intersection G1 at FLL Runway 09R. Subsequently; the pilot called the Tower and reported; 'Ready for takeoff.' The Tower responded 'Roger.' The Cessna 172 pilot then began initial movement to taxi onto Runway 09R; as if the 'Roger' response from the Tower was a 'Clear for Takeoff' clearance or a 'Line Up and Wait' instruction. The CFI in the right seat immediately jumped on the brakes bringing the Cessna 172 aircraft to an immediate full halt; after moving perhaps 2 or 3 FT. The Cessna 172 aircraft remained behind the hold short line; but could have crossed the hold short line; had the CFI not acted promptly. If the CFI had not acted promptly to stop the Cessna 172; the aircraft may have taxied onto Runway 09R; introducing a runway incursion. About 10 seconds after the CFI stopped the Cessna 172 from moving; a twin propeller-driven aircraft landed on 09R. Had the Cessna 172 actually taxied onto 09R; at a minimum; a go-around by the landing twin would have been executed; either by instruction from the Tower; or initiated unilaterally by the pilot of the twin engine aircraft landing on 09R. Also; a collision could have occurred in the worst case outcome. After the flight; the CFI had an extensive remedial discussion with the pilot about the meaning of the 'Roger' phraseology; and that 'Roger' does NOT mean; 'Clear for takeoff;' or anything but; 'I understand.' The pilot of the Cessna 172 was clearly in error; and the CFI averted what would have been a potentially serious runway incursion. While the runway incursion did NOT occur; it could have occurred. Formal flight training by the CFI was NOT the intended mission of this flight. The pilot in command of the Cessna 172 was in the left seat; with a friend that happened to be a CFI was occupying the right seat. The flight was fundamentally a pleasure flight; however; the CFI had to intervene when the safety of operation was compromised. Recommended Action: The Tower Controller could have said: 'Roger; hold short for landing traffic.' This enhanced instruction would have emphasized the urgent requirement to hold short of the runway. The Tower may not be required to issue this enhanced instruction; but the FAA should consider requiring this enhanced instruction in the situation of an aircraft holding short; with landing traffic on final approach; as described. The error that was interrupted by the quick action of the CFI on board was clearly that of the pilot in the left seat; but the enhanced instruction suggested above could add an additional margin of safety.

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.