DOCSLIB.ORG

Demonstration of Runway Status Lights at Logan Airport

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Demonstration of Runway Status Lights at Logan Airport EGGERT Demonstration of Runway-Status Lights at Logdn Airport feet or less. Runway incursions represent a larger class ton. A much more detailed description of this system of events than accidents and high-hazard incidents. A and its components is given in a separate report [2]. runway incursion is defined as any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object System Design on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results A complete airport surface-traffic safety system in loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, in- should include three products that together can ad- tending to take off, landing, or intending to land. dress all the major airport surface-conflict scenarios. Clearly, preventing runway incursions is an effective These three products are runway-status lights, con- way to prevent a certain set of airport surface acci- troller alerts, and enhanced controller displays. dents, and a good airport surface-traffic safety system A runway-status light system (RSLS) will provide cur- must be effective at reducing runway incursions. rent runway-status information to pilots and vehicle Many of the fundamental concepts of such a sur- operators, indicating when the runway is unsafe to face-traffic automation system have been discussed enter or unsafe for takeoff (Figure 1). The informa- previously [I]. This article concentrates on the real- tion provided by these lights will prevent many run- ization of a real-time but off-line surface-traffic auto- way incursions before they happen. Controller alerts mation system at Logan International Airport in Bos- will be used to direct controllers' attention to existing FIGURE 1. Runway-status light system (RSLS) concept. The runway-status lights indicate to aircraft pilots and surface-vehicle operators when the runway is unsafe to enter or unsafe for takeoff. The system is oper- ated automatically, based on surveillance provided by an Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) sur- face radar, an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) approach radar, and future surveillance systems such as GPS-Squitter or Mode S multilateration. 170 THE LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2, 1994 EGGERT Demonstration of Runway-Status Lights at Logan Airport conflicts between aircraft on or near the runways. Be- sions and accidents. The runway-status lights func- cause runway-status lights do not address some of the tion fully automatically in response to real-time sur- top accident and incident scenarios, and because con- veillance. The off-line RSLS Logan Demonstration troller alerts do not always provide sufficient time for does not in fact incorporate an actual field-lighting controllers and pilots to correct a situation once it has system, but simulates the runway-status lights by the developed, only a combination of runway-status use of an illuminated model board and computer- lights and controller alerts will address all the most driven displays. common scenarios. (The FAA has contracted for the The runway-status lights have two states: on (red) development of an operational controller-alerting sys- and off. These lights indicate runway status only; they tem known as the Airport Movement Area Safety Sys- do not indicate clearance. A green state was specifical- tem, or AMASS.) Enhanced ASDE controller dis- ly avoided to prevent any false impression of clear- plays will present symbology to describe aircraft ance. Clearance is to remain the sole responsibility of position, size, altitude, flight number, equipment the air traffic controller, and is not to be provided or type, and direction and speed of motion. In addition implied by the RSLS. An amber state was also avoid- to airport surface trafEc, aircraft on approach to run- ed because in the case of runway-entrance lights it ways will also be depicted on the ASDE displays. could tend to be confused with the amber color of the The off-line proof-of-concept RSLS Logan Dem- International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) onstration incorporates simulated runway-status standard taxi hold-position (wig-wag) lights. The lights and enhanced controller displays, but does not runway-status lights are designed to be as conspicu- include a complete controller-alerting system. Run- ous as possible while minimizing the possibility of way-status lights provide the greatest part of the pro- confusion with other light systems. tection afforded by the safety system for three impor- Runway-status lights are designed to be generally tant reasons. First, in any time-critical conflict invisible to pilots of aircraft at high speed. This design scenario, the most effective safety-system product is decision was made so that red lights, especially lights one that is directly accessible by the pilots. That direct that suddenly turn red, will not be shown to pilots access is allowed by runway-status lights but not by whose aircraft speed precludes them from making controller alerts. Second, runway-status lights act to sudden maneuvers. Runway-entrance lights are hood- prevent runway incursions before they happen, ed so as not to be visible to pilots of aircraft on the whereas controller alerts occur only after a conflict runway, and they are generally not active at runway- has been identified. Third, runway-status lights are runway intersections. Takeoff-hold lights are also effective in a greater fraction of the accident and inci- hooded, and they require that an aircraft be in posi- dent scenarios than are controller alerts. Therefore, tion for takeoff for the lights to be illuminated. The for a combination of reasons, including maximizing design of the fixtures and light logic thus generally system effectiveness in the face of developmental prevents pilots of aircraft at high speed from seeing schedule constraints and reducing the duplication of red runway-status lights. research efforts, the RSLS Logan Demonstration does A proposed fixture for the runway-status lights not include controller alerts except for limited dem- would be the standard fixture used for ICAO wig-wag onstratlon purposes. lights, with the amber lenses replaced by red lens& and the lamps upgraded to brighter bulbs (Figure 2). Runway-Status Lights These fixtures use redundant light bulbs and other There are two types of runway-status lights: nmway- electrical components to minimize the impact of sin- entrance lights, which indicate when the runway is un- gle-component failures on the operation of the sys- safe to enter, and takeofibold lights, which indicate tem. They are also in current production, allowing when the runway is unsafe for takeoff. The two types off-the-shelf delivery. of lights are driven in concert by a single safety logic, Runway-entrance lights will be located at the taxi- and they operate together to prevent runway incur- way entrances to runways and will be positioned on VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2, 1994 THE LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL EGGERT Demonstration of Runway-Status Lights at Logan Airport either side of the taxiway, near the runway edge and well beyond the hold line (Figure 3). Runway-en- trance lights will also be located at runway-runway intersections, although they will not always be imple- mented or actuated there. Runway-entrance lights will be illuminated to indicate to aircrafi pilots and surface-vehicle operators that the runway is hot (i.e., it is being used for a high-speed operation like takeoff or landing), and that the runway is currently unsafe to enter at that intersection. Runway-entrance lights will be extinguished when the runway is no longer unsafe to enter at that intersection. Takeoff-hold lights will be located at takeoff-hold positions and placed on either side of the runway near FIGURE 2. A proposed runway-status light fixture. This the runway edge (Figure 4). These lights will indicate fixture is based on the standard International Civil Avia- to aircrafi pilots that the runway is unsafe for takeoff tion Organization taxi hold-position (wig-wag) light, with (i.e., the runway is currently occupied or is about to the amber lenses replaced by red lenses and the lamps upgraded to brighter bulbs. An addressable light con- be occupied); they will be extinguished when the run- troller would be mounted in or near the base of this fix- way is safe for takeoff, or if the aircrafi in position for ture to allow individual control over each lamp. takeoff vacates the runway. Taxi hold-position (wig-wag) lights Runway-entrance lie hts f akeoff-hold lights - FIGURE 3. Runway-entrance lights in operation for an aircraft landing on a runway. The runway-entrance lights in front of the landing aircraft are illuminated red, indicating to the taxiing aircraft that the runway is unsafe to enter. The runway- entrance lights behind the landing aircraft are extinguished, indicating that the runway is safe to enter there. 172 THE LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2, 1994 EGGERT Demonstration of Runway-Status Lights at Logan Airport FlGURE4. Takeoff-hold lights in operation for an aircraft in position for departure with crossing traffic. The takeoff-hold lights indicate that the runway is currently unsafe for departure because the runway is about to be occupied by a cross- ing aircraft. Tracks, or indicators of stationary and moving air- RSLS Enhancements to ASDE Display craft or other surface traffic, are displayed as icons on The RSLS provides several display enhancements to the enhanced ASDE display (Figure 5). Each icon an ASDE display. An ASDE display without en- represents the position and direction of motion of the hancements typically contains radar video with track and, for tracks with ASDE image information, blanking to reduce visible clutter, and line graphics to is drawn with a size proportional to the area of the depict runway and taxiway edges and building out- ASDE image. Each displayed track has a data tag con- lines.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human-In-The-Loop Simulation of an Integrated Ground Movement Safety System
    MTR 05W0000074 MITRE TECHNICAL REPORT Human-in-the-Loop Simulation of an Integrated Ground Movement Safety System September 2005 Dr. Peter M. Moertl This is the copyright work of The MITRE Corporation and was produced for the U.S. Government under Contract Number DTFA01-01-C-00001 and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System Clause 3.5-13, Rights in Data-General, Alt. III and Alt. IV (Oct., 1996). Sponsor: Federal Aviation Administration Contract No.: DTFA01-01-C-00001 Dept. No.: F053 Project No.: 0205F110-DW Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. The contents of this material reflect the views of the author and/or the Director of the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development. Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Department of Transportation makes any warranty or guarantee, or promise, expressed or implied, concerning the content or accuracy of the views expressed herein ©2005 The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Center for Advanced Aviation System Development McLean, Virginia MITRE Department Approval: Urmila C. Hiremath Associate Program Manager ATM/CNS Research Computing Capability MITRE Project Approval: Edward C. Hahn Outcome Leader Aviation Safety ii Abstract This document describes a human-in-the-loop simulation evaluating the effectiveness of an integrated ground movement safety system for improved runway safety. The evaluated ground movement safety system contained technologies to enhance pilot awareness as well as warn pilots about runway safety risks and had been proposed by Andrews, Dorfman, Estes, Jones, and Olmos (2005). Strengths and limitations of this integrated system as well as possibilities to address these limitations were determined.
    [Show full text]
  • SANDOR Safe Airport Navigation Demonstrator
    Doc.nr.: KDC/2010/0065 Version: 1.0 Date: 20 okt 2010 SANDOR Safe Airport Navigation DemonstratOR Summary Safety on the airport surface is of great importance to the Schiphol operation. In order to keep safety at a high level for now and in the future when traffic numbers grow, it is necessary to improve the ATM system with respect to the ground operation. In 2007 the KDC study “Increased ground handling capacity” was conducted. The focus of that study was to solve hot-sports in the traffic flow during good visibility conditions. Low visibility conditions were only briefly discussed. So although an in- depth research was not conducted, it concluded that synthetic vision applications could improve the situational awareness of the cockpit crew and therefore could improve safety. In this project several applications and tools to improve the surface operation have been researched. The starting point was a runway safety analysis which was performed for the years 2007-2009 to learn what is important for the current ground operation at Schiphol. The cases that were studied led to ten different types of runway incursions. Using an identified formula for the potential gravity of runway incursions at Schiphol which was developed by the project team, it was decided that the potentially most dangerous situations are: - line-up without ATC clearance - taxiing on an active runway without ATC clearance - vehicle on the runway without ATC clearance Besides the runway incursion analysis a complete list was compiled of what kind of tools in the area of Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS) have already been invented, developed or are even being deployed internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • Runway Incursions:1 Adequacy of Ground Movement Safety Systems and of Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures
    RA N S P T O L R A T U R IBU L S U N P N UM A E O T I I T O National Transportation Safety Board A N N S A D FE R T Y B O A Washington, D.C. 20594 Safety Recommendation Date: July 6, 2000 In reply refer to: A-00-66 through -71 Honorable Jane F. Garvey Administrator Federal Aviation Administration Washington, D.C. 20591 In this letter, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) take action to address the following safety issues related to runway incursions:1 adequacy of ground movement safety systems and of air traffic control (ATC) procedures. The Safety Board has issued numerous safety recommendations to the FAA since 1973 to prevent runway incursions and other airport surface incidents. On May 6, 1986, the Board issued a Special Investigation Report, titled “Runway Incursions at Controlled Airports in the United States.”2 In this report, the Board noted that the number of reported near-collision ground incidents had increased significantly and made several new safety recommendations to reduce the frequency of runway incursions. Several of these safety recommendations remained open when a fatal runway collision involving Eastern Airlines flight 111 (EAL111), a Boeing 727 (727), and N44UE, a Beechcraft King Air A100, occurred at Atlanta, Georgia, on January 18, 1990.3 As a result, the Board placed airport runway incursions on its 1990 Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements List, and the issue has 1 FAA Order 8020.11A, “Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation and Reporting,” defines a runway incursion as “any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground, that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land.” 2 Special Investigation Report NTSB/SIR-86/01.
    [Show full text]
  • National Transportation Safety Board
    National Transportation Safety Board Airport Runway Accidents, Serious Incidents, Recommendations, and Statistics Deadliest Runway Accidents ● Tenerife, Canary Islands, March 27, 1977 (583 fatalities). The world’s deadliest runway accident occurred on March 27, 1977, when Pan Am (PAA) flight 1736, a Boeing 747, and KLM4805, a Boeing 747, collided on runway 12 at Tenerife, Canary Islands, killing 583 passengers and crew. KLM4805 departed runway 12 without a takeoff clearance colliding with PAA1736 that was taxiing on the same runway during instrument meteorological conditions. The Spanish government determined the cause was: “The KLM aircraft had taken off without take-off clearance, in the absolute conviction that this clearance had been obtained, which was the result of a misunderstanding between the tower and the KLM aircraft. This misunderstanding had arisen from the mutual use of usual terminology which, however, gave rise to misinterpretation. In combination with a number of other coinciding circumstances, the premature take-off of the KLM aircraft resulted in a collision with the Pan Am aircraft, because the latter was still on the runway since it had missed the correct intersection.” ● Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006 (49 fatalities). The deadliest runway accident in the United States occurred on August 27, 2006, at about 0606 eastern daylight time when Comair flight 5191, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19, N431CA, crashed during takeoff from Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, Kentucky. The flight crew was instructed to take off from runway 22 but instead lined up the airplane on runway 26 and began the takeoff roll. The airplane ran off the end of the runway and impacted the airport perimeter fence, trees, and terrain.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions
    Doc 9870 AN/463 Manual on the Prevention of Runway Incursions Approved by the Secretary General and published under his authority First Edition — 2007 International Civil Aviation Organization Published in separate English, French, Russian and Spanish editions by the International Civil Aviation Organization. All correspondence, except orders and subscriptions, should be addressed to the Secretary General. Orders should be sent to one of the following addresses, together with the appropriate remittance (by bank draft, cheque or money order) in U.S. dollars or the currency of the country in which the order is placed. Credit card orders (American Express, MasterCard and Visa) are accepted at ICAO Headquarters. International Civil Aviation Organization. Attention: Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 Telephone: +1 514-954-8022; Facsimile: +1 514-954-6769; Sitatex: YULCAYA; E-mail: [email protected]; World Wide Web: http://www.icao.int Cameroon. KnowHow, 1, Rue de la Chambre de Commerce-Bonanjo, B.P. 4676, Douala / Telephone: +237 343 98 42; Facsimile: +237 343 89 25; E-mail: [email protected] China. Glory Master International Limited, Room 434B, Hongshen Trade Centre, 428 Dong Fang Road, Pudong, Shanghai 200120 Telephone: +86 137 0177 4638; Facsimile: +86 21 5888 1629; E-mail: [email protected] Egypt. ICAO Regional Director, Middle East Office, Egyptian Civil Aviation Complex, Cairo Airport Road, Heliopolis, Cairo 11776 Telephone: +20 2 267 4840; Facsimile: +20 2 267 4843; Sitatex: CAICAYA; E-mail: [email protected] Germany. UNO-Verlag GmbH, August-Bebel-Allee 6, 53175 Bonn / Telephone: +49 0 228-94 90 2-0; Facsimile: +49 0 228-94 90 2-22; E-mail: [email protected]; World Wide Web: http://www.uno-verlag.de India.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice Federal Aviation Administration
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N JO 7210.842 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Air Traffic Organization Policy Effective Date: March 29, 2013 Cancellation Date: March 28, 2014 SUBJ: Guidance for the Use of Runway Status Lights (RWSL) Light System 1. Purpose of This Notice. This notice provides guidance to the air traffic manager (ATM) and/or front line manager (FLM) concerning the operations and periodic check of the RWSL system. A new paragraph will not be added to FAA Order JO 7210.3 until after all testing is complete. 2. Audience. This notice applies to the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Terminal Services Units at the following airport: Orlando International Airport (MCO). Airports that are not currently conducting RWSL testing but that may begin testing RWSL, are as follows: George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport (IAH); Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX); Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); Minneapolis-St. Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP); Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (CLT); Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL); Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI); Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD); McCarran International Airport (LAS); San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and LaGuardia Airport (LGA). 3. Where Can I Find This Notice? This notice is available on the MyFAA employee Web site at https://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/ and on the air traffic publications Web site at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. 4. Explanation of Policy Change. This notice cancels N JO 7210.812, Guidance for the Use of Runway Status Lights (RWSL) Light System at Orlando, FL, Airport (MCO), effective May 4, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Runway Incursions: Driving on the Airport FY 2009
    Federal Aviation Administration Situational Awareness Tips MONITOR ATC communications. Easy Steps to Avoid Reducing Runway Runway Incursions: Prior to driving on the airfield: BE PREPARED to vacate the runway or Incursions runway safety area on short notice. Always coordinate with airport manage- Driving on the Airport ment maintenance and repair activity in COMPLETE FAA sponsored web-based DON'T DEVIATE from established access accordance with established policy. FY 2009 runway safety education program at: routes and designated roadways. Don't take www.aopa.org/asf/runway_safety. Certificate shortcuts. awarded upon completion. BE FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRPORT LAYOUT. Keep current airport diagram MINIMIZE distractions such as paperwork, readily available. If you find the diagram is DETERMINE if the airport has a local drivers' food or beverages, cell phones or not current, contact airport management. training program for that airport. If one exists, conversation. complete the training before accessing the Use perimeter roads when possible. airport. USE available memory aids as reminders to operate vehicles safely. COORDINATE access to the airport through Always check NOTAMs/ATIS. the airport manager or operations department. Preventing Incursions and Establish and maintain radio FAMILIARIZE yourself with airport layout Incidents While Operating communications with ATCT when you changes due to construction, maintenance, access the airfield. etc. Know the airport frequency, and plan Vehicles on an Airfield your route ahead of time. Listen carefully,
    [Show full text]
  • Controller and Pilot Error in Airport Operations: a Review of Previous Research and Analysis of Safety Data
    Controller and Pilot Error in Airport Operations: A Review of Previous Research and Analysis of Safety Data DOT/FAA/AR-00/51 DOT-VNTSC-FAA-00-21 Office of Aviation Research Washington, DC20591 Kim Cardosi, Ph.D. Alan Yost U.S. Department ofTransportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Voipe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 Final Report January 2001 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 O U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 PuMcreporting burden torttnscollection ol information 6 estimated to average 1tourperresponse, mduolrigffw timeforreviewing ensawr^sourceSjMlJier^andmamtainttigirte data neeoWa^amptetirnaxlrenewrathecoDedOTolW SendMrmwrtsreoarSr^fts burden estimate oranyotheri olthiscoQecSon ofinformation, inctuanasuggestionsforr (hisburden, toWashington Headquarters Services, Directorate forInformation Operators andRep^ 1204, Arlmgton, VA 22202-4302, and toBte &$M Ol M and Budaet PapeworgReftrtonProject (0704-01B8). WaslfoSon. PC 20503. _ 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3.REPORTTYPE AND DATES COVERED January 2001 Final Report January 1997 -June 1999 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Controllerand Pilot Errorin AirportOperations: A Review ofPreviousResearch and Analysis of SafetyData FA1L1/A1112 6. AUTHOR(S) Kim Cardosi. Ph.D„ Alan Yost 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Evaluations of Runway Status Light System
    / NASA Technical Memorandum 4727 Pilot Evaluations of Runway Status Light System Steven D. Young, Robert W. Wills, and R. Marshall Smith October 1996 NASA Technical Memorandum 4727 Pilot Evaluations of Runway Status Light System Steven D. Young, Robert W. Wills, and R. Marshall Smith Langley Research Center • Hampton, Virginia National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center • Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 October 1996 The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Vern Edwards of the Federal Avia- tion Administration, Robert Rudis of the Volpe National Transporta- tion Systems Center, Jerry Wright of the Air Line Pilots Association, and the LaRC flight simulation laboratory staff for their help in this investigation. Without their efforts, this project could not have been completed. Available electronically at the following URL address: http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/Itrs/ltrs.html Printed copies available from the following: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 800 Elkridge Landing Road 5285 Port Royal Road Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 Springfield, VA 22161-2171 (301) 621-0390 (703) 487-4650 Contents Abbreviations ...................................................................... v Abstract ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Runway Incursion IFALPA
    Runway Incursion IFALPA International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations Runway incursion • Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft. • Doc 4444 Procedures for Air Navigation Services Runway Safety • ICAO document 9870, the Runway Incursion Prevention Manual, is based on the Eurocontrol action plan and FAA initiatives, focusing on short and medium term preventive actions. These might be the best achievable at present, but the real solutions lie in designing out the problem which requires a more systemic approach focusing on the future. Runway Safety • IFALPA’s preferred solution is to design airports in such a way that Taxiways crossing runways should be avoided whenever possible, by the construction of “end-around” or “perimeter” taxiways. • When a crossing is unavoidable, it should be done at a low energy point on the runway, at either runway end, entrance Taxiways for a runway shall be restricted to those required for lining up, for take off and shall be perpendicular to that runway. Runway Safety • Many airports were constructed more than 30 years ago, during these years aviation traffic has grown exponentially. Many airports around the world still have the original signs and markings, and they are no longer ICAO compliant. Leaving a pilot to interpret the meaning of these non standard signs and markings is an unnecessary hazard that may lead to a significant safety event. IFALPA considers theuseofnonstandardsignsandmarkingsa threat for its pilots and is requesting their standardization around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Incident Final Report
    National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Incident Final Report Location: Denver, CO Incident Number: OPS11IA273 Date & Time: 12/31/2010, 2034 UTC Registration: Aircraft: EMBRAER ERJ190 Aircraft Damage: None Defining Event: Runway incursion veh/AC/person Injuries: N/A Flight Conducted Under: Analysis A runway incursion occurred when an aviation operations vehicle, operated as the lead vehicle for a snow removal team, entered an active runway without clearance as the airplane was about to begin its takeoff roll. The airplane's crew noticed the headlights of the vehicle approaching on the runway and did not initiate their takeoff roll. The tower controller was not aware of the vehicle on the runway until advised by the airplane's crew. The airport was equipped with ASDE-X, which did not alert of the runway incursion due to the slow closure rate of the vehicle to the stationary aircraft. Postincident investigation revealed that the driver of the operations vehicle misidentified the runway for an adjacent taxiway. Probable Cause and Findings The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident to be: The driver of the operation vehicle's misidentification of the runway for an adjacent taxiway, resulting in a runway incursion with an aircraft in position for takeoff. Findings Personnel issues Decision making/judgment - Airport personnel (Cause) Page 1 of 4 Factual Information Air Canada Flight (ACA) number 1072, an Embraer RJ-190 on a scheduled 14 CFR Part 121 flight between DEN and Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Chicago, Illinois, had been cleared for takeoff from the approach end of runway 34R at DEN.
    [Show full text]
  • Runway Safety
    Federal Aviation Administration Runway Safety Presented to: RASG – Pan America Meeting By: James white, Deputy Director Airport Safety and Standards, FAA Date: November, 2009 Reducing Safety Surface Operations Risk Factors Minimal separation and rapid pace High-speed operations with little margin for error Complex environment Low visibility in poor weather Combination of Factors Minimizes Safety Margin Federal Aviation 2 2 November 2009 Administration All Categories of Runway Incursions Rate est. 1200 18.08* as Runway Incursions Airport1,000,000 per Operations of 09/30/09 1009 Runway IncursionRate 18.0 1000 892 951 816 779 17.23 16.0 800 14.57 14.0 600 13.34 12.36 12.0 400 10.0 200 0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 63.01 61.13 61.15 58.56 52.59 Airport Operations (millions) * Rates are based on Estimated Tower Operations Federal Aviation 3 3 November 2009 Administration Category A&B Runway Incursions 0.600 Category A&BRunway IncursionRate 60 Runway Incursions Airport1,000,000 per Operations 0.507 0.460 0.500 50 0.427 0.392 0.400 40 Rate est. 0.228 * 31 as of 09/30/09 29 Performance Reference = 0.300 0.472 * 30 24 25 0.200 20 12 0.100 10 0.000 0 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 63.01 61.13 61.15 58.56 52.59 Airport Operations (millions) * Rates are based on Estimated Tower Operations Federal Aviation 4 4 November 2009 Administration ParticipationParticipation inin RSATsRSATs Federal Aviation 5 5 November 2009 Administration ParticipationParticipation inin RSATsRSATs The preliminary inspection of the movement area includes: 1.
    [Show full text]