Harrison Ford & I Now Have A Bit Too Much In Common...Pilot Deviation :(

denverpilot said:
Holy crap! They weren’t even taking off from the right airport?! ;) ;) ;)



Seems odd it wasn’t there in the Commercial world. My first instructor years ago had me checking the DG against runway heading as a final check after lining up (granted, some of that was to reset the crappy things in the rentals back then that would precess so badly you still might think you were lined up on 22 instead of 26, but anyway...) and I can’t think of a flight where I haven’t done it in a quarter century since then...
Click to expand...
It's more that it became a common practice for runway identification.
I also remember as a PP aligning DG to runway, but that was more to double check DG alignment rather than a runway verification.
 
Kritchlow said:
It's more that it became a common practice for runway identification.
I also remember as a PP aligning DG to runway, but that was more to double check DG alignment rather than a runway verification.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It was always a runway check plus a DG check (checking both against the mag compass) with him. It stuck. I do it without thinking about it too much, but it’s both.

Seems like an easy habit to ingrain early on, and harder to teach into a habit later. Can’t see any reason anyone would teach it only as a DG check. Primacy and all that...
 
mscard88 said:
If I recall runway 26 (they were cleared to 22) lights were off. One controller on duty didn't help either. Don't know why the controller didn't notice they were on the wrong runway. Flew in and out there for 24 years, still can't understand what made them cross 22 to get to 26. I think that was the old routing to 26, may be wrong.
Click to expand...
I recall that there was some construction going on that may have made things confusing. There were changes made to the 7110.65 after that accident that required airplanes to be past any other runway before takeoff clearances were given.
 
mscard88 said:
If I recall runway 26 (they were cleared to 22) lights were off. One controller on duty didn't help either. Don't know why the controller didn't notice they were on the wrong runway. Flew in and out there for 24 years, still can't understand what made them cross 22 to get to 26. I think that was the old routing to 26, may be wrong.
Click to expand...
They didn't cross 22 to get to 26. They were crossing 26 to get to 22 but instead of crossing it they turned and took off on it
 
mscard88 said:
Yup wrote that backwards. I'll fixy.
Click to expand...
K. For anyone who cares and is looking at LEX and doesn't remember, if you extend 9/27 to A7 thats what it looked like when this happened. 26 and 22 were like spokes on hub
 
Here's what it looked like in 2006 when the crash occurred. I had it wrong in my post above. You would cross 26 on the way to 22. Seems to me the taxiway to the very end of 22 was usable, from what I remember, so don't know what the X is on there for.

LEX CMR 2006.jpg
 
Brief Update:
Flew again today for practice. Noticed our ATIS now has an additional caution regarding runway assignments. Have never heard that before. When the instructor first heard it, he said he listened twice. Were figuring my blunder probably contributed (somewhat) to this change.

For this airport in particular one change for me now when confirming a parallel runway will be to also call out "north parallel" or "south parallel" at least once. Something like "Report 2 mile final for runway 10 right, south parallel, Skylane 12Q". I'm many sure others have done this before me so nothing new. Hopefully a clearer, yet still terse enough readback that will help me and also give the controller a extra queue that I'm off base somehow.

No word from FSDO yet. Taking knowledge exam tomorrow.
 
Sinistar said:
For this airport in particular one change for me now when confirming a parallel runway will be to also call out "north parallel" or "south parallel" at least once. Something like "Report 2 mile final for runway 10 right, south parallel, Skylane 12Q". I'm many sure others have done this before me so nothing new. Hopefully a clearer, yet still terse enough readback that will help me and also give the controller a extra queue that I'm off base somehow.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that change. I would stick to the standard phraseology, emphasizing the words "right" or "left" in the readback if you want to achieve the same effect. There's a chance you will say "Runway 10R, north parallel," or a similar incorrect readback, which will only lend to more confusion.
 
Harold Rutila said:
I don't agree with that change. I would stick to the standard phraseology, emphasizing the words "right" or "left" in the readback if you want to achieve the same effect. There's a chance you will say "Runway 10R, north parallel," or a similar incorrect readback, which will only lend to more confusion.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Throwing in some nonstandard phrasing to the alphanumeric painted in large white characters on the approach end of the runway and shown on the airport diagram doesn’t add anything to clarity. If it helps you personally to also think of it as north, south, east, west, northeast, southwest, whatever, fine. (With my sense of direction, it would screw me up completely.) But I would not use it as part of my communications (unless that ATIS statement says to do so)

ATC: Cleared to land runway 8R.
Pilot: Is that the north runway?
ATC: Sir, we have 4 parallel runways here. It’s the one with the big Eight and Romeo painted on it.

As a statement, not a question? I’d expect ATC to completely ignore the added direction, so long as they heard the correct runway number.
 
Last edited:
Sinistar said:
Brief Update:
Flew again today for practice. Noticed our ATIS now has an additional caution regarding runway assignments. Have never heard that before. When the instructor first heard it, he said he listened twice. Were figuring my blunder probably contributed (somewhat) to this change.

For this airport in particular one change for me now when confirming a parallel runway will be to also call out "north parallel" or "south parallel" at least once. Something like "Report 2 mile final for runway 10 right, south parallel, Skylane 12Q". I'm many sure others have done this before me so nothing new. Hopefully a clearer, yet still terse enough readback that will help me and also give the controller a extra queue that I'm off base somehow.

No word from FSDO yet. Taking knowledge exam tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I agree with the others above saying don't add in the north parallel part. It's totally unrequired and hoensty super confusing to anyone who is not thinking that same way as you. If you honestly need a standard way of communicating which parallel you are using try " Skylane 12345 cleared to land runway 11 right." That's all you need to say. I have heard some pilots say "cleared to land runway 11 right side" before as that at least makes it clear you should be landing on the right(not the left) runway and others will understand what you mean. If you start using cardinal directions, you are adding tremendous confusion to any other pilot in the pattern. I could foresee a situation where the tower get pilots radioing in to confirm they are also cleared to land if conducting a simultaneous approach to the parallel because your non-standard communication will confuse them! Plus, considering you are under "investigation" by the FAA right now( probably not the right phrasing but you get my point) I'd be even more worried about transmitting non-standard phrasing over the airwaves of any control tower considering the conversations are recorded!

A instructor once told me a good way to remember the parallel runway thing, if you are told to land on 33L ( the airport I trained out of has parallel runways) he would say, "remember you should see a runway to your right on approach." It worked pretty well for me!
 
Sinistar said:
Brief Update:
Flew again today for practice. Noticed our ATIS now has an additional caution regarding runway assignments. Have never heard that before. When the instructor first heard it, he said he listened twice. Were figuring my blunder probably contributed (somewhat) to this change.

For this airport in particular one change for me now when confirming a parallel runway will be to also call out "north parallel" or "south parallel" at least once. Something like "Report 2 mile final for runway 10 right, south parallel, Skylane 12Q". I'm many sure others have done this before me so nothing new. Hopefully a clearer, yet still terse enough readback that will help me and also give the controller a extra queue that I'm off base somehow.

No word from FSDO yet. Taking knowledge exam tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Just read back the assigned runway. Don't start making up phraseology, if will get you in a jam one day.
 
Sinistar said:
see post #18.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I missed it. Oh, it's an easy one :D

Have the guys who flew into Pueblo, CO regularly before they replaced one of the parallels tell you about the old 8R/26L which looks like part of the ramp. On this map, it's the runway with the Xes. (Hey @denverpilot and @Clark1961, when did they finally close that? Is the new runway open yet?)

KPUB.png
 
First time I went into Pueblo, and I was given 26L. Even though I had an airport diagram on my yoke clip, there was still a little confusion. Then the controller told me the runway looks like landing on the edge of the ramp.

A couple years later when I went there again the old runway was closed and the new one was open.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Thanks. I missed it. Oh, it's an easy one :D

Have the guys who flew into Pueblo, CO regularly before they replaced one of the parallels tell you about the old 8R/26L which looks like part of the ramp. On this map, it's the runway with the Xes. (Hey @denverpilot and @Clark1961, when did they finally close that? Is the new runway open yet?)

View attachment 56671
Click to expand...
The new runway was open last time I was there which was March of 15. Dunno when it opened.
 
mscard88 said:
Here's what it looked like in 2006 when the crash occurred. I had it wrong in my post above. You would cross 26 on the way to 22. Seems to me the taxiway to the very end of 22 was usable, from what I remember, so don't know what the X is on there for.

View attachment 56643
Click to expand...

The X is there because that portion of taxiway was closed when that accident occurred, which was one of the contributing factors in the crash. This accident has also resulted in a change to the Airport Design AC so that two runways may not begin near each other in a closed V intersection, or one similar to the Lexington previous layout. It is also the reason all Part 139 airports and many GA airports now have the Surface Painted Hold Position Signs, the big red billboards on the pavement just short of the hold short markings.
 
Yeah I just don't remember it being closed when I flew in and out of there, and I was regularly flying in there when this occurred, but not that particular day.
 
Last edited:
Years ago a friend had a branch office at KSNA, and would commute there from his KVNY home base in his Turbo Saratoga. He would often work late and leave for home after the KSNA tower closed. After hours 19R, the longer air carrier runway, normally remained open and 19L, the shorter parallel, would be closed, and the overnight ATIS would always -- ALWAYS -- chant, " ... Runway 1R/19L closed ... "

Except this night. The same monotone recorded voice rattled off, " ... Runway 1L/19R closed ...," with nothing else to suggest anything out of the ordinary, such as an unlighted portable generator parked in the middle of the big runway. My friend started his takeoff roll on 19R, as usual, and got as far as to where the generator was parked.

PICT0150_anonymous.jpeg

One of the findings on the NTSB report was "Habit interference."
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
The X is there because that portion of taxiway was closed when that accident occurred, which was one of the contributing factors in the crash. This accident has also resulted in a change to the Airport Design AC so that two runways may not begin near each other in a closed V intersection, or one similar to the Lexington previous layout. It is also the reason all Part 139 airports and many GA airports now have the Surface Painted Hold Position Signs, the big red billboards on the pavement just short of the hold short markings.
Click to expand...

Like the runways here in Los Cruces.....There is a short taxi on runway 30 to get to runway 26, which can be confusing especially at night.


01231.gif
 
Update:

An ASI just left me a voicemail yesterday asking me to contact him regarding the deviation. He indicated he would be out today so I will call him on Monday. Of course I did try calling him yesterday after I got out of meetings, missed him and left a message just to establish I am not trying to dodge him.

And leave it to me to make it interesting: I've changed instructors since this happened. And, the airplane logs will be at our A&P by Monday so it won't be possible to bring in aircraft logs if I am asked to come in for a visit and he requests them (which I have heard is typical).

I'll keep everyone posted on what I learn on Monday.
 
Probably nothing will come of it. There is also no harm in asking tower to confirm a clearance. I was once coming into Reno in a 172 and got cleared to land about 18 miles out (yes, really). By the time I was 2 or 3 miles out, much time had passed and I just called up with "Reno Tower, Skyhawk 123, confirm clear to land 16L".
 
Sinistar said:
Update:

An ASI just left me a voicemail yesterday asking me to contact him regarding the deviation. He indicated he would be out today so I will call him on Monday. Of course I did try calling him yesterday after I got out of meetings, missed him and left a message just to establish I am not trying to dodge him.

And leave it to me to make it interesting: I've changed instructors since this happened. And, the airplane logs will be at our A&P by Monday so it won't be possible to bring in aircraft logs if I am asked to come in for a visit and he requests them (which I have heard is typical).

I'll keep everyone posted on what I learn on Monday.
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that a request for aircraft logs for a pilot deviation are typical? :dunno: Personally, I've never heard of one.

And really - I know someone else said this pretty early on, but talking with an ASI is not the time to be reporting what's going on in social media.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Where did you hear that a request for aircraft logs for a pilot deviation are typical? :dunno: Personally, I've never heard of one.

And really - I know someone else said this pretty early on, but talking with an ASI is not the time to be reporting what's going on in social media.
Click to expand...
Perhaps typical is the wrong word. I have only found two online discussions regarding a situation similar to mine. I believe one is here on POA and was due to a plane leaving the runway. In both cases, it is my understanding that the pilot was required to bring aircraft logs along with all the pilot documentation (license, medical, pilots logs, etc). So, I'm going to plan for needing the aircraft log books rather than expect to not have to produce them.

Right now I am controlling what I say here on the forum. Quite a few people seem genuinely interested in what is happening and how long the process is taking. I do not believe it is harmful to let others know that I have now been contacted and that I am anticipating having to bring more than just myself, student license and log books. Until this is resolved I have no plans of sharing specific details of what happened or the follow up conversations with ASI until it is closed out.
 
Sinistar said:
Perhaps typical is the wrong word. I have only found two online discussions regarding a situation similar to mine. I believe one is here on POA and was due to a plane leaving the runway. In both cases, it is my understanding that the pilot was required to bring aircraft logs along with all the pilot documentation (license, medical, pilots logs, etc). So, I'm going to plan for needing the aircraft log books rather than expect to not have to produce them.

Right now I am controlling what I say here on the forum. Quite a few people seem genuinely interested in what is happening and how long the process is taking. I do not believe it is harmful to let others know that I have now been contacted and that I am anticipating having to bring more than just myself, student license and log books. Until this is resolved I have no plans of sharing specific details of what happened or the follow up conversations with ASI until it is closed out.
Click to expand...

Couple of things.

First off — it’s none of our business. Keep that in mind. You don’t have to post anything about it for anyone. Ever. :)

Second, there’s a reason you only see “a couple” of posts about it anywhere. See first item. :) I wouldn’t base what to expect off of online posts because the vast majority are handled in private.

The more public you make something the more pressure the ASI might have to be seen as being (perhaps overly) Safety conscious.

Do I think they really change behavior if they know you’re posting about something? Not really. But why risk it.

It’s not a criminal law case but the old adage applies... “You have the right to remain silent.” Generally I think one should. In public anyway. Unless your “deal” is to provide a safety seminar on your experience or something. I’ve seen a CFI do that after an incident.

Whether it was to make FAA happy or their own conscience, I can’t say... but they did a safety briefing for Wings credit after they experienced something and did something unsafe.

Generally they’ll be fair with you, but something posted that one wrong person reads and even just misunderstands and now you’ve created a different problem for yourself than the first problem. Be smart about it. I think you are.

But maybe remember there’s no need or motivation other than to share an experience with all of us and it’s none of our business in the end analysis of it all. It’s between you, the ASI, and the instructor who signed you off. Don’t feel obligated to post about it at all.
 
Had a "possible pilot deviation, advise when ready to copy phone number" incident myself today which kinda fits into this thread. I was flying from San Jose (KSJC) to Reid Hillview (KRHV) for a Young Eagles event. The two airports are about 5 nm from each other; KSJC is class C, and KRHV is class D. KRHV was landing on 31L and 31R. KRHV tower gave me landing clearance which sounded like 31R, but I wasn't quite sure, so I called up tower with "Reid Hillview Tower, 89EL, confirm cleared to land on 31R" Tower came back with "Affirm". So, I turned base, crossed over the approach path to 31L and landed 31R. Ground gave me the Possible Pilot Deviation message with a number to call. Shook me up a bit; I had no idea what I could have done wrong. When I called, the supervisor said I'd been cleared to land 31L and not 31R.

Well that was disturbing. The tower supervisor indicated they'd be reviewing the tapes, and he would talk to me more at the Young Eagles pilot briefing. The pilot of the plane which landed behind me was also there for Young Eagles, and she confirmed to me that she heard me confirm 31R. In fact, she heard tower clear me to 31R initially.

After the Young Eagles briefing, the tower supervisor talked with me more and indicated that the tapes showed I did confirm 31R and that they had responded affirm. So, I did nothing wrong. He did say that the tower had meant to say affirm, 31L. It was good to hear him say I wasn't at fault, but he said that they might have to file a report anyway. He also said that since I was coming in on the left side of the airport, I should have expected the left runway and that it wouldn't be normal to be given opposite side runways. Well. San Jose, Livermore, and many other airports have parallel runways, and frequently give opposite side runways for landing, so I don't buy that from him; certainly not worth arguing about however.

So, bottom line, the tower sometimes screws up also, and it's not a bad idea to confirm land clearance if you are not sure. Even that may not fix everything if the tower controller says something other than what they are expecting.

Overall, I wasn't really impressed with the KRHV tower crew today. Lots of Young Eagles pilots and flights, so they were busy, but they didn't want to assign discrete squawk codes, and they were getting confused with all the 1200's in the air and losing track of who was who. Coming back from one flight, they'd cleared be to land straight in. An experimental in the pattern cut me off and turned base in front of me. Tower chastised me saying that my instructions were to extend my downwind. Kinda hard to do when they'd cleared me to land on a long straight in final. Clearly they had my tail number confused with the experimental. They'd told the experimental to extend downwind. It was wild today. Glad I'm not based there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Wow, sounds like it was really busy and confusing. Sounds like you did the right thing and maybe the towers mistake. I'm betting this wasn't the towers favorite day either. It makes you think, the Young Eagles (kids) and their folks have no idea how much goes into making that single flight work, let alone safe and not getting into some kinda trouble later on.

Regarding your possible incident I have a "hunch" that even if you were in the wrong you would receive some counseling by the ASI and nothing to report on your next medical...unless this was a frequent event for you or you get defensive, make excuses, etc.

And I have another "hunch" that if you are asked to go in to be interviewed (right or wrong) they will ask to see your aircraft logs also. This is to ensure your plane was in compliance at the time of the incident.

Remember, those are just "hunches" though.

Ps. Did you file a NASA report right afterwards?
 
Sinistar said:
Wow, sounds like it was really busy and confusing. Sounds like you did the right thing and maybe the towers mistake. I'm betting this wasn't the towers favorite day either. It makes you think, the Young Eagles (kids) and their folks have no idea how much goes into making that single flight work, let alone safe and not getting into some kinda trouble later on.

Regarding your possible incident I have a "hunch" that even if you were in the wrong you would receive some counseling by the ASI and nothing to report on your next medical...unless this was a frequent event for you or you get defensive, make excuses, etc.

And I have another "hunch" that if you are asked to go in to be interviewed (right or wrong) they will ask to see your aircraft logs also. This is to ensure your plane was in compliance at the time of the incident.

Remember, those are just "hunches" though.

Ps. Did you file a NASA report right afterwards?
Click to expand...

Well, the tower supervisor told me I did nothing wrong after he listened to the tapes, and he admitted that it was their fault. I would hope that I don't hear anymore about it, but I would also hope they do a lessons learned sort of thing to see what they can do better. I will be filing the NASA form; wonder if that will trigger any corrective action on their part.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right that if I had been in the wrong (I wasn't, but just for the sake of discussion) it wouldn't be too painful. Since the tapes supported my version, I doubt if I'll hear anything more about it.

It's interesting to compare. I flew at a Young Eagles event in Palo Alto about a month ago for Palo Alto airport day. Much busier there than at Reid Hillview, yet the tower handled things so much better. Each Young Eagles flight had an individual squawk code, tower knew where everyone was at all times, and things went so much smoother. Overall, I'm much more impressed with the competence of Palo Alto. Guess it makes sense, Palo Alto is much busier than Reid Hillview; they have more practice bringing their A game.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Sinistar said:
Wow, sounds like it was really busy and confusing. Sounds like you did the right thing and maybe the towers mistake. I'm betting this wasn't the towers favorite day either. It makes you think, the Young Eagles (kids) and their folks have no idea how much goes into making that single flight work, let alone safe and not getting into some kinda trouble later on.

Regarding your possible incident I have a "hunch" that even if you were in the wrong you would receive some counseling by the ASI and nothing to report on your next medical...unless this was a frequent event for you or you get defensive, make excuses, etc.

And I have another "hunch" that if you are asked to go in to be interviewed (right or wrong) they will ask to see your aircraft logs also. This is to ensure your plane was in compliance at the time of the incident.

Remember, those are just "hunches" though.

Ps. Did you file a NASA report right afterwards?
Click to expand...

I have "Hunch" your hunchs are probably correct
 
jimhorner said:
He also said that since I was coming in on the left side of the airport, I should have expected the left runway and that it wouldn't be normal to be given opposite side runways. Well. San Jose, Livermore, and many other airports have parallel runways, and frequently give opposite side runways for landing, so I don't buy that from him; certainly not worth arguing about however.
Click to expand...

Man, that is a dangerous line of thinking that he is treading........bad/incorrect assumptions like that (the "normal" runway "I always land on") are the exact reason these things often happen in the first place.
 
35 AoA said:
Man, that is a dangerous line of thinking that he is treading........bad/incorrect assumptions like that (the "normal" runway "I always land on") are the exact reason these things often happen in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Especially since the OP asked for confirmation. What's he supposed to do then? Ask the controller a third time and say "are you sure?"
 
Dave Theisen said:
Exactly. Especially since the OP asked for confirmation. What's he supposed to do then? Ask the controller a third time and say "are you sure?"
Click to expand...

yeah no kidding. Sounds like he was trying to deflect, rather than provide actual feedback on best practices.
 
He probably doesn’t want to give the controller a “deal” over a Young Eagles madhouse. Just a “hunch”.
 
35 AoA said:
yeah no kidding. Sounds like he was trying to deflect, rather than provide actual feedback on best practices.
Click to expand...
I agree. What he should have done was own their mistake and apologize. End of Story.

@jimhorner , If it were me in this position, I'd fill out an ASAP on the incident and make sure to input the supervisor's comments and say that what he did was dangerous. Had you been a new private pilot that isn't used to flying in the ATC system it could be hazardous having an ATC sup tell you that you that you should assume the closest runway to you. By doing this, hopefully he will be instructed how to act professionally in the future.

My unsolicited $0.02
 
Radar Contact said:
I agree. What he should have done was own their mistake and apologize. End of Story.

@jimhorner , If it were me in this position, I'd fill out an ASAP on the incident and make sure to input the supervisor's comments and say that what he did was dangerous. Had you been a new private pilot that isn't used to flying in the ATC system it could be hazardous having an ATC sup tell you that you that you should assume the closest runway to you. By doing this, hopefully he will be instructed how to act professionally in the future.

My unsolicited $0.02
Click to expand...

Second this. If the tape had it the other way and you screwed up, they'd be processing a violation on you. An ASAP can he file one Radar Contact?
 
mscard88 said:
Second this. If the tape had it the other way and you screwed up, they'd be processing a violation on you. An ASAP can he file one Radar Contact?
Click to expand...
Yeah, any pilot can file an ASRS/NASA and put their comments. It will get reviewed and my guess is in this case the sup will get a talking to about his conversation. Unfortunately the conversation with the sup wasn't on a recorded phone call as it sounds like the OP had it in person with him so the sup may not have integrity and say he never said that. Either way, he will probably think twice about saying something stupid like that to another pilot.

Edited: correct form
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top