Runway Incursion at HDN

[roncachamp]

You sound as though you're arguing for his right to be stupid as PIC in an airliner carrying trusting passengers.

I've posted nothing that suggests that.

What point are you even trying to make?

My point here is that it doesn't matter to ATC if the aircraft was airborne or on the ground when it canceled IFR. Your post suggested that you believed it made a difference.

I'm about to give up on responding to your posts between this thread and another.

That's completely up to you, of course. I think you'd be better off if you reexamined your positions.

 

[roncachamp]

Once he went VFR he was see and avoid.

On the other pilots side just because ATC released him he still has to depart VFR until he is in controlled airspace. Looking at the chart that means he is see and avoid until 700 feet AGL.

See and avoid applies when conditions permit it. It doesn't matter if you're operating IFR or VFR, it doesn't matter if the airspace is Class G or Class E.

 

[Everskyward]

My point here is that it doesn't matter to ATC if the aircraft was airborne or on the ground when it canceled IFR.

From a technical standpoint that is true. However, ATC will sometimes, as a courtesy, warn departing IFR aircraft that there is inbound traffic, even when that traffic has cancelled IFR. If ATC thinks the inbound traffic has already landed, they will not bother. Of course you shouldn't rely on these advisories but it gives the departing aircraft a clue.

 

[roncachamp]

From a technical standpoint that is true. However, ATC will sometimes, as a courtesy, warn departing IFR aircraft that there is inbound traffic, even when that traffic has cancelled IFR. If ATC thinks the inbound traffic has already landed, they will not bother. Of course you shouldn't rely on these advisories but it gives the departing aircraft a clue.

True dat. I was speaking only of separation between IFR aircraft.

 

[RMCN172RG]

From a technical standpoint that is true. However, ATC will sometimes, as a courtesy, warn departing IFR aircraft that there is inbound traffic, even when that traffic has cancelled IFR. If ATC thinks the inbound traffic has already landed, they will not bother. Of course you shouldn't rely on these advisories but it gives the departing aircraft a clue.

Devils advocate Mari.

If the departing aircraft is on the same ATC frequency waiting ofr clearance, I suspect in this case they are unless thay were in contact via phone or GCO. Shouldn't they know?

Now at larger airports they have different ATC frequencies but then they are towered.

 

[KennyFlys]

There is nothing wrong with canceling IFR before landing, but he has an obligation to monitor the CTAF, no matter whether he cancels IFR or not! Done properly, there is nothing at all wrong with canceling IFR before landing, and very much that is right about it.

---
In the second article, did anyone catch the bit about the fire chief saying that he heard the aircraft of Center frequency, but did not warn them ...



In the circumstyances, I seriously doubt anyone would try to call him to task for keying up and issuing a warning of some sort on the local ZDV frequency.

The center frequency may have been on a scanner and he had a transmitter only on CTAF.

 

[KennyFlys]

I've posted nothing that suggests that.



My point here is that it doesn't matter to ATC if the aircraft was airborne or on the ground when it canceled IFR. Your post suggested that you believed it made a difference.



That's completely up to you, of course. I think you'd be better off if you reexamined your positions.

How is my position wrong? I said ALL aircraft should be monitoring and making appropriate calls into and out of a non-towered airport.

And, the United pilot had no business cancelling while still airborne, let alone telling the controller he was already on the ground.

What's not stated is exactly how far out the United jet was when he did cancel and claim to be on the ground.

 

[roncachamp]

And, the United pilot had no business cancelling while still airborne, ...

Why not?

 

[Everskyward]

If the departing aircraft is on the same ATC frequency waiting ofr clearance, I suspect in this case they are unless thay were in contact via phone or GCO. Shouldn't they know?

In Hayden I seem to remember that you can pick up your IFR clearance on the ground on the radio, and I think you're actually talking to center rather than being relayed through FSS. But without knowing how everyone's radios were set at the time it's hard to say whether or not they would have heard each other. Maybe they both switched over to the opposite frequency at an unfortunate time.

 

[SCCutler]

And, the United pilot had no business cancelling while still airborne, let alone telling the controller he was already on the ground.

Ken, I have to disagree with you very strongly on this; canceling while in the air, if conditions are appropriate, is a very responsible act and vastly improves the usefulness of airports.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ken, I have to disagree with you very strongly on this; canceling while in the air, if conditions are appropriate, is a very responsible act and vastly improves the usefulness of airports.

+1.

Cancelling IFR while airborne can be a good thing.

An IFR release is NOT a takeoff clearance - one still has the duty to depart safely, including making appropriate CTAF calls, checking final before taking the runway, and operating "see and avoid" until in positive radar contact (and even then you still continue if in VMC).

Once the inbound flight cancelled IFR, he was just another VFR airplane in the vicinity of the airport, and the flight getting ready to depart still had the duty to watch out for VFR traffic.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ken, I have to disagree with you very strongly on this; canceling while in the air, if conditions are appropriate, is a very responsible act and vastly improves the usefulness of airports.

True, but aren't 121 operations supposed to be IFR, period?

Were it me flying along part 91, I'd have cancelled when I had the field in sight, most likely. But, I'm pretty sure that's a no-no for a Part 121 op.

 

[gismo]

I'm having a hard time seeing what the United pilot did that violated any rules, unless as Kent said he was required to wait until on the ground to cancel. If you take that out of the picture, all you have left is a King Air interfering with the RJ's landing. Shouldn't the KA pilot be held accountable for a runway incursion (per the title of this thread)? As to all the words about who was supposed to be on what frequency, that's all well and good but not required by any regulation that I know of. If he weren't going IFR, the KA could have legally departed without a working radio on board (granted, not a very good idea but still legal).

 

[KennyFlys]

Ken, I have to disagree with you very strongly on this; canceling while in the air, if conditions are appropriate, is a very responsible act and vastly improves the usefulness of airports.

From the article:

On the afternoon of March 1, SkyWest pilot Timothy McCabe, who was operating a United Express flight, reportedly told Denver air traffic controllers that he had landed when he was not yet on the runway in Hayden. Denver gave a nine- to 12-passenger King Air clearance to take off. The planes narrowly avoided a collision, observers said.

Of all the acts he committed, that's most likely the one that got him in hot water.

When you're carrying that much responsibility with all those lives on board, you don't deviate from the truth. And, I'll bet you SOP for United is there is no canceling IFR at a non-towered airport until on the ground and clear of the runway.

I hope he does appeal then the matter will be public on the NTSB site.

Does anyone recall Dave's event a few months ago when he was on approach at a non-towered airport and canceled early? A Westwind was released and not talking on CTAF. He narrowly avoided a collision.

 

[KennyFlys]

Why not?

Read my earlier post.

I guess it's okay be so stupid while lives are depending on you to act in a safe manner.

Knock yourself out. I'll never fly with you and I'd never knowingly want you as my controller with that attitude.

 

[TMetzinger]

True, but aren't 121 operations supposed to be IFR, period?

Were it me flying along part 91, I'd have cancelled when I had the field in sight, most likely. But, I'm pretty sure that's a no-no for a Part 121 op.

Not at all. Depends on the operator (and United was probably not the operator of this flight, it was probably a smaller regional airline).

 

[TMetzinger]

From the article:


Of all the acts he committed, that's most likely the one that got him in hot water.

That I agree with. I don't think it matters whether you're IFR or VFR - you don't tell lies to ATC, who will then make decisions based on what you've told them.

 

[gismo]

That I agree with. I don't think it matters whether you're IFR or VFR - you don't tell lies to ATC, who will then make decisions based on what you've told them.

Unless "on the deck" has been added to the pilot/controller glossary I don't see how uttering that phrase, however misunderstood by ATC" would rise to the level of a violation. And in any case once he cancelled IFR, I'd think anything less than a "Clear of all runways" call to the other airplane waiting to depart would be of no consequence. Even if the RJ had one or more wheels on the runway when he called "on the deck" that wouldn't imply that the runway was available for use by another airplane and in any case Denver Center has no business "clearing" another airplane for takeoff at an uncontrolled airport. I'd like to see the FAA report on this one, it sure seems like we're missing some critical information here (not like that's ever stopped us from speculating).

 

[Teller1900]

Not at all. Depends on the operator (and United was probably not the operator of this flight, it was probably a smaller regional airline).

Correct on both counts. Obviously everyone's OpSpecs are different, but I think they're fairly similar. Ours say that we can cancel within 10nm of the field if the airport environment (hangars, taxiways, etc) are in sight, or whenever the captain deems safe and prudent so long as the landing surface are, and will remain, in sight. It can help controllers (and us, and other planes) a lot if we cancel in the air. At a non-towered airport, canceling does not mean, or imply that we're on the ground or that the airspace is free, but it does allow the controller to give an IFR release (he can't clear them for takeoff, remember, it's uncontrolled) to another a/c. It's still up to that plane's pilot to accept the release and takeoff only when the airspace and runway are clear...same as every VFR plane does on every VMC day.

This was not a United flight.

 

[Teller1900]

That's only because the inbound aircraft did cancel IFR while still airborne. Worse, they led center to believe they were on the ground.


This was the point I made. Both aircraft should have been monitoring CTAF as well as center's frequency.

If we can do so in our dinky Skyhawk trainers, so can larger aircraft such as King Airs and CRJ's. We constantly monitor the school's unicom so we may be reached by the school or one of our other aircraft.

The fault rest entirely upon the CRJ crew member that prematurely canceled their IFR clearance let alone lying about their position with regard to being on the ground. That was just plain stupid.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Ken. You're absolutely right, they both should have been talking and listening on the CTAF (thought technically nothing requires them to), and had they been doing so this might not have been an issue. That said, IMHO the jet pilot did nothing wrong canceling while airborn (so long as he was VFR and his OpSpecs allow it). And as (I think) Lance said, "on the deck" is not in the P/C Glossery, so all the controller had to work with was the fact that the cancelation freed up the airspace for IFR operations, hence his release for he KA. Once the KA got his release it was entierly up to them to depart safely. An IFR release is not a takeoff clearance, does not gaurantee traffic separation, does not give departing traffic right-of-way over arriving traffic, and mostly certainly does not relieve the pilot of his responsibility to see-and-avoid.

Certainly the RJ pilots would'a-should'a-could'a done things differently/better, but I don't think all the blame can be shouldered on them.

 

[Teller1900]

I highlighted the relevant part, because, see, when I'm putting along at 75 and turn my final and then a jet(prop) suddenly appears on the frequency and calls a 3 mile final and busts out of the clouds, trust me, it's not enough time. In addition, despite the fact that they'll run you over, once I'm established on final, I'm pretty sure I have the right of way. Finally, I must second the comment that calling FAF inbound is not useful -- I know what it means, but a lot of people don't.

Just my .02,

~ Christopher

I missed this post the first time around...I absolutely agree with you on all points. However, a nordo straight-in is no more or less dangerous (or annoying) than a nordo traffic pattern. It's just as dangerous for us when we bust out of the clouds three miles out and find a scud runner turning in front of us. Does it suck that some guys just blast in and act like they own the airport? Absolutely, and they give the rest of us jet(prop) guys a bad name. But I'd like to think they're the exception that proves my point.

 

[westslopeco]

Snip

This was not a United flight.

BTW the operator was Skywest.

 

[westslopeco]

Certainly the RJ pilots would'a-should'a-could'a done things differently/better, but I don't think all the blame can be shouldered on them.

I think I have to agree with Teller (with the information that we have, of course). Who would have been at fault if instead of a Skywest CRJ on final, it was me in a C-172 (under VFR, never filing etc.)?

 

[roncachamp]

Read my earlier post.

I've read all your posts in this thread. Had you explained why you feel "...the United pilot had no business cancelling while still airborne, ..." in one of them I wouldn't have had to ask.

I guess it's okay be so stupid while lives are depending on you to act in a safe manner.

What do you believe was the act of stupidity? Canceling IFR while airborne?

Speculation is fine, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from a newspaper report. Wait for a verbatim transcript of the ATC transmissions.

Knock yourself out. I'll never fly with you and I'd never knowingly want you as my controller with that attitude.

Whatever spins your prop. We'll never fly together but you'd never receive better ATC service from any other controller.

 

[roncachamp]

Of all the acts he committed, that's most likely the one that got him in hot water.

When you're carrying that much responsibility with all those lives on board, you don't deviate from the truth. And, I'll bet you SOP for United is there is no canceling IFR at a non-towered airport until on the ground and clear of the runway.

It was reported that he told ATC he had landed when he was not yet on the runway. It is not known that he told ATC he had landed when he was not yet on the runway. You have too much faith in reporters.

 

[roncachamp]

That I agree with. I don't think it matters whether you're IFR or VFR - you don't tell lies to ATC, who will then make decisions based on what you've told them.

Has someone posted a transcript of the ATC transmissions or a link to one? Without that you can't know what the pilot said to ATC and thus cannot know that he lied.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the "Steamboat Pilot & Today" article:

"Airport Manager Dave Ruppel confirmed Merrill’s account on Monday. According to Ruppel, one of the United pilots told air traffic controllers in Denver, 'I’m on the deck.' The Denver officials then cleared the private plane to take off, Ruppel said, thinking the United flight was on the ground."

"Ruppel said the United pilot told air traffic controllers in Denver that he was canceling 'instrument flight rules.' Instrument flight rules, or IFR, are a set of rules for flying by aircraft instruments only, while separation from other aircraft is provided by air traffic control. The rules allow for such things as flying through clouds. When a pilot cancels IFR, he then operates under 'visual flight rules,' and is responsible for navigation, obstacle clearance and traffic separation."

The only quote attributed to the United flight is "I’m on the deck." What does that mean? You won't find it in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. "On the deck" is an old aviation slang term, it means "ground level or very close to the ground." If that's all that was said to ATC, if the controller concluded United was canceling IFR based on that phrase, upon which he issued an IFR release to the King Air, then he's got himself a separation error. If that phrase is the basis for the assertion that the United crew lied to ATC, saying they were on the ground when they were not, then that assertion is unfounded.

Based on the SP&T article, the worst that can be said about the United pilot is that he used sloppy phraseology. Sloppy phraseology is bad, but it does not constitute lying to ATC.

 

[TMetzinger]

Has someone posted a transcript of the ATC transmissions or a link to one? Without that you can't know what the pilot said to ATC and thus cannot know that he lied.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the "Steamboat Pilot & Today" article:

"Airport Manager Dave Ruppel confirmed Merrill’s account on Monday. According to Ruppel, one of the United pilots told air traffic controllers in Denver, 'I’m on the deck.' The Denver officials then cleared the private plane to take off, Ruppel said, thinking the United flight was on the ground."

"Ruppel said the United pilot told air traffic controllers in Denver that he was canceling 'instrument flight rules.' Instrument flight rules, or IFR, are a set of rules for flying by aircraft instruments only, while separation from other aircraft is provided by air traffic control. The rules allow for such things as flying through clouds. When a pilot cancels IFR, he then operates under 'visual flight rules,' and is responsible for navigation, obstacle clearance and traffic separation."

The only quote attributed to the United flight is "I’m on the deck." What does that mean? You won't find it in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. "On the deck" is an old aviation slang term, it means "ground level or very close to the ground." If that's all that was said to ATC, if the controller concluded United was canceling IFR based on that phrase, upon which he issued an IFR release to the King Air, then he's got himself a separation error. If that phrase is the basis for the assertion that the United crew lied to ATC, saying they were on the ground when they were not, then that assertion is unfounded.

Based on the SP&T article, the worst that can be said about the United pilot is that he used sloppy phraseology. Sloppy phraseology is bad, but it does not constitute lying to ATC.

No argument. And frankly, it's not much of a factor. The minute the pilot cancelled IFR, what he did or did not say to ATC became much less relevant. The released flight was obligated to do all the same things they'd do anyway, not treat the release like a takeoff clearance at a towered field.

 

[roncachamp]

.... Denver Center has no business "clearing" another airplane for takeoff at an uncontrolled airport.

True, and I think it unlikely that they did. Just another example of poor journalism.

I'd like to see the FAA report on this one, it sure seems like we're missing some critical information here (not like that's ever stopped us from speculating).

What? Wait for facts before hanging someone? Are you MAD?!

 

[roncachamp]

No argument. And frankly, it's not much of a factor. The minute the pilot cancelled IFR, what he did or did not say to ATC became much less relevant.

But did the pilot actually cancel IFR? "I'm on the deck" is not sufficient.

The released flight was obligated to do all the same things they'd do anyway, not treat the release like a takeoff clearance at a towered field.

When I get a takeoff clearance at a towered field I check the runway and final.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Has someone posted a transcript of the ATC transmissions or a link to one? Without that you can't know what the pilot said to ATC and thus cannot know that he lied.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the "Steamboat Pilot & Today" article:

"Airport Manager Dave Ruppel confirmed Merrill’s account on Monday. According to Ruppel, one of the United pilots told air traffic controllers in Denver, 'I’m on the deck.' The Denver officials then cleared the private plane to take off, Ruppel said, thinking the United flight was on the ground."

"Ruppel said the United pilot told air traffic controllers in Denver that he was canceling 'instrument flight rules.' Instrument flight rules, or IFR, are a set of rules for flying by aircraft instruments only, while separation from other aircraft is provided by air traffic control. The rules allow for such things as flying through clouds. When a pilot cancels IFR, he then operates under 'visual flight rules,' and is responsible for navigation, obstacle clearance and traffic separation."

The only quote attributed to the United flight is "I’m on the deck." What does that mean? You won't find it in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. "On the deck" is an old aviation slang term, it means "ground level or very close to the ground." If that's all that was said to ATC, if the controller concluded United was canceling IFR based on that phrase, upon which he issued an IFR release to the King Air, then he's got himself a separation error. If that phrase is the basis for the assertion that the United crew lied to ATC, saying they were on the ground when they were not, then that assertion is unfounded.

Based on the SP&T article, the worst that can be said about the United pilot is that he used sloppy phraseology. Sloppy phraseology is bad, but it does not constitute lying to ATC.

Hmmm... This leads me to imagine a scenario where nobody really screwed up that bad except the KA pilot:

Let's say radar coverage in that area sucks and the controller didn't know the exact location of the Skywest plane. I often hear Center controllers giving instructions to IFR planes going into uncontrolled fields to "Cancel this frequency, or with flight service, change to advisory frequency approved" or that sort of thing.

Airline pilots often have sloppy phraseology from trying to communicate as fast as possible. I can see the Skywest pilot replying "We'll cancel IFR on the deck, Skywest xxxx". But, often the first little bit of a transmission doesn't actually make it through the radio, or the pilot's mouth starts flapping before the PTT is all the way down. So it's quite possible that the controller and everyone else on frequency heard "Cancel IFR, on the deck, Skywest xxxx" which has a completely different meaning than it would with the "We'll" at the beginning.

Of course, at that point the controller should say "Skywest xxx, cancellation received" but the pilot at that point has said "We'll cancel IFR on the deck" and switched to the CTAF, not hearing the controller's transmission of "cancellation received." Pilot thinks he's still on IFR, controller thinks he cancelled and releases the King Air, which also heard Skywest say "Cancel IFR" and then heard the controller say "cancellation received." At that point, the King Air really should have been looking for an airplane on short final, but maybe assumed that the Skywest-ATC exchange occurred with Skywest up near the FAF as usually happens. Why they didn't look out the window, I don't know.

 

[KennyFlys]

Hmmm... This leads me to imagine a scenario where nobody really screwed up that bad except the KA pilot:

Let's say radar coverage in that area sucks and the controller didn't know the exact location of the Skywest plane. I often hear Center controllers giving instructions to IFR planes going into uncontrolled fields to "Cancel this frequency, or with flight service, change to advisory frequency approved" or that sort of thing.

Airline pilots often have sloppy phraseology from trying to communicate as fast as possible. I can see the Skywest pilot replying "We'll cancel IFR on the deck, Skywest xxxx". But, often the first little bit of a transmission doesn't actually make it through the radio, or the pilot's mouth starts flapping before the PTT is all the way down. So it's quite possible that the controller and everyone else on frequency heard "Cancel IFR, on the deck, Skywest xxxx" which has a completely different meaning than it would with the "We'll" at the beginning.

Of course, at that point the controller should say "Skywest xxx, cancellation received" but the pilot at that point has said "We'll cancel IFR on the deck" and switched to the CTAF, not hearing the controller's transmission of "cancellation received." Pilot thinks he's still on IFR, controller thinks he cancelled and releases the King Air, which also heard Skywest say "Cancel IFR" and then heard the controller say "cancellation received." At that point, the King Air really should have been looking for an airplane on short final, but maybe assumed that the Skywest-ATC exchange occurred with Skywest up near the FAF as usually happens. Why they didn't look out the window, I don't know.

Apparently, the FAA disagrees with you.

I'll be looking for an appeal to the NTSB so it's all public.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Apparently, the FAA disagrees with you.

On what point? I only presented it as a possible scenario that highlights potential problems with the way pilots and controllers often communicate.

 

[SkyHog]

I can't imagine any situation in which the SkyWest captain screwed the pooch. Even if he did lie about his position in saying he was "on the deck," the KA pilot had no business taking a runway with a plane on short final. I'm sorry, but you don't miss RJs on final, they're huge. He must have not looked.

I hate to blame GA over 121, since its become cliche to do so, but in this case, I can't see how the SkyWest pilot messed up, and the certificate action should probably come on the King Air pilot. I really want to see the NTSB report to find out exactly what happened, because I might be wrong. I just can't imagine how.

The only other thing I can think of is that ATC messed up by clearing a plane to takeoff from non-towered field. Doesn't absolve the responsibility from the King Air pilot, but it certainly wouldn't have helped. I can't imagine ATC doing that, as its a pretty big mistake to make.

 

[KennyFlys]

On what point? I only presented it as a possible scenario that highlights potential problems with the way pilots and controllers often communicate.

On who was at fault and why. They suspended the ticket of the CRJ captain; probably for stating he was on the ground when he was not. What exactly his words were is not known. This is the reason I'm anxious to read what would be released as part of the appeal.

What the newspaper could have done was request a copy of the tape under the FOIA. From what I read, this quote is from the fire crew and possibly from memory. There's nothing to verify the exact words used.

I was looking and couldn't determine if an aircraft in flight would be talking with Center on the same frequency as an aircraft on the ground. Probably not unless the ARTCC's antenna array is located at HDN. If not, the King Air would not hear the communication between the CRJ and Center, including the magic words of "Cancel IFR."

In flight, Denver Center's frequency is 120.475. Otherwise, the King Air may have been relaying to Center through the RCO with Flight Service.

 

[KennyFlys]

The only other thing I can think of is that ATC messed up by clearing a plane to takeoff from non-towered field. Doesn't absolve the responsibility from the King Air pilot, but it certainly wouldn't have helped. I can't imagine ATC doing that, as its a pretty big mistake to make.

Center does not clear an aircraft for takeoff at a non-towered airport, even in a Class E surface area. Center can only authorize release for flight under IFR. That's entirely different than flight under VFR as there is no release required no more than there is no clearance for takeoff required.

As I've been saying, both aircraft should have been making calls on CTAF. The CRJ should have been reporting inbound on the approach at various points so other traffic would be aware it was there and its intentions.

The King Air should have announced its taxi and departure intentions just as any other aircraft would do at a non-towered airport.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

On who was at fault and why. They suspended the ticket of the CRJ captain; probably for stating he was on the ground when he was not.

And did nothing to the King Air guy who apparently wasn't even looking out his window?

I was looking and couldn't determine if an aircraft in flight would be talking with Center on the same frequency as an aircraft on the ground. Probably not unless the ARTCC's antenna array is located at HDN. If not, the King Air would not hear the communication between the CRJ and Center, including the magic words of "Cancel IFR."

In flight, Denver Center's frequency is 120.475. Otherwise, the King Air may have been relaying to Center through the RCO with Flight Service.

No, they can both talk to Denver Center. 120.475 is the Hayden RCAG, meaning that antenna is probably located at the airport. That also makes it even more likely that the controller said "Cancel this frequency" as he'd have been reachable on the ground too.

I'd sure love to see transcripts of both the ARTCC tape and the SkyWest CVR.

 

[SkyHog]

Center does not clear an aircraft for takeoff at a non-towered airport, even in a Class E surface area. Center can only authorize release for flight under IFR. That's entirely different than flight under VFR as there is no release required no more than there is no clearance for takeoff required.

As I've been saying, both aircraft should have been making calls on CTAF. The CRJ should have been reporting inbound on the approach at various points so other traffic would be aware it was there and its intentions.

The King Air should have announced its taxi and departure intentions just as any other aircraft would do at a non-towered airport.

That was my point in saying 'It would be a big mistake.' Obviously no one clears anyone for takeoff from a non-towered airport, Kenny.

 

[RMCN172RG]

I just re-read the aritcle.

On Saturday afternoon, air traffic controllers in Denver gave a small private plane clearance to take off from YVRA as United Express flight No. 6573 was landing. The two planes managed to avoid one another, but still provided quite the scare for passengers and airport officials.

“Just as we were nearing a touchdown, we suddenly banked sharply and accelerated up at what must have been full throttle,” Hayden resident John Merrill, a passenger on the daily flight from Denver, wrote in an e-mail to the Pilot & Today. “After a couple of disturbing minutes, the pilot came on and said that he suddenly saw ‘another plane moving onto the runway’ and that is why he aborted the landing so abruptly.”
Airport Manager Dave Ruppel confirmed Merrill’s account on Monday.

....

Ruppel said airport personnel in the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting facility at YVRA saw what was happening but were helpless to do anything about it because both airplanes had their radios tuned to air traffic control in Denver, rather than YVRA’s local UNICOM system.

Highlight is mine. If the King Air pilot beleived that and took the runway with the other plane on final

 

[roncachamp]

I just re-read the aritcle. Highlight is mine.

Probably just another example of lousy journalism.

 

[kkoran]

Probably just another example of lousy journalism.

Or they quoted an airport manager who doesn't know what he's talking about.