Switching runways during an emergency

[gismo]

I was reading an NTSB report about a DC8 that was making an emergency landing earlier in this year after a cargo smoke detector activated. The report cited the action of the controller who gave the flight crew a runway change (27L vs 27R) without specifically indicating that he wanted the plane to sidestep to the adjacent runway.

I'm rather surprised that ATC would even specify a runway during an emergency landing let alone force a change and I'm equally surprised that the NTSB would focus on the lack of clarity in the runway change instead of the more pertinent (IMO) issue of specifying any particular runway for an airplane with a fire in the cargo hold. I thought the standard response to such a situation was "cleared to land any runway".

The report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_65.pdf

 

[AuntPeggy]

...I'm equally surprised that the NTSB would focus on the lack of clarity in the runway change instead of the more pertinent (IMO) issue of specifying any particular runway for an airplane with a fire in the cargo hold... http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_65.pdf

I had the same thought when reading this report the first time. However, in looking more carefully, I think the incident caused the NTSB to look at the larger question of changing the assigned runway after a clearance has been issued (at any time). The recommended wording adds a little to the workload and radio traffic for the controller, but makes sure he gets the attention of the pilot.

I've had the situation many times where the runway is changed for wind conditions or to protect pilots eyes from the setting sun and clearances get changed. It's confusing.

The recommendation sounds like an improvement to me.

A review of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” indicates that there are no specific rules or guidance provided to controllers regarding how to clearly communicate a change in runway assignment after an arriving aircraft has been cleared to land. However, the Safety Board is aware that some ATC facilities routinely provide specific information to flight crews about runway changes that is useful and timely in similar circumstances. For example, in the case of UPS flight 1307, to minimize any misunderstanding the local controller could have asked the pilot, “can you accept runway 27 left?” If the pilot answered in the affirmative, then the controller could have said, “UPS 1307 change to runway 27 left, cleared to land.”

And - about your first point, the controller recognized his mistake in assigning a different runway in an emergency situation and issued a third clearance for the pilot - to the runway he was aimed at. The NTSB does not take the controller to task for his decision.
- Aunt Peggy

 

[NC Pilot]

Apparently PHL has a procedure to land on 27L in the event of an emergency, so the controller was following procedure. The pilot was in a high workload situation and repeated what the controller said, but did not hear what the controller said - It was automatic for him.

Talking took place, but not communication.

I wonder if 27L is specified for emergencies because it is:

1. Farthest from the terminal
2. The longest runway
3. Ends in the river (puts out the flames ya know) (Just kidding)

 

[Henning]

I was reading an NTSB report about a DC8 that was making an emergency landing earlier in this year after a cargo smoke detector activated. The report cited the action of the controller who gave the flight crew a runway change (27L vs 27R) without specifically indicating that he wanted the plane to sidestep to the adjacent runway.

I'm rather surprised that ATC would even specify a runway during an emergency landing let alone force a change and I'm equally surprised that the NTSB would focus on the lack of clarity in the runway change instead of the more pertinent (IMO) issue of specifying any particular runway for an airplane with a fire in the cargo hold. I thought the standard response to such a situation was "cleared to land any runway".

The report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_65.pdf

IIRC, the left at PHL is wider and longer, and further from buildings/people. Sounds like it was SOP to give him the left. I don't think a change to the left would have caused a major hassel at the time the change was given. I think the only real problem was that the controller didn't make it obvious enough in the comms that there was a change in the clearance. By the time it was caught, it would have been a bit more of a hassel to swao, so he re-ammended the clearance back to the right and they landed. In this instance, the misscommunication made no difference to the outcome. It sounds like the concern is actually over the communication protocol which would give a higher level of attention to changes in the clearance, rather than sounding routine which gets a "routine" readback in a high workload environment. something like "UPS XXX you are now cleared to land on 27L Switch to 27L".

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'm with you Lance, once an emergency is declared, tower should be working with the pilot in any manner possible. I could see them stating a preference if there is a reason for it. Of course, the pilot could also say standby or unable if his plate was full.

I lost several instrumnents on an IMC departure from San Diego Gillespie a couple years ago and besides trying to see if I could keep the plane right side up, So Cal kept calling with requests and to tell me they weren't getting my transponder; didn't have radar contract, etc. I finally just told them I had an equipement failure, to just stand by. Then I got back to figuring out what I did and didn't have working. They called a couple more times and I just didn't pay attention.

I finally called them back and told them I has lost my HSI, autopilot and transponder but was now VMC; they gave me the old say intentions.

The guy on the ground may have no idea what's going on in the cockpit. There can be a delicate balance between assistance and annoyance/distractions. Sometimes, the pilot just needs assistance and quiet while he works through an issue(s).

Maybe the pilot just needed to use the standby or unable phase and exercise his emergency authority by stating words to the effect of unable--please let us deal with the problem we have.

Best,

Dave

 

[MauleSkinner]

...they gave me the old say intentions.

One of these days I'm gonna work up the nerve to reply "strictly honorable, sir. I'll have her home before 10 pm."

 

[gismo]

I agree that the NTSB was right to recommend that ATC be very clear when giving a pilot a runway change, I've been caught in that trap myself. I just thought the bigger issue was that the controller should have said something like "You are cleared to land on any runway, suggest changing to 27L which is longer/wider etc..." , rather than just switching runways on the pilot. Then the pilot can chose between manuvering and landing on the runway in front of him as he deems best for his situation.

Certainly the controller should have been aware that there was an emergency since the pilot stated he had smoke detected in a cargo bay and requested emergency equipment. If the standard policy at that facility is to assign 27L for any emergency, I (in my infinite wisdom) think that policy should be changed to have the controller offer 27L rather than assign it. ATC has no way to assess the relative merits of changing vs not changing runways at that point so it ought to be up to the pilot by official policy IMO.

 

[gismo]

One of these days I'm gonna work up the nerve to reply "strictly honorable, sir. I'll have her home before 10 pm."

Just don't make that statement to a female controller.

 

[jesse]

One of these days I'm gonna work up the nerve to reply "strictly honorable, sir. I'll have her home before 10 pm."

lmfao

 

[poadeleted20]

The standard procedure may also take into account location of the CFR post -- getting the firemen to the scene in a timely manner is important. However, if the pilot doesn't like the change, it is entirely within PIC authority to say "no" and specify which runway will be used, and tower, unlike the pilot, can't say "no" to that.

 

[AdamZ]

Don't know about the procedure but Henning is correct 27L is the wider runway at 200' vs 150' and is also longer by just over 1000' at 10,506' vs 9500 for 27R. It is also further from the terminals. Ironically is is close to the UPS cargo facility. I saw that plane within a week of it burning pretty scary sight.

 

[bbchien]

If the skipper says, "Tower, unable. We're having a bona fide emergency here, have the equipment on 27R...."

NOBODY IS GONNA ARGUE with the guy.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the skipper says, "Tower, unable. We're having a bona fide emergency here, have the equipment on 27R...."

NOBODY IS GONNA ARGUE with the guy.

True, but it's a big airport and airport CFR trucks don't go very fast, so the tower can say, "Roger that -- it will be another five minutes before the equipment gets there. Still want 27R?"

 

[jesse]

True, but it's a big airport and airport CFR trucks don't go very fast, so the tower can say, "Roger that -- it will be another five minutes before the equipment gets there. Still want 27R?"

Faster than five minutes. Unless of course the runways are 10,000 feet apart and the fire trucks are going 22 mph...Well maybe it's an Amish fire department using horses......But most modern airport firetrucks accelerate like mad with very respectable top speeds.

 

[Henning]

If the skipper says, "Tower, unable. We're having a bona fide emergency here, have the equipment on 27R...."

NOBODY IS GONNA ARGUE with the guy.

Correct, and the whole point of the report had nothing to do with which runway was issued or used or anything to that effect. It was about setting up a protocol of communications that puts changes in clearances forward in such a way that they are noticed as changes in a high workload environment. The whole letter was about the missed communication.

 

[poadeleted20]

Faster than five minutes. Unless of course the runways are 10,000 feet apart and the fire trucks are going 22 mph...Well maybe it's an Amish fire department using horses......But most modern airport firetrucks accelerate like mad with very respectable top speeds.

Actually, Jesse, the PHL airport is over three miles end to end, and the ends of 27R and 27L are displaced longitudinally more than a mile from each other. In addition, the shortest path on pavement from one place to another on an airport may well not be a straight line. And I really don't believe those trucks go 60 mph, no less accelerate to that speed very quickly. If the controller sends them to one runway per the SOP, and the pilot changes the game plan, it may well take five minutes to get them turned around and in position where the pilot wants them. But even if it only takes three minutes, it's time that may be important to survival after touchdown.