Who is responsible for this incursion?

[Jaybird180]

FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education
What Does Roger Really Mean?
Notice Number: NOTC3893

For most of us, we learned to use the word "Roger" early in our aviation career. We learned that it simply means that we heard and understand what the other person said. We were clearly taught that it connotes no permission or authorizations. For whatever reason, we then go through our career or hobby of flying and hardly ever use that word. And we seldom hear it spoken by ATC!

So what happens when we have a problem on the airfield and we tell ATC that we need to do something and they say "Roger?" What does that mean? Let me give you a recent example.

A C-210 received ATC clearance to taxi via Taxiway Juliette and to cross Runway 1/19. En-route, the C-210 pilot advised ATC that the aircraft just blew a tire. The pilot requested to exit the aircraft to inspect the wheel. The Tower authorized the pilot's request and asked the pilot to advise if he needed help.

At this time, a C-172 reported inbound with a request for full stop landings or touch and go's on Runway 1. The tower cleared the C172 as requested. (Can you see the Runway Incursion scenario developing?)

The C-210 pilot came back on the frequency stating he had a wheel come apart. The Tower asked his intentions, and the C210 pilot said if he moved the aircraft it would do damage and requested to go to an FBO. (Getting to the FBO from the damaged C-210 would require a runway crossing.) The Tower responded "roger." The pilot responded, “Thank you very much.”

The Tower then observed two men on foot walking towards the runway. The tower called the C-210 several times with no response. The Tower, after observing the men crossing the actual runway told the inbound C-172 to go around and enter right traffic for Runway 1, later changing clearance to land on Runway 5.

It appears to me that with the*additional stress caused by the blown tire, when the pilot made his request to go to the FBO, he expected the Tower to give him a "Yes" or a "No", and when the Tower*replied with*a simple, "Roger," he forgot his early training that "Roger" is not an authorization -- and started hiking!

Fortunately, the pilot of the C-172 executed a proper go-around and landed safely on another runway.

The Aeronautical Information Manual is the authoritative source for proper aviation communications. You might want to take an opportunity to review communication procedures in the AIM: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/.*But most of all, remember your early training - "Roger" only means that someone heard what was said; it does not give authority to do something.

Remember that crossing any runway, whether in an airplane, a vehicle, or on foot,*always requires a specific authorization from ATC.

Have a safe and enjoyable Summer of Flying!

I wasn't taught that about "roger" during training, just taught not to use it in aviation.

Seems like a CYA move for the men on the ground to be blamed for the incursion, as implied in the article. However, sometimes I come on airport property with my car and use taxiways and cross the runway, I always look around and up. I operate my car or walking giving right of way to any and all airplanes at all times.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I wasn't taught that about "roger" during training, just taught not to use it in aviation.

Who taught you not to use 'roger' in aviation?

It is exactly what you should use in situations where a full read back is not required and would clog up the freq unnecessarily.

 

[cavmedic]

This is my first ever hearing of not using roger. I use it all the time in daily vocabulary as well as any radio ops i participate in, over.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Everskyward]

However, sometimes I come on airport property with my car and use taxiways and cross the runway, I always look around and up. I operate my car or walking giving right of way to any and all airplanes at all times.

But you're not doing that at a controlled airport without permission. Hopefully.

 

[jesse]

If you understand what Roger means there are many cases to where it is a perfectly valid word.

Some of this just gets blown way out of proportion. Yes a C172 had to do a go-around because someone walked on the runway, big deal, happens all the time at non-controlled airports.

 

[poadeleted21]

Who taught you not to use 'roger' in aviation?

It is exactly what you should use in situations where a full read back is not required and would clog up the freq unnecessarily.

I was told to use my tail number for that.

 

[Captain]

Tail number works. Tail number with roger works too. Heck, double clicking the radio often works just as efficiently however I'd imagine a bunch here would go nuts over that too.

To the OP: the pilots are at fault. No way was it vague or confusing from the story presented. If they get violated they deserve it. I'd hope they didn't though as I don't think it's warranted here. So a 172 went missed. Bigger problems out there. No harm no foul I say.

 

[rottydaddy]

Pilot misconstrued "Roger", which only means "I have heard and understood your last transmission". Tower didn't give them permission walk on an active runway. Something tells me that Tower did not think the pilot meant "I want to walk over there." Maybe the controller thought the pilot intended to call the FBO, on the phone or on the radio. I doubt the controller expected them to taxi more, after the pilot explained his dilemma.
I also don't get why Tower didn't immediately follow "Roger" with something else, but maybe the 210 pilot killed the radio before Tower could offer a plan to get the airplane off the taxiway without further damage. I mean, "Roger" should not have been the end of the conversation, with a disabled aircraft sitting on a taxiway.

 

[poadeleted20]

Everybody. The controller should never have "rogered" that transmission without also saying "remain clear of the runway safety area," and the two on foot should never have entered the runway safety area without specific approval. You gotta be smarter'n a box'o'rocks, and neither party in this case achieved that level of brain activity.

 

[TommyG]

I honestly have never used roger in a radio transmission. I have always used tailnumber. Where I fly out of, the controller might be giving two planes instructions on the same transmission. Now if pilots just just answer roger, who is to say that another pilot on frequency just said roger thinking the instructions for him.

Some places it's fine to end with roger, and then other places roger won't cut it.

 

[flyingron]

The tail number is an acceptable substitute for ROGER, but ROGER is fine for acknowledgement. It's in the AIM.

ROGER is radiotelephone phraseology for the morse code R, which means RECEIVED. Back in the old ABLE BAKER phonetic days, R was ROGER rather than ROMEO.

I always look forward to Talk Like A Pirate Day so I can acknowledge transmissions with "Arrrrrrrr!"

 

[denverpilot]

Roger is misunderstood too often, and thus, has always been ambiguous.

The safety article was good fodder for forwarding to my Communications trainees and staff, though.

I did that and didn't even think about posting it to PoA.

One pilot replied that he got two Rogers from the KAPA Tower the day I forwarded the article. I assume that means he thought they were clearing him for something and who knows what the Tower thought.

We will go over this again and again in my courses until the day I die. My Communications ears perk up whenever I hear Roger.

In my experience, there's a 50/50 chance the two people communicating don't really know what the other person wanted or meant.

I make trainees clarify immediately -- to pass along the same alertness that only comes from having the clarification surprise you -- that your assumption was dead wrong. BTDT.

And in most cases where trainees utilize it correctly, the next word should be, "Stand-by".

Which if the Tower had done that, or as Ron offered, a more descriptive set of instructions, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

I'm primed for "Roger" to almost always be followed by "Stand-by" in Public Safety Comm. But it takes years of being wrong to build that habit.

In aviation the most-used scenario is, "Roger, Looking."

Just because it "happens every day" isn't a reason to point it out (again and again) and try to fix it. People crash airplanes and die every year and we don't stop preaching on how to aviate safely and effectively.

My forwarded note was signed...

"Fly Safely and Communicate Safely!"

Had a trainee this week send a unit he was responsible to maintain communication with, off to another frequency without explicit instructions on when to return.

My "No no no no no!" text message reached him just in time as I was about to key the mic and correct it from across town.

(I knew I had an untested but likely to work backup way to reach the other station. I knew he did not, due to antenna coverage and terrain or the mic would have been first. I try to instruct OFF-air to save embarrassment and the crankiness of my superiors who are probably listening... Old farts wonder why rookies make mistakes instead of remembering that they made mistakes once too.)

Teaching Comm will give one gray hair. I'm impressed with Flight Instructors... Most of my students aren't actively trying to kill me.

 

[Mason]

I always look forward to Talk Like A Pirate Day so I can acknowledge transmissions with "Arrrrrrrr!"

 

[n20junkie]

The way I see it, the controller messed up, then due to a technicallity pinned it on the pilot.

Just how I read the whole situation.

 

[flyingron]

The N number or Roger is NOT ambiguous. It states the pilot have heard the controller's instructions and the regulations require you to comply so it's not necessary to state so.

On ATC's part, it states the tower has received the pilot's transmission, but if the rules require more than just communication with the tower, it doesn't grant anything.

 

[Captain]

The way I see it, the controller messed up, then due to a technicallity pinned it on the pilot.

Just how I read the whole situation.

That may be, but it's not how the FAA would read the situation. The controller did nothing wrong. She acknowledged that the plane couldn't move on it own. That's it. No permission to do anything was given.

"Roger" = "Okay"
Let's see what it looks like in that light:


--------------------------------------------
What are your intentions?

Well, we can't move the plane. We're going to need to go to the FBO.

Okay.
--------------------------------------------



So at this point the tower has acknowledged that they need to go to the FBO. Now everybody can start coordinating how to accomplish that. But oh wait, there they are walking! Radios off, non comm. the pilots unplugged and started with their own plan with no coordination with the tower on how to execute the plan of getting to the FBO. They just launched on their own plan with zero input from the entity that 'controls' the airport.

Like I said, I hope they weren't violated. But if they were it was warranted and 100% their fault.

 

[Brad Z]

A 709 ride is always possible, but I wonder if the FAA could take certificate action against them for a pilot deviation even though they were not operating an aircraft at the time of the incident, but were instead on foot?

 

[roncachamp]

What Does Roger Really Mean?

It means, "I have received all of your last transmission." Really.

For most of us, we learned to use the word "Roger" early in our aviation career. We learned that it simply means that we heard and understand what the other person said. We were clearly taught that it connotes no permission or authorizations. For whatever reason, we then go through our career or hobby of flying and hardly ever use that word. And we seldom hear it spoken by ATC!

Odd, I use it and hear it frequently.

So what happens when we have a problem on the airfield and we tell ATC that we need to do something and they say "Roger?" What does that mean?

It means ATC has received all of your last transmission.

Let me give you a recent example.

A C-210 received ATC clearance to taxi via Taxiway Juliette and to cross Runway 1/19. En-route, the C-210 pilot advised ATC that the aircraft just blew a tire. The pilot requested to exit the aircraft to inspect the wheel. The Tower authorized the pilot's request and asked the pilot to advise if he needed help.

At this time, a C-172 reported inbound with a request for full stop landings or touch and go's on Runway 1. The tower cleared the C172 as requested. (Can you see the Runway Incursion scenario developing?)

No.

 

[Jaybird180]

Roger is now integrated into the common man's vernacular and is understood to be granting permission.

In the above post Roger=okay as elucidated by Captain.

If my wife says, I need to take your car and I say okay, my car is departing the garage. I can't come back later and say "I was just acknowledging".

At work, Roger is used via email. When given instructions on how to implement something, the subordinate may at times, reply all with "Roger". If anything else is implemented, he's on the hook. He acknowledged and also said 'I will comply'.

Because the term has meaning outside of aviation and has been usurped, I think ASRS would be in order regarding the use of the term due to too much room for misunderstanding and resultant fingerpointing.

 

[roncachamp]

I wasn't taught that about "roger" during training, just taught not to use it in aviation.

From the P/CG, circa 1976:

ROGER− I have received all of your last transmission. It
should not be used to answer a question requiring a yes or no
answer. (See Affirmative, Negative)

From the P/CG, today:

ROGER− I have received all of your last
transmission. It should not be used to answer a
question requiring a yes or a no answer.
(See AFFIRMATIVE.)
(See NEGATIVE.)

Seems like a CYA move for the men on the ground to be blamed for the incursion, as implied in the article.

How so? The controller said nothing that authorized crossing the runway. What is in the article that you feel implied ATC was at fault?

 

[roncachamp]

Pilot misconstrued "Roger", which only means "I have heard and understood your last transmission". Tower didn't give them permission walk on an active runway. Something tells me that Tower did not think the pilot meant "I want to walk over there." Maybe the controller thought the pilot intended to call the FBO, on the phone or on the radio. I doubt the controller expected them to taxi more, after the pilot explained his dilemma.

Agreed.

I also don't get why Tower didn't immediately follow "Roger" with something else, but maybe the 210 pilot killed the radio before Tower could offer a plan to get the airplane off the taxiway without further damage. I mean, "Roger" should not have been the end of the conversation, with a disabled aircraft sitting on a taxiway.

The pilot said if he moved the aircraft it would do damage. If, as you say, the tower did not think the pilot meant "I want to walk over there", then what is there for the controller to say beyond acknowledging the transmission with "roger"?

 

[roncachamp]

Everybody. The controller should never have "rogered" that transmission without also saying "remain clear of the runway safety area," and the two on foot should never have entered the runway safety area without specific approval. You gotta be smarter'n a box'o'rocks, and neither party in this case achieved that level of brain activity.

There is no controller error here.

"Runway safety area" is unlikely to be understood by a pilot because it's not something they deal with directly. Where the limits of the RSA fall on a surface available for aircraft operations there are signs and pavement markings.

 

[roncachamp]

The way I see it, the controller messed up, then due to a technicallity pinned it on the pilot.

Just how I read the whole situation.

What error do you feel was made by the controller?

 

[poadeleted20]

From the P/CG, today:

ROGER− I have received all of your last
transmission. It should not be used to answer a
question requiring a yes or a no answer.
(See AFFIRMATIVE.)
(See NEGATIVE.)

Which is exactly why a wise and prudent controller would not have used it in response to the pilot's indication that they were about to cross the runway. At the end of the day, it's all about doing the controller's primary job, which is safety, and that sometimes requires the controller to anticipate the actions of others even if the book says they've done the legal minimum required of them.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no controller error here.

By the book? No, there wasn't. But the book isn't always enough.

"Runway safety area" is unlikely to be understood by a pilot because it's not something they deal with directly. Where the limits of the RSA fall on a surface available for aircraft operations there are signs and pavement markings.

If you as a pilot in addition to being a controller don't think a pilot will understand that, then being a pilot yourself, I'm sure you could think of a way to phrase it that a pilot would understand. It was that lack of imagination and foresight on the controller's part that contributed to the incident. I'm not saying the pilot didn't make a big mistake, but the controller could and, I think, should have been more pro-active in preventing the incident.

 

[roncachamp]

A 709 ride is always possible, but I wonder if the FAA could take certificate action against them for a pilot deviation even though they were not operating an aircraft at the time of the incident, but were instead on foot?

This would be Pedestrian Deviation. From Order JO 8020.16A Air Traffic Organization Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting:

Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviation - any entry or movement on the airport movement area by a vehicle operator or pedestrian that has not been authorized by air traffic control (includes surface incidents involving aircraft operated by non-pilots, such as mechanics).

 

[Jaybird180]

What error do you feel was made by the controller?

Failure to effectively communicate.

 

[roncachamp]

Which is exactly why a wise and prudent controller would not have used it in response to the pilot's indication that they were about to cross the runway.

There was no indication by the pilot that they were about to cross the runway.

At the end of the day, it's all about doing the controller's primary job, which is safety, and that sometimes requires the controller to anticipate the actions of others even if the book says they've done the legal minimum required of them.

In other words, the controller's primary job must include an assumption that pilots are not familiar with standard phraseology because instructors are not doing their primary job.

 

[roncachamp]

If you as a pilot in addition to being a controller don't think a pilot will understand that, then being a pilot yourself, I'm sure you could think of a way to phrase it that a pilot would understand.

The standard phraseology for that is "Hold short of runway 1".

It was that lack of imagination and foresight on the controller's part that contributed to the incident. I'm not saying the pilot didn't make a big mistake, but the controller could and, I think, should have been more pro-active in preventing the incident.

So in your judgment the controller shares blame because he didn't assume the pilot was unfamiliar with standard phraseology and procedures. Got it, thanks.

 

[roncachamp]

Failure to effectively communicate.

How so? Did the controller use any nonstandard or ambiguous phraseology? Did the pilot?

 

[poadeleted20]

There was no indication by the pilot that they were about to cross the runway.

Well, I gathered right from the start that's how you see it, and I wouldn't be surprised if you would have done the same as the incident controller, but I don't think many folks would share your perception of the situation. From the report:

The Tower asked his intentions, and the C210 pilot said if he moved the aircraft it would do damage and requested to go to an FBO. (Getting to the FBO from the damaged C-210 would require a runway crossing.)

I suppose the controller might have assumed the pilot was going to walk back out of the movement area, go out a gate, walk all the way the outside of the airport, and entered the FBO from the street side, but that seems a bit hard to accept.

 

[roncachamp]

I suppose the controller might have assumed the pilot was going to walk back out of the movement area, go out a gate, walk all the way the outside of the airport, and entered the FBO from the street side, but that seems a bit hard to accept.

I suppose the controller thought the pilot would call the FBO for a ride. In any case, the pilot crossed the runway without anything that could reasonably be interpreted to be authorization to cross.

 

[poadeleted20]

I suppose the controller thought the pilot would call the FBO for a ride.

That's also possible, but betting separation on an unsubstantiated supposition is at best unwise.

In any case, the pilot crossed the runway without anything that could reasonably be interpreted to be authorization to cross.

That, again, is your take, based on your own personal assumptions. If you want to bet separation on that, I'll stay out of GRB's airspace when you're on duty. Me? I'm more a "belt and braces" sort. All the controller had to do was say, "Stand by" or "Maintain your position" instead of or in addition to "Roger," and this never would have happened. I know nothing in 7110.65 requires the controller to say that, but like I said in my first post in this thread, ya gotta be smarter'n a box'o'rocks.

 

[roncachamp]

That's also possible, but betting separation on an unsubstantiated supposition is at best unwise.

True but irrelevant to this discussion.

That, again, is your take, based on your own personal assumptions. If you want to bet separation on that, I'll stay out of GRB's airspace when you're on duty. Me? I'm more a "belt and braces" sort. All the controller had to do was say, "Stand by" or "Maintain your position" instead of or in addition to "Roger," and this never would have happened. I know nothing in 7110.65 requires the controller to say that, but like I said in my first post in this thread, ya gotta be smarter'n a box'o'rocks.

The only assumption I made is that the quoted material in the OP is complete and accurate. If that's the case then it is a fact that the pilot crossed the runway without anything that could reasonably be interpreted to be authorization to cross. If you feel otherwise, then we must conclude that your understanding of runway crossing procedures is no better than your understanding of the word "continuously".

 

[poadeleted20]

Can't argue with your personal assumptions, definitions, or interpretations, Steven, especially when you think "continuously" means "all the time except when it's not." :bye:

 

[TMetzinger]

That may be, but it's not how the FAA would read the situation. The controller did nothing wrong. She acknowledged that the plane couldn't move on it own. That's it. No permission to do anything was given.

"Roger" = "Okay"
Let's see what it looks like in that light:


--------------------------------------------
What are your intentions?

Well, we can't move the plane. We're going to need to go to the FBO.

Okay.
--------------------------------------------



So at this point the tower has acknowledged that they need to go to the FBO. Now everybody can start coordinating how to accomplish that. But oh wait, there they are walking! Radios off, non comm. the pilots unplugged and started with their own plan with no coordination with the tower on how to execute the plan of getting to the FBO. They just launched on their own plan with zero input from the entity that 'controls' the airport.

Like I said, I hope they weren't violated. But if they were it was warranted and 100% their fault.

You left out the pilot's saying "Thank you". If I were in the tower, that would be my clue that my message was not understood, and I'd have issued a "Remain with your aircraft" instruction.

It's important to always be looking for clues that your communication isn't effective, whether it be a dumb look in the eyes of your student, or an inappropriate response, such as when someone asks you for something, you say "okay", and they say "thank you", which implies that they THINK you just gave them permission.

 

[Captain]

You left out the pilot's saying "Thank you". If I were in the tower, that would be my clue that my message was not understood, and I'd have issued a "Remain with your aircraft" instruction.

It's important to always be looking for clues that your communication isn't effective, whether it be a dumb look in the eyes of your student, or an inappropriate response, such as when someone asks you for something, you say "okay", and they say "thank you", which implies that they THINK you just gave them permission.

Well that's a good point. I thought the story had the controller going back but the pilot said 'thankyou' and turned off the radio before anything could be said.

Regardless, lesson for all here is you need SPECIFIC clearance to get on a runway at a towered field whether you're in a plane, car, bicycle, or hoof'in it. This pilot SHOULD have known that.

 

[jnmeade]

I don't recall ATC using Roger incorrectly to any extent. Pilot's too often use Roger when they mean Wilco. Wilco is sometimes used when a readback is better.
To what extent should ATC expect pilots to misconstrue Roger? I think I've heard the silence that means ATC accepted Roger as a Wilco.
Why don't people trained in commo in the Army ever use Repeat? Because it means fire the same fire mission again with no changes. So we use, Say Again.
Words are important and we CFI's need to be didactic about commo training. A little explanation may help students understand what to say and why.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Regardless, lesson for all here is you need SPECIFIC clearance to get on a runway at a towered field whether you're in a plane, car, bicycle, or hoof'in it. This pilot SHOULD have known that.

And in addition, any pilot who isn't building a mental picture of activity in the airspace he is about to enter as he taxis out is an idiot. I always have my radio volumes set so the primary is louder than my secondary. When on the ground I can hear ground over any tower traffic, but if ground is quiet I can hear who the tower is talking to and where they are in the airspace. This technique works in flight as well, monitoring for instance approach and the unicom at the non-towered field you are approaching.

The 210 pilot is at fault here, with the tower in a supporting role.

 

[Captain]

Just thought of another angle for those who think the tower is at fault here. Let's say the tower controller is the worst in the world and is comically bad. Here's how that conversation should go with any pilot;


-------------------------------------------------------
Pilot: Yeah, we're not going to be able to move the plane. We need to go to the FBO.

ATC: Roger

Pilot: Um, okay. Request permission to cross runway 1 on foot and proceed to the FBO.

ATC: Yeah, okay.

Pilot: Tower, is that permission to cross runway 1 on foot.

ATC: Roger

Pilot: Tower, request a confirmation I am cleared across runway 1 at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------


Anyway, even in the extreme situation which would never happen it's obvious the tower isn't at fault. The pilot needed to hear 'cleared to cross runway 1' in order to proceed onto the runway.

As it was the tower's phraseology was fine. She said what she meant and meant what she said. It's not her fault some pilot thinks 'roger' means he can do whatever he wants.