What’s your thoughts on this ?
Posted by Maruan-007@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 438 comments
For me it’s ATC fault here (even though the ATC followed FAA phraseology standard to not say “hold short” it’s just unfair for international pilots).
I also believe that FAA and ICAO need to have the same standards to prevent and avoid those “small” accidents that sometimes could turn in big accidents.
Here is why:
FAA=“Continue to TAXI to runway 15R”
ICAO="Continue to TAXI and hold short runway 15R”
Controllers must clearly state a restriction if you are not cleared onto or across a runway.
But again FAA approves the opposite so nothing won’t change for now.
Fra5er@reddit
America, the gold standard
Floatsm@reddit
doesn't matter. they were never cleared onto it.
Almost every taxi clearance I get off the gate is "runway XX taxi via X, Y, Z" you're not getting a hold short clearance that way.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
In ICAO standards you always get a hold short clearance, no matter what, it’s a way to protect more the runway.
Floatsm@reddit
yah... they're in the US they have to follow the rules? idk what to tell you
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That’s exactly the problem, there need to be one standard phrenology in commercial aviation either ICAO or FAA or whatever, but just one to no confuse and avoid those misunderstanding
iflyfreight@reddit
This Emirates crew is a fully qualified wide body flight crew with at least 3 probably 4 pilots up front. All of whom should be familiar with the differences between ICAO and FAA terminology. When I fly into a different country, I have to see what is different from the US. This is one of the reasons international pilots have additional training and in the US are paid more.
RandomNightmar3@reddit
The crew is Qatari not Emirates, and the issue in the US is not the FAA phraseology, but simply 99% of the ATC controllers using non standard phraseology like having a chit chat in front of Costco on a Saturday afternoon.
And statistically wise, they prove the aviation world day by day that it's getting unsustainable, and dangerous.
And yes, Qatari pilots should have exercised more caution.
iflyfreight@reddit
Sorry yes, Qatari. And yes, I would agree that “casual” conversational communication is a risk factor while flying in the US. Just as ATC not using English when talking to domestic traffic is a risk factor, or assigning altitudes in meters instead of feet, like in China. International pilots are aware of this and it’s listed as a risk on our company plates and Jepp airway manuals. If you accept a flight to country you must be prepared for the risks that countries air traffic system presents. It’s part of being a professional.
I have not seen any statistics regarding American controllers being more or less dangerous than any other in the world. In fact, I would wager that American controllers are some of, if not the very best in the world at what they do. The perceived increase in incidents like these can be factored in by increased media attention and systemic understaffing, overworking, and year over year increasing demand without any end in sight.
The rhetoric that American aviation is dangerous is categorically false, though you would be hard pressed to find a controller who would disagree with you saying that they are in drastic need of reinforcement. This is not a problem of undisciplined controllers, this is an issue of not enough controllers.
RandomNightmar3@reddit
'if not the very best in the world at what they do'. Either you have never been outside the US, or you're incredibly delusional.
Your own President lamented about it, your FAA acknowledged it, your public opinion is against it.
And you're comparing apple to oranges when you compare the metric system using in places like in China vs the unprofessionalism and non standard phraseology used in the US.
Metric is a predictable factor: it's there, there is a table, just look at it and you're done. Non standard phraseology, controller's tantrums on frequency, and radars/towers being short staffed or under-trained (leading to numerous accidents/incidents) is not something you can prepare for.
I don't know a single pilot flying to the US that doesn't complain about how shitty ATC is.
iflyfreight@reddit
I operate almost exclusively international into every inhabited continent so it’s not an unqualified perspective and one that is not held solely by me. It’s dishonest to conflate political posturing and politics to the reality of the situation. And public opinion? I love the public, but they know absolutely nothing about aviation, and if you were honest with yourself you wouldn’t have mentioned that. And I’m not comparing apple to oranges when they’re the only country besides Russia who insists on using meters when the on-board conversions of both Boeing and Airbus doesn’t conflate with their assigned levels requiring a physical conversion chart to be referenced every altitude assignment. It’s a very real hindrance that keeps heads down when they’re needed up. I’ve operated in many countries and there are some fantastic controllers in Japan, South Korea, and in countless places in Europe. And I’d still fly exclusively domestic in the US. Every single time. It comes across as immature and inexperienced when you fail to mention the shortcomings of every other controlling agency while bashing a group of human beings that do a job at a level that is simply not seen anywhere else in terms of volume.
Obviously you know pilots who complain about American ATC, they are pilots. They complain. Ask them next what they think about summer slot delays while flying in Europe or the difficulties of telling a Chinese controller you need to divert or any other country about any other thing. Ask them what they think about their current labor contract or the hotels they stay at. All of your evidence is anecdotal, your criticism is ad hominem and ineffective. How much experience do you have flying in the US?
RandomNightmar3@reddit
Your President complains about it, your FAA complains about, your public after incidents and accidents and lost lives complains about it, international pilots complain about it, but you american pilots know better, US ATC is the best! And yet, you call it political posturing. God the audacity.
Next, Russia and China, you're ready to blame them for using metric when you live in the only country on the planet using imperial and not metric. Even in aviation, with your ridiculous status miles. God the hypocrisy in calling metric an hindrance.
I come across immature and inexperienced for failing to mention the shortcomings of other agencies? Are you really that blind? Ever thought of checking the statistics in your Safety office regarding the shitshows of the last few years in the mighty US of A? It's comparable to a third world country but hey, if you're happy with that so are we! But don't judge nor complain when internationally you've became a pariah.
elinamebro@reddit
Hmm seems like it wouldn't be an issue it ATC had universal terminology.
iflyfreight@reddit
Seems that way, but it isn’t that way. And it’s not a case of “everybody does it right but America”. Every country takes ICAO and modifies it to fit them. One of the most common is disregarding the ICAO “English only on frequency” stipulation. Fly into China, France, or Mexico to name a few and you will quickly find you have no idea what is being said on frequency because it isn’t in English. This is a massive impediment to situational awareness that is ignored for the most part. It’s really not a big ask to say pilots should educate themselves on the legal requirements and procedures of the airspace they are entering. Look into IFR procedures flying over Africa for example. Completely alien to most instrument pilots, and closer to CTAF procedures at un-towered airports.
PepeNoMas@reddit
its such a small thing to simply add to the end of a statement to stop at a certain point. why not just do that?
Floatsm@reddit
Yah there are whole programs built around flying international. There are whole documents that talk about the small differences between phraseology between countries etc etc. You don't even have to look far in the US. Both of our neighbors have many many differences. Like descend via clearances or other minutia. Almost like we're supposed to be professionals or something
s0ul_invictus@reddit
yea, the FAA standard, since we literally invented aviation.
GreatScottGatsby@reddit
Define aviation, the first balloon flight was in France. The first airship was also in France. The word aviator is French.
s0ul_invictus@reddit
first airplane, first airport, first commercial flight, its ours.
BasisLonely9486@reddit
You had the perfect chance to keep your dignity but instead you doubled down and made yourself look like even more of a prat.
s0ul_invictus@reddit
but did i lie?
BasisLonely9486@reddit
Well technically no but you also aren't correct either.
showMeYourPitties10@reddit
Fixed wing powered flight is American for sure. France has a great avation history as well. It's all love between our flying family!
SquirrelMoney8389@reddit
r/ShitAmericansSay
Sufficient_Cake_4845@reddit
r/shitamericanssay ...go on
No_Pattern_2190@reddit
I mean, ok sure. But there isn’t. You can’t not follow the rules just because you think the rules should be different.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Never said that tho, I only said that a universal rule would be better for everyone ATC and pilots.
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
you are the only person speaking with common sense here. communications should be universal. but alas, we will need 300 people to die first before everyone sees the obvious problem
ZuluSierra14@reddit
Universal doesn’t work. Some countries move a lot more airplanes than others and their rules reflect that.
SenselessNumber@reddit
Dude, stop trying to defend this. Even if you look at this from a solely ICAO standpoint, they should have also been given specific clearance ONTO the runway. The ambiguity SHOULD have given them pause and they should have held short or asked for clarification while taxiing. You can regulate anything to death and people will still fuck it up. Aviation is already one of, if not the most, heavily regulated things in the world, at some point Pilots need to use common sense. FAA rules take IACO into consideration heavily, this pilot is 100% in the wrong.
kaijoar@reddit
"Common sense" has no use in these scenarios, strict procedures are the only way to keep heavy traffic runway environments safe
CessnaBandit@reddit
The fact there is any ambiguity means the phrasing isn’t good enough. Arguing for “common sense” isn’t good enough. Blanket statement like “pilot is 100% in the wrong” isn’t good enough.
Avia_NZ@reddit
Common sense states that we shouldn’t blindly assume things.
Instead of assuming that hold short is implied, it would make everyone’s lives so much easier by adding 2 words into the clearance. That way there is no argument or potential for confusion. I can assume a lot of things, doesn’t mean it’s always what other people are expecting.
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
nah!! stop with the "use common sense." directions should be unambiguous. How exactly could anyone fuck up and instruction to - hold short of such and such runway? These are things that should be corrected but you're leaning into the obvious downside of so-called rules.
phaederus@reddit
Not true I think?
Runway crossing clearance is mandatory, but hold short clearance can be implied. That said, I wouldn't interpret this controller's instruction as clearance without being told specifically "cleared to line up rwy 15R".
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Are you from US by any chance ?
phaederus@reddit
No, Switzerland, but I only fly GA.
Now that I'm reading the ICAO manual again it does clearly say that omission of hold short does not imply clearance to enter the runway.. I guess I've been watching too many US videos lately!
KOjustgetsit@reddit
I agree, I find ICAO standards are much clearer and IMO the FAA should look to adopt more of their phraseology standards to reduce ambiguity.
That being said, this less than ideal instructions doesn't exonerate the pilots. Clearance to enter runways are always explicit (ICAO included), meaning it must explicitly be either "line up and wait" or "cleared for takeoff/cleared to cross".
GenericAccount13579@reddit
Does it really protect the runway more if the assumption is that you can enter it if you don’t hear something vice needing to be explicitly told that you can enter the runway?
Think about it, if the radio cuts out for any reason at the end of the controllers message, and the “hold short” doesn’t go through, the aircraft would continue onto the runway (of course the read back is another catch point), but in the US it requires a positive command to enter the runway
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
as a lay person. this is a rule that is absurd especially where lives and saftey are concerned. instructions should be unambiguous and clear. why not explicitly say HOLD SHORT OFF. why just leave it to..."well they never explicitly cleared them onto the runway...." A short unambiguous phrase that leaves nothing to interpretation improves communication!
Seriously, lack of common sense in aviation rules is jarring until a real accident happens and everyone then sees what the very obvious solution to the issue was
Floatsm@reddit
I can explain a little why that shouldnt be a concern. The pilots are suppose to understand that runway hold short bars (marked with both an incredibly amount of lighting and signage) mean you cannot pass them without explicit instructions then it really isn't a safety issue. Thats why this instance is just silly. No pilot should expect they can just because they didnt say they had to.
A safety issue would be assuming that you can enter a runway without being given permission to.
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
I think it's a flawed system if you ask me because communication should be unambiguous. yes there are marking that indicate to implicitly hold short but clearly, this pilot received communication that was interpreted as he just did. The better standard to adopt IMO is to explicitly and clearly indicate where you want the plane to be and to me, the instruction from ATC fails to do that. It assumes that the pilot understands and that is the problem.
if you read down this thread, you will see posts by different pilots with different experiences so this is something that could happen and that could lead to serious consequences. the last thing I'd like to know when my loved one dies in an accident is that ATC assumed something and the pilot understood something else. all of which could've been resolve with clearer communication
Screaming_Emu@reddit
I don’t like to speculate, but I’ve heard some pretty horrific things about duty day and rest rules from the Middle East carriers. Nothing specifically about Qatari, but fatigue and a work culture that doesn’t take it seriously can certainly make things more difficult than it needs to be.
ra246@reddit
As a British controller, this phraseology is awful. Some.comments say it's approved by the FAA; in that case, it needs fucking changing.
Taxi Holding point _____ and this wouldn't be an issue. Systemic ambiguity
schokogol@reddit
Stupid americans not using standard phraseology and expecting the world to read their mind somehow.. And never in the world owning their shortcomings..
keenly_disinterested@reddit
There is no difference between ICAO and FAA rules regarding entering a runway--neither allows a pilot to do so without a clearance.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Then explain why this happens way more in US than Europe or Australia and Asian countries
keenly_disinterested@reddit
I don't know that it does. I get your point and agree to an extent. All I'm saying is under either set of rules you cannot enter the runway in use without a clearance. No clearance implies a restriction.
CD-TG@reddit
I'm stunned to learn that these aren't the rules everywhere:
1) Pilots: Never, ever enter a runway without reading back the unambiguous clearance onto that runway ATC gave you.
2) ATC: Always make it clear what the pilot should do upon reaching a runway you have them taxi to.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
The problem is that FAA standard phraseology allow this… that’s why they can’t blame ATC for “not clear communication” while ICAO it’s way more clear as they would use “hold short to”
flume@reddit
IMO FAA phraseology is good (i.e., don't enter the runway unless explicitly told to do so), but it has a major vulnerability, which is that other standards exist. If FAA rules were universal, it would work. But they're not, and it doesn't.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
No wonder your comment matches the profile picture, patriot till the end.
Fatal_Explorer@reddit
Finally the answer I was looking for. The FAA phraseology is to blame as well as the radio culture in the states, it's just a mess. But of course Qatar should not have entered the runway.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Yeah agree with you Qatar pilots has the blame too for not double checking, but it’s just so crazy that FAA still allow this kind of phraseology while ICAO standards are more clear and safe for everyone to understand, but ofc this subreddit is not agreeing because most of people are from US so they will defend FAA anyways
SlugOnAPumpkin@reddit
I don't know anything about aviation regulation, so my capacity to portion out blame here is obviously very limited, but hearing the air traffic controller clarify the difference between "continue to taxi to" and "continue to taxi on to" over the radio made me raise an eyebrow. All international pilots are expected to learn our confusing ass language: it seems the least the FAA could do would be to make the phrasing as clear and unambiguous as possible.
I see the FAA's rules do have several notes about clarity and brevity, but rather than mandating specific language for specific contexts the rules state "Since concise phraseology may not always be adequate, use whatever words are necessary to get your message across."
Reading other comments, it seems common practice (if not a requirement) for the pilot to confirm before taxing onto the runway, regardless of the controller's instruction, so perhaps the pilot has some blame. On the other hand, the air traffic controller is clearly not making an effort to present their English instructions in an accessible way: the difference between two very different instructions ("to" and "onto") should not hang on a single preposition, and at 00:56 they make a hasty and confusing mid sentence correction.
CoffeeBeanATC@reddit
They do. English is the standard language used in aviation. Phraseology is pretty standard, at least it is for me in Canada, but there will always be new or strange occurrences that will require the controller to be creative but as clear & concise as possible. Any transmissions that include “hold”, “hold short” or “holding short” requires read backs with the hold/hold short/holding short part verbatim. Permission to cross a runway doesn’t, so “Qatari 8357 cross runway 15L, continue taxi on…”; the pilot will usually respond with “crossing 15R now, Qatari 8358.” (And any hold instructions after that will also be read back).
Now, we don’t know what was said prior to the beginning of this clip, the pilots would have tuned in to the ATIS for the airport conditions & active runway information prior to contacting ground. Depending on the time of day, they would have contacted Clearance Delivery for their flight plan route & squawk code. If this is later, past 9pm or so, or really early, Clearance Delivery & Ground could have been combined, this is quite standard & common, it’s not as shocking as some people make it out to be (especially in light of the LaGuardia incident). And at less busier airports, Ground & Tower are indeed combined during off-peak hours, again standard. But I digress.
The initial contact from the ground controller should have gone something like:
ATC: Qatari 8357, Houston Bush Ground. Runway 15R, winds are calm, altimeter 29.92. Taxi November alpha, whiskey papa to whiskey Charlie for runway 15R. Contact tower on 127.3 holding short, good night.
The pilot must read back the “holding short” part but everything else does not.
etotheapplepi@reddit
Dumb, not you, the rule.
How many people have been killed from holding short when they weren't supposed to vs how many killed when entering/crossing a runway when they weren't cleared?
I'd expect the instruction with more dire consequences to be the one that requires explicit read back.
To the other reply that said most here are American so they'll side with the FAA... yeah, no
Fatal_Explorer@reddit
In Europe where we are using strictly ICAO phraseology on the radio, we also have stricter rules on runway incursions. You typically only enter or cross a runway, when you have very specific approval or instruction to do so - like a clearance. Also we allow only one aircraft on an active runway, no overflights of aircrafts that have already been lined up etc.
ohnonotagain94@reddit
It’s not clear enough. Especially for non native speakers. The ambiguity is not safe.
“Hold short to runway 1 5 Right” or “Taxi way Runway 1 5 R and Hold Short” would both work.
But as others have said, a pilot should never enter a runway unless explicitly permitted. So ultimately the fault is the pilot, but mitigated by the dreadfully ambiguous definitions used”.
Fatal_Explorer@reddit
And the whole radio culture in the US, it is really a mess. The amount of times you hear plain English in the radio there, would fail your check ride in most other countries.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
1 is true everywhere. Doesn't matter what ground control says. You need an explicit clearance to enter the runway from the tower controller. Them's the rules. There's nothing ambiguous or confusing in this video.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
We all know FAA rules…. we literally said that the ATC won’t be take the blame because they followed FAA phraseology but that’s not imply that FAA standards are good since with ICAO standards this would NEVER EVER happen, more clear now mate ?
Sacharon123@reddit
Typical USA incident. No standards, and always blame only the pilots.Yes, I would also never enter a runway with this clearance, but standard phraseology goes miles when you deal with a perhaps not-so-perfect-english carrier.
JoulSauron@reddit
I'm not a pilot and I have not idea of aviation, but I consistently see in this types of videos how in the USA USians (both ATC and pilots) complete ignore standard phraseology and go "when I was a rugrat I loved to lick the thingamabob, you dig?" for a dual engine fire.
ligregni@reddit
THANK YOU for using "US-ians" and not the one almost everyone ignorantly uses that actually encapsulates an entire continent.
JoulSauron@reddit
Thank you for noticing!!
Kseries2497@reddit
Except that people in Mexico are also "US-ians." When you say US-ians, do you mean people from the United States of America or the United States of Mexico? Both? Neither? It's ambiguous.
Marl__n7@reddit
My thoughts? This guy woke up cranky and it only got worse.
UK controllers, for example, have some of the best radio work; not just phraseology or their workflow, but their little inflections and emphasis are so, so much more clear and professional.
I'll probably get shot-down, but another opinion I'll introduce is the US controllers at major airports by and large are overworked and numb to the task at hand. Was it SFO a few months ago that a controller cleared United to cross, and proceeded to blast United for entering an active runway? (Something like that)
Pupca6@reddit
I’m a UK area controller - firstly thank you, we take pride in providing a safe service in an extremely busy environment.
In my mind, FAA rules, ATC, and the pilots are all contributing factors. Pilots should be aware of the rules where they fly to, there is no excuse. ATC should be cognisant of pilots potentially not being familiar, and be much clearer in their communication. It’s a swiss cheese model, and if we all try a bit harder to close the holes, less incidents will happen.
The FAA rules are mindboggling to me, clearing multiple aircraft/vehicles onto the same runway, the lack of RT discipline, and phraseology and lack there of in different situations being the most serious.
coombeseh@reddit
To be fair I once heard a controller on Scottish absolutely blast an icelandair pilot early in the morning for not knowing what a deconfliction service was after offering them a shortcut outside controlled airspace. I have a ton of respect for the level of work and responsibility ATCOs hold in the UK but you only control one bit of airspace or airport. Long haul pilots travel to all corners of the planet, deal with English in all sorts of accents, and local rules that change all the time. We have briefings but they cannot cover everything, which is why ATC use standard phraseology. When the US (or anywhere) goes off script it is the root cause of these things.
Should the pilots have queried or stopped? Of course, but it's a high workload point in the flight, they're probably on a weird time zone and hear something in their second/third/whatever language that sounds very much like "enter the runway" and read it back with no correction from the ATCO.
Kseries2497@reddit
I wonder how many pilots have explained to St. Peter, "Well it was a high workload phase of flight."
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Completely agree with you, I’m getting downvoted to hell on comments because I’m stating pretty much what you just said, on top of that it would be better to have one type of phraseology communication across all different regions to avoid those kind of problems/misunderstanding between ATC and pilots
Avia_NZ@reddit
Probs because any suggestion that something in America isn’t up to standard will automatically get you downvoted to oblivion, particularly on this sub. Blind nationalism is fucking stupid.
Mysterious_Contact_2@reddit
Americans forgetting how their education system failed a while ago
Avia_NZ@reddit
Shh they aren’t allowed to question that, the flag might hear
cringes
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That’s so true as well
Superdaneru@reddit
Agreeing here too. This ATC sounded like a regular guy holding the door for you at a Walmart. Unprofessional is all I can say.
antariusz@reddit
pay less than a manager at walmart, get less than a manager at walmart quality.
Starting pay for a controller in the u.s. is less than an assistant manager at whataburger.
Superdaneru@reddit
The American dream!
hi_do_you_like_anime@reddit
He's an ass, and an awful controller. I've avoided watching this video because hearing his voice annoys me.
mctomtom@reddit
You are never allowed to cross a hold short line without clearance. Simple as that. You'd never get a taxi instruction to taxi to a runway and also cross the hold short line.
Avia_NZ@reddit
I have received exactly that instruction more than once.
Thiizic@reddit
You said, "the guys tone shifted" as to why he shouldn't listen to ATC
KOjustgetsit@reddit
I agree, UK controllers are top notch. Many US controllers are good, but some genuinely baffle me with their phraseology. Don't really blame them too much though, it's more on the FAA
bobthebuilder1121@reddit
One thing prevents this from happening. Ground instructs Qatari to continue taxi “and hold short runway 15R.” Agree with the other comments about not entering a runway without explicit clearance, but that common phraseology would have prevented this runway incursion.
dsamajors@reddit
ATC never explicitly gave verbal confirmation to enter runway, fully the pilots fault
ZeToni@reddit
All my flying in Europe, everytime is "Taxi to and Hold Short Rwy XX"
airboss1971@reddit
If you fly in the US, the rules are different. Check out 3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_7.html
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
US need to update they phraseology then to avoid those misunderstanding, because with ICAO phraseology this never happens as ATC is forced to use the words “HOLD/CROSS or LINE UP” we don’t need assumptions in aviation! Safety first!
SirMcWaffel@reddit
„Taxi to Rwy 15R“ is not a standard instruction so the tower is just as as guilty of making a mistake as the pilots for entering an active rwy without clearance.
DJ3XO@reddit
As a lurker; my understanding is that ATC would usually give a "taxi to rwy and hold short" instruction and confirm on read back. Isn't this a standard?
SirMcWaffel@reddit
Every runway/taxiway intersection is a holding point.
A standard instruction to a runway would be „ taxi to holding point via
.“
This can be, but doesn’t have to be, followed by „hold short of.“
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Agree but the problem here is that the FAA allow this type of not clear communications… while ATC that follow ICAO they will be forced to say “hold short to RWY 15R” that’s the main issue with FAA standards
SirMcWaffel@reddit
Agreed. FAA „Standards“ are quite low.
CoffeeBeanATC@reddit
I have no idea why my response was flagged?! Anyway, I wrote them about that.
But the standard phraseology should have been:
Pilot: [Location] Ground, Qatari 8357 at [ramp location] ready to taxi for runway 15R with information Juliet.
ATC: Qatari 8357, [Location] Ground. Runway 15R, winds are calm (some will give the altimeter). Taxi November alpha, whiskey papa to whiskey Charlie, contact tower 127.3 holding short.
Pilot: November alpha, whiskey papa & whiskey Charlie & we’ll contact tower holding short, Qatari 8357.
While I don’t work at KIAH, that is the standard phraseology we were taught & use (I’m a Canadian ATC). The only issue is, we don’t know what was said prior to the start of this clip. The fact that Qatari is asking makes me think the Ground controller most likely only gave partial taxi due to possible obstruction or the taxiway was otherwise occupied. Regardless, Ground should have been monitoring & issued a new instruction once the route is clear. “Holding short” is standard for these situations.
Which brings me to another point— subsequent ATC instructions will override past instructions, unless otherwise stated. So if the taxi instructions were broken up & the aircraft was told to hold short of whiskey Charlie, ATC should have been watching & immediately issued the next instruction so the aircraft didn’t need to stop at any point prior to contacting tower. Alternatively, a situation like this could happen:
“…taxi November alpha to whiskey papa, hold short of whiskey Charlie, give way & follow 737 from whiskey whiskey for runway 15R. Contact tower 127.3 holding short.”
This is a runway incursion & from what I heard, there was nothing giving Qatari permission to go on the active runway. I hope my original message gets unflagged as it goes into a bit more detail.
airboss1971@reddit
"ATC: Qatari 8357, [Location] Ground. Runway 15R, winds are calm (some will give the altimeter). Taxi November alpha, whiskey papa to whiskey Charlie, contact tower 127.3 holding short."
This isn't proper phraseology. If the pilot states he has "Juliet" and Juliet is current, nobody is giving winds and we're only issuing the altimeter if it and the ATIS code has changed.
The correct phraseology should have been: ATC: "QATARI 8357 HEAVY RUNWAY 15R TAXI VIA NOVEMBER ALPHA, WHISKEY PAPA, WHISKEY CHARLIE."
Adding "contact tower (frequency) holding short" adds to each transmission, takes more time, & isn't required...especially in a busy airport environment.
CoffeeBeanATC@reddit
Negative, it is always given. Even for incoming flights, if they have the most recent ATIS, winds & altimeter are always given here on first contact. They may have the words ordered in a different way, but we have to give it out despite the pilot saying they have the latest ATIS. I also sat in on the Terminal controllers a few times, just before they hand them over to me, they too give the latest information & tell them the latest ATIS on their screen is [phonetic letter]. On successive departures or landing, the winds are also given again, even though the second aircraft can hear what I just said in the take-off/landing clearance to the aircraft in front of them. They will dock you if you don’t give that info out on a check ride. It is our standard phraseology explicitly laid out in our MANOPS.
airboss1971@reddit
Maybe I wasn’t clear, I am speaking directly about US FAA rules not the rules in other countries. Check out 3-9-10 & 3-10-1 of FAAO JO 7110.65BB.
SoCurious_ItsBad@reddit
Whenever in doubt, stop and ask. In this case because the taxi instruction was clear to them, they were not in doubt. It comes down to standardisation or bridge training so that such events can be avoided. Could have ended badly
macayos@reddit
Yikes. That’s what I think.
cwajgapls@reddit
Seldom do I see eloquence such as this.
etotheapplepi@reddit
Bruh
curbstyles@reddit
same
map2photo@reddit
Does ATC no longer say “hold short runway 1-5 right” anymore?
ajafarzadeh@reddit
Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.
That’s why controllers are required to give clear as day instructions and pilots are required to ensure they are both on the same page.
The individual controller wasn’t at fault here. But this whole incident throws American radio phraseology into sharp relief. Pilots should have clarified, but if we had better ATC phraseology here, this wouldn’t even be possible.
wowpeterhkg@reddit
Totally non standard ATC comm. ATC should have given full taxiway instructions and should never say taxi to runway 15R. As that could mean anything. The proper ATC call should be WP, WC, Hold Short of runway 15R. That type of ATC instruction give by that ATC is accident waiting to happen. Time to stop slack ATC comm to retrain the ATC to follow standard phraseology.
actonadam@reddit
Hey US major airline captain here, so all you “aviation enthusiasts,” who I don’t question in your careers, should hear me out. This is a black and white issue. When you’re operating in the US, you follow American standards. End of story. In the US, FAA standards don’t allow you to take the runway in this scenario. You might think it’s stupid, but that’s the objective truth of this situation. This is a pilot deviation by FAA standards.
75% or more of my trips involve flying to Latin America or the Caribbean, which involve ICAO standards. Personally, I have a huge problem with the ICAO conditional line up and wait instructions from ATC because while I think ICAO is generally more conservative when it comes to procedures, this one always seems more reckless than FAA standards to me. However, I am trained and briefed on ICAO standards, and when I operate in an ICAO country, I operate within their standard. Same goes for Mexico, they have differing speed limit rules. I think they’re arbitrary and pointless, but anytime I fly to mexico I review their regulations and abide by them.
This is a widebody airline crew at Qatar Airways. They are highly compensated, and are expected to know and operate within the regulations of the country they are in. Period. Your opinions don’t matter. You’re a random person on Reddit with absolutely zero influence on how any country in the world will regulate aviation. They didn’t do their due diligence and are in violation of FAA regulations. This is a time in aviation where it’s black and white with no room for interpretation.
Adventurous-Ad8219@reddit
Fully agree. Major US airline FO who flies out of Houston a lot. There's nothing ambiguous about this. Nowhere that I've flown would "taxi to Runway 15R" be construed as a clearance to cross the hold short line
Avia_NZ@reddit
It is ambiguous though. Just because you’re used to it/making assumptions about what a controller wants, doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is. This would all be a lot easier if the US just added 2 simple words to the clearance rules.
But in many ways the US is the Wild West of aviation so hardly surprising really.
actonadam@reddit
Here’s the thing though, it isn’t ambiguous at all. When it comes to stuff like this in aviation, it’s black and white. By US standards these pilots were 100% in the wrong and it isn’t up for debate. When operating an aircraft, you operate according to the local rules. Full stop. You’re free to have whatever opinion you want about whether those rules are good or not, but you ain’t changing it and you’ll never be in a position to have any sort of influence to change it because you clearly aren’t a pilot.
Part of what makes aviation AROUND THE WORLD safe is that things like this are black and white with no room for interpretation. And part of being a professional aviator is knowing and adhering to the rules of the country you’re operating in. The crew is wrong, you’re free to your opinion, but there’s no room for interpretation. It is implied in the US (and many, if not most, countries) that you will not enter the runway given this instruction.
Avia_NZ@reddit
I love how despite knowing nothing about me, you’ve decided that I’m not a pilot, which is a hilarious accusation, as well as resorted immediately to personal insults.
My point is that if a system relies on people implying what they want you to do or not do, then that system has failed. Considering how many accidents have occurred in the US in recent times due to confusion around ATC instruction, it’s a bit rich for you to try and blame the rest of the world for having actual standards.
actonadam@reddit
Well in the event you are a pilot, you’re slinging gear for me and talking on the radio for the next four days because if you think you can do whatever you want just because you think a country’s rules are stupid, you’re a dangerous pilot. As I said, I fly to tons of places with rules I disagree with but I comply with them because that’s my job as a professional aviator. Hell, my company changes our procedures sometimes and I think a lot of those changes are stupid too, but my job isn’t to write the policy as a line pilot, it’s to fly the aircraft according to company procedures and within the confines of the regulations of my company’s home country and the local country if I’m flying internationally.
It’s really not that hard to grasp, a pilot’s opinions on policies and procedures don’t matter, fly by the book and you get to go home and collect a nice fat paycheck twice a month, and more importantly, come home to your loved ones safely and in one piece.
Avia_NZ@reddit
Did I ever say that I wouldn’t follow the rules? You’re making some pretty reaching assumptions here. My point is, these rules are dangerous and I can see why there has been an incident here. Considering how many incursion incidents & accidents have occurred in the US over the last few years, it’s just shows how much the US system is failing. I’m just glad I don’t fly there
actonadam@reddit
Probably for the best you just stick to flying around your little island if you are a pilot, it’s really not that hard to learn the local phraseology for the country you’re operating in. I’d also recommend you stay off the roads, the death rate from motor vehicle accidents in NZ (while impressively low), is still significantly higher than the rate of deaths in US commercial aviation. Thousands of pilots from around the world manage to operate in the US airspace system safely every day while understanding the phraseology, so it clearly isn’t asking too much. It’s the year 2026, most companies can easily put out guidance to their pilot groups on local standards that all but idiot proof it. Just takes a two minute review and you’re up to speed. I really don’t think that’s a big ask of professional pilots. And besides, there’s still no countries where you can just taxi onto a runway without an explicit construction, and one of the first things I can assure you your instructor taught you is if there’s any doubt, ask. Private pilot basics here
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.
Avia_NZ@reddit
I love how you’re just resorting to personal insults now, big yikes and a great way to undermine your entire argument.
And even better, I don’t even live in New Zealand so cool story about that bro.
actonadam@reddit
Idk man, you’re the one who seems to think it’s asking too much for professional pilots to be familiar with local phraseology. As I said, thousands of foreign pilots do it correctly every day in the US and I suspect they’d laugh at you too for thinking this situation is anything but black and white. I’ve flown in 30+ countries, with each having their own intricacies. It really is as simple as just looking it over for a couple of minutes before you go blasting in there. I’m sure there’s tons of pilots every day from your home country flying around the US who have figured it out
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
They aren't changing it, primarily because "USA, USA, USA no.1 forever".
A lot of people, including Americans, died in the Tenerife disaster nearly 50 years ago. One of the main safety recommendations was that standardised phraseology should be developed and used to avoid ambigous instructions that could be mis-interpreted.
Most of the world, with the exception of USA, took that pretty seriously, where as US pilots are still "declaring an emergency" or calling out "emergency aircraft" instead of using pan or mayday.
We should be striving more towards using global, standardised phraseology, so instead of every local sheriff having their own rules, and having to follow something completely different every 5 miles, it would be much safer for entire world to follow the same standards.
It will never happen of course, but one can dream.
actonadam@reddit
Hey totally agree in a perfect world it would all be standard and we’d all use the same procedures across the board. On a side note though there has been a pretty big push lately in the US to move towards more standard procedures. At my carrier there’s a massive push to move towards standard phraseology for emergencies. Progress at least, maybe the rest will change over time too with any luck at all
PepeNoMas@reddit
my problem is communication of this importance should leave nothing to be implied by whoever is hearing it.
sure, in america, this is the standard and other pilots should learn the american system when they fly in here. BUT, if an accident occurs and I hear this communication as it is, I'm sorry, i'm blaming all of FAA because to me, this communication is ambiguous and there is absolutely no reason for it. Old systems should be changed (and likely will be once 300 people lose their lives because its too much to say "hold at R15")
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
It's not ambigous, if you're used to this wild west US ATC radio speak, but it deviates from ICAO standards, which is one of the reasons the crew made a mistake here.
A good controller would recognise that they are dealing with a crew, that isn't 100% familiar with the airport or their own local procedures, and try to use as standardised phraseology as practically possible, to reduce ambiguity.
HorkBajirGafrash@reddit
"When I fly in an ICAO country" said like the US is not an ICAO signatory. The issue here is that the US is so deviant in a world of standards. If it were not for you guys doing things your specific way, we'd all have an easier time. This is literally why ICAO standards were invented.
actonadam@reddit
China and Russia (two of the most influential nations in the world, for better or worse) utilize metric measurements for altitudes, which is also a MAJOR deviation from global standards. But guess what? If I’m operating an aircraft in China or Russia, I’m going to comply with their rules and fly an altitude in meters. It isn’t the standard, but it’s what they do, and as a foreign pilot with the hypothetical PRIVILEGE of operating an aircraft in their sovereign airspace, it is my responsibility to comply with their restrictions and regulations. I get paid a lot of money to operate my aircraft in accordance with the rules of wherever I’m flying. As a pilot, your job is strictly to operate the aircraft safely within the confines of the rules of where you’re flying. That’s it. When pilots deviate or “improvise” on the rules, that’s when things become dangerous.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Whether you like it or not, meters for altitude are a permissible unit to use according to ICAO Annex 5, so they're not deviating from ICAO standards. It's in fact a primary unit, with a recognition that transition from feet to meters would cause a large issue with human factors, so non-SI units are permitted.
leonjetski@reddit
OK so then let’s flip that around. As you say, this is a wide body Qatari crew, so presumably extremely well trained, used to flying in and out of US airports, and fully aware of FAA regulations and standards.
What does the fact that there was still a fuck up tell you?
actonadam@reddit
Part of what makes aviation so safe, at least in the United States and I’m guessing other North American countries and likely European countries, is that our safety management systems operate under the assumption that nobody is perfect and that mistakes will happen. We take a risk “management” approach because we will never totally completely eliminate all risks, and we will never trap every risk in one layer of risk management protection. Through a combination of different policies, procedures, and ultimately pilot skill, we hope to trap all errors before a serious event occurs. In this case, policies, procedures and regulations were not correctly followed and a mistake happened. Fortunately ATC was paying attention, and any further escalation of the mistake was mitigated. It is the risk management system in action, and although an error occurred, one of the barriers to risk management captured it and prevented it from escalating.
KOjustgetsit@reddit
Even with ICAO standards, I understand clearance to enter the runway is explicitly limited to either "line up and wait" or "cleared for takeoff/cleared to cross" right?
actonadam@reddit
That is correct. Many ICAO countries will include phraseology such as “taxi to holding point runway 15R” which certainly makes the instruction clearer, but I have never operated in nor heard of a country where you can enter a runway without it being explicitly clear that you are cleared to do so. As I said, there’s no room for interpretation for this. It’s black and white.
willreadforbooks@reddit
Thank you, JESUS! Some of the comments…
Practical_Fig_7655@reddit
Most ICAO countries abroad use the “taxi to holding point 15r” phraseology. Hold short is a North American thing. But IAH and in particular but more broadly the USA atc is very difficult for outsiders to understand.
There are foreign carriers that require their pilots to file daily internal reports on what the US atc requested of them so that the next crew can figure out what to expect and study.
Prudent_Situation_29@reddit
I can only agree that the language has to be standardized. It sounds like they're attempting to increase profits by making calls shorter, eliminating the hold short usage.
Whatever they decide, it has to be unambiguous and universal. Any pilot in the world should know exactly what they're supposed to, and not supposed to do based on the instruction.
If the current system is set up to allow for confusion at all, it needs to be changed. We don't want another Tenerife, certainly not because pilots lack proper training or regulators can't get on the same page.
LostPilot517@reddit
Qatari was expecting, Taxi holding point 15R? Since the clearance lacked holding point, they accepted that as a line up and wait I guess.
This should be an augmented crewed, either 3 or 4 pilots I would expect? Not one understands the clearance to speak up or prevent this from happening?
Ever country has their variation from ICAO, that's part of international flight planning, to be aware and ensure your operating correctly in that countries system.
airboss1971@reddit
If you fly in the US, the rules are different. Check out 3-7-2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_7.html
LostPilot517@reddit
I know, I am a US ATP.
The phraseology outside the US often uses the phraseology, "taxi to holding point 15R." As in the hold short point of 15R.
Qatari seems to have taken the clearance quite literally to taxi 15R, and taxied onto 15R.
In the US it is expected to hold short of any runway crossing unless explicitly given clearance to cross, or enter, or issued Line Up and Wait, or a Takeoff Clearance.
lowmk2golf@reddit
They both messed up.
I've been driving on runways and aprons for 25 years and I would never done what the pilot did there without holding short.
But also I never have heard an ATC give that shifty instruction.
ElderberryShoddy833@reddit
This is why standard phrases are needed
ATC should have said "Taxi and Hold short of Runway" and the pilots should have waited until "Line up and wait on runway" to go onto the runway
the_frgtn_drgn@reddit
Maybe I'm missing something but pilot says I'm holding short, so to me that is the pilot saying "I've gone as far as I can go before I have to go onto the runway"
And the atc saying continue taxing at that point would suggest to me I'm allowed to go on the runway.
Idk maybe I'm missing some nuance?
dumbassretail@reddit
“Controllers must clearly state a restriction if you are not cleared onto or across a runway.”
That’s not true, at least not universally, when you are being taxied to a runway for departure. What is true is pilots must not enter a runway without explicit clearance to do so.
I agree that ATC could have been more proactive here, but they did not break any rules.
KingBobIV@reddit
I have personally been told to taxi onto the active runway.
I said hold short in my readback, because what the fuck is "taxi to runway XX" supposed to mean, and they came back and clarified that I was supposed to line up and wait.
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
the fact that y'all as pilots are actually arguing about this is madness and part of the reason why I'm terrified of flying. after 100 years of flying and countless accidents due to confusion, why is this simple thing still a conversation. and its a simple thing that is easily fixable as a standard that can lead to serious catastrophe
Having said that, as a lay person, I think ATC should EXPLICITLY say to hold short or do not enter. a small phrase that could save hundreds of lives.
Itherial@reddit
in all fairness your fear of flying is an irrational phobia. i know this because i have one.
the total percent of commercial flights that have ever crashed is so absolutely minuscule as to be effectively zero.
knowing this still doesn't help though lol
rkba260@reddit
By a ground controller?
Tachanka-Mayne@reddit
Perhaps this is another international distinction, but in Europe I have experienced plenty of times where an airport that normally has seperate frequencies for Ground and Tower will reduce to one person / frequency if the airport is quiet.
You’re approaching the hold point expecting to be handed over and then they just clear you for take off.
coombeseh@reddit
Ground and tower on the same frequency with the same controller was a big part of the LGA crash, it happens everywhere but there's a lot of ignoring that in this thread
SilkyMittsSoftSteels@reddit
It’s normal procedure in cases of a taxiway closure or something similar. Ground can ask for permission from the tower controller (local) to proceed on a runway. Not what was going on in the video, but it does happen.
rkba260@reddit
To CROSS a runway or BACK-TAXI... NEVER to line up an wait for take off!
SilkyMittsSoftSteels@reddit
Oh yeah line up and wait should never happen from ground.
SenselessNumber@reddit
Current airport I fly out of usually says taxi to, and I always taxi to line up and wait as well as state it in my readback. It was odd at first not hearing them tell me to line up and wait. I can see where confusion could happen but for me Ground Control stops at the hold short line, I'm checking in with Tower before I cross that line.
dumbassretail@reddit
This is a towered airport? Where?
SenselessNumber@reddit
Roswell.
Outtheregator@reddit
Ahh Roswell, where I received the following communication on a February evening 20- some years ago: Twr/APPCH: "Mooney 991, cleared to land straight in RWY 21" Me: baffled "uh... Approach, Mooney 991, I'm 40 miles out. " Twr/APPCH: "Mooney 991, Aproach, understood. Cleared to land, straight in RWY 21." Me: "OK, cleared to land 21, Mooney 991."
I don't think I had heard another plane on approach the entire previous hour. At one point I had called up approach just to be sure I wasn't forgotten about and didn't get a handoff. It's quiet out in that desert.
CoffeeBeanATC@reddit
Haha, yeah, when there’s no one, & I mean no one, is on radar, controllers like to jus clear you and then lay back in their chairs & kick their feet up. But I will caution everyone— this is precisely when shit hits the fan
cvl37@reddit
That’s still confusing though and underlines the need for consistent and universal language and standards. Straight in is part of an approach clearance, not a landing clearance. I get TWR/APP being combined but their functions are different and this adds to the confusion of being cleared so early
dumbassretail@reddit
Wild.
I don’t get how this works. How can planes be cleared to land when anyone taxiing out has clearance onto the runway?
SenselessNumber@reddit
I'm not saying people have clearance universally, Ground just doesn't say hold short all the time. Haven't noticed anyone just taxi right on.
dumbassretail@reddit
I don’t think we’re speaking the same language here.
“Line up and wait” means enter the runway, but don’t take off. It doesn’t mean line up on the taxiway and wait short of the runway.
SenselessNumber@reddit
I'm a few drinks in, I meant hold short in my first comment lol.
dumbassretail@reddit
I meant nowhere in the world is that the standard practice.
It could be done as a one off for certain reasons, and it should be very clear to all involved if that is the case. If not, it’s poor practice by the controller.
CoffeeBeanATC@reddit
It does happen actually, when ground & tower are combined and it’s the same controller, but they switch the frequencies for recording purposes & habit for pilots I would assume. Tower is in control of the active runway(s) & when it’s the same person, the controller will taxi them onto the runway, but will tell the pilots to switch to tower’s frequency when they get there. Alternatively, on ground frequency, they could give the whole spiel with the “holding short” & tell them to switch to Tower & monitor ground frequency during the taxi. Then, Tower calls them up before they reach the holding spot & give them their take-off clearance. The danger to doing it this way is if birds or other debris gets to the edge of the grass but not quite on the runway, then you have to advise the pilot & it’s up to them if they’re ok with it. If not, take-off clearance is cancelled & I call maintenance truck to go clear the debris. If no one is en route, I’ll let the aircraft stay there or get the arrival to land on one of the other runways, winds permitting.
We don’t know what was exchanged prior to the start of this clip. I started off at a Level 3 tower (in Canada), so a mix of student/training & commercial traffic, with the occasional military traffic. Our flight controls go to the FSS from 11:00pm-5:00am; when we start, the first 90 minutes has ground & tower combined, from 8:00pm-11:00pm, they are also combined. Combining the two positions is standard & not due to being short-staffed.
Icy_Pineapple_4456@reddit
Agree, should have gotten hold short, contact tower, blah blah blah
QuietQTPi@reddit
That's the thing for me. I get there is brevity to keep things short and concise but brevity or not, there should be no question what is expected of the pilot. If you need to say a few more words to communicate that, then it should be done.
From a pilot perspective, I would probably err on the side of caution when asked to taxi TO something. To as in up to but not enter.
Doesn't hurt to ask for clarification but thats also dependent on how congested the frequency is I guess. Still would say there was a lack of information from the tower here but thats just my non expert opinion lol
Icy_Pineapple_4456@reddit
Good point, I never fully trust ATC. Asking for clarity is always a good thing. Even when cleared, I always check for inbound traffic.
Lump001@reddit
In Europe at least, unless you are explicitly told to enter/cross the runway, you aren't cleared onto the runway. And this is exactly why.
Llamasxy@reddit
Not from ground to LUAW surely. Either tower messed up what they were tryna say or the tower was not authorized to use LUAW and was trying to get around it with a "taxi onto Runway XX and hold"
Poopy_sPaSmS@reddit
Agreed. Taxi TO is ambiguous. Saying ONTO and HOLD SHORT should be distinct instructions. TO is just to easy to fuck up.
coombeseh@reddit
No guarantee that there's separate ground and tower frequencies, they regularly get combined as we saw from the LGA incident
I've definitely been cleared for departure in initial taxi instructions from the gate, albeit for a regional operator not long haul
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
I know it’s not universal and that’s why it’s better to have a universal phraseology either FAA or ICAO or whatever, it’s just not good to have different standards across the countries/regions.
streetmagix@reddit
There is a universal standard: ICAO. As usual, the US decided to do it a different way and we've seen multiple instances in the last few years of US ATC causing incidents.
Hareboi@reddit
Oh my god why is this getting downvoted, it's just common sense. To anyone arguing it's already unambiguous the way it is - did we watch the same video?
tmfink10@reddit
If you asked your neighbor if you could stop by and borrow some sugar and they said "sure, come on over" - would you walk in when you got there or ring the doorbell? In the same way, the runway does not belong to the pilot. They need to wait to be invited onto the runway. Saying "come on over" does not imply that all other rules should be ignored, only indicates what you may expect when you get there.
SeaMareOcean@reddit
This is the absolute worst example you could have thought of. There are many, many places/cultures/neighborhoods where you would just walk right in after asking to borrow sugar.
jared_number_two@reddit
This is a Wendy’s sir.
RedDirtDVD@reddit
Yup. Where I live I’m expecting you at my door and walking in…
SheepherderAware4766@reddit
If I was explicitly invited to their house, absolutely walk in. They have my house key and I have theirs.
RiccWasTaken@reddit
And that is how you get accidents in the US. GND controller instruction said "continue taxi to runway 15R", but what he should have said is "continue taxi to the HOLDING POINT of runway 15R, HOLD SHORT OF RUNWAY 15R".
Stishovite@reddit
Wow, this is the kind of stuff we’re entrusting our lives to? Color me unimpressed. The procedures should make misunderstandings impossible in these types of situations. At least that’s what the standard is meant to be.
b_vitamin@reddit
Kind of seems like this is a situation that has surely come up before and that a policy should have been established for it already?
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
my point exactly. I was already scare of flying and now I'm terrified again. there are pilots here literally arguing who is correct meaning there is no standard world wide. what the actual fuck!
zugarrette@reddit
Agreed! It makes it worse imo that "they did not break any rules". That means this could happen more often by accident
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
I'm a radar controller now but used to do tower. Clearances are required to have a 'clearance limit' generally that will be the holding position short of the runway if that is the controllers intention. In this case the clearance limit is 15R, with no further details it's fair that the crew lined up. Perhaps in the US clearance limits aren't actively used, and perhaps that's why they lead the world in runway incursions. In any case, my opinion is the controller issued a loose clearance, then doubled down on his unprofessionalism by arguing about it on the frequency. To controllers from other regions, the failings of the US system are all too obvious in videos like this.
ZuluSierra14@reddit
In the US the taxi instruction is to the runway. Not on. The clearance limit is the painted hold short bars painted into the pavement. Each airport is different but generally ground owns taxiways and local owns runways, so you need to switch freqs to be talking to the controller that owns the pavement you want to use.
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
Unless you do things really different over there, those painted lines have a name and that should be the clearance limit unless the controller doesn't mind the aircraft entering the runway. Eg ' taxi to AB' vs 'taxi to 15R' you can see the inherent risk in the second clearance I'm sure. To your other point, positions in ATC combine and split so pilots aren't expected to assume which position owns the pavement or otherwise, they just follow instructions
ZuluSierra14@reddit
To a runway is not on a runway. The FAR AIM and the 7110.65 are very clear about that. This is a wide body jet pilot making more than that controller. They should know the rules of the country they are flying in.
rally89@reddit
We do, in fact, do things very different over here.
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
In this case I don't think that's something to be proud of I'm afraid
rally89@reddit
No pride here, just a statement of fact. Our phraseology is Runway 27L, taxi via Whiskey, Hotel or Runway 27R, taxi via Whiskey, Hotel, hold short of Runway 27L or Runway 27R, taxi via Whiskey, Hotel, cross Runway 27L at Hotel.
RandomNightmar3@reddit
Totally agree with you there, but pilots are the last line of defense: if in doubt or phraseology is not standard, ask again. And you need an explicit clearance to 'line up and wait'.
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
Can't disagree with that. Pilots should have confirmed the unusual clearance.
Dramatic_Bell263@reddit
Pilot 100% in the wrong.
charlespigsley@reddit
Anyone else understand what ATC said? I heard that and thought ATC was just being snarky like “you’re not quite at the runway yet, so don’t tell me you’re already there when you’re not. Continue.” I’ve gotten that kind of sas before
Candidate_None@reddit
I never heard a hold short. But I also never heard a clear clearance to enter the runway either. ATC is wrong for ambiguity, pilot is wrong for entering a runway without proper clearance.
MaddogWSO@reddit
I. The US here. Controller should have told him to taxi and hold short.
rumpel4skinOU@reddit
One time the opposite of this happened to me in Venezuela. They told me to taxi to the runway. I taxiied to and held short of the runway. I sat there for a long time until Caracas Tower asked me why I wasn't on the runway yet. It's entirely possible the Qatari pilots have been flying a lot in areas where, given the same instructions, they would be expected to take the runway.
rally89@reddit
I’m a simple USAF controller, so I don’t know how it works at large Intl airports, but is it not common to call tower and tell them that you are holding short and ready for departure?
MagicalMagyars@reddit
Frequencies are often too busy and it is normally required that you manage your start up and taxi in such a way as to be fully ready on reaching the holding point. Some very large or busy airports don't even want you to check in on the tower frequency when holding short, they will contact you first with the assumption you are ready immediately and if on approach is callsign only to check in. Do the communication with ground or approach, keep the tower frequency as calm or clear as possible.
rally89@reddit
Makes sense, thanks. Don’t know why my question is making people mad but ok.
DistributionHot2150@reddit
No, because you’d be cutting about 20 others off speaking for a nothing burger
darkResponses@reddit
I'm a sub lurker. Is there anything bad about holding short other than, it's inefficient? I'd hope that waiting to be cleared onto the runway is better than sitting on it.
Altruistic-Pipe-2134@reddit
I mean the only thing I can realistically think of being a pilot myself is you end up holding up traffic behind you and/or that time holding short couldve been used to get a plane landed but those are again efficiency issues and nitpicky when a pilot is doing his due diligence and being safe in the absence of clearer instructions
antariusz@reddit
so... slightly less efficient...
as opposed to dead
Altruistic-Pipe-2134@reddit
i mean yeah, hence why i said in my comment the only real complaints/drawbacks are nitpicks if anything
Merry-Leopard_1A5@reddit
my opinion as a profane little lurker they're both in the wrong.
- ATC needs to be clear on the pilot "holding short" of the runway or taxiway entry
- If the Pilot feels he's cleared to line up and wait on the runway, that's what he should read back so that the ATC catches the misunderstanding before an accident happens.
kiwicrusader1984@reddit
That would be an ATC attributable incident in Aus. But thats because the standards around taxiing to a runway dictate ATC must give a holding point or a hold short instruction and must also obtain a readback that indicates a pilot's understanding of the instruction. So, even if the instruction was given, if the readback didnt have it, the ATC is held accountable.
As some have said, if US standards have an inherent restriction then the ambiguity lies with the system and not with ATC. The concerning thing from an ICAO standpoint is the lack of awareness from international carriers around any ambiguous standards that an ATCO has.
EtwasSonderbar@reddit
The problem international carriers have is that it's basically impossible to train crews with every country's rules - that's why they're supposed to be standardised. That Qatari crew will have flown over at least 10 countries to get to the USA and would need to know the rules for each of them in case of diversion. They probably also fly to east Asia - add another 20 countries there. It's not feasible to know and remember 30 counties' slightly different rules.
kiwicrusader1984@reddit
Yeah, thats what I was trying to say about the ICAO standpoint. They really need to be the ones to drive more standardisation around the key safety aspects. I haven't looked at ICAO directives, but I would imagine there is already direction around this that some ATCOs aren't taking notice of.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
They do, but ICAO is not a regulator. They can only publish SARPs (standards and recommended practices), which then most country mostly implement, or in the case of USA, which always knows best, they publish a War and Peace list of differences.
Long story short, USA no. 1 and they care not even one iota about what ICAO recommends.
anewerab@reddit
Taxi to runway 15 is not a correct clearance.
It is either taxi to holding point runway 15 or hold short of the runway or enter the runway or line up runway.
That being said , the pilot should ask for further instructions or clarify the clearance, not enter an active runway.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
The problem is that under FAA standards is still a correct clearance… while with ICAO standards there is no way this would be allowed
anewerab@reddit
I'm not familiar with the faa standard phraseology but it seems wrong to issue such a clearance. Taxi to runway and do what? Hold short or enter. This is very important and cannot be left unclear. How is this possible in your phraseology?
Sitting_In_A_Lecture@reddit
I'm really surprised to hear that the ICAO standard is "assume cleared unless otherwise stated."
For those confused: In the US you must have explicit permission to cross a Runway Hold Short Line. You might hear for example "Cross Runway 22 at Bravo" or "Runway 22 cleared for takeoff" or "Runway 22 line up and wait" (what the pilot did here).
I don't know if it's the same for commercial, but for GA it's also normal to announce yourself as ready to depart: "925 Alpha Whiskey Holding Short Runway 22 at Bravo, Ready for Takeoff" ("Ready to Go" / "Ready to Depart" also common).
spazturtle@reddit
ICAO rules don't assume clearance, the clearance was given in the phrasing. The word 'to' was the explicit verbal clearance.
In the English language saying go to a place means reaching that place.
If I say that I am going to New York for holiday then I mean that I am traveling to a location within New York, not that I am going to wait outside New York.
The controller gave clear and explicit clearance to enter the runway by using the word 'to' without any modifiers.
Sitting_In_A_Lecture@reddit
The controller didn't give clearance, the pilots only thought he did. You need explicit clearance for each runway hold short line you cross.
This wasn't an abnormal direction from the controller. "Taxi to 09 via Charlie, Delta, Golf." If runway 22 intersects Delta and you did not hear "Cross runway 22 at Delta-3," you don't have permission to cross and are required to hold short of 22 on that taxiway. Likewise, those taxi instructions did not give you permission to line up and wait on runway 09, you have to hold short at Golf-2 until given clearance.
This assumption of an explicit clearance requirement allows for a higher volume of traffic, gives controllers a better understanding of the situation at any given time, and minimizes the risk of collisions involving departing or arriving aircraft (which tend to be unsurvivable for everyone involved).
Clamps55555@reddit
FAA has lessons to learn but dosent like change. Just adding the term “hold short” for example.
LeFlying@reddit
I'd say fuck it and let's put some fucking red lights the the ATC can turn green at that point
Feschbesch@reddit
You mean like 24/7 stopbars that are recommended by ICAO? I am all for them but there are a lot of of technical prerequisites at airports to not increase controller workload when introducing them.
LeFlying@reddit
They could be automated, like have a system estimate how far a plane is and based on his speed, how long it will take him to land and if it's below x amount of time, it turns red, or if a plane is lined up, turn red as well
But i get what you mean, you're right
Feschbesch@reddit
Yes that is a different system that exists at a few major airports. It's called RWSL. But tis is not dependend on controller input and is fully automated. So if nobody is on final, the lights wouldn't turn red and the plane still would have lined up in this instance. It also didn't prevent the accident at LaGuardia where the lights were red.
sixaout1982@reddit
ATC should have told them to hold short, but they shouldn't have entered the runway without having been told to line up.
Sam0n@reddit
The problem is, and always will be, that American ATC Phraseology standards are absolutely fucking atrocious.
Similar_Victory5857@reddit
Yeah nah, that's super unclear, he should have been told to hold short of runway 15R. Or something along those lines...saying taxi to 15R is extremely interpretable...especially with language barriers.
Mitshal@reddit
As someone international who flies into the us this is shite phraseology, shite procedures and shite professionalism.
smietnik9@reddit
7110.65BB:
"When authorizing an aircraft to taxi or a vehicle to proceed on the movement area, specify the taxi instructions/route. If it is the intent to hold the aircraft/vehicle short of a runway: issue the route up to the runway hold short point. "
"When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short instructions, in accordance with subparagraph a above, when an aircraft will be required to hold short of a runway or other points along the taxi route."
Penaple01@reddit
It’s called a hold short line for a reason. If you aren’t specifically told to pass it, hold short.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
He never got hold short too. While ICAO standards always use HOLD SHORT
CharAznableLoNZ@reddit
Pilot is at fault. However it's kinda odd ATC did not state hold short 15R and then require the pilot to repeat back the hold short instructions. Something like "Continue taxi 15R hold short 15R at whisky charlie."
AutoRot@reddit
You aren’t allowed to cross a hold short marking without a clearance. “Cross runway 15”, “runway 15 line up and wait”, or “cleared for takeoff runway 15” are clearances. If you are confused, ask before crossing the bars. Pilot deviation, runway incursion.
StartersOrders@reddit
The issue is though that the controller’s instructions were non-standard and ambiguous.
FAA phraseology needs to get in the bin and the US needs to adopt the same phraseology as the literal rest of the world.
Redbiertje@reddit
It sounds to me like if you're told to taxi to a point behind the bars, then that's pretty explicit permission to move to that point, right?
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
It's ok, almost everyone commenting isn't a pilot.
The standard everywhere in the world, including the U.S., is that you need an explicit clearance to cross the hold short and enter the runway. "Taxi to runway xyz" is absolutely NOT sick a clearance and there was nothing ambiguous in this video. The pilots just fucked up and were acting like it was confusing to cover their asses.
CashKeyboard@reddit
The problem is that FAA phraseology for some reason deviates from ICAO standards in these details. My national AIP doesn't really support the phrase "taxi to runway". It's extremely foolish on the crews part to assume that means a clearance but I also do not see why you'd want non-standard phrasing in the first place because it's most definitely a contributing factor here.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
No it doesn't. FAA 7110.65, the ATC regulation, also requires hold short instruction.
CashKeyboard@reddit
Well OP claimed it doesn't?
I can't really go into depth about regulations of countries I couldn't reasonably fly to but for us (and ICAO standard) a taxi clearance has a clearance limit and and an optional hold short instruction. That transmission contained neither and I can see how that could be confusing. But again, it's a bit deadbrained to assume the whole runway for some reason is your clearance limit.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
Believe it or not, OP is wrong. The FAA 7110.65 is the relevant reg.
CashKeyboard@reddit
Great, but then I don't see how "There was nothing ambiguous in this video.". Because, according to you, the controller used non-standard phraseology when non-ambiguity is one of _the_ reasons we're using it.
Again, flight crew is clearly in the wrong here but controller behavior absolutely contributed.
CessnaBandit@reddit
The standard everywhere in the world would be (taxi to hold point xyz” and NOT “to runway 15”
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
That's true in the U.S. as well. The controller is partially at fault for incorrect phraseology, but it's mostly the pilots because entering a runway without explicit clearance is a much bigger fuck up for obvious reasons.
CessnaBandit@reddit
Both can be at fault. Just trying to find blame benefits no one and achieves nothing. Why did this happen? Because the phrasing used can be open to interpretation. The controller wanted them to hold at a specific point before the runway, if instruction given stated that explicitly then we remove any room for misinterpretation
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
Definitely both are at fault.
What's not at fault? The FAA regulations every Redditor here is blaming without even knowing what they are.
Redbiertje@reddit
Appreciate it :)
I'm also not necessarily trying to argue that the pilots were in the right. I just disagree with some of the arguments being made against the pilots here. "I've never been cleared this way before" - after how many visits to the US should a foreign pilot think like this? "They could figure out what to do by dissecting the permission they were given" - it's not ICAO standard apparently, and the linguistics of these clearances are not as robust as some think. I think the most fair argument is: it wasn't ICAO and it wasn't unambiguous, therefore they should have asked for clarification. The again, from frequenting this sub over the last few years, I'd expect US ATC would be even more overworked than they already are if every pilot would ask them to clarify non-ICAO clearances. Who knows. It might be useful actually...
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
Keep in mind that you see a lot of US ATC screwups or unprofessionalism on this sub because the US, unlike much of Europe, allows the public recording of ATC frequencies.
antariusz@reddit
Pilot lands without a landing clearance...
Well I was cleared to the airport, what was I supposed to do when I got there, duh...
phaederus@reddit
Exactly, under ICAO the clearance to cross the stop line is implied here. Whether that's clever or not is another discussion.. I personally feel safety is sometimes sacrificed for brevity's sake.
Again, personally, I'd also ask to confirm, but ICAO wouldn't require you to.
mustang__1@reddit
100% this
Killentyme55@reddit
"I have a phone number for you to write down when you're ready".
rick_rolled_you@reddit
“Sorry I lost my pen”
wthulhu@reddit
Theres a phrase you hope to never hear.
GoanShiteInABucket@reddit
ATC just said its a number the pilot has to write down. ATC never said the pilot needs to call the number.
Killentyme55@reddit
"Really?"
UnreasoningOptimism@reddit
FAA manager hate this one simple trick
AutoRot@reddit
Yeah I mean, if someone’s on short final then we just had another LGA/Tenerife disaster. Not cool, runway incursions are no joke, clarify before entering.
Any_Purchase_3880@reddit
Yeah literally the most important lesson taught to student pilots is the relationship between hold short markings and "explicit clearance." Oof
je386@reddit
First of all, ICAO phraseology is clearly better, because it is clear and had to misunderstand.
Second, the phraseology should be the.sqme worldwide to prevent these types of errors.
TampaPowers@reddit
Because "onto" and "to" are so much clearer. That's way too easy to mishear as well and a bad justification which is just going to make this happen again.
We can't agree to change the clocks on the same date, but I thought at least when it comes to one of the biggest issues, runway incursions, the phrases would have been made more clear. They are adding lights and various other things to stop runway incursions, but not change the phrases to specifically tell aircraft to not enter, it's assumed everyone knows and remembers that part.
Sure it's the fault of the pilot to a large degree, but there is a systematic issue here as well as with so many things. Watch enough air crash investigations and this is a clear pattern of ambiguous language leading to danger. Another Tenerife waiting to happen. I was waiting for the pilot to say "we are at start". Yikes
ReviewEnvironmental2@reddit
Taking a Just Culture approach here, you can understand why the Qatari pilots thought they could enter the runway, and also ask why they didn’t query a non-standard phrase.
Personally if I have any doubt, I ask for specific clearance. I’ve been on VFR-to-IFR flight plans originating outside controlled airspace, and many a time have been cleared to climb to a flight level inside the airway. Where those clearances lack the magic words “cleared to enter controlled airspace” I always ask for confirmation and don’t climb until I get it. No matter how busy the frequency.
Equally I’ve had times on training / check flights where I’ve been cleared for takeoff and my instructor thought we were cleared only to line up and wait. Again, I’ve had no hesitation to ask ATC to confirm even though I know there’s a 737 on a 3 mile final.
So the question for me is why they didn’t query an unclear instruction.
Bigbigcheese@reddit
Dangerously poor phraseology from ATC, full of ambiguity.
It should be something like "Taxi to holding point x runway 23 hold short runway 23".
Poor recognition of the ambiguity from the pilot who should have clarified the poor instruction.
KDFWCenterline@reddit
I would not have entered the runway. Im goin with Qatar at fault
scigs6@reddit
Exactly. I would always assume to hold short. I have never been told to taxi to an active runway and line up.
Avia_NZ@reddit
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. Particularly in such a procedure driven industry.
macayos@reddit
True. But assuming to NOT enter the runway is the safest choice here. Assume into the side of caution.
Avia_NZ@reddit
If I was cleared to taxi to a runway here, without a hold short instruction I would just taxi onto the runway. As would most pilots, because I hadn’t been told to hold short.
Sure, I would visually check first, and doing so has saved me before. But it’s a bad instruction
Hareboi@reddit
It's absolutely batshit crazy to me that there are pilots in the comments here using two different interpretations of the same phrase. I think I speak for all passengers when I say please get your shit together everyone
Avia_NZ@reddit
Almost as if the phrase is unclear and open to interpretation or something
electrikmayham@reddit
In which case I would expect my pilot to err on the side of caution, NOT enter an active runway, and ask for clarification from ATC.
Its MY LIFE you have in your hand. Don't assume ANYTHING.
Avia_NZ@reddit
I would expect the system to have rules in place to prevent any sort of assumption being made one way or the other. It's crazy how so many people in this post are against the notion that ATC should have to say 2 extra words, as is standard across the rest of the planet, which would alleviate any potential for misunderstanding. It's not like it's hard to say "hold short"
CessnaBandit@reddit
There is international standardardised phraseology which the US often fails to use. The standard would be an explicit “taxi and hold a WW” followed by “runway 15R line up and wait/cleared for takeoff”.
macayos@reddit
Does “here” mean somewhere other than the US?
Bc I am US based, so I only have experience with that, but I would never expect a pilot to cross the hold bars unless explicitly told to do so.
Taxi to ≠ on as someone else posted. At least not in the US.
That is wild to me that other countries think/use that as permission to enter.
Again, I am erring on the side of caution. ATC can get as snarky as they want if they miss a hole trying to launch me and I didn’t get on the runway in time, I am not getting smashed.
anphalas@reddit
Outside of the US this kind of communication from the controller would be unacceptable precisely due to its ambiguity. Say "proceed to runway 15R and hold short", that is clear instruction. Saying "taxi to rwy 15R" is open to interpretation and assumptions. This is also clearly not a native English speaking crew, they should not be expected to try to decode the controller's meaning differenciate between To and Onto. They assumed (because the controller left room for assumptions) that taxi to rwy means they can cross the hold short signs and just line up.
antariusz@reddit
Just for curiosity, because you're trying to play devils advocate.
What is the clearance you would issue to the pilot if you wanted him to line up and wait on the runway.
Avia_NZ@reddit
Yes I’m not in the US. It’s wild that the US can’t be bothered to add 2 words that would remove any potential for misunderstanding.
antariusz@reddit
You are also not allowed to enter a runway without an explicit clearance in any other countries.
Cleared to runway 15 does not count as an explicit clearance to enter the runway in ANY country. Just because they use additional phraseology does not mean that is the phraseology to actually enter the runway.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
Lots of misinformed people here.
ICAO Doc 4444 requires that an explicit clearance of either takeoff or line up and wait, with the runway number, is given and readback before an aircraft can enter the runway.
Everyone saying they'd enter the runway after just being told to "taxi to xyz runway" is in total violation of ICAO rules, not just FAA rules.
People acting like this is an FAA-induced ambiguity are wrong. The Qatari pilots in this video violated ICAO rules, not just FAA rules.
KOjustgetsit@reddit
Isn't there a "golden rule" of sorts that you never enter a runway unless you explicitly hear "line up and wait" or "cleared for takeoff/cleared to cross"?
I agree though it's a confusing instruction, but still that shouldn't qualify as clearance to enter the runway.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
Yes. Lots of misinformed people here.
ICAO requires that an explicit clearance of either takeoff or line up and wait, with the runway number, is given and readback before an aircraft can enter the runway.
Everyone saying they'd enter the runway after just being told to "taxi to xyz runway" is in total violation of ICAO rules, not just FAA rules.
antariusz@reddit
People act like there aren't THOUSANDS of international flights that fly EVERY SINGLE DAY in the united states that don't fuck this up.
Avia_NZ@reddit
Not really. But regardless, what is the problem with adding “hold short” to remove any ambiguity or potential for misunderstanding
ImYourHumbleNarrator@reddit
you've heard of benefit of the doubt, but detriment of the doubt applies in this case
Lump001@reddit
They're both at fault, but yes. Bottom line is if you don't get given a clearance to enter or cross a runway, you aren't cleared to enter or cross a runway. At least I'm Europe, that's standard. There's a reason standard phraseology exists, and I'm sure US isn't that different that what the controller said here was somehow ok
ProfPMJ-123@reddit
Both were wrong, but ATC were more wrong.
"Taxi to and hold short of 15R" would have been the correct instruction.
Having received an ambiguous/incorrect instruction, the pilot should have confirmed ATC's intentions.
arjunyg@reddit
Fucking stupid. Pilot is technically in the wrong, but FAA phraseology should be chanced to have the controller always say “hold short”; it’s 400x more clear.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That’s why ICAO phraseology is 100 times better and safer, ofc we can’t defend Qatar pilots here but it’s just insane that US still use this kind of phraseology… and is not the first time that those kind of misunderstanding happens in US… I just hope one day someone will not lose their lives for this BS
KOjustgetsit@reddit
IMO both are at fault, but slightly moreso the pilots.
The ATC's instructions are quite confusing and should've said hold short 15R (or better yet, ICAO style "continue taxi to holding point WP").
That said, every pilot is drilled and thus should know that you only enter the runway if you hear one of these exact phrases: - "Line up and wait" - "Cleared for takeoff" - "Cleared to cross"
rkba260@reddit
There is nothing ambiguous about this. I've never recieved a clearance to line up and wait on a runway from a ground controller, ever.
KOjustgetsit@reddit
Qatari was talking to IAH TWR though
rkba260@reddit
He wasn't. Tower rarely gives taxi instructions, unless at very low saturation rates (think 0200L) and even then its usually instructions to get to the gate after landing. These videos rarely give an accurate representation of timestamp vs communications.
Qatar was given taxi instructions by ground, they then switched to tower frequency who questioned why they were on an active runway.
KOjustgetsit@reddit
Not sure about that, firstly controller sounds like the same person (IIRC from what I've read, he was controlling TWR plus other frequencies together).
Also, Qatari reported "fully ready" before receiving the instruction to "continue taxi to 15R", which is normally something you report to TWR meaning that you are fully ready for departure.
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
ICAO Doc 4444 requires that an explicit clearance of either takeoff or line up and wait, with the runway number, is given and readback before an aircraft can enter the runway.
Everyone saying they'd enter the runway after just being told to "taxi to xyz runway" is in total violation of ICAO rules, not just FAA rules.
People acting like this is an FAA-induced ambiguity are wrong. The Qatari pilots in this video violated ICAO rules, not just FAA rules.
CessnaBandit@reddit
You’re missing the point people are getting at. The phrasing used is open to interpretation, even more so when dealing with non native English speakers. That’s why standard phraseology elsewhere explicitly states “hold at XYZ” and you do not get told to taxi to a runway
Turbo_Normalized@reddit
No, you're missing the point: The standard phrasing in the U.S. requires that, too. This controller did not use standard U.S. phrasing.
phaederus@reddit
Some airports only have tower though, no ground. And in this case controller was tower, so I'm a bit confused where ground came into discussion?
Hareboi@reddit
If there wasn't anything ambiguous you wouldn't get pilots in the comments here arguing, nor would the situation in the video happen in the first place
Ustakion@reddit
Doesn't make him not ambigious. Adding 2 word of saying hold short would only cost him less than a second and would clears things up.
GogoDogoLogo@reddit
the fact that y'all are arguing over who is right and wrong is scary shit. goodness gracious. I thought I'd be reading the comments and it would just be everyone pointing out the obvious fault but all I see are different pilots saying their experiences are wildly different and contradictory.
ZuluSierra14@reddit
The only one at fault is the pilot.
3-7-2 of 7110.65
b. When authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway, state the departure runway followed by the specific taxi route. Issue hold short instructions, in accordance with subparagraph a. above, when an aircraft will be required to hold short of a runway or other points along the taxi route. NOTE− If the specific taxi route ends into a connecting taxiway with the same identifier (for example, taxiway “A” connects with Taxiway “A1”) at the approach end of the runway, the connecting taxiway may be omitted from the clearance. PHRASEOLOGY− RUNWAY (number), TAXI VIA (route as necessary). or RUNWAY (number), TAXI VIA (route as necessary)(hold short instructions as necessary).” EXAMPLE− “Runway Three−Six Left, taxi via taxiway Alpha, hold short of taxiway Charlie.”
KOjustgetsit@reddit
By the book the pilot is for sure mostly at fault. That said, I'm also not a fan of FAA phraseology standards at all (personal opinion).
Llamasxy@reddit
You have never needed to tell pilots to hold short of the runway they were assigned to. The pilots responsibility when they receive their runway assignment is to hold short of that runway and be ready upon reaching.
Ryan1869@reddit
Counterpoint: in the US the restriction is implied, you have to be cleared onto a runway explicitly, even if it’s inactive
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Yeah I get that, and that’s why aviation need to stick with one type of standard communication worldwide, easier for both pilots and ATC
CessnaBandit@reddit
You are absolutely correct
Hippiegrenade@reddit
Nah, man. You keep saying that, but this isn’t a communication issue. That’s what the hold short line is for. It communicates “DO NOT CROSS WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO DO SO”. The flight crew should know that. Period. End of sentence.
railker@reddit
A lot of things should happen, aviation didn't get as safe as it has by doing 'good enough', but by putting safeguards in place where there's a chance for human error becoming a tragedy.
Avia_NZ@reddit
A lot of things in life can be implied, how about instead we just save everyone’s time and confusion and just state them.
Mysterious_Contact_2@reddit
Its again a proof how US, isolated in its own image of greatness lagged behind normal norms of this world. Im very sorry, but this phraseology is absolutely non standard and dangerous. I know it works for the locals but in international traffic….
Aigaion_Online@reddit
ATC is an asshole.
He knows he's dealing with a foreign pilot, he clears him to taxi TO 15R. If he wanted him to stop, he should have cleared him to taxi to WC or taxi to 15R hold short on WC. Making him do a pass through WW et WC as a punishment is the cherry on the asshole cake, he's already there, he's been polite, just maybe stop being a ridiculous piece of shit and let him go already.
Classic Americans.
Internal_Owl463@reddit
Pretty disappointing reaction from a lot of people in this subreddit. Trying to figure who to pin the blame on is not how aviation safety.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Totally… but ofc most of people on this Reddit are from US and ofc they will defend their FAA and ATC…
antherx2@reddit
Pilot didn't get cleared.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Pilot didn’t get stopped either. A simply “hold short to Runway 15R” could have prevented all this BS
antherx2@reddit
The pilot is in control of the plane. Atc isn't in control the plane. Why enter an area not requested?
The pilot has to explicitly request takeoff clearance and be cleared before lining up on the runway.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
ATC in control of the planes on the ground and skies, in ICAO standard this would never ever happen as ATC will clearly tell you if you need to HOLD/CROSS or LINE UP, thing that FAA standards doesn’t do so they just said straight “continue taxi to runway 15R” without knowing if they need to hold shot, line up. As simple as that
Gwynnbleid3000@reddit
Americans fucked up again. Yikes!
Fantastic-Pear6241@reddit
I question why they aren't immediately following the new instructions and instead still arguing about it being a misunderstanding.
Even if it was a misunderstanding, the first thing they should be doing is following the new instructions from ground control.
Lump001@reddit
I agree, but also; what instructions? The controller was busy panicking and arguing instead of solving the problem and giving clear instructions.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
While I agree with this I also have to say that Let’s ATC tones were a bit arrogant in the first place.
The_Warrior_Sage@reddit
Okay but it's also safety issue, they need to put their ego aside get the fuck off the runway
FatSteveWasted9@reddit
Nah, don’t police tone in a situation like this.
CollegeStation17155@reddit
Regardless of whether YOU think the instructions were ambiguous, when the ATC sees that a plane is on a runway that they were not cleared for and he tells them that they were not cleared to line up and to turn left to WW, that's not arrogant, that's looking at an airliner that might be about to get landed on by somebody else on final while they continue to sit there and argue that it was a misunderstanding. That plane should have been off the runway before the pilots started explaining that they thought they had been cleared...
dumbassretail@reddit
Ehhh… if the controller wants the plane off the runway at that point, they should tell them to exit the runway immediately, and how to do so if it’s not obvious.
Explaining why they shouldn’t be there doesn’t get them off the runway quickly.
CollegeStation17155@reddit
Exactly my point... The controller told them they were not cleared and to "turn left WW, Turn left WP, Hold at WC." while the pilots continued to argue that they thought they had been cleared without moving. Do you REALLY think the ATC needed to add "NOW, NOW, NOW!" to keep them from continuing the argument?
dumbassretail@reddit
I am a tower controller. If a pilot makes a mistake and I need them to do something RIGHT NOW to avert disaster, I don’t tell them they screwed up and get into a back and forth about it while separation further diminishes.
I tell the EXACTLY what to do, right now. Or, I ignore them completely and tell the other aircraft what to do to avoid them.
The back and forth can happen after, when the danger has passed.
SenselessNumber@reddit
Lives are at stake. Their tone shifted to STERN not arrogant.
Anotherlurkerappears@reddit
There was no read-back so Qatar likely didn't hear the taxi instructions to vacate. ATC should have repeated the instruction if there was no read-back.
RedAirRook@reddit
They were doubling with Ground, and didn't even hear the new instructions.
Alternative-Bee-3594@reddit
Have a pen and paper ready for a phone number
Catimodes@reddit
I'm not a pilot. Can someone briefly explain what happens when they call the number? Are they being told off? For what purpose? Does it go to pilot's permanent record (if such thing exists)?
rime258@reddit
It's essentially so the controller can speak to the pilot without clogging up the frequency. It's usually for a pilot deviation but sometimes it might just be ATC wanting to explain something etc
badorianna@reddit
For a majority of Redditors, understanding FAA ATC is not difficult. But when you start saying non standard phraseology to foreign pilots like "continue taxi to rwy 15R", you are setting everyone up for failure. The right instruction here should have been "continue taxi to holding point WC", and possibly add in "hold short 15R". I'm not saying the pilots are not to blame for this incident as they should have asked for clarification before entering the runway, but the ATC was not competent in this case either.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Agree with you , but the problem here is that FAA allows this kind of communication regardless of pilots are local or international, that’s the main problem…
Disallow0382@reddit
Both pilots and ATC are at fault.
Alex_Xander93@reddit
How is ATC at fault here? This is standard FAA phraseology.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That’s the main problem, in aviation should be one standard phraseology and not different ones like FAA, ICAO etc… that only cause confusion most of time
Majestic_Salad_9087@reddit
I can’t believe this comment got downvoted
Disallow0382@reddit
Don't worry, it's just Reddit.
EtwasSonderbar@reddit
Americans hate being told they're not right about something!
xl0@reddit
"Continue to taxi to runway 15R and hold short" - 3 extra words would have avoided any confusion.
Alex_Xander93@reddit
That doesn’t really address my question. How is ATC at fault to the using standard FAA phraseology?
Disallow0382@reddit
If you're an ATC and you give instructions to non-american operators, you would also be smart in using the FAA standard term of "hold short".
I fly for a non-american operator and we go in and out of the U.S at least on 2 different schedules every month. My observation so far is that most American ATC's slow down or at least speak much more clearly when they recognise a non-american call sign, this practice is not only helpful to pilots but also SAFER to other traffic in the vicinity of the airport or airspace.
You can argue whether it is standard FAA or not until the cows come home, smart traffic controllers know how to make clear, effective, and safe instructions.
Shout out to SFO and LAX, not you JFK.
xl0@reddit
I did nt read the post. I'd say FAA is at fault then. :)
Ok_Programmer_4449@reddit
Both the pilot and the FAA are at fault. It's time to get the phraseology standardized internationally.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That’s correct
showMeYourPitties10@reddit
However, when told to exit left at WW he did not move. So pilot is getting a second fault in my book.
Disallow0382@reddit
Knowing how things go in the cockpit, I can guarantee the pilots were startled, question/checking themselves, while sorting shit out operating a wide body aircraft when ATC was giving them the second instruction.
Lump001@reddit
Multiple fuck ups by the controller and the pilot.
I'm not 100% on US phraseology, but my take would be:
Again, I'm only familiar with UK/Europe phraseology but I would assume basics like this are still pretty similar right?
12358132134@reddit
American controllers are going to get a lot of people killed and that is just a matter of time. This is one part of the reason, but the bigger one is "cleared to land as #2" bullshit.
SnooFoxes3615@reddit
ATC did not give clear instructions.
Mickey5200@reddit
Sounds just like a call to customer support can't understand a f** word they say
morrre@reddit
Another example of „why the heck don’t you just use ICAO phraseology?“
The crew shouldn’t have taxied onto the runway, yes - as the controller said there was no „line up and wait“.
But had the controller used the words „taxi to holding point“ or „hold short 15R“, the crew probably wouldn’t have.
Communications should be short AND clear. This was short and very unclear.
cromagnon1234@reddit
As actinadam said, your opinion about the way a country operates is irrelevant. I recently retired after flying 49 years internationally out of the US. EVERY trip I had I reviewed country specific regs. Period. Just as we may not like the way a country regulates their border or their laws, when in Rome, do as the Romans.
mustang__1@reddit
Pilot is in the wrong. You do not take the runway unless "cleared for take off" or "line up and wait". The pilot was cleared to continue the taxi from an intermediate hold point, nothing more.
jjkbill@reddit
I don't see why 2 things can't be true:
1) if you're trying to assign blame to this incident, then it goes to the pilots. ATC was acting in accordance with their own local standards.
2) the error made by the pilots could have been prevented with the use of ICAO standard terminology, which the US stubbornly refuses to implement.
bruckadr@reddit
Failed crm
Aaditya0007@reddit
I personally believe, even though the ATC didn't explicitly say to hold short, it is always that the ATC (as far as ik) must explicitly mention that an aircraft can be aligned on the runway and until then the aircraft must hold short of the runway. Even if the ATC would have said (as it were in this case) that the aircraft can get to the runway, the pilot can always reconfirm with the ATC if they can get on the runway or not.
I believe the pilots misunderstood the phrasing perhaps it slipped from their mind
spacecadet2399@reddit
It's not ambiguous. They never received a clearance to be on that runway. You need that clearance.
Look at it this way - what did they think their clearance actually was? "Taxi to runway 15" obviously meant get on the runway. And then do what? Did they hear a line up and wait? A clear for takeoff? Even anything non-standard like "hold on the runway"? I didn't.
They're supposed to be pilots and *best case* for them, they got an ambiguous clearance even by the logic they were using that the word "to" means "on". When we get an ambiguous clearance that we're not sure how to complete, we ask for clarification. In this case, there shouldn't really have been a need for clarification because they never received any sort of clearance to be on that runway, but in their minds even with the understanding that they had, there would have had to be at least a clarification of what they were expected to do once they actually got on the runway. Because they weren't cleared to do anything.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
They never received a clearance to be in that runway but they never either received a clearance to NOT be in that runway, that’s why with an ICAO standard this would never happened
jamessq999@reddit
What’s wrong with good ol “taxi to holding point runway 15R”?
All the RT manuals issued by the FAA but none of the FAA towers are practicing it
But yes to be fair to the controller, he didn’t explicitly say “line up and wait”
tectoniclakes@reddit
I think ATC is at fault. I would expect a clear “hold-short”. My interpretation would have been the same as the pilot, taxi to 15R, line-up and ask for departure clearance
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Agree with you but unfortunately is not their fault since the FAA allows this… if they were under ICAO then def it will be their fault
Llamasxy@reddit
You don't need to tell an aircraft to hold short of the active runway that they are taxing to.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
In ICAO standards you need to state if you have to hold short/cross or line up, the fact that the FAA allow this type of communications is concerning especially for international pilots, and this is not the first time that something like this happens… literally two word “hold short” could have prevented this situation. But again since the ATC followed the FAA rules they can’t blame them either
DarkwingDawg@reddit
I’d say they are both wrong here. Tower gave a sloppy direction and the pilot made an assumption based off the sloppy direction.
They are both wrong.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
And people lives at the risk
Guayabo786@reddit
Should it not be, "Taxi to runway 15R threshhold, do not enter runway. Wait for permission to enter runway for departure"
VigorWarships@reddit
Too many words.
Guayabo786@reddit
Can non-US pilots understand the standard FAA message that applies in this case? US pilots understand that they must go to the threshhold and "hold short" (wait there) before receiving authorization to enter the runway for takeoff, when they hear for example, "taxi to Runway 27R".
Or shall we say that ATC did not detect any inbound aircraft within 3 miles of the airport and told the QTR pilot to taxi and enter the runway to begin takeoff roll ASAP?
VigorWarships@reddit
No they can’t.‘ that’s why icao standard phraseology exists. By US don’t like it , they want to do it their way.
grain_farmer@reddit
They both messed up IMO but the pilot is the one that dies if he messes up so he should be more defensive/conservative.
It’s always confusing to me why non standard phraseology is tolerated/accepted in the US when we are sticklers for it in the UK even at small airfield. I assume they had to take an equivalent R/T exam to get their licence.
Disclaimer, I am but a lowly PPL(H)/(A) who mostly flies in Europe and listens to recordings online.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Well I agree with this, FAA should change their standards considering that if it was ICAO standards they would used “hold short to” which is a CLEAR state of what you need to do, they pilots could ask for more clarifications as well, but again I’m just confused on how FAA can accept this type of communications
GC_Aus_Brad@reddit
Is there not much clearer language needed for these instructions, because it certainly sounded to me like he was instructed onto the runway. Should he not have been told to taxi to a position to line up and wait, rather than taxi to runway 15R?
Warrmak@reddit
Not a pilot but worked on a ground crew. They would usually tell us to taxi and hold short when we called for permission to traverse the airfield.
1991atco@reddit
Gash American phraseology.
HorkBajirGafrash@reddit
It's obviously the pilots fault since there was no explicit clearance to cross. However, as a former European airline pilot I must honestly say i could have made the same mistake. We're so used to hearing the standard ICAO phraeseology of "... and hold short" it's very easy to misunderstand in the heat of the moment.
Flying in the US is a big challenge for international pilots, and most of it is due to the ATC phraseology. I think there should be a bigger debate about this. ICAO standards are meant to mitigate these issues, so I don't see the reason for not following the ICAO way of doing things.
Afilador2112@reddit
You can be right, and still be a jerk. It is pilot error, but the controller is a burro. Next time your wife sends you 'to' the store, call her when you get there and ask for permission to go 'into' the store.
PDXDeck26@reddit
Next time your wife's boyfriend sends you to the store, be sure to call him up from the roof of the store, because "into" and "onto"... aren't the same words.
Afilador2112@reddit
Neither are store and runway. Forgive me for giving you enough credit to make the leap to understanding into was substituted because it wouldn't have made sense to say go onto the store.
PDXDeck26@reddit
and hopefully you realize that in the process of substituting words your analogy fell completely apart.
Afilador2112@reddit
If thinking that improves your self esteem, I give it to you freely and wish you well.
Imaginary_Trust_7019@reddit
This is on the controller and the FAA. Everyone knows the standard of US controllers. They need to clean up their ATC verbiage.
At no point was "hold short 15R" used and this is standard phraseology which would have stopped this from happening.
Taxi to and hold short 15R is how most controllers would have given that clearance even in FAA land.
This guy was dealing with an ESL pilot.. use clear clearances.
mnztr1@reddit
IMHO if you want the plane to HOLD you should state HOLD and WHERE to hold.
Careful-Republic-332@reddit
Qatar at fault but ATC could have been a lot clearer. For example why did he not say "Taxi to holding point WC"??? And none of this would have happened.
flynryan692@reddit
FAA 7110.65BB 3-7-2 covers this. The controller should have responded "Qatari 8357, continue taxi on WP, WC, hold short runway 15R".
Superdaneru@reddit
American ATC controllers have been getting away with shitty RT for years.
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
Yep apparently they're understaffed as hell but they always find time to pick an argument on frequency
AutoRot@reddit
Sometimes you need to bark a little bit to get others to listen up. This is a safety first profession. A runway incursion could easily become a fatal accident. How many letters to the next of kin would you feel comfortable writing before chastising a safety critical mistake?
hardly_even_know_er@reddit
This is absolutely not how aviation safety works. Barking at people for making mistakes only compounds the problem by jamming the frequency, wasting everyone's time and the controller's attention. There are many other avenues for progressing safety concerns. I stand by my assessment that it's an unprofessional way to behave.
skapuntz@reddit
Obviously Qatar fault but controllers should also state “hold short of runway XX” to make things clear. At least here in Europe it’s the usual way they communicate
SnooKiwis6193@reddit
Like all safety incidents or near misses, this is due to multiple failures. The famous "holes in the swiss cheese" lining up. One cause is the presence of multiple national standards or operating procedures for international flight. Then both the controller and the pilot behaved somewhat substandard. It is not that critical to determine if the fault should be split 60%-40% or 90%-10%. Better to discuss what could be improved in the procedure to remove this possible hazard.
ATangK@reddit
ATC should have said Taxi to WC if it’s short of 15R.
opsman25@reddit
Qatari has to be the worse airline I have ever heard on the radio. They always mess things up on ground in JFK, and hog up the approach freq with long transmission or by just fucking up.
b_vitamin@reddit
Time for some traffic lights
railker@reddit
Because someone mentioned Canada in the comments and I was curious what our standards were, some phrasing from a runway incursion investigation by the Transportation Safety Board (emphasis mine):
>ATC MANOPS allows controllers to “issue taxi authorizations and instructions in plain, concise language to aircraft taxiing on the manoeuvring area.”
>ATC MANOPS requires an air traffic controller “to instruct an aircraft to taxi, cross or hold short of any runway/taxiway it will cross while taxiing.” However, ATC MANOPS does not require an air traffic controller to instruct an aircraft taxiing for departure to hold short at the departure end of a runway that will be used for takeoff. In this scenario, flight crews are not permitted to taxi across a hold line on a taxiway leading to a departure runway that will be used for takeoff unless they have received either an authorization to line up on the runway in preparation for takeoff, or an authorization to take off.
>The phrase “holding short” is arguably an unnecessary addition to a taxi instruction, given that flight crews should be aware that they must not taxi over a hold line and enter a runway without either a specific authorization to line up on the runway in preparation for takeoff or an authorization to take off. However, this occurrence demonstrates how errors in communication can happen and why the use of standard phraseology that reinforces the clearance limit has the potential to improve safety. If air traffic controllers are not required to use standard phraseology that reinforces the need to hold short of a departure runway, there is an increased risk of miscommunication leading to runway incursions.
Bigrick1550@reddit
MANOPS was replaced by MAATS about a decade or so ago, so don't count on that being current.
ScaryDuck2@reddit
Of course Qatar is at fault obviously here but can we at least acknowledge that the controller could have just stated taxi and hold short of 15R especially after Qatar called close to the runway to say they were almost there and ready to go? I understand no clearance was given to line up but given the context of the situation one would assume ATC would take the extra two words of effort to just say “hold short”
thabc@reddit
This looks like Victor's edit. Can you share the original link?
mattblack77@reddit
Agreed. The most important part of the instruction (to hold short) wasn't included. But, the pilot should have known to check. 70:30 blame ATC:Pilot
nodspine@reddit
ATC should've told them to hold short
Pilots should've asked to clarify if they were cleared to line up.
I'd put more blame on the ATC for issuing an unclear instruction though
coolboarder541@reddit
Holding short is always the default when instructed to taxi to a runway. Taxi to runway 15R= taxi to and hold short of runway 15R
rockemsockemcocksock@reddit
Bro didn't even hold before 15R, he just went right onto the runway with no hesitation. Big yikes
PDXDeck26@reddit
They started this audio too late. Apparently the pilot understood "holding short" on WP and read it back. Also, this "fully ready" snippet at the end of that first comment and the way the controller's tone is saying "yeah, i don't give a shit, keep going to the runway like you were already told" would probably be helpful.
so I'd be curious to hear the extended dialogue.
NotACompleteDick@reddit
The controller is lacking in common courtesy. Not once did the word 'sir' come out of his mouth.
He didn't use international standard instructions. "Runway [Number], taxi via [Route], hold short of [Runway/Taxiway]."
ATC knows he's dealing with a foreign pilot with imperfect English. He should have upped his game and been explicit.
For someone who has English as a second language TO and ONTO are synonyms.
Why didn't he say hold short?
Some say the pilot should not have entered the runway without explicit instructions, but if TO was read as ONTO then that's what he got.
Why the penalty loop? How many hundreds of kilos of fuel did that cost?
At the end he cleared the aircraft for takeoff without ever explicitly clearing them onto the runway too.
Basically it's a poor example of ATC professionalism. He should be able to deal with this sort of thing without becoming the issue.
PDXDeck26@reddit
What is this shit? They're not, even to non-native speakers.
Swagger897@reddit
Classic ME3
yewey@reddit
ATC should have said to hold short of the runway but absent that clarification I think he was legit, no?
pradise@reddit
I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard ATC specifically give taxi instructions with “hold short of runway XX”. The pilot was told to taxi to the runway and he did. He wasn’t told to taxi to WC and hold short of the runway.
The pilots maybe should’ve clarified if ATC wanted them to go to the runway or hold short. But ATC’s instructions shouldn’t depend on small differences in language in a highly international field.
shhbedtime@reddit
Pilot at fault for not following the local rules, FAA at fault for having dumb rules. There is no way that the standard phraseology should be that ambiguous. In other countries you would be cleared to taxi to the holding point, or you would be told to hold short. It is obvious that the clearance that was given could be confusing to a non American, non native English speaker.
amoghparahar@reddit
There is enough blame to go around. The tower used non-standard phraseology: they should have said "hold short runway 15R" - expecting ESL speakers to know the difference between "to" and "onto" is not reasonable.
Equally, Qatar should not have entered the runway without explicit clearance.
boejiden2020@reddit
> Controllers must clearly state a restriction
No they don’t, you are always restricted from entering a runway, unless you have an explicit clearance to enter.
boobooaboo@reddit
taxi to the runway means just that...it does not mean to enter or take the runway. the HS bars are your final stop unless you have clearance. that's the default.
22Planeguy@reddit
Frankly, whether ATC is technically right or not, both are making mistakes here. ATC should be more clear, especially with foreign pilots. He didn't want them to taxi to the runway, he wanted them to taxi to the taxiway adjacent to the runway. So just say that. Doesn't seem too busy to add a couple extra words. Qatari pilot should also be FAR more hesitant to take instructions like that. If I don't get a takeoff or line up and wait clearance, I'm verifying what they mean. I'm not going onto that runway until it gets cleared up.
They can't violate me for entering an active without permission if I don't enter it.
RandomNightmar3@reddit
Agree, both at fault (40% atc, 60% qtr).
ATC: 'taxi to, and hold short'.
QTR: you need an explicit clearance to line up, especially if phraseology is not standard or what you'd expect.
Fright-Instructor@reddit
I kinda have to point this one on the Qatar Pilots.
When was the last time any ground controller gave you a line up and wait instruction?
Clearance to cross? Yes. Taxi onto and wait? I don’t think so.
Yes, I think their international experience may have hindered their decision to do whatever they were actually supposed to.
How is it that it’s the controllers fault? He’s been doing what he’s been trained to do at that airport or at other airports within the country.
Could FAA or NTBS do something about it? Possibly but I’m neither one of them and knowing how tricky it is to make a policy or rule change I would not want to be in their shoes.
That being said, does this warrant a pilot deviation? Honestly I think the controller can let this one slide.
That’s just my opinion.
CuriousOnePlus@reddit
That pilot is extremely lucky he didn't get a number to call.
The FAA would be very interested in pilots unable to fly clearances.
Visual_Swimming7090@reddit
Controller was a bit ambiguous
Guardman1996@reddit
He’s with ground. Ground taxis, Tower owns the runway. Even if it was a class c with only one tower guy, You’re cleared to the runwY with instructions. For an ATP this is a giant ‘I just fucked up!’
GreenPickledToad@reddit
The atc shouldn't have said hold short, but if the pilot was confused they should've clarified whether to stop before entering or line up.
Immediate_Garden_716@reddit
follow orders no arguing on either side just thinking
ttystikk@reddit
ATC never said the magic words, "hold short."
SkunkedUp@reddit
I do understand Qatari’s initial confusion of holding short of WP. There’s is hold short line there that they never clear you across, but expect you to cross to 15R. In the initial taxi instructions they tell you to taxi to 15R via… so you’re expected to taxi to the 15R hold line via their instructions. When atc tells them to continue to 15R they cross the first hold short lines and mistakenly cross the second onto the runway. It’s a little confusing, but clearly the wrong thing to do.
Comfortable-Access-4@reddit
Pilot error. Full stop.
SquirrelMoney8389@reddit
Full stop is what he should have done!
RBR927@reddit
*hold short is what he should have done.
k_dubious@reddit
It feels like everyone was being pretty unprofessional here? It’s not ATC’s job to lecture pilots who don’t follow their instructions correctly, and it’s not the pilots’ job to argue with ATC even if they think they’re right.
SquirrelMoney8389@reddit
It's a safety issue so lecturing is warranted.
Nmnmn11@reddit
Even disregarding the confusing atc guidelines, applying a plain English definition puts the pilot in the wrong.
Gaddpeis@reddit
so - QTR in the fault. But - isn't the wording for Taxi/Hold Short and for Lining up etc supposed to be very specific? In other words - is "Taxi To" a phrase that should be used?
Darkelementzz@reddit
As far as I can tell, cleared to cross, line up and wait, or cleared for departure are the only allowances for entry onto an active runway. Qatari at fault, no question
txrexmc@reddit
From my understanding, there is a hold short mark before entering the runway…. So taxi, hold short, get clearance, then enter runway
the_nine@reddit
"... and hold at 15R"
Internal_Seaweed_553@reddit
Qatar pilot is an idiot. He’s the reason why we always use ‘departure’ and not take off.
m1mike@reddit
Never assume you are cleared onto a runaway without a clearance to cross, line up and wait, back-taxi, or take-off, etc. If you were cleared to taxi ONTO am runway...onto and then what? There would be a follow up instruction.
ryxdg@reddit
slightly unrelated but this guys voice and the way he talks reminds me of h2odelirious
3bugsdad@reddit
The importance of prepositions.
EstateAlternative416@reddit
After reading the comments, I now see why this is downvoted so heavily.
-Economist-@reddit
I’m no pilot. I know nothing of rules. Only what I’ve learned in this sub. Even then, I didn’t think he was given clearance to enter the runway. Just go to the runway. 🤷♂️
FizzgigsRevenge@reddit
Even the planes are shit drivers in Houston.
agha0013@reddit
ATC didn't say hold short but they also didn't say "line up on/line up and wait" or anything like that, Qatar did not get instructions to get on the runway just taxi to the runway, nor were they handed off to tower before getting on the runway, if that's procedure here.
so ideally Qatar should have asked for clarification rather than assumed they were cleared to line up on the runway.
I would never assume I'm allowed to cross the lines into the runway zone without clear instructions to do so
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Well wondering why those small accidents never happen outside US tho, that’s why I mentioned FAA and ICAO standards phraseology
agha0013@reddit
runway incursions never happen outside the US?
Did you forget what happened in Tokyo not that long ago? A dash-8 that was not cleared to enter the runway did and sat there and had an A350 plow through it killing almost everyone on board the dash-8.
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
That was not a phrenology misunderstanding… Tokyo tower literally told them “Taxi to holding point C5” so that was clearly a pilot error!
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
While I get the point you are making, you are using the wrong word
Maruan-007@reddit (OP)
Typo, just edited it 👍🏼