Runway Incursion Between Aer Lingus A330 and US Air B737

On June 9, 2005, about 1940 eastern daylight time, Aer Lingus flight 132 (EIN132), an Airbus 333, and US Airways flight 1170 (USA1170), a Boeing 737, were involved in a runway incursion at General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport, Boston, Massachusetts. No injuries were reported, and neither aircraft was damaged. Both aircraft were under control of the Boston Air Traffic Control Tower; the local control west (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN132 and the local control east (LCE) controller was responsible for USA1170. At 2339:10, LCW cleared EIN132 for takeoff from runway 15R. Five seconds later, forgetting that he had released the runway to allow EIN 132 to depart, LCE cleared USA1170 for departure from runway 9. The first officer on USA1170 saw EIN102 and pushed the control column forward to prevent the captain from taking off. Once EIN132 had passed through the intersection, USA1170 became airborne. The Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) did not activate because in its configuration at that time, it was not designed to operate on intersecting runways due to the number of nuisance alerts. The incident occurred during daylight visual meteorological conditions.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• Runway
• Incursion
• BOS
• Boston
• airport
• airplane

[kinkywrighter]

the tenneriffe crash was down to the KLM pilot.

he was NEVER given clearance to take off, whether or not the Pan Am was on the runway still or not !!

[cdcruce]

Ah! Twas the luck of the Irish! Must have been a leprechaun on board that day!

[icemachine79]

I'm glad it wasn't foggy that day in Boston. The US Airways pilots did a great job spotting the Aer Lingus jet early enough to keep their nose down. Luckily the Aer Lingus pilots weren't paying as much attention I guess otherwise they might have done the same thing!

[64h5dsf14j6s41h5s4j5]

@zetson right. the words "cleared", "take off" and "land" are only to be used for an actual clearance to land or take off. everything else should be expressed as "departure", "approach", "approval" etc. luckyly the US F/O was aware of the situation. @rogerdotlee it´s not that easy. there is never only one cause of an accident in aviation. without the fog or no radio interferences this accident was absolutely avoidable, even though the KLM captain made a big mistake.

[zetson]

@oracle2world Negative, the controller did NOT speak textbook English. Saying "Stand by for take-off" is not by the rules, since it easily can be mistaken for "cleared for take-off", especially on a garbled radio

[deeryker]

you sad fukkin bastard if you think this represents inte;lligence grow up wanker

[oracle2world]

@Photle - the controllers spoke textbook English. The KLM pilot heard what he wanted to hear. I'd say the terrorists certainly got what they wanted.

[2001Randomperson]

2005 I was only 7

[OmsoiTekken]

Just like Airport Madness 2

[rogerdotlee]

@Elemarth I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. This is a case where a pilot took off without clearance. Period. The Pan Am pilot could not have been confused about which runway to use as the airport has only one runway. The exit was the confusing item, and it wasn't so much which one to use as where they were. The fact that the KLM pilot departed without clearance is the primary cause of the accident. If there is doubt, there is no doubt. Ask for clarification and sit tight until received

[jstrahan2]

Well, maybe not 100% fault is on the KLM captain, but I think he deserves around 90% of the blame. Also, to me, as a pilot, if the takeoff clearance "wasn't clear", I would treat that as no clearance at all.

[antimatterXXXIII]

@Elemarth Why do people propagate this BS? The captain of KLM DID NOT have take-off clearance, period. His own F/O and ENG pointed that out. No clearance, no take-off, period.