Fortunately for those of us who fly, runway incursions that cause accidents are relatively rare. But thats not to say incursions themselves are rare: Runway blunders have become an everyday thing, so much so that NASAs Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has thousands of incident reports best described as coulda-beens. We recently reviewed an intriguing report on this subject delivered to the 288
Runway Incursions: Failed Expectations
Fortunately for those of us who fly, runway incursions that cause accidents are relatively rare. But thats not to say incursions themselves are rare: Runway blunders have become an everyday thing, so much so that NASAs Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has thousands of incident reports best described as coulda-beens. We recently reviewed an intriguing report on this subject delivered to the [IMGCAP(1)]International Symposium on Aviation Psychology in Dayton, Ohio, last April by Dr. Ed Wischmeyer, an aviation researcher and contributor to our sister publication, KITPLANES. Wischmeyer mined some 2000-plus ASRS reports collected between January 2003 and January 2006. His search criteria sought out reports on ground conflict and ground incursion incidents. This search yielded 1049 relevant reports, 723 of which were from turbine operators and 326 from smaller piston aircraft on personal or instructional flights.
Key Takeaways:
- Runway incursions are frequent "coulda-beens" primarily due to significant disconnects and differing assumptions among pilots, air traffic controllers, and airport designers.
- These mismatches manifest as controllers' unrealistic expectations of pilot knowledge or actions, pilots' assumptions about standardization and radio reliability, and airport design flaws like non-standard markings and confusing layouts.
- Meaningful improvements require a holistic, system-engineering approach that integrates improvements across all operational components, rather than isolated fixes to procedures, communication, or infrastructure.
See a mistake? Contact us.
