 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Rfd tower controller reported a runway incursion that caused a go-around.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1711590 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201912 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | RFD.Tower |
| State Reference | IL |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Widebody Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Landing |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Taxi |
| Route In Use | None |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Local |
| Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
| Experience | Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 2 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Conflict Ground Conflict Critical Ground Incursion Runway |
Narrative:
I issued aircraft X a clearance to land runway 25. Ground taxied aircraft Y to runway 25 via taxiway J which is the approach end of the runway. Aircraft Y did not have permission from ground for access to runway 25 and was not given any permission by me to access runway 25. When aircraft X was within a half mile of the threshold; aircraft Y crossed the hold short lines to runway 25. I told aircraft X to go-around and kept aircraft X in the local traffic pattern. After I got things under control with aircraft X I reached out to aircraft Y to see if he was on my frequency which he was and issued the brasher warning. Aircraft Y called the tower and admitted fault in the situation.I want to be clear that this situation would have been a catastrophe if we were landing and departing runway 7. The tower vantage point would not have allowed us to be able to quickly recognize that an aircraft entered the runway at the approach end for runway 7. The tower is almost 2 miles away from the approach end of runway 7 and is way too short for that. To prevent a catastrophe from happening I recommend a newer taller tower be built in a better location so that all approach ends can easily be seen with the naked eye. This is the only way we will be able to safely do our job no matter what runway we advertise.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: RFD Tower Controller reported a runway incursion that caused a go-around.
Narrative: I issued Aircraft X a clearance to land Runway 25. Ground taxied Aircraft Y to Runway 25 via Taxiway J which is the approach end of the runway. Aircraft Y did not have permission from ground for access to Runway 25 and was not given any permission by me to access Runway 25. When Aircraft X was within a half mile of the threshold; Aircraft Y crossed the hold short lines to Runway 25. I told Aircraft X to go-around and kept Aircraft X in the local traffic pattern. After I got things under control with Aircraft X I reached out to Aircraft Y to see if he was on my frequency which he was and issued the brasher warning. Aircraft Y called the Tower and admitted fault in the situation.I want to be clear that this situation would have been a catastrophe if we were landing and departing Runway 7. The tower vantage point would not have allowed us to be able to quickly recognize that an aircraft entered the runway at the approach end for Runway 7. The tower is almost 2 miles away from the approach end of Runway 7 and is way too short for that. To prevent a catastrophe from happening I recommend a newer taller Tower be built in a better location so that all approach ends can easily be seen with the naked eye. This is the only way we will be able to safely do our job no matter what runway we advertise.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.