Vehicle crosses runway in front of departing plane

[Kurt A]

Indian Airlines Flight IC179 was awaiting clearance for takeoff at Mumbai Airport when an unauthorised four-wheeled drive crossed the runway in front.

Having already lined up the aircraft and only waiting final authorisation, the pilot of the A320 was much surprised when the vehicle appeared in front of him.

Calling the incident into the control tower, airport officials then caught the driver of the four-wheel drive and seized his airport driving permit and airside pass.

The driver and vehicle belonged to construction company Larsen & Toubro, who is currently employed to revamp Mumbai Airport’s terminal, taxiways, support infrastructure and surrounds.

The Indian Airlines flight from Mumbai to Mangalore took off without delay.

-eTravel

[Philip Argy]

OK - I'll ask the dumb question: if t/o clearance had not been given, the a/c was stationary and holding, so why was the vehicle transit dangerous?

Is there an assumption that the tower was not aware of the vehicle and/or that the driver was not listening to the right channel/ and/or that it was too close to the a/c? I haven't seen any facts to ground those assumptions.

[Adam P.]

unauthorised four-wheeled drive

Unauthorised. It wasn't supposed to be there. If it was there after t/off clearance had been given the outcome may have been different.

The danger stems from the fact that the vehicle was on the runway at all, without a clearance. If it can happen with an aircraft lined up, what's to stop it happening with an aircraft on the take-off roll?

[Philip Argy]

I know it wasn't cleared to be there, Adam, but my query related to the assumption that there was no situational awareness on anyone else's part. How do we know that the tower hadn't seen them and withheld t/o clearance until they were safely out of the way?

Also, the reference to 'departing plane' conveyed to me that the a/c had commenced its t/o roll, which is quite a different scenario to what the facts describe.

[Nigel C]

Calling the incident into the control tower, airport officials then caught the driver of the four-wheel drive

I think that does say there was situational awareness from the relevant authorities. It doesn't matter who first sees the vehicle in the wrong spot, it just matters that someone did!

Any aircraft that has commenced pushback from the terminal for the purpose of flight can be classed as a departing aircraft, I would say.

[Adam P.]

On another note....

the pilot of the A320 was much surprised

I love the turn of phrase you get occasionally in Indian newspapers!

And on yet another note....

Trust me, I can get 'lost' on an airfield during the day with not much effort

See what can happen when you don't quote word-for-word the entire statement?

[Nigel C]

I hope my straight forward answer doesn't offend anyone...

If the vehicle/driver was unauthorised (be it because of airport driving authority restrictions, lack of tower clearance, ill-equipped vehicle etc), then it is a runway incursion.

Furthermore, if the driver isn't trained or authorised to be there, then they will more than likely be disorientated. Trust me, I can get people 'lost' on an airfield during the day with not much effort if they're not used to being there. At night it's even easier.


It is a very dangerous situation for both driver and aircraft.


In terms of driving authority, Sydney has 3 categories of driving authority:
Category 2 for aprons and perimeter roads
Category 3 for Cat 2 + taxiways
Category 4 for Cat 3 + runways (appropriate clearances are necessary for entry to flight strips)
I imagine Mumbai would have a similar system.

[Greg McDonald]

Originally Posted by Nigel C

I hope my straight forward answer doesn't offend anyone...

HAhaha...good one

[Mick M]

Toby,
in response to your somewhat daft and naiive belief that this runway incursion was not such a big deal I would like to take you back, way way back, to a little place called Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where in 1977 the world's worst airline disaster occurred because of a runway incursion. 683 people were killed when two 747's collided on the runway because of human error. Same as in this case, except we had a vehicle and an aircraft occupying the same active runway.

Given that a large laden aircraft, weighing 450 tonnes travelling at V1 takes a kilometre to stop in a RTO, the significance of any runway incursion can't be under estimated. And given that most runway incursions are caused by ignorance, geographic disorientation or communication errors it means at least one of those parties on the runway didn't even know the other one existed. So merely having controllers in the tower with surface movement radar is no guarantee of safety if an aircraft has commenced the takeoff roll.

Most vehicles on the airfield do not have tower comms as they are not required to operate outside the marked apron roads in the movement area, so even if the controllers spot an incursion, or a potential one on the SMR, there may be no way of alerting the offending driver. So any breach of the runway or taxiway can kill hundreds of people. So there is no such thing as a minor incursion. Every single incursion gets the full ATSB broom up the **** investigation because history shows on numerous occaisions that runway incursions are lethal.

And I'm sorry for calling you Toby, but goddam dammit you look so much like that guy in the West Wing!

[Philip Argy]

I exaggerated my position to make a point and people have properly taken me to task. I was only trying to inject some balance into the discussion by pointing out that the a/c was holding and had the offending vehicle in sight. Yes it was a runway incursion and all runway incursions are dangerous. But it was not an incursion in front of an a/c which had commenced take off roll, and I feel that the thread title wrongly conveys that impression.

As I understand what happened, the Tenerife disaster (which was truly a tragic catastrophe) was caused by a combination of fog, a highly experienced but impatient KLM pilot who commenced his take off roll without clearance, and by a comms clash which prevented him hearing the Pan Am a/c advise him that they were still taxiing toward him on the active RWY looking for their exit. There's an order of magnitude discrepancy between that and the Indian runway incursion, but I accept that the latter could have had a much more serious outcome if the a/c had commenced its take off roll and the fact that it hadn't seems to have simply been fortuitous.

Thanks for the "Toby" moniker - hopefully it won't stick!