Ocn Vw 1K

While not familiar with this particular "erroneous hit alert", generally the use of the term "hit" refers not to physical contact between aircraft but to a radar or TCAS image/signal return

as219

Yesterday was on UA580 from ORD to BWI. Soon after takeoff, ORD gave an instruction to UA580 to make such and such a turn, followed by an instruction to Continental 580 to make such and such a turn. There was a pause. The UA pilot said, "Uh, can you repeat those instructions," which ATC did, without realizing what was strange about the situation. Another pause. Then ATC says, "Ah yes, right, United 580 turn blah blah, and Continental 580 turn yadda-yadda." CO pilot says "Welcome to the merger!"

l etoile

Exactly. "Erroneous hit alert" is not ATC phraseology and it's unlikely you'd hear such wording in a formal context. "Hit" is slang. More likely you'd hear a controller say to confirm the altitude and possibly follow up with: Thanks, just had a bad hit.

violist

Ground: American xxx, line up ... and ... waaaait.
American: Line up ... and ... waaaait, American xxx.
UA 395: How long have you been doing this?
Ground: About an hour.
UA 395: Well done.
American: Gotta do it in an accent no one can understand,
though.
[a few more line-up-and-waits later]
Ground: Have to get my practice in - been doing it one way for
22 years, and now they tell me to change.

IADDCA

wilp888 <- You're getting your Chinas confused. PRC is the People's Republic of China, which is the main part of China that Hong Kong is now a part of. These are the communists.

ROC is Republic of China, which is what the Taiwanese call Taiwan.

Can someone explain what "penalty box" means in this context? Do ground controllers sometimes have planes just sit somewhere on a taxiway because a pilot made them angry?

UpstateNY

No, that's just slang for a place to sit while awaiting a release time from ATC. It's not on the taxiway but usually a separate area near the departure end of a runway. On the radio you'll sometimes hear it called the "pad" for run-up pad. Piston-engine planes have to do a "run-up" of the engine to make sure everything is in good working order before takeoff, and you generally don't want to do it in the ramp area. Turbine powered aircraft don't have to do it, but the name has stuck for an open place in which to do a run-up. Penalty box isn't standard phraseology, but that doesn't mean it's not used.

jason8612

I heard ORD ATC use "penalty box" before.

freshairborne

The Penalty Box is kind of a generic term for a place that ground control can put planes when they're going to be a wait ing for a gate more than a few minutes. O'Hare has an actual spot called The Penalty Box, as do several other airports. even Stapleton (the old DEN) had an official Penalty Box.

It's not beyond ATC controllers to use these places punitively, though. I've never been sent to one in lieu of "stand in the corner", but I have had a tower controller at ORD get ticked at me for taxiing onto RWY 22L once. He cancelled my takeoff clearance, told me to taxi up to the first turnoff, exit the runway and get back in line. When I called ORD tower on the phone a couple hours later, the supervisor told me that I just ticked the guy off so he spanked me.

FAB

redheadfred

Last night on UA 238 SAN-IAD while passing over New Mexico there were reports of a plane going down. State police were called and ATC was asking planes on other freqs to circle lat/long coordinates.

SFOSpiff

Pretty eventful chatter on 9/3. Flight from BDL-IAD was held for 1 hour by NYC center and got to hear pilot asking for several alternate routings (all denied). On landing at IAD, Jetblue plane didn't clear runway fast enough, so tower called go-around about 8 seconds before touchdown (good thing an A320 can pull itself up that fast). Rather amusing to hear quite a few people on the loop asking why a go-around was called. Presumably this constitutes a "near miss" with plenty of FAA paperwork.

IAD-SFO was a few minutes to touchdown when tower asked crew again and again to follow in another plane, which couldn't be seen in the sunset. We were eventually sent to circle around and try again.

PHLGovFlyer

Flying into LAX a few days ago the pilot informed ATC that there was a cluster of baloons about 500 feet north of the flight path of our aircraft and co-altitude. We were at 21,000 feet(!)

GoAmtrak

On DEN-SFO last night, heard DEN-SAN ask Denver Center for a shortcut due to 50+ servicemembers on-board coming home from abroad. Center was happy to oblige. ^

freshairborne

8 seconds from touchdown would be quite a bit of separation, and not a near miss. I don't know why anyone calls a near-hit a near-miss, just one of those "jumbo shrimp' kind of things, I guess. With an airplane taxiing onto a runway, it can get dicey, but just a tardy turnoff, no harm, no foul, no paperwork. I confess to a great affinity to the Airbusses, but all transport category planes have a ton of performance capability for go-arounds, even on one engine, as well as a bunch of other possible performance scenarios. In fact, we calculate all performance data for takeoff rolls, initial climbs, cruise, decent, landing, and go-arounds (aka missed approaches if flown following an instrument approach) based on losing an engine at critical times. If we couldn't do it on one engine, we don't even try with both. Fortunately, these planes all have some pretty awesome performance when all engines are running if they can do it safely with half their power gone.

ATC will often call traffic to us and hope we acknowledge that we see the traffic, because when we say we see it, we can be cleared for a visual approach, and it takes a lot of workload off the controller. When we accept a visual approach based on following another airplane as opposed to seeing the airport, we are accepting responsibility for our own wake turbulence separation. I personally will not accept a visual based on following another airplane unless it is a very obvious that the plane I'm looking at is the one the controller is talking about. It's all to easy to acknowledge seeing the wrong airplane (think LAX, hazy, sun setting over the ocean right in the pilots' faces, 4 runways, lots of airplanes).

I have had a controller issue some pretty punitive instructions when I would not acknowledge traffic he was calling repeatedly, but there are legalities involved that non-pilots usually don't understand. Another reason that CH 9 can cause problems, like someone who thinks they see the plane that a controller is calling out, but the pilot is not acknowledging. Kind of like, we see it but if we admit it, we will be given separation responsibility that the controller is usually better equipped to handle in many circumstances.

FAB

Lurker

I am not a pilot but I believe the reason they may have been asking is not just the voyueristic "I wonder just who got in trouble" but because wind shear or other WX-related issues could be very important for them to know as they planned their approaches.

FAB -correct me if I am wrong please

Lurker

violist

It's not a near-miss, it's a near miss.