In today’s episode of “if only air traffic controllers in the United States were trained to use standard phraseology like they do in the rest of the world,” I present to you a recent incident that happened at Newark, involving a departing Turkish Airlines aircraft.
Turkish Airlines pilots confused over ATC instructions
This incident happened in the very early morning hours of September 15, 2026, and involves Turkish Airlines flight TK30, an Airbus A350-900 operating from Newark (EWR) to Istanbul (IST). In this incident, the Turkish Airlines plane entered the runway without permission. However, the actions of the pilots weren’t quite as reckless as they might sound.
Let’s step back for a moment. The interaction started with the air traffic controller giving the Turkish plane permission to taxi:
Turkish pilot: “Control, good evening, Turkish 4YT heavy, ready to taxi.”
Newark ATC: “Turkish 4YT, Newark, expect runway 4l for departure, taxi via B.”
Turkish pilot: “Expecting runway for departure 4L via taxiway B, Turkish 4YT.”
Okay, simple enough, right? The plane then started its taxi out toward the runway, and the communication continued as follows:
Newark ATC: “Turkish 4YT heavy, you’ll be next for departure, advise when you’re ready, please.”
Turkish pilot: “We’ll advise when ready, Turkish 4YT.”
Turkish pilot: “Tower, Turkish 4YT, ready for departure.”
Newark ATC: “Roger, thank you.”
At that point there was a roughly 50 second gap. It’s worth understanding that the plane was just short of the taxiway that leads to the runway, so it wasn’t quite at the hold short point for the runway. It also wasn’t at all a busy night, as there were no other planes around. Nonetheless, the controller obviously wanted to know why the plane wasn’t going all the way to the hold short point for the runway:
Newark ATC: “Turkish 4YT heavy, are you able to continue for the runway?”
Turkish pilot: “Affirmative.”
Newark ATC: “Okay, continue for the runway.”
Turkish pilot: “Continue for runway, Turkish 4YT.”
The Turkish plane then proceeded to taxi onto the runway, and lined up and waited:
Newark ATC: “Turkish 4YT heavy.”
Turkish pilot: “We need 30 seconds, Turkish 4YT.”
Newark ATC: “Uh, yes, you’re, you know that you’re on runway 4L, correct?”
Turkish pilot: “Affirmative, there’s a slight technical difficulty, just five seconds.”
Newark ATC: “Okay, I’m gonna have to give you a phone number here because you were not cleared onto runway 4L.”
The plane then had to taxi off the runway, and the pilots were given a phone number to call for a possible pilot deviation. You can hear the ATC audio below, and see a visualization of what happened.
Why can’t US ATC use standard phraseology?
Just about everywhere else in the world, air traffic control uses standardized phraseology when communicating with pilots. That’s logical, when you consider you have pilots from all over the world, and if you want a system that’s as safe as possible, it’s important to minimize potential miscommunications.
Let me be clear, the Turkish Airlines pilots were at fault here, in the sense that in the United States, pilots are never allowed to enter the runway unless they’re explicitly given the instruction that they’re cleared for takeoff, or that they’re cleared to line up and wait. That wasn’t given here… period.
At the same time, this controller’s instructions were anything but clear, and I can see exactly how this happened. The controller told the Turkish pilots to let her know when they’re ready to go (presumably in anticipation of granting takeoff clearance), they said they were ready to go, and then she said “continue to the runway,” which they interpreted as permission to line up and wait.
Ultimately this isn’t about which party is right or wrong, it’s about creating a system that minimizes the chances of miscommunication. Instead of saying “continue for the runway,” the controller should’ve said “continue your taxi,” or “continue your taxi, hold short of runway 4L.”
The thing is, this wasn’t even an isolated incident. Earlier this year, a Qatar Airways Cargo Boeing 777 had a very similar incident in Houston (IAH), where the plane also taxied onto the runway without permission, due to confusion around language.
I don’t understand why the United States can’t have more of a focus on training controllers to use standard language. Again, the pilots were at fault here, and it’s not the fault of controllers that the United States doesn’t really enforce standards in this regard. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exist.
Bottom line
A Turkish Airlines Airbus A350 taxied onto the runway at Newark Airport without permission. The controller had asked the pilots to let her know when they were ready to go, one of the pilots let her know, and the pilots were advised to “continue for the runway,” which just isn’t useful language.
While the pilots should’ve known better, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a repeated problem, and it could be addressed by adapting similar air traffic control standards to the rest of the world.
What do you make of this Newark ATC incident involving Turkish Airlines?
"Turkish Airlines Plane Enters Newark Runway Without Clearance: Was ATC Language The Problem?"
Nope. Turkish's not understanding they should taxi the full length of the runway was the problem (which led to the ATC query, "Are you able to continue to the runway?").
They were not at the end of the runway yet, and just stopped their taxi in the middle of the taxiway for no apparent reason. There's no real "standard phraseology" for ATC...
"Turkish Airlines Plane Enters Newark Runway Without Clearance: Was ATC Language The Problem?"
Nope. Turkish's not understanding they should taxi the full length of the runway was the problem (which led to the ATC query, "Are you able to continue to the runway?").
They were not at the end of the runway yet, and just stopped their taxi in the middle of the taxiway for no apparent reason. There's no real "standard phraseology" for ATC to say, "Hey crew - you're only about halfway towards where you need to be. Why did you stop?"
Then, the crew misinterpreted the clearance to continue FOR the runway as a clearance to taxi ONTO the runway (Newark ATC: "Turkish 4YT heavy, are you able to continue for the runway?” Turkish pilot: “Affirmative.” Newark ATC: “Okay, continue for the runway.") Standard phraseology or not, pilots should know the difference between "for" and "onto". Able to speak and understand English is a requirement of the license, precisely because situations can arise when controllers and crews need to go "off script".
And that clearance IS appropriate if you still haven't taxied all the way to the runway. Which they hadn't. Besides, ALL clearances to taxi onto, depart from, land on, or cross a runway will name the runway. 100% of the time. No exceptions. This one didn't name any runway ("Okay, continue for the runway") - so it clearly WASN'T a clearance to taxi onto Runway 4L.
So now the crew is wrong about two things. 1) They thought they were at the correct takeoff point (they weren't), and 2) they thought "continue for the runway" meant they were cleared onto it (it doesn't).
Had they replied with something that clarified the clearance they think they just received, like, "Okay, continue for, and line up and wait runway 4L" this all wouldn't have happened. So if we are going to only point at "standard phraseology!" as the culprit, a big part of the responsibility to use it also rests on a crew, too. Instead, they just parroted back what they heard. That's a terrible habit when unsure about a clearance you just received.
Next, the "slight technical difficulty" was now caused by the A350 alerting them that they didn't have enough runway distance (performance) based on their weight, flap setting, anticipated power setting, etc. from where they entered the runway. They still didn't know they were in the wrong place. The plane basically alerted them to a significant error and prevented a potential disaster. The F/O (on the radio) even seemed to believe they needed permission to depart from intersection "AA" which is, per the US FAA rules, the normal departure point for a runway with a displaced threshold as depicted on the charts. They were still a bit confused.
The crew messed up. They didn't understand where to depart from, didn't get a standard clearance to enter the runway, didn't clarify with ATC in their response that they could taxi onto runway 4L, and were still confused when they needed to exit the runway.
Even if ATC, at the beginning and after querying about the crew stopping, had said, "continue taxi to runway 4L" (standard phraseology) it's probable the crew would have still entered the runway in their confusion.
As a pilot, I hate to say it - but this one is on the crew.
lets get kennedy steve's opinion