A Turkish Airlines A350 taxied onto a Newark runway without clearance after ambiguous ATC phrasing—raising questions about why US controllers don't use standardized language.
lets get kennedy steve's opinion
"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.
If the tower is absolutely not part of the fault here, why is it that they change the terminology and keep using hold short for every subsequent instruction? So while the tower may not technically have been wrong, they do seem to realise that they have also not been crystal clear in their instructions.
Never said ATC was "not part of the fault" here - they could have been clearer, especially with dealing with foreign crews. But they did not make the first, and primary, mistake. The Turkish flight's failure to understand the taxiway diagram and where they should taxi to, for departure, is what triggered this event. The article should have been titled "Turkish Airlines Flight Lined Up for Takeoff Over 2,500' Further Down the Runway Than Planned". They were lucky they didn't think they had the takeoff clearance, and/or the plane alerted them to the error. This could have been another takeoff overrun like the Vietnam flight a month ago if they had.
But to answer your question - why all the "hold short" instructions after forcing them to exit the runway? Those "hold short" clearances were probably to establish the needed departure sequence with other aircraft taxiing in or out.
The linked video depiction doesn't show the "heavy United" they were to let pass - and it's safe to assume there were plenty of other aircraft on the taxiways that were also not shown. Taxi clearances that include "hold short" are not usual. They will say it if there's a reason - to let another pass, for traffic saturation, to allow a plane clearing the runway after landing to have the right of way, etc.
And once the tower saw they DID have an issue with this flight (which, in ATC's opinion, didn't follow their instructions) they were going to be more deliberate with them. It's not that ATC realized their previous instructions were not "crystal clear" enough. It's that they realized this crew needed additional hand-holding. I've seen it before, lots of times - usually with a crew that is unfamiliar with an airport. ATC gets slower, and more simplistic, with their clearances, when they have a crew that exhibits confusion with instructions. And they were doing exactly that, once they saw Turkish enter a runway without a clearance. That's how I saw it.
Could ATC be slower and clearer? Always. Spend a little time over in JFK for plenty of examples.
But did the way they gave their clearances cause the Turkish flight to only taxi part of the way to the departure end of the runway, and then cause them to think they could enter the runway awaiting a takeoff clearance? Nope.
Thank you! I was going to add “she said “continue to the runway” because they stopped at November instead of going to AA. You saved me a whole bunch of typing.
@Pilot93434
The words from the tower was 'continue for the runway', which is linguistically somewhat different than 'to the runway'.
And to be honest, as the controller was already aware that the aircraft was not were it was supposed to be, she should have already there have been aware that clarity of coms should have been the order of the day.
I don't think blame is the thing here, but a discussion of what should each side have done better.
I somewhat agree with this overall but not necessarily all the assumptions/conclusions.
1. Take off without using the threshold is an "intersection departure". If neither the pilot explicitly asks for that or the ATC explicitly offers it and it is not accepted explicitly, then the default is that the aircraft continues taxiing to the end of the runway. Not sure why the aircraft stopped at the intersection departure point on the taxiway initially. May be they were to ask for intersection departure or got confused. Either way this is on the pilots.
2. English is an ambiguous language and the use of standard phraseology is precisely to prevent misinterpretation of the English words. In theory, one should be able to understand the instructions even if they don't know English meanings of the words because their meaning as a phrase is well defined. Not having to interpret the English nuance between "for" and "onto". "For" isn't even a standard/common phraseology word. "To" is.
3. The criticism of US ATC has two different aspects in general. Not using the precise standard phraseology and equally important not using specific or redundant information to reinforce what one intends to communicate. The non-standard phraseology used may be sufficient for pilots used to it in UA airports or that airport but that is not the only audience. It should be unambiguous to even a first time visit to that airport by any pilotnwho may have never flown in US. This is where the whole communication is problematic.
4. ICAO standard phrasing is precise and informative "Taxi to holding point Alpha 1 Runway 24". That can be followed up with either hold short or line up and wait or cleared for takeoff which gives progressively more permission. This is precise with no ambiguity even if there are intersection departure points as they are all numbered. Tower may add Full Length to reinforce if they need the aircraft to taxi all the way to the end even if that is the default. The Full Length is used in US also for that reason. This particular communication had the non-standard "for runway", no full length which might make sense at the beginning of the taxiing from the gate specifying a destination they will eventually get to but not for an aircraft on its final taxiway. So either "Full length" or "holding point" specification would have prevented this misunderstanding. In aviation, whose fault it was isn't necessarily the point, but avoiding it in the first place is.
5. The pilots did screw up interpreting the non standard "for" as taking the next departure intersection and get on the runway. But this doesnt absolve the Tower of not using standard phrases and more precise information.
The biggest problem really is that we are still depending on an oral communication that pilots have to hear and interpret and translate into action that is as old as aviation when technology exists to transform the instructions to precise navigation display in the cockpit.
Hope this wasn’t merely over the Turkey vs. Türkiye forced-change in pronunciation thing… *sigh* it’s still Gulf of Mexico, Lake Ontario, too.
Does that mean I can climb Mount McKinley, visit Fort Bragg, and ski in Squaw Valley again?
You mean I’ve been wrong all along with The United States of the Mojave, Cherokee and Lakotas?
(No, they got some casinos, so all good, right? Have we considered allowing casinos in Gaz… nevermind. Ignore that.)
This is more like if Germany had an authoritarian leader who (under threat of extrajudicial execution) demanded we say ‘Deutschland,’ even though it’s been ‘Germany’ in English for a long time; or if Finland demanded we say ‘Sami,’ or Greece ‘Hellas,’ etc. So, yeah, Erdogan… not cool. Still say ‘Turkey,’ like the bird, if saying the countries name in English.
You are welcome in Deutschland, and please enjoy some real beer any day. All Amerloques are welcome in Europe, assuming they can find it on the map.
Not a pilot.
But the continue for runway is a very vague instruction, and the ATC should not have given it. Of course the pilot should not have followed it as well. But think the blame goes 50-50 in this.
To all the pilots out there: What is being discussed in these calls the pilots get a telephone number for. When do they call this number? Are there consequences for the pilots? It reminds me of a student getting an order to go to the principal's office.
It’s pretty much the same. The correct response would be, “yeah, I’ll give you a call from Istanbul”, then call the number and make fart noises down the line until they hang up.
Basically the pilot calls to discuss a supposed deviation from ATC instructions with a supervisor/manager. The idea is that you don't want to have that kind of debate on the frequency. Most of the time it's a quick call with no real consequences, unless the deviation was very serious or the pilot is a jerk.
Quite Eskimo. Since AI is a learning engine and are sure to study actual ACTs on the job, your beloved computer replacements are also likely to be jerks.
@samo: for clarification, the only real responsibility/requirement the facility has is to take down pilot information and file a report (IIRC goes to FSDO). Controllers/ATC supervisors/facility managers make no determinations as to consequences/fault (why we always use the word "possible"). You may or may not have a discussion about the actual incident with the facility- but there's no obligation to.
Perhaps an ATC exercise to determine how well they are being understood might be in order?
I used to teach a short module for new hires about the subtle differences when working abroad.
One of the key points there was language. While both sides may speak "English", one should never assume that a statement is understood the same way it was intended when spoken. When in doubt, double check. Especially when idiomatic turns of phrase are being used.
The pilots erred by entering the active runway without explicit clearance. No doubt about that. However, the lack of clear instruction from ATC was a definite contributing factor to that.
Ironically, ATC who aren't native speakers of English tend to be more precise with their instructions because they have to actually think about the specific translation of their intended instruction, which creates a second level check and balance.
One of my favourite ATC interactions was in Dusseldorf many years ago. We were the only non-German operator on frequency at the time, and an Air Berlin requested something from tower in German. He got a response in English. He responded in German, presumably grumbling why a German carrier at a German airport should speak English. The very professional ATC responded (in English) that "we have one visitor right now so we must speak English so that they understand exactly what is happening on the airfield". The Air Berlin responded with an apology (in English) and everything proceeded in English until we reached our gate. I wish more interactions were professional like that.
Conversely Paris CDG is absolutely crazy with bilingual clearances running simultaneously. We did some charters out of there for a French operator and because of our callsign, all instructions initially came in French. I was on the jumpseat (and a moderate French speaker) and multiple times had to alert the pilots that ATC was trying to reach us since our callsign was being mentioned in French which they did not understand at all.
Everyone should stick to ICAO standards. There's a reason they are the standards.
I doubt the German pilot was grumbling about anything, this situation is extremely common and everyone is used to it. More likely they just weren't aware of you, so kept responding in German and eventually the controller decided to let them know.
@Samo - Exactly. I was contrasting the way Dusseldorf and CDG managed the same situation. One with extreme courtesy and the other with typical disdain.
Thanks for the analysis, Sean M. I find this very confusing: “Okay, continue for the runway.” In colloquial English, we don't use "for" in this situation. Does this mean in ATC English "continue up to but not onto", and is this a well-defined meaning in ATC English, and is it this what was misunderstood by the Turkish pilot? Or is this a weird preposition even in ATC English?
“if only air traffic controllers in the United States were trained to use standard phraseology like they do in the rest of the world” - gentlemen, i hate to break it to you, but the United States invented air traffic controllers and planes that air traffic controllers control. Decline beyond comeback was a choice.
I think the US invented a lot of things but doesn't mean that they have the best systems in and practices in place.
We don’t speak English - we speak American. I actually heard someone say this in IAH.
We may have invented it but the world - especially the Brits - mastered and perfected it. Time we caught up!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only person writing anything worthy about ATC matters is Anna Giaritelli.
The flying public constantly nitpicking is ironically going to make it less safe for them to fly.
So is indulging in the fantasy that AI is ready to take over today.
LOL this is the mentality of someone allegedly keeping are skies safe.
Convinced that only the echo chamber matters.
No different than Trump saying : the only person writing anything worthy matters is FOX news.
Retire and stay obsolete.
My opinion of ATC journalism is just that. I've mentioned Anna twice in the month or two since she's been covering the subject. Establishing a "mentality" over that- sheesh! Trump's got me beat by a solid decade.
Awesome chop-shop job on your ad hominem reply, though:
"the only person writing anything worthy matters is FOX news."
Maybe you should be replaced by AI 😉
Two issues here. 1. The controller instructions to continue to the runway was not a clearance to proceed on to the runway in any country that participates using ICAO. 2. I totally agree there is no excuse for sloppy phraseology. I listen to ATC recordings all the time and I am embarrassed by the on standard crap I hear. There is a reason for using book phraseology. It often prevents misunderstandings.
I am not going to comment on the language, but I would like to address ATC notifying a crew to "Copy a phone number". The crew is busy,...very busy, and this immediate notification is not necessary. It can wait until the aircraft is airborne. If I am a passenger, I do not want the pilots distracted, or worried about an incident. I want them concentrating on getting the aircraft and passengers out safely....
This is an interesting case. Thanks for posting it. Nonetheless, I disagree with the statement that "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". It's not as simple as that. With the native English speaking air traffic controller not adhering to ICAO standard phraseology, the pilot had no other choice but to infer what exactly it was that they meant and whether they had been given an instruction or a clearance. Both are at fault here - the controller for using plain language unnecessarily, and the pilot for not checking back exactly what they meant.
No, it IS as simple as that. Every country has their own slight variation of rules and procedures, and it is the pilot's responsibility to comply with them when in that country's airspace.
One of the US ATC rules is you don't enter or cross a runway unless explicitly cleared to do so.
US crews have to comply with the rules specific to other ATC jurisdictions when in other countries. And other airlines, including Turkish Airlines, have to comply with US ATC rules when operating within the US.
"the pilot had no other choice but to infer what exactly it was that they meant"
Nope. The pilot absolutely had another choice and a Push To Talk switch. If you don't understand a clearance, you don't guess what it meant. You ask for clarification.
I find it a broad problem with American single-language speakers.
Lots of implied/implicit language mixed with colloquial phrases make it super hard for multi-linguals to understand what was exactly meant. In technical fields (civil aviation is one) it should be as precise as possible, not the fast yammer of too many folks here.
(I consciously try to simplify and clarify my English, especially for people I don't know or for those who have a multi-language base - really behooves ATC to always do that)
It is a shared responsibility, though. If a crew doesn't understand the clearance given to them, it is their duty to ask for a clarification.
Yes - in this specific case ATC used "non standard" terms to tell the Turkish Airlines flight to continue their taxi to the runway (and, remember, the crew had just made a "non standard maneuver", stopping their taxi right in the middle of the taxiway, only halfway to where they were supposed to go, without explanation).
But the crew responded to ATC with the exact same words ATC used - implying they understood what the clearance meant and using non-standard terminology themselves.
So if we are going to stick with the narrative that the terminology that was used is the only fault, the fault is equally shared by the crew. To clarify why: After ATC said, "Okay, continue for the runway", and the crew thought they could enter the runway and await a takeoff clearance, the ICAO standard reply from the crew would have been, "Turkish 4YT heavy, runway 4L, line up and wait”. But they didn't say that. If they had, ATC would have clearly caught the misunderstanding and corrected the crew, and told them they are NOT cleared onto the runway.
And, besides - there is no standard "American single language speaker". Spend some time around the US, and speak with controllers in Boston vs. Atlanta vs. Minneapolis vs. Los Angeles etc. Just like Spanish has dialects, so does English within the US. There are plenty of times I've needed to get clarification about a clearance from US controllers, as a US based pilot and native English speaker. We're a pretty big place.
Bottom line, though: none of this removes the responsibility of the crew to ask for clarification if they don't understand an instruction, no matter how busy ATC appears, how fast they spoke, or what terms they used - standard or otherwise.
As a pilot who has operated in dozens of countries, I can't think of a single one in which a pilot can enter a runway without explicit permission to do so. While the ATC clearance may have been non-standard, it definitely didn't include any language that would imply permission to enter the runway.