Incident: Southwest B737 at Portland on Jun 25th 2024, took off from closed occupied runway

The Aviation Herald		Last Update: Monday, Jul 29th 2024 08:17Z 30666 Articles available Events from Mar 23rd 1994 to Jul 28th 2024
www.avherald.com	Incidents and News in Aviation

List by:

Filter:

Incident: Southwest B737 at Portland on Jun 25th 2024, took off from closed occupied runway

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jun 28th 2024 10:11Z, last updated Friday, Jul 12th 2024 16:34Z

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N7861J performing flight WN-4805 from Portland,ME to Baltimore,MD (USA), departed Portland's runway 29 at 05:43L (09:43Z) when both runway and tower were still closed (to be opened by 05:45L/09:45Z). The aircraft continued to Baltimore for a landing without further incident.

Airport Operations can be heard on tower frequency opening the runway about two minutes after Southwest's departure and asking tower whether they could get hold of the Southwest Airplane that had just taken off over them while they were doing a runway inspection. Tower responded they never talked to them, they weren't yet open.

According to NOTAMs only Portland's runway 18/36 would have been available at that time (Tuesday, Jun 25th 2024, 09:43Z).

The FAA released a statement on Jun 29th 2024: "Southwest Airlines Flight 4805 departed from a temporarily closed runway at the Portland International Jetport on Tuesday, June 25. An airport vehicle exited the runway before the plane began its takeoff roll. The FAA and NTSB are investigating the event, which occurred around 5:45 a.m. local time."

On Jul 12th 2024 the NTSB released their preliminary report summarizing the sequence of events:

According to SWA, the incident flight�s dispatch release, titled �release -1,� indicated that the departure time for the flight was 0540. The release also indicated a 12-minute taxi out at PWM and an arrival time at BWI of 0715.

As part of their preflight duties, the flight crew reviewed �Southwest Airlines Briefing� electronic weather packet, which was generated on June 25, 2024, at 0446. The packet contained, in part, the departure and destination weather and, notice to air missions (NOTAMs). There were 32 NOTAMs specifically for PWM, including a NOTAM for runway 11/29 being closed until 0545 on the event date. In addition, part of the weather packet included a content page that included a message that all flights departing from PWM before 0545 must call their dispatcher and receive a briefing from the Chief Pilot who was on call about departing from runway 18/36 which is one of the shortest runways within the SWA system. The flight crew did not see the content page nor did they call for a briefing.

A review of the NOTAMs for PWM revealed that runway 11/29 was closed at the time of the flight�s departure due to construction activities on or near the runway. The runway closure NOTAM was in effect from June 19 to July 24, 2024, and stipulated that the runway would be closed Monday through Friday from 2230 to 0545 and Saturday and Sunday from 0000 to 0545.

The incident flight occurred on a Tuesday.

According to the incident flight crew members, they arrived for the flight on time. The captain, who was the pilot flying, began the preflight duties by reviewing the aircraft logbook for open discrepancies, minimum equipment list items, and a maintenance release. The first officer (FO) conducted the exterior preflight duties and programmed their navigation equipment.

The crew used their respective iPads to set up five flight-related applications, including Jeppesen FlightDeck Pro, WSi, and Comply 365, which provided station-specific information.

The captain accessed the Comply 365 application and noted that the PWM tower was closed until 0545; therefore, Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center would need to be contacted on frequency 128.2 for their instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance and void time. The application also indicated that morning departures should expect to use runway 29. The captain stated that he briefed this information to the FO and then entered the departure, destination, and route into the flight management computer.

The flight crew also reviewed the NOTAMs and noted that runway 29 was closed on Saturdays and Sundays until 0545. The captain incorrectly assumed that any additional days for the runway closure would be in the same NOTAM. The flight crew members did not see the separate NOTAM addressing the runway closure on the other days of the week; the NOTAM was underneath another application.

The FO stated that, before pushback, they received performance weight and balance (PWB) takeoff data via AeroData for runway 29. Normally when a runway is closed, no takeoff data is received, only a message stating it is unavailable due to runway closure. The crew did not brief, nor were they required to, the frequency they would utilize. When the flight was ready to push back, the FO advised on the universal communication frequency (UNICOM) frequency 122.95 that they would be pushing back from gate 4. He also advised on the UNICOM frequency they would be taxing to runway 29 for departure. The flight crew completed all briefings and checklists, and the airplane pushed back from the gate normally.

The captain stated that the FO made �multiple calls to Portland Traffic� in regards to their planned taxi route to runway 29. The FO stated, to investigators, that, while taxiing he utilized the UNICOM frequency to announce their intentions. He then, just before reaching the runway, contacted Boston Center and advised that they were number one for departure from runway 29.

Boston Center gave a clearance void time with instructions to climb on the runway heading to 4,000 feet. The FO stated that he again advised, over the UNICOM, that the airplane would be turning onto runway 29 for departure. Both crewmembers indicated that they saw a truck exit the runway while the flight was holding short of runway 29. Before applying power, they both confirmed that the truck was clear of the runway; it had turned off the runway onto the taxiway and pulled up by the terminal and faced the runway.

The airplane turned onto runway 29, and the FO announced on UNICOM that the airplane would be departing from runway 29. After a visual check of the runway, the flight crew verified the runway and that it was clear of all objects. The flight crew did not observe any equipment, markings, visual closed runway lighted �Xs� designations, or any other sign indicating that the runway was closed, and all equipment and people were clear of the runway. No other traffic or communication was heard on the UNICOM frequency. The flight departed runway 29 and continued to BWI uneventfully.

Relevant NOTAM:
!PWM 06/168 PWM RWY 11/29 CLSD EXC XNG AND TAX THU FRI MON TUE WED 0230-0945
2406200230-2407310945

Metars:
KPWM 251051Z 31008KT 10SM FEW100 18/15 A2973 RMK AO2 SLP067 T01830150=
KPWM 250951Z 29005KT 10SM FEW100 16/14 A2972 RMK AO2 SLP063 T01610139=
KPWM 250851Z 32006KT 10SM FEW100 16/14 A2971 RMK AO2 SLP059 T01610139 53010=
KPWM 250751Z AUTO 30005KT 10SM CLR 17/14 A2969 RMK AO2 SLP053 T01670144=
KPWM 250651Z AUTO 31009KT 10SM FEW080 BKN110 17/15 A2968 RMK AO2 SLP050 T01720150=
KPWM 250551Z AUTO 31005KT 10SM FEW075 OVC100 18/16 A2968 RMK AO2 SLP049 60024 T01780156 10183 20172 53014=

Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)

By TheMightyQ on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 12:26Z

I�m also confused about the truck situation. Airport Operations stated that the flight took off over them yet the pilots stated they saw a truck exit the runway. Were there two trucks? Did the truck return to the runway?

@Peter
By Kris on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 17:00Z

It's not the center controller's job to read NOTAMs for the airfield. He controls and gives clearance for en-route space only.

ATIS? BOS Center?
By Peter on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 15:54Z

Finally, a good point was raised below about the ATIS. Unclear if the ATIS recording left on overnight announced RW11/29 closed in the Remarks section, but it certainly should.

Also, the crew told Boston Center the runway they planned to depart from and did not encounter any query or challenge. I interpret that as Boston Center also being unaware of the nightly runway closure, which is a secondary or tertiary layer to the incident, but certainly worth reviewing. The controlling entity, whether PWM or BOS, should be just as up to speed on relevant NOTAMs as the flight crews need to be.

Blame all around
By Peter on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 15:53Z

Another instance of airline pilots seemingly forgetting what is taught at the PPL/IR level, unless their briefing packs & Jeppesen charts incorrectly listed the UNICOM frequency (122.95) as the CTAF frequency when the tower is closed. Hard to defend this error.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, PWM Airport�s system for communicating the closed runway is a disaster waiting to happen. No lighted X marking used. Not one, but two NOTAMS - both buried in a sea of irrelevant minutiae. I can see how once the crew found the weekend RW11/29 closure NOTAM, it could reasonably follow that there wouldn�t be a separate one covering weekdays.

To JKT
By JWH on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 14:20Z

Perhaps you will enlighten us how you came to the conclusion PWM was CLOSED at any time on Jun 28th 2024.

@JKT
By Kris on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 14:09Z

That's just it -- WN did NOT schedule the flight to take off 2 minutes before the tower/runway opened. They scheduled 12 minutes for taxi, and of course they didn't need that much time. So, they were ready to roll early, and hit the runway before their scheduled departure time. This is why their software didn't catch it. However, the root cause will be pilot error of course, with many, many contributing factors, including Southwest operations procedures, such as using the takeoff time as the trigger for runway warnings instead of the push-back time. The biggest failure here is the pilots not using CTAF, but considering these guys probably aren't used to uncontrolled, larg(er) airports, they probably incorrectly assumed CTAF and UNICOM were on the same frequency.

What about WN operations?
By JKT on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 01:30Z

I've seen a lot of posts on here but nobody mentioning how stupid it was for WN operations to schedule a flight to depart 2 minutes before the tower opens. If both noise abatement and scheduling force the airport to be closed until 05:45, then no flights should be scheduled before that time. WN screwed up and I propose airport operations also did by not telling WN "No, you won't be scheduling a flight at that time. Try again."

By TheMightyQ on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 20:08Z

Your void time will be exactly at the time specified, in this case 5:42. There is no leeway with a clearance void time. Now if you�re talking about a flow time that depends on where you are. It could be three minutes before to one minute after but I think some places it�s five minutes before to five minutes after. I think the void time has to do with traffic at your departure airport whereas flow time slots you onto the approach for your destination airport and the two times are issued by different departments.

Void time
By David on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 19:14Z

A question for anyone that has been in this (likely pretty rare) situation. If you are granted a release by center/TRACON to depart a part-time towered apart a few minutes before the tower opens, will your void time automatically be the time the tower opens or will it be the standard five or ten minutes, and if it's the latter then can you legally depart after tower opens without further clearance from them.

For example, if tower opens at 5:45 and you get a release at 5:42, will your void time be 5:45 or, say, 5:47. And if it's 5:47 then can you take off at 5:46 without talking to tower, even though they are now open, since you have a release?

By TheMightyQ on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 13:27Z

I don�t understand this comment:

� The flight crew members did not see the separate NOTAM addressing the runway closure on the other days of the week; the NOTAM was underneath another application.�

Are there multiple apps where the crew is supposed to get their NOTAMs? Is this for real?

@anonymous
By Walt on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 10:18Z

� It seems stupid to require (or expect) pilots to read and process a ream of 32 NOTAMS. �
I dream of only having to deal with 32 NOTAMS. The average package I have to deal with is around 150 (350+ for some international flights), most of which are, of course, trivial nonsense.

By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 02:38Z

It seems stupid to require (or expect) pilots to read and process a ream of 32 NOTAMS. Particularly when they are, charitably, poorly organized (in terms of the days of the week in this case).

Analogously ridiculous notams:

NOTAM 1: This runway is closed before 545. Except for SW planes
NOTAM 2 (18 pages later): Its also closed to SW planes unless they feature the old school livery.

^This is basically what they were dealing with.

Case dismissed. At least vs the pilots.

CTAF vs Unicom
By Joe on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 01:00Z

It looks like they were broadcasting on the Unicom frequency monitored by the FBO, not the CTAF. Non-towered airports often times have a designated Unicom frequency for inquiring as to the active runway and self reporting location and intentions. This function is done on the (closed) tower frequency, listed on the charts as the CTAF, Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.

By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 00:58Z

well at least they were *trying* to use the CTAF? nevertheless, the recordings clearly show that they *weren't* on CTAF...

@Me
By Sierra Tango on Friday, Jul 5th 2024 09:36Z

Every time I listen to ATC recordings from US incidents I really can't wrap my head around the low level of radio communications. It feels like almost no one understands ICAO/FAA radio telecommunication rules.

@ By Me
By Greenland on Friday, Jul 5th 2024 07:26Z

I totally agree with you !
It is the only place in the world where we can see strange things !

Pilot Error, jmho
By Captain Crunch on Thursday, Jul 4th 2024 13:58Z

OOOoooo. This flight crew is so hosed!

You can take off with a closed tower and broadcast in the blind, but not a closed runway!

The NOTAM says you can cross the runway or taxi on the runway on those days listed, but THAT'S ALL.

This aiplane might have hit the runway inspection ground crew.

In the words of Captain Catfish Reins when his DC-8 smashed the Localizer shack on takeoff after he looked over at his co-pilot:

"So? What are you going to do with your time off?" (i.e., your unpaid vacation!)

US does many questionable things
By Me on Wednesday, Jul 3rd 2024 09:17Z

Flying quite often to the US as pilot for a european carrier, I can attest to the fact that they do MANY things that are considered questionable (at best) in the rest of the world for safety concerns (LAHSO, untowered airports, PRM, unprofessional ATC conduct, phraseology,...).

The driving factor here is - in my opinion - a different valuation of profitability vs safety.

CTAF/tower
By ops guy on Wednesday, Jul 3rd 2024 02:36Z

crew announced taxi on CTAF and made no other announcements, spoke to ZBW to obtain IFR release (which has a void time) and then departed, no announcement on CTAF, Had they been on that frequency they would have heard the ops vehicle calling them. If they departed at :45 as they claim they did (tower opened AT :45) up till that time its CTAF. They should be talking to tower (same frequency), no?

ATC void time and ATIS
By Joe on Tuesday, Jul 2nd 2024 05:52Z

Yes, they had three minutes to get airborne.

Without the tower being officially manned yet, there was no ATIS. Once the tower opened, they put out an ATIS and announced it on the radio.

I've had recent experience landing when the tower is closed and it is definitely more involved than landing with the tower, and, in my view, adds some risk to the entire operation.

As an example, if, an aircraft had a landing accident with the tower in service and the pilots were unable to call for help, the tower would be able to sound the alarm and alert the airport crash fire and rescue team. No tower, no alert.

ATIS? Airport Remarks
By John on Monday, Jul 1st 2024 10:24Z

One question comes to mind - was ATIS current? It would (or should) have shown that Runway 29 was closed until 0545.

Also, a couple of remarks from the airport master record:

- NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS IN AFCT FOR LDG RWY 11 & DEP RWY 29.
- PAEW ADJ TO RWYS NGTS; GND VEHICLES MONITOR 120.9 WHEN ATCT CLSD.

So there are two reasons that the runway was closed till 0545 - noise abatement, and/or maintenance being performed on the runway.

It's common practice at airports to close runways overnight when there's a lack of traffic so Ops and Maintenance can do inspections and maintenance.

@Mark Rubin
By ducky on Sunday, Jun 30th 2024 20:17Z

If an ATC clearance void time is stamped prior to the Runway opening time as published in the NOTAMS provided to the pilots as a section of their preflight documentation, then indeed this would influence the crew in the form motivation to begin this maneuver in a timely manner albeit ill advised considering the complications they will be confronting in the very near future.

ATC clearance void time?
By mark rubin on Sunday, Jun 30th 2024 12:44Z

Did their ATC clearance have a void time?

By Alexander A. on Sunday, Jun 30th 2024 11:00Z

Maybe, the crew was in hurry to take off before 5.45L? Just because the tower couldn't clear them immediately?

TWR closure
By JM on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 21:24Z

Only because we do it all the time in the U.S., doesn�t mean it�s safe or best practice.

Often times the tower opens just after a scheduled departure. With a $5B budget, the FAA needs to do better than that. Staff the towers for all Part 121 departures!

I�m afraid it will take blood for this critical change to happen in the U.S.

Regular Tower hours are published
By collie on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 19:43Z

It is not all that hard to miss a NOTAM as voluminous and arcane as they are.

But the regular published tower operating hours for KPWM are 1045Z-0500Z (9:45am to midnight - local). Although tower operating hours can also be changed by NOTAM.

If they had waited another two minutes they could have taken off under tower control rather than CTAF, unless they were really in that much of a hurry.

Departing with a CLSD TWR is a routine event
By WestCoastFlyer on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 18:19Z

Genuinely shocked at some of the comments here, sincere question: in other countries are you not allowed to depart with a closed tower? Because here in the US (yes, part 121) we do that ALL the time, thousands of times a day. If it wasn't a thing, every medium or small sized town's airport operation would grind to a halt due to no traffic in the early mornings/late nights. (Now departing from a CLSD RWY is a whole different a serious matter, obviously a violation)

runway markings
By Av8tor on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 17:03Z

If there are no obvious runway markings/lights/barriers indicating a closed runway then it's just an incident/accident waiting to happen.

NOTAM is a thin slice of Swiss cheese
By Gabriel on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 15:52Z

NOTAMs are known for not being a reliable mean to ensure safety. It's not that the NOTM themselves are wrong or unreliable. It's that crews get for each flight pages and pages of plain-text, code-language NOTAMs that are not highlighted or sorted by priority or criticality, so it is very easy for humans to miss a needle in the haystack. And, you'll see, pilots are humans.

If not having a runway collision between an airplane taking off or landing depends only on an inconspicuous NOTAM on row 23 of page 14, such collision WILL happen. It's just a matter of time.

Also, I agree with other comments. Even pilots knowing the NOTAM and planning the flight so as they take-off at 5:45 my have not realized that they were taking off just 2 minutes early. Give some margin please! Or do we need to synch the airport car drivers' and pilot's watches down to the second?

@Marius
By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jun 29th 2024 14:12Z

Sounds like you hit the nail on the head there.

" A reduction in the margin of safety isn't necessarily unsafe, it just makes you statistically more vulnerable."

Only the most recent 30 comments are shown to reduce server load. Click here to show the remaining comments

The Aviation Herald Apps
Android and iOS

Support The Aviation Herald

Euro

US$

Interview:

The human factor named "Simon Hradecky" and the team of man and machine

Get the news right onto your desktop when they happen