19960106041059I

Incident

FAA incident report · Cessna 172N · Cleveland, OH · January 6, 1996

Date: January 6, 1996 · 14:55 local
Place: Cleveland, OH
Airport: Cleveland-Hopkins International
Phase of flight: Takeoff Ground Roll
Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91)
Aircraft: N737PW
Reported as: Cessna 172N
People aboard: 1
Fatal injuries: 0
Pilot’s flight hours: 600 total300 in this make and model10 in the last 90 days

N737PWRegistered now · Cessna 172NS/N 17269577 · Built 1977 Airframe modelCessna 172N Engine modelLycoming 0-320 seriesReciprocating

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Narrative: the pilot stated; although the clearance was -runway 5L- to which he acknowledged and having flown out of cle for several hundreds of hours, he did not verify rwy 5L as the departure rwy. He taxied onto rwy 23R and applied power gradually. (Thinking if I am going the wrong way ATCT will correct me) ATCT did question him and asked him if he was back tracking? About that time he became airborne on (23R) then followed the appropriate ATCT clearance now given to him. The pilot further stated: that he received ground training which was verified by the FBO, and had since utilized the cle airport without further difficulties. The pilot was counseled on this incident. Airman competence FAR violation - deviation from ATC clearance and instructions - without amended clearance.

As the FAA filed it

NARRATIVE: THE PILOT STATED; ALTHOUGH THE CLEARANCE WAS -RUNWAY 5L- TO WHICH HE ACKNOWLEDGED AND HAVING FLOWN OUT OF CLE FOR SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF HOURS, HE DID NOT VERIFY RWY 5L AS THE DEPARTURE RWY. HE TAXIED ONTO RWY 23R AND APPLIED POWER GRADUALLY. (THINKING IF I AM GOING THE WRONG WAY ATCT WILL CORRECT ME) ATCT DID QUESTION HIM AND ASKED HIM IF HE WAS BACK TRACKING? ABOUT THAT TIME HE BECAME AIRBORNE ON (23R) THEN FOLLOWED THE APPROPRIATE ATCT CLEARANCE NOW GIVEN TO HIM. THE PILOT FURTHER STATED: THAT HE RECEIVED GROUND TRAINING WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY THE FBO, AND HAD SINCE UTILIZED THE CLE AIRPORT WITHOUT FURTHER DIFFICULTIES. THE PILOT WAS COUNSELED ON THIS INCIDENT. AIRMAN COMPETENCE FAR VIOLATION - DEVIATION FROM ATC CLEARANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS - WITHOUT AMENDED CLEARANCE.