JFK ATC exchange

[I'mbatman]

I'm a native New Yorker and I have flown out of JFK for twenty years and without fail, I am regularly embarrassed by the JFK controllers particularly when communicating with foreign airlines. While Longboat didn't need to explain the pax and cargo, the controller was still unprofessional.

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by 421dog

Every big airport in the us has a common mantra: “keep moving, and clear the active”
i fly relative bugsmashers, but if I follow this way of thinking, I fit in well when I must intercalate myself in with the big boys.

I had to look up 'intercalate' !

Stopping a small Cessna 421 is not quite the same as stopping a large heavy airliner ! Standing on the brakes, and having them banging in and out of anti-skid, is not a good plan to simply make a runway exit; for several reasons, not least of which will be passenger alarm and complaints. If the aircraft are that close on approach; they are TOO close, period. Over to you, ATC.

I don't specifically remember those exits at JFK, but certain runway exits can have strict maximum speed limits imposed by airlines, before an airliner begins to turn off.

And if you do miss an exit, it is not really practical in an airliner to put on engine power to speed up and then slam on the brakes for the next exit.

If an ATC guy cannot handle an unexpected event or change, he really needs to find another career.

[421dog]

Once upon a time, it behooved one to be an instrument rated pilot when applying to be a controller. (Max raw score on test was 200, being a veteran got you an extra ten, working for the civil service another 10 and being a real pilot was worth 15 or 20).
one would not be hired without a score of 215+

Now, there are a lot more factors in play, and actual experience doesn’t seem to count…

[framer]

Doing the math for this case, they covered the 1,040' between V and U3 in somewhere between 30 to 45 seconds (depending on how good the animation is). That's 17 to 23 knots. That's simply unacceptable to slow down to normal taxi speed when taxiing down the active runway

It was fairly slow from V to U3 but that is something that happens every now and again. Even great pilots who are usually the darlings of ATC will sometimes, once or twice, aim for one exit, stick with the attempt until the last second and then realise that it’s not a wise choice. From that point on you are locked into occupying the runway for longer than you and the controller wanted. You can’t then speed up to 50kts to exit at the next available. . It’s just an error of judgement which does happen to pilots, and controllers, and Engineers and Executive managers alike. Expect it, and when it happens, don’t lean into your pre- assigned identity as a loud-mouthed New Yorker, or a reserved Brit, lean into your chosen identity as a professional in the Aviation industry. It will serve you better and you may avoid excess attention

[BFSGrad]

I would bet with near 100% certainty that if the Longboat pilot has simply said “unable” as alluded to in post #20, the controller would have badgered him for a reason before handoff to ground.

Whatever happened to the good old days when Kennedy Steve could verbally poke you in the eye with a sharp stick and you’d still want to have a beer with him afterward.

[RickNRoll]

[PENKO]

That sounded like a lame excuse from the pilots and a snappy answer from the controller. Followed by a gracious and mature shrug from the pilots forced to go around.

[framer]

Perfect summary by Penko.

[mike current]

How tight are they sequencing those heavies anyway?
"Caution wake turbulence".. it's not a VFR light aircraft. What are they supposed to do if they're not happy with the distance? Break off and reposition at which point approach will probably make them number 16...
In the UK (and Europe I think?) we would vector them 4 miles apart which is usually sufficient for no 1 to vacate and no 2 to get a landing clearance (unless there's a tailwind or something like that)

Sometimes aircraft are slow to vacate, it's just the nature of it. If this controller gets agitated with a comfortable go around I wonder what he would do in the event of a runway incursion or an emergency...

[Magplug]

Up & down the eastern seabord you experience airport controllers who are brash, blow-hard, uncaring of your issues and generally don't seem to give a sh!t. Having operated the B744 into these destinations for many years I learnt to reply to BS requests simply with 'Unable due performance'. This would generally make the BS go away as they are venturing into subject areas of which they know zip. I was once requested to do a Carnarsie Approach with a 25kt crosswind from the right, only problem was the ATIS said 5 kts across and the wind was not offered by the tower so we blindly pressed on. When it became obvious that the mighty Jumbo was struggling around the final turn, the actual wind became evident and we threw it away, much to the annoyance of the tower. When pressed, he reported the actual wind which bore no relasionship to the ATIS. They switched runways after that as the cat was out of the bag.

But stuff comes around...... I went into Washington (IAD) one evening with an FO who didn't normally say very much. We cleared the final runway crossing and he asked the ground guy for taxy clarification. We got a sarcastic reply to the effect we should known our way around as we must have been there before.... Quick as a flash my FO came back and said "Excuse us Sir, we normally only ever operate to major international airports." He was my hero and I bought the beer that night!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The pilot should have made the designated taxi way. When he did not he should have owned it with a “sorry, we are expediting to the next”. Instead he doddled down the runway taking up radio air time with lame excuses.

Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

The pilot should have made the designated taxi way.....

Since you were presumably in that cockpit during that landing and roll-out; can you tell us how ?

[Fly3]

Originally posted by Big Pistons Forever
The pilot should have made the designated taxi way. When he did not he should have owned it with a “sorry, we are expediting to the next”. Instead he doddled down the runway taking up radio air time with lame excuses.

Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

That is probably the stupidest statement made here so far.

[Fark'n'ell]

Two aircraft four miles apart and both cleared to land on same runway.
Is this normal practice in the US.

[STBYRUD]

It absolutely is, you can be four aircraft on the same approach, and everybody is cleared to land...

[Doors to Automatic]

Would there be merit in introducing new terminology at busy airports along the lines “XXX cleared to land, next 3” meaning that the next aircraft is 3 miles behind, hit the brakes a bit harder

[mike current]

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

Would there be merit in introducing new terminology at busy airports along the lines “XXX cleared to land, next 3” meaning that the next aircraft is 3 miles behind, hit the brakes a bit harder

No. No need to add pressure on the crews at the most critical stage of flight. They shouldn't be asked to make up for incompetent ATC.

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

Would there be merit in introducing new terminology at busy airports along the lines “XXX cleared to land, next 3” meaning that the next aircraft is 3 miles behind, hit the brakes a bit harder

No, also in busy airports the in trail separation is done by another unit , often not located at the airport itself, and the clearance to land given by the tower(s) . If APP makes it too tights there is very little to nothing the TWR controller can do to increase separation. If it does not work in the end due to a missed exit, the TWR controller gets frustrated and , like here apparently , passes his frustration to the wrong culprit.

And also it does nor seem to help or work , even when the controller mentions it , like in Austin for instance..

[missy]

Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic

Would there be merit in introducing new terminology at busy airports along the lines “XXX cleared to land, next 3” meaning that the next aircraft is 3 miles behind, hit the brakes a bit harder

No, I think it would be confusing. Expedite clearance of the runway was never used. My perspective was the ATC expected the aircraft to vacate at V (based on the aircraft type, wind, and possibly where the aircraft was parking) and part way through the transmission realised that Longboat was going to miss V, and so the exit was U3, at this point it was game over and fate of SilkWest was sealed.

I've never done JFK Tower, never had the opportunity as the FAA has restrictions on the employment of foreigners.

[Akrapovic]

I'm more shocked Norse had a full aircraft!