Originally Posted by
Chiefttp
I don’t know what CAP 413 is, but I’m deducing it’s a reg on how to communicate clearly. Undoubtably, one of the “takeaways” from this incident will be a less frantic, slower paced, communication flow from controllers at JFK. As I’ve stated before, as a native New Yorker I’m used to the pace and speed of New Yorker’s speech, but it’s not appropriate for aviation communications at JFK.
Are we saying that the AIM and 7110.65 are inadequate to instruct pilots and controllers in proper radio technique and phraseology? I think the fast-talking JFK ATC as a causal factor is a distraction. Listening to the public ATC audio of the incident, I didn’t find anything unusual compared to any large, busy ATC facility in the U.S. IMO, the JFK ground/tower controllers spoke more clearly than the AA106 FO. As I noted in my post #23, the public ATC audio is from a secondary source and is likely of inferior quality compared to what is on the ATC tapes and the CVR (was, RIP). Where the public audio/video shows “blocked” or “inaudible,” those portions may have been perfectly audible to ATC and the AA106 crew.
If JFK (and LGA, TEB, EWR) ATC comms are really a safety issue, is anyone in the profession noting this on an official basis? APA/ALPA? Airlines? ATC comms are a dialogue, not a monologue. Pilots always have the ability and responsibility to ask ATC to repeat any unclear comms as well as control the pace and clarity of their own comms to ensure safety.