AA 106 @ JFK (13 Jan 23)
Was the flight LAX-LHR or JFK-LHR? I personally have met the F/O on the crew, She lives in the NY area, based in JFK but I guess the flight could have originated in LAX. Don’t know
In 1978 I operated into JFK for the first time during training, BOAC had excellent briefing documentation and I had written down the expected clearance..I said say again twice and on the third go I thought I had read back the clearance correctly..at Deer Park the captain did something I didn’t expect and challenged him..I had got it wrong.
The following year I started working for the Swiss and was impressed by they linguistics until I had a rollicking from a Maastrict controller because the captain hadn’t understood me. I then drastically changed the way I spoke; annunciated in extremis, slowed my delivery, used simple words and always asked a question or relayed information that needed a response which couldn’t be answered with a yes or no. Such was the change that when I visited my old BEA crew room one of my mates thought I had a stroke.
It saved further internal cockpit confusion but we blocked a runway - probably Chicago- where we caused a missed approach..the captain never realised although the controllers instructions were clear.
Around 15 years ago I used to operate in Montpellier controlled airspace for 4 or 5 hours at a time..they had a female controller who obviously didn’t speak adequate English.
Maybe one day a system will be used which doesn’t rely on spoken clearances, writing them down and conflict warning such as on my car. The technology is there.
The following year I started working for the Swiss and was impressed by they linguistics until I had a rollicking from a Maastrict controller because the captain hadn’t understood me. I then drastically changed the way I spoke; annunciated in extremis, slowed my delivery, used simple words and always asked a question or relayed information that needed a response which couldn’t be answered with a yes or no. Such was the change that when I visited my old BEA crew room one of my mates thought I had a stroke.
It saved further internal cockpit confusion but we blocked a runway - probably Chicago- where we caused a missed approach..the captain never realised although the controllers instructions were clear.
Around 15 years ago I used to operate in Montpellier controlled airspace for 4 or 5 hours at a time..they had a female controller who obviously didn’t speak adequate English.
Maybe one day a system will be used which doesn’t rely on spoken clearances, writing them down and conflict warning such as on my car. The technology is there.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiefttp,
I was just relating here what was reported in the Forbes article and not trying to assign relevance to any particular fact, including the F/O's time on the type.
(And you'd be quite disappointed by the mundane motor vehicle I operate, quite unlike high-end German imports.)
I was just relating here what was reported in the Forbes article and not trying to assign relevance to any particular fact, including the F/O's time on the type.
(And you'd be quite disappointed by the mundane motor vehicle I operate, quite unlike high-end German imports.)
Reading the Forbes article it would appear that some soul decided to interfere with what should be a sterile phase of the flight in that the monitoring pilot had a series of tasks which could and should have been carried out when the aircraft was stationary. Especially relevant as the copilot was new on type.
It isn’t the first time that I’ve seen ill thought procedure changes which left no one monitoring.
Since the tasks involved checking take off performance then Pm wouldn’t have been looking outside.
Perhaps it’s also about time that the 30 mins CVR rule is changed - after all it was introduced 50 years ago.
(I was on BALPA tech committee in the early 70s tasked with airfield lighting amongst other things - operated a heavy in 1978 into JFK and know how difficult RT and taxying can be without unnecessary distractions).
It isn’t the first time that I’ve seen ill thought procedure changes which left no one monitoring.
Since the tasks involved checking take off performance then Pm wouldn’t have been looking outside.
Perhaps it’s also about time that the 30 mins CVR rule is changed - after all it was introduced 50 years ago.
(I was on BALPA tech committee in the early 70s tasked with airfield lighting amongst other things - operated a heavy in 1978 into JFK and know how difficult RT and taxying can be without unnecessary distractions).
My understanding is that leaks of US and European CVR have been extraordinarily infrequent, with most due to legal proceedings. Incidents of cockpit audio that have embarrassed crew and carrier have generally been from hot mics with ATC or intercom; in fact those are the only ones that come to light publicly as far as I recall.
I understand the privacy issues and no one likes people looking over their shoulder, but frankly we are all surveilled in the workplace now, and transportation seems like a role where it is truly warranted. There are strong legal protections where CVR is concerned and they seem to work.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an aviation professional, but have professional experience with speaking so as to be understood. Speed of oral delivery varies with language, region, individual, mood, context (including the size of the room, and presence or absence of microphone); in some languages, the unit of expression is the breath-group, not the word (in my inexpert experience, that makes a big difference between Spanish and Italian in their intellgibility to someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the language). But I am surprised that in the extensive training given to ATC people, there seems to be no training, and no standardisation, in speed and style of delivery. Can this really be so?
Has anyone done any research on speed of delivery and the consequences for efficiency in ATC (I imagine a curve, bell-like but with quirks). There are Departments of Applied Linguistics constantly looking for research projects to justify their existence; otherwise, one could assume that a speed that reduces "Say agains" to a very low level would be a good point to aim for.
Has anyone done any research on speed of delivery and the consequences for efficiency in ATC (I imagine a curve, bell-like but with quirks). There are Departments of Applied Linguistics constantly looking for research projects to justify their existence; otherwise, one could assume that a speed that reduces "Say agains" to a very low level would be a good point to aim for.
Only half a speed-brake
Departure for pilots is the term for takeoff when they are not allowed to say the word 'take off' itself. It has been declared an exclusive and restricted use as a key lesson learned from the Tenerife tragedy.
Willow is mimicking R/T phraseology here, albeit perhaps unnecessarily. Simple does it, takeoff works unless you are talking about takeoff over the radio.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightDetente
..... actually that comment was just trying to catch a published news article in a mistake. As usual what an SLF/attorney doesn't know can . . . hurt their post.
..... actually that comment was just trying to catch a published news article in a mistake. As usual what an SLF/attorney doesn't know can . . . hurt their post.
Problem is, the rule would probably only apply to 'new build' aircraft. Although it's gotten cheaper and easier to retrofit CVR boxes since everything's gone digital, it's still expensive.
There are still lots of aircraft out there flying around with tape based CVR/FDR equipment.
There are still lots of aircraft out there flying around with tape based CVR/FDR equipment.
.........changed the way I spoke; annunciated in extremis, slowed my delivery, used simple words..........they had a.......controller who obviously didn’t speak adequate English.
Maybe one day a system will be used which doesn’t rely on spoken clearances, writing them down and conflict warning such as on my car. The technology is there.
Maybe one day a system will be used which doesn’t rely on spoken clearances, writing them down and conflict warning such as on my car. The technology is there.
Johny foreigner
Many moons ago I did a semi wet lease on the MD80 with a Swiss German skipper (limited english ability) for Air Afrique into Conakry where the recent occupants of the palace had been left hanging from a bridge. The runway was notamed as reduced length by 1/3rd due to a trench across it. ATC had been replaced by Chinese whose french and english was look it up in a phrase book without phonetic pronunciation.
So it was a 1’000ft pass which only revealed the orange strip (soil colour), elect to land from opposite direction avoiding restricted airspace around presidential palace (plate stated we would be shot down) and a short landing..fortunately the trench had been back filled.
WRT to the incident..the controller did an excellent job..sh@t happens.
to put it in perspectives one year recently there were three near accidents in ireland all down to ATC ..one aircraft landed over a gang mower on the active runway, à dubious cleared to cross after the rolling aircraft which saw an executive jet fly under a chopper just after rotation and a near CFIT iirc..and they don’t speak like New Yorkers.
I can also recall a mate in a 747 missing an aircraft by less than 10ft in Melbourne when another aircraft was towed across the runway in use.
I hate to say this but there are aviators that have and aviators that will…..matter of time.
Despite my best sympathy to the crew:
* you would obviously never interpret a taxi clearance by counting syllables but the brain has a habit of putting patterns together that it recognizes
Despite my best sympathy to the crew:
- Everyone involved a Native American English speaker.
- ATIS must have mentioned both departure runways in use, 4L and 31L/KE.
- Even though it sounds like “Fowl left” or even “fohleft” that’s two syllables instead of 3 for tree-one-left or any variation thereof. 31L/KE is 5 syllables even if you don’t speak English.
- Taxi clearance more clearly states hold short 31L.
- Three people misidentified their location.
- Ground controller spotted the problem first followed by “TWR”.
* you would obviously never interpret a taxi clearance by counting syllables but the brain has a habit of putting patterns together that it recognizes
Last edited by B2N2; 25th Jan 2023 at 12:02.
.
to put it in perspectives one year recently there were three near accidents in ireland all down to ATC ..one aircraft landed over a gang mower on the active runway, à dubious cleared to cross after the rolling aircraft which saw an executive jet fly under a chopper just after rotation and a near CFIT iirc..and they don’t speak like New Yorkers.
I can also recall a mate in a 747 missing an aircraft by less than 10ft in Melbourne when another aircraft was towed across the runway in use.
to put it in perspectives one year recently there were three near accidents in ireland all down to ATC ..one aircraft landed over a gang mower on the active runway, à dubious cleared to cross after the rolling aircraft which saw an executive jet fly under a chopper just after rotation and a near CFIT iirc..and they don’t speak like New Yorkers.
I can also recall a mate in a 747 missing an aircraft by less than 10ft in Melbourne when another aircraft was towed across the runway in use.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article notes also there was a third pilot on the 106 flight deck; that neither the PIC nor 3rd aviator saw the "stop bar lights on the runway"; and that AA 106 had just switched from company frequency to Tower frequency. AA 106 did not know the seriousness of the incursion until they arrived in London, per Forbes article. "Delta was cleared for takeoff before they switched over" to the tower frequency, the article quotes the source as saying.
Long long ago I taxied across a runway and ground admonished me that was clear to(but not across) 31. I sat while they played it back, and I was very lucky that grd cleared me to a point on the opposing side of rwy 31, but it was not explicit that I was cleared to cross. However, the clearance was for a location that could only be reached by crossing 31. There definitely was no mention of 31 in the readback. I think the grd controller was unsure of which side of 31 I was on, and thought I was on east side, when I was on west side. I got away with it.
yes but we aren’t dealing with English English spoken at normal rates.....
Yes, I know. That was kind of my point !
CAP 413 might seem stilted and silly, (and is UK), but I use its methodology, and have rarely had a problem being understood. I am sure some US ATC probably think I am being a ****, or am trying to be posh, but neither is true - I am just trying to be understood clearly, because clear communication is a real safety issue.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect there is a danger of starting a war here but I agree abut CAP 413 - and the way even at my lowly level as an a/g operator my examiner does listen to me occasionally and point out deviations.
There are lots of differences and I would be interested to understand how they came about. Taxi instructions tend to be to a defined point here e.g "taxi E5 via taxiways Juliet and Echo" and there then shouldn't be a need for "hold short" which is ambiguous. The point is defined and unambiguous.
Similarly the use of "clear to land" and then a description of traffic ahead rather than "continue approach" with landing clearance only given when the runway is vacant and nothing happening ahead of the aircraft other than a clear runway.
I get the impression that in the U.S commanders are left more in control of their aircraft and ATC is less instructional.
There are lots of differences and I would be interested to understand how they came about. Taxi instructions tend to be to a defined point here e.g "taxi E5 via taxiways Juliet and Echo" and there then shouldn't be a need for "hold short" which is ambiguous. The point is defined and unambiguous.
Similarly the use of "clear to land" and then a description of traffic ahead rather than "continue approach" with landing clearance only given when the runway is vacant and nothing happening ahead of the aircraft other than a clear runway.
I get the impression that in the U.S commanders are left more in control of their aircraft and ATC is less instructional.
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.