AA 106 @ JFK (13 Jan 23)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
.......... 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...........
........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.
........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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I basically agree with the commenets made about the speed of delivery in of some US controllers in busy airports and I would add even on some en route sectors, I do not think it is the main issue here. We could also debate here on how the ICAO ELPAC ( the language proficeinecy tests) were embraced by the US and the FAA when they became mandatory in 2011 but, it is another story , but the fact here that I believe this had very little to do in this incident . As correctly pointed out by BFSGrad , the quality of the internet audio recording most likely comig from a hand held cheap scanner in aparking lot, and would not the same quality as what you hear on the cockpit VHF,,. In addition the AA crew did not question the taxi clearance and everybody involved was a native english speaking American.
From what I read so far, the new briefing and checks to be performed while taxing, perhaps having to deal with another issue or having a discussion during that time made them misinterpret the crossing part of the clearance.. Unfortunately the CVR will not give us this info and most importantly the timig of things, so the incident report will have to rely on memory of the involved persons days afterwards .not really ideal to draw conclusions.
From what I read so far, the new briefing and checks to be performed while taxing, perhaps having to deal with another issue or having a discussion during that time made them misinterpret the crossing part of the clearance.. Unfortunately the CVR will not give us this info and most importantly the timig of things, so the incident report will have to rely on memory of the involved persons days afterwards .not really ideal to draw conclusions.
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
Toward the end of the 2/7 testimony before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the NTSB chairman provided the following answer in response to a question about the JFK incident:
‘It was the ASDE system—airport surface detection equipment—system that notified the air traffic controller that there was an impending collision.’
‘It was the ASDE system—airport surface detection equipment—system that notified the air traffic controller that there was an impending collision.’
"Preliminary report is now out." Posted Feb 10 2023, 3:25pm ET
https://twitter.com/RossFeinstein/st...C4hZ7EjootAAAA
https://twitter.com/RossFeinstein/st...C4hZ7EjootAAAA
On January 13, 2023, about 2044 local time, American Airlines (AA) flight 106, a Boeing 777- 200, crossed runway 4L, without air traffic control (ATC) clearance, at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Queens, New York causing Delta Airlines (DAL) flight 1943, a Boeing 737-900ER, to abort its takeoff on runway 4L. Of the 6 crew and 153 passengers on DAL 1943, and 12 crew and 137 passengers on AA106, there were no injuries. There was no damage to either aircraft. AA 106 was a 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 scheduled international passenger flight from JFK to London Heathrow International Airport, London, United Kingdom (LHR). DAL 1943 was a CFR Part 121 scheduled international passenger flight from JFK to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic (SDQ). AA 106 was instructed to taxi from the ramp to Runway 4L via taxiway B and hold short of taxiway K. As the aircraft left the ramp, the ground controller cleared AA 106 to cross runway 31L at taxiway K. Upon reaching the Taxiway B/Taxiway K intersection, AA 106 continued straight to taxiway J crossing runway 4L without ATC clearance. At the time AA106 entered on runway 4L at taxiway J, DAL 1943 had begun its takeoff roll increasing speed through 80 knots, and was abeam taxiway K3, about 2700 feet from the taxiway J intersection.
The ASDE-X alerted the JFK ATC tower to the conflict and the tower controller issued a takeoff cancellation to DAL 1943. The DAL 1943 crew aborted takeoff at about 100 knots and came to stop about 500 feet short of taxiway J. The closest point between the two aircraft was about 1400 feet and occurred as DAL 1943 decelerated past taxiway K4 and AA106 exited the runway at taxiway J. NTSB groups formed to investigate this accident: operational factors, human performance, air traffic control, and flight data recorder. Parties to the investigation include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Boeing Company, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, and the Allied Pilots Association (APA). On February 1, 2023, NTSB conducted ATC interviews, which were audio recorded for transcription. Recorder data from both aircraft were obtained. Cockpit voice recorder data were both overwritten. Flight crew statements were received. In addition to the crew statements, NTSB attempted to interview the American Airlines flight crew three different times. American Airlines cleared the flight crew’s schedule to ensure their availability; however, the flight crew refused to be interviewed on the basis that their statements would be audio recorded for transcription. On behalf of the crew, the APA party representative informed the NTSB that the crew would not consent to participate in audio recorded interviews in any manner. NTSB has determined that this investigation requires that the flight crew interviews be audio recorded and transcribed by a court reporter to ensure the highest degree of accuracy, completeness, and efficiency. As a result of the flight crew’s repeated unwillingness to proceed with a recorded interview, subpoenas for their testimony have been issued.
The ASDE-X alerted the JFK ATC tower to the conflict and the tower controller issued a takeoff cancellation to DAL 1943. The DAL 1943 crew aborted takeoff at about 100 knots and came to stop about 500 feet short of taxiway J. The closest point between the two aircraft was about 1400 feet and occurred as DAL 1943 decelerated past taxiway K4 and AA106 exited the runway at taxiway J. NTSB groups formed to investigate this accident: operational factors, human performance, air traffic control, and flight data recorder. Parties to the investigation include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Boeing Company, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, and the Allied Pilots Association (APA). On February 1, 2023, NTSB conducted ATC interviews, which were audio recorded for transcription. Recorder data from both aircraft were obtained. Cockpit voice recorder data were both overwritten. Flight crew statements were received. In addition to the crew statements, NTSB attempted to interview the American Airlines flight crew three different times. American Airlines cleared the flight crew’s schedule to ensure their availability; however, the flight crew refused to be interviewed on the basis that their statements would be audio recorded for transcription. On behalf of the crew, the APA party representative informed the NTSB that the crew would not consent to participate in audio recorded interviews in any manner. NTSB has determined that this investigation requires that the flight crew interviews be audio recorded and transcribed by a court reporter to ensure the highest degree of accuracy, completeness, and efficiency. As a result of the flight crew’s repeated unwillingness to proceed with a recorded interview, subpoenas for their testimony have been issued.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed . Subpoenas to get a report from a crew after an incident? Never heard of this before,The US legal system is amzing . Can they do like politicians and " play the 5th amendment " and say nothing ? Wating with impatience to read Willow Run 6-3 comments on this .
Indeed . Subpoenas to get a report from a crew after an incident? Never heard of this before,The US legal system is amzing . Can they do like politicians and " play the 5th amendment " and say nothing ? Wating with impatience to read Willow Run 6-3 comments on this .
From the linked statement it seems APA would be OK with a transcribed interview but not any type of interview that is recorded electronically.
Allied Pilots Association Statement on National Transportation Safety Board
Allied Pilots Association Statement on National Transportation Safety Board
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that audio recording and transcription by a court reporting service are standard at this stage of an NTSB inquiry (maybe these are routine but the fact has eluled my experience). Also, the prelim report refers to an "accident".... which I don't think is the correct terminology for what occurred.
As to the privilege against self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
As a first point, while politicos might have given "taking the Fifth" a poor reputation, the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is a very significant right (just for the record).
The privilege generally applies to criminal proceedings. The NTSB process at this time is far from criminal in nature. But..... the privilege against self-incriminatiin may be asserted by a witness in any type of proceeding if there is reasonable possibility testimony by that witness would incriminate the witness in future criminal proceedings. And a subpoena does not disarm (it doesn't over-ride) the privilege.
My moderate-to-strong inclination here is to rely on what I understand is the very high level of effectiveness and professional competencies of the labor organization which represents American's pilots. They may, for example, sense a search for fault-finding and scapegoats is looming. Rather than investigation of the incident giving fair or equal time and consideration to the way ATCOs communicate at JFK, and/or to the set of changed procedures the F/O reportedly was required to review, the APA reps and legal counsel may see Board or other highly visible authorities trying to tag the AA crew as wet laundry needing to be cycled, or hung out as the case may be, to dry.
With FAA reauthorization pending soon in Congress, and with FAA part of a Cabinet agency headed by a political appointee whose aspirations, not to say ambitions, for higher office are well-known, it strikes me as not surprising at all that labor organization reps and legal counsel are playing this match very cautiously. Not surprised at all. (I know aviators on the line wear suit coats as part of their uniforms, not jackets; still, back in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, we would refer to this cautiousness as, "My clients are not gonna wear the jacket on this.")
EDIT: the above written and posted prior to seeing APA statement in post immediately preceding mine; no further comment, and this post's content not edited.
As to the privilege against self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
As a first point, while politicos might have given "taking the Fifth" a poor reputation, the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is a very significant right (just for the record).
The privilege generally applies to criminal proceedings. The NTSB process at this time is far from criminal in nature. But..... the privilege against self-incriminatiin may be asserted by a witness in any type of proceeding if there is reasonable possibility testimony by that witness would incriminate the witness in future criminal proceedings. And a subpoena does not disarm (it doesn't over-ride) the privilege.
My moderate-to-strong inclination here is to rely on what I understand is the very high level of effectiveness and professional competencies of the labor organization which represents American's pilots. They may, for example, sense a search for fault-finding and scapegoats is looming. Rather than investigation of the incident giving fair or equal time and consideration to the way ATCOs communicate at JFK, and/or to the set of changed procedures the F/O reportedly was required to review, the APA reps and legal counsel may see Board or other highly visible authorities trying to tag the AA crew as wet laundry needing to be cycled, or hung out as the case may be, to dry.
With FAA reauthorization pending soon in Congress, and with FAA part of a Cabinet agency headed by a political appointee whose aspirations, not to say ambitions, for higher office are well-known, it strikes me as not surprising at all that labor organization reps and legal counsel are playing this match very cautiously. Not surprised at all. (I know aviators on the line wear suit coats as part of their uniforms, not jackets; still, back in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, we would refer to this cautiousness as, "My clients are not gonna wear the jacket on this.")
EDIT: the above written and posted prior to seeing APA statement in post immediately preceding mine; no further comment, and this post's content not edited.
You bet they can and should refuse to offer any testimony. NTSB is playing hardball, and they are facing a min of a job action, and a maximum(depending on what they say) of potential criminal charges down the line. The US govt is no longer the kind older uncle. They are going for blood by issuing a subpoena for testimony. The only thing I would say under oath is 'I refuse to answer, and assert my constitutional rights', even if they aren't citizens.
This kind of stuff is BS, and needs to stop. It most certainly will not benefit safety. The pilots crossing without authorization are going to take a rip. Get it done, and move on. Not just the 5th Amendment at work here, but we also have something called the 'Pilot bill of rights' which offers significant legal protection. I am almost certain both pilots of the offending runway plane have counsel already. If I were their atty(solicitor) I would seek to quash(remove for cause) the subpoena due to missing any criminal intent. The pilots offered to give information, but not enough for the feds. Tell them to pound sand, it's not going to get better with age.
This kind of stuff is BS, and needs to stop. It most certainly will not benefit safety. The pilots crossing without authorization are going to take a rip. Get it done, and move on. Not just the 5th Amendment at work here, but we also have something called the 'Pilot bill of rights' which offers significant legal protection. I am almost certain both pilots of the offending runway plane have counsel already. If I were their atty(solicitor) I would seek to quash(remove for cause) the subpoena due to missing any criminal intent. The pilots offered to give information, but not enough for the feds. Tell them to pound sand, it's not going to get better with age.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Over 300 people nearly died, and they're refusing to give their account of the situation and their insights/thinking at the time? I believe that it's quite frankly an insult to what the industry has been working towards - the highest level of safety possible. Don't most of us believe Just Culture? And so what if the interviews are recorded electronically? Nothing from the final report can be taken as liability nor can it be used to appoint blame. The basic question in this investigation that must be answered is: 'why did a 737 at a high speed almost crash into a 777?'. For the sake of the industry, you must have an openness and willing to be transparent in explaining from your perspective what happened in a particular instance. If you don't, then the result can end up with blood.
CVR overwritten on both aircraft; the system appears not to have evolved since the Trident crash in 1972. Imho the constraints of the FDR should be applied as in a non erasable full time CVR record if only for learning lessons.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Over 300 people nearly died, and they're refusing to give their account of the situation and their insights/thinking at the time? I believe that it's quite frankly an insult to what the industry has been working towards - the highest level of safety possible. Don't most of us believe Just Culture? And so what if the interviews are recorded electronically? Nothing from the final report can be taken as liability nor can it be used to appoint blame. The basic question in this investigation that must be answered is: 'why did a 737 at a high speed almost crash into a 777?'. For the sake of the industry, you must have an openness and willing to be transparent in explaining from your perspective what happened in a particular instance. If you don't, then the result can end up with blood.
From the prelim report: "Flight crew statements were received." From the perspective of the FAA, they have completed their mandated reporting of an 'incident'. Let the feds make of it what they will with the info received. It really doesn't take a lot of energy to figure out what went wrong here.