AA 106 @ JFK (13 Jan 23)
 

Apparent near-miss at JFK last night crossing active runway in front of a departing Delta.

Based on FR24 replay, could have been this:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d2d49465f8.jpg

Looks like AAL106 crossed 4L at Juliet, about 4000' down the runway. Seems like a very close call.

I don't know JFK, but, don't they have red stop bar lights at all runways?

This FAA diagram shows REL at J crossing 4L.

KJFK RSL

This has surprisingly few comments. It could have easily been an award winning disaster.

Listening to the voices of the two pilots and two controllers was enlightening. It will be interesting to see the experience levels of some of the players if a report IS made public..

ATC audio:

NTSB investigation launched.

Comparison of (A) presumably intended ground track (as taken by many of the preceding 4L departures) and (B) actual ground track:

(A) follows ring taxiway Bravo; as Bravo starts to curve round to the northeast, takes the 3rd right exit and crosses the runway ahead

(B) follows ring taxiway Bravo; as Bravo starts to curve round to the northeast, takes the 4th right exit and crosses the runway ahead


A:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f4a618ca7f.jpg


B:
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c6511b9277.jpg

My thoughts

This was a threat waiting to be realized. Miss a right turn, take the next one, sounds pretty harmless in most situations, but with the layout at JFK could have ended in serious disaster. Something needs to be done about the taxiway configuration at that area of the airport and/or standard taxi routings. I suspect something will be done to the latter.

What was the status of the automated runway warning status lights? It seems likely that the departing aircraft was far enough along that they didn't see it. What about the aircraft that crossed?

I didn't really like the way the ATC informed the crew to stop. I know that ATC are trained not to be alarmed, but being a bit firmer and using words like 'stop', 'abort', 'reject' would be more appropriate in my opinion, and would do a better job of communicating the urgent need to the the crew of the need to reject.

Who says Friday 13th is unlucky?

Mog

So the Delta went back to the gate. Passengers and crew deplaned and were put up in hotels overnight.

The American 106 continued to London.

Interesting decision to continue. Knowing you have made a serious error that caused another aircraft to reject its takeoff and was not just a runway incursion but a near collision must have had quite an effect on the crew. It would have been hard to put that behind them and concentrate on doing a good job of getting the aeroplane to London without going over and over things in their minds. Quite a distraction knowing you are going to be the subject of an investigation and it would not have been a happy 6 hour flight.

They had a telephone conversation with tower after the event but I wonder if they had a conversation with AA too or if they just decided to continue the flight?

The American was told to cross runway 31L but instead crossed runway 04L.

Ground radar?

given a <$200 consumer phone can do over-the-ground gps routing at driving speeds there is no excuse for the same technology not to be fitted to all passenger aircraft

It was hot but well handled by ATC, regarding the Phraseology " cancel take off plans" repeated 3 times sounds like a (new?) FAA procedure and yes, is not ICAO phraseology, but so many things are not ICAO in US phraseology , but it worked well.
If the red bars were on (they should have been ) then the AA dif not only violate its clearance but also crossed red bars.. ( if they were on ) .The investigation report will be interesting to read .

Wouldn’t the AA106 crew normally have been suspended pending investigation following an apparent error of this magnitude?

There may be red stop bars, but my experience at JFK over the last 13 years is that they are not lit. However they also have flashing amber lights all the way across the rwy entrances/crossing points which are hard to miss.

They may be hard to miss but they don't stop you. If JFK is not using lights correctly then it is a big issue (Milan) and shows how useful the "follow the greens" are at Heathrow.

Yes, but the AA crew thought they were cleared to cross the runway, so they would be expecting the flashing lights. The AA crew got disorientated with where they were on the field.

As for why they continued on to London, I wonder what was said during the dressing down phone call to tower? Was it clearly communicated that it was a serious near collision, or just a failure to follow taxi instructions? There is no way for pilot flying to be switched out I wonder (In order to continue the flight to London)? Even switched with possible cruise or training pilot on board already?

SPECULATION: It seems the female crewmember was running radio calls while male was taxiing. Then after the "please call the towner" ATC command, the male crew member comes on, kind of wound up, reading back what he thought they were cleared for (his tone is kind of implying an ATC read out error). I wonder who was sitting in the right seat and possibly saw the aircraft taking off right at them as they crossed the runway?

"Cancel Takeoff Clearance" is verbatim phraseology from 7110.65.

The UK has:

"Hold position, cancel take-off, I say again, cancel take-off, acknowledge"

...but also, if it is necessary that the aircraft should abandon take-off, the option of:

"DAL1943, stop immediately I say again, DAL1943, stop immediately, acknowledge"

The difference being: 'Cancel' a clearance, or 'Stop' a movement.

Yeah I'm not saying what he said was wrong. I'm saying that whatever he said doesn't seem to imply the kind of urgency that is required in those kinds of situations. I must admit, once the takeoff roll has started I've seen/experienced two things: one, engine noise increases so whatever volume setting existed during taxi may now be too low. Secondly, let's be honest we aren't as focused on ATC during take off as our attention may be focuses else where.

There needs to be some sort of change that ensures an urgent need to reject from ATC cannot in anyway be missed by pilots, and simply saying 'cancel take-off clearance' doesn't seem to imply that you'de better start stopping now or your going to kill hundreds of people, including yourself.

Firstly, there needs to be international standardization and the phrase used must not in anyway contain words in a format that could be interpreted in any other way (by any crew from any background, level of experience or nationality) other than what is intended.

Secpndly, ATC needed to repeat the phrase twice. So did Delta reject because of ATCs call or because they saw the American ahead of them? Obviously this is just conjecture/speculation but If it was the latter then there has been a COMPELTE FAILURE in one of the key layers of safety in the system.

Based on every video I’ve watched of the incident, JFK tower does repeat “cancel takeoff clearance.”

The video linked at post #8 is the first I’ve watched that included ATC instructions to AA106 to “hold position.”

Note that all of this audio is subject to the limitations of the Live ATC source and the many assumptions of the video creators.

ICAO Phraseology Reference guide :
That is what the rest of the world pilots and controllers learn, . Not saying ATC phraseology used in the US (or in the UK is wrong) , it will work , as shown here however the 2 parties were US trained ,
But there is a major difference between "hold position cancel take off " , and "Stop immediately" depending if the aircrfat has started his take off roll or not. .

Cross runway 31L at Kilo

Takeoff runway should have been briefed as 4L, as should the usual route to it that is to turn down Kilo.
How did AA106 crew think they were going to get to 4L by crossing it (not even at Kilo) and continuing on Juliet towards 4R.
This seems to have been far more than spatial disorientation.
Next issue for the investigators: is the CVR of this taxiing time going to be available to them? (which should be the reason why their take-off should also have been cancelled).

Will the AA106 CVR during the incident be preserved after a trans Atlantic flight?

The chances of that are zero.

Don't know about ATC. AA pilots, flying LH likely 10K+ for everyone on the FD (probably 3). DL pilots harder to guess but likely 10K+ for both too, although they have had some younger people get hired, and junior people upgrade on NB.

From friends at both American and Delta Airlines. The American crew was replaced and a reserve crew flew the flight.

Delta’s policy concerning rejected takeoffs,
“After an aborted takeoff the crew is required to call a duty pilot. I believe from there a joint decision is made on whether to return to gate or continue the flight.”

They obviously decided to return to the gate.

The FR24 track shows the American aircraft does not return to the gate - it stops for about 10 minutes, taxis back around to 31L, and is airborne 34 minutes after the incident occurred.

The Delta crew returned to the gate but just to clarify the AA crew continued to London, no indication they returned


A reserve crew operated the return from there ?

Stilton,
here’s a direct quote from another aviation website,

“From person I know at AA on 777

The operating crew was pulled off and did DH.
Another crew operated the AA flight.”

To be fair, other posters are saying the incident crew did fly to London, but were deadheaded back by the company.

As the AA plane departed the gate at JFK 4 minutes early and arrived at LHR 13 minutes early there is clearly no way it could have gone back onto the gate and changed crews.



https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4bcba893c.jpeg

Following timeline pulled from ADS-B data:

01:44:29Z DL1943 start TO roll
01:44:30Z AA106 at J-K-B intersection
01:44:39Z DL1943 40 kts
01:44:43Z AA106 entering 4L at J
01:44:47Z DL1943 79 kts
01:44:54Z AA106 at middle of 4L (interpolated between data points assuming steady taxi speed)
01:44:55Z DL1943 104 kts, max speed, at K3/K4, approx 2000 ft from J
01:44:58Z DL1943 85 kts
01:45:00Z DL1943 62 kts
01:45:05Z AA106 clear of 4L on J
01:45:05Z DL1943 33 kts at 31L/4L intersection

Curious to know if the DL crew rejected takeoff based on observed conflict or ATC direction. Or perhaps both events were simultaneous. Even at night, seems a 777 broadside at 2000 ft would be hard to miss as a takeoff hazard. I suspect there was the expected human brain delay as the DL crew convinced themselves that they were seeing the unexpected. Also curious how AA crew verified runway was clear to cross. At that point, landing lights from DL1943 should have been clearly visible (4500 ft away) as takeoff roll was in progress.

I wonder if you really want a crew that has just messed up in the way they had to be flying? They might have a bit too much on their minds thinking about what just happened, a bit distracted.

I think prefacing the call with a reference to body excretion probably alerted the crew to the importance of the message.

They didn't do a crew change at all. They did a figure 8 around Z,H,Y & J and promptly departed from 31L. Guess that's one way to hide the evidence - piss off on a transatlantic flight to overwrite the CVR?

Doesn't the CFR's have something about preserving evidence in the event of an incident? I can't imagine they'll be able to explain that decision away...

EDIT: Yep - they do. Granted I'm not particularly fluent with 'Muricanese, but the following seems pretty clear-cut.
Note - "Incident" includes a runway incursion where an aircraft or vehicle had to take corrective action to avoid a collision...https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b449b90724.jpg

Not quite. Once on the move again after the incident, they stopped for a second time, for just over 6 minutes on Yankee, before proceeding left onto Juliet for 31L.

Given modern CVRs having a generally enabled push to erase that is part of SOP after parking, is there a "preserve" button? I'm unaware. Seems like it would be a lose your certificate problem if you did not preserve the relevant CVR after an incident like this even if that required heading back to the gate. From the crew response it's clear there was something interesting going on in the AA cockpit.

It continues to amaze me that in the US at a point like this when the AA crew appear to have reduced situational awareness, that ATC load them up with the “possible pilot deviation + phone number” business. It’s AA at JFK, it’s not like they can pretend it didn’t happen. No harm in dealing with that stuff in the background eg on return to the gate or, if the flight departs, to send it via the company. Loading people up with extra tasks when they have had (or may have had) and incident isn’t helpful. Of course, neither is clearing a flight to land when there are multiple departures and arrivals ahead, but that’s also ops normal there.