JFK again ... KLM this time

[Admiral346]

With this report showing at the AVH, I have to again criticise the operational pressure pilots are put under when flying to JFK as opposed to the operational necessities that are required (like the RWY most into the wind). I have to add, that JFK is not the only one, I have had some realy bad experiences at ZRH. Other airports try, but will easily be overcome by pilots request for safer course of action.

And I do think that 29 gusting 41 is a substantial wind.



Incident: KLM B744 at New York on Dec 27th 2011, engine pod strike

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Dec 30th 2011 16:16Z, last updated Friday, Dec 30th 2011 16:16ZA KLM Boeing 747-400, registration PH-BFT performing flight KL-643 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to New York JFK,NY (USA), landed on JFK's runway 22L (winds reported by tower at 170 degrees at 28 knots gusting 38 knots, RVR 6000 feet) at 8:05pm local (01:05Z Dec 28th) and taxied to the gate without apparent incident.

A post flight inspection however revealed evidence of an engine pod strike.

The aircraft was able to leave New York for the return flight KL-644 the following day with a delay of 18 hours and reached Amsterdam with a delay of 16.5 hours.

FlightAware > KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL) #643 > 27-Dec-2011 > EHAM-KJFK Flight Tracker (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM643/history/20111227/1645Z/EHAM/KJFK)

Metars:
KJFK 280214Z 21030G37KT 2 1/2SM -RA BR FEW008 BKN012 OVC019 13/12 A2938 RMK AO2PK WND 20038/0153 TWR VIS 3 RAB13 P0000
KJFK 280151Z 20031G42KT 3SM SCT008 BKN014 OVC019 14/12 A2936 RMK AO2 PK WND 19046/0137 SFC VIS 7 RAE46 SLP941 SCT V BKN P0007 T01390122
KJFK 280141Z 19033G46KT 3SM -RA BR SCT008 BKN014 OVC021 14/12 A2936 RMK AO2 PK WND 19046/0137 SFC VIS 6 CIG 008 W SCT V BKN P0007
KJFK 280051Z 16029G41KT 3SM R04R/6000VP6000FT -RA BR OVC006 13/12 A2936 RMK AO2 PK WND 17044/0040 SLP942 P0007 T01330117
KJFK 272351Z 16026G37KT 3SM -RA BR OVC008 13/11 A2943 RMK AO2 PK WND 16037/2346 SFC VIS 5 PRESFR SLP966 P0021 60047 T01280111 10128 20094 58084
KJFK 272251Z 15018G26KT 3SM +RA BR BKN009 OVC017 12/11 A2954 RMK AO2 PK WND 15031/2228 SFC VIS 4 SLP003 P0015 T01170106
KJFK 272151Z 13020G32KT 6SM -RA BR BKN009 BKN013 OVC029 11/09 A2958 RMK AO2 PK WND 11032/2147 PRESFR SLP017 P0005 T01110094
KJFK 272143Z 13023G31KT 7SM -RA BKN009 BKN018 OVC029 11/09 A2960 RMK AO2 PK WND13031/2143 P0004
KJFK 272120Z 13020G27KT 6SM -RA BR SCT009 BKN018 OVC039 11/09 A2963 RMK AO2 PK WND 14028/2103 PRESFR P0003

[galaxy flyer]

First, 0805 NY time is 1305Z. Second, if the winds were 170 degrees, the 22 runways are about as close as possible given the choices at KJFK.

GF

[hvogt]

First, 0805 NY time is 1305Z.You've missed the "pm".

[galaxy flyer]

Oops! Yes, I did.

GF

[aviatorhi]

Landing on 13R would have been the prudent choice. A bit more room length wise and about 10 degrees less of crosswind component. I wouldn't call 29 knots a "substantial wind", the gust factor, though, is rather large (almost half of the steady state wind), which, alone, would make me want the extra mile or so of runway on 13R, if that wasn't possible then the extra half mile on 22R would have been nicer than the relatively short runway in the heavy jet with a hefty gust factor.

[By George]

Was it that VOR/DME arrival again? No big deal but it's also a short R/W for a 744 when its wet. It helps to stabilize the old tart if you break out on an ILS, especially if you are tired, let alone having to fight a wind gusting to 38 knots. I guess he came from EHAM, eight hours away.

[misd-agin]

1. No ILS to 13R
2. JFK uses ILS 13L as a last resort
3. Wind was forecast to shift to approx. 190 heading.
4. It's a tough, tough, call to start switching airport traffic flow, to include LGA, EWR and JFK, to improve the runway/wind alignment for 10 degrees.

40 degrees off with those winds = 18 kt crosswind gusting to 26
50? 21 gusting to 31 kts.

Buddies said it was really rough when they flew in that night.

[aviatorhi]

1) Weather didn't require an ILS.

2) I gave the 'intermediate' option of landing on 22R instead of 22L, "spare" runway is always nice when trying to wrestle a plane down, particularly (I would imagine) a heavy.

[bubbers44]

Sounds like the wind was within the crosswind component to me.

[bubbers44]

As stated changing runways requires a lot of coordination with all the other local airports so they did the right thing. It might have been a tiny landing problem with a pilot who was having problems with cross wind landings. Send him back to school.

[aviatorhi]

bubbers,

I agree with everything you said. Back to school for him for sure. Though what I'm trying to say is that it also seems like decision making/runway selection needs some looking at/reteaching. If they're using 22L they're gonna be using 22R as well, as far as I remember anyway.

[Doors to Automatic]

Small point but landing on 22R wouldn't give any more runway length as the threshold is displaced at that end. 13L would almost certainly involve challenging VOR/DME Canarsie approach (due to sequencing with EWR/LGA) with strong crosswind from inside the curve.

Looks like no option was ideal that night - just as well they weren't in an MD11 :ok:

[haejangkuk]

Thank you for being so kind and sympathetic to this KLM flight crew.:D