Yet ANOTHER runway incursion incident - KJFK 17/4/2024

[violator]

https://youtu.be/KW6lAwLy_Os?si=G1i3rpAOy6H0Z0Oc

[BFSGrad]

Had to watch this video twice because it was such an OMG event. Same runway where the Delta/American runway incursion occurred. This runway does have runway entrance lights at all the crossing locations for the crossing aircraft in this incident. Very troubling that Swiss initiated the RTO rather than ATC.

Note, if you view the starting post for this thread and only see blank space, try a different browser. This problem has been flagged to website admin years ago and continues. When I view the initial post on this thread with DuckDuckGo browser that includes ad block, I see blank space. When viewed with Safari browser without ad block, I see the video thumbnail graphic.

[GALWC]

BFS, I'm the same. I use Safari on Apple computers, and for at least a year I only have blank spaces.

[bnt]

No problem with the video on Firefox with privacy addons, but here's the URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6lAwLy_Os You don't have to be a pilot or ATC to know this was egregious.

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

Anything Washington can do, New York can do better?

Edit: Noted that this JFK incident was actually the day before DCA. It seems a very alien concept from where I am that Ground controller issues runway crossings, and not the controller managing the runway movements.

[DogTailRed2]

Is it usual to cross traffic on a runway where aircraft are cleared to take off?

[DIBO]

Maybe the Mods can merge the KDCA and KJFK threads as it is more of the same

[waito]

Gosh, these JFK ATC guys need to learn proper English! Pronunciation is on level with Chinese Pilots, but half the syllables.

Yes, no one catched the error but the Swiss crew. Strange.

[ATC Watcher]

Trying again to move too many aircraft at the same time .and bypassing old basic rules. Should be one runway one frequency .But in this doing so will slow down traffic ,and probably done like this since years, normalization of deviance that bite you some day. On this audio clip , towards the end , hearing the same controller giving a " clear to land" with a aircraft having just rejected take off still on the runway is another question mark for a non US Controller.
They also were lucky it was good visibility and the Swiss could see the crossings .
Maybe the Mods can merge the KDCA and KJFK threads as it is more of the same
Well, not really , in DCA the controller realized the situation very early on and cancelled the take off clearance . Here in JFK it is the pilot that initiated the rejection , a very different situation

[DIBO]

Well, not really , in DCA the controller realized the situation very early on and cancelled the take off clearance . Here in JFK it is the pilot that initiated the rejection , a very different situation
Pending the final report, the root cause that needs to be investigated seems to be in both cases: one Rwy/two ATCO's/two Freqs.
Who acted upon these close calls, is more driven by circumstances, than the book of rules.

And the Swiss had the advantage of knowing their cheese better than anyone else ;)

[GlobalNav]

Is it usual to cross traffic on a runway where aircraft are cleared to take off?
Absolutely.

[DaveReidUK]

BFS, I'm the same. I use Safari on Apple computers, and for at least a year I only have blank spaces.

Is this any better?

KW6lAwLy_Os

[LOWI]

Well done to the Swiss colleagues who remained professional on frequency. I guarantee that a lot of swearing was said in the flight deck and rightly so!

You Americans are determined to get a runway collision aren't you?

Some serious investigation needs to be done ASAP before blood, bodies and aircraft parts are spread across a runway soon in the Land of the Free!

[bean]

Well done to the Swiss colleagues who remained professional on frequency. I guarantee that a lot of swearing was said in the flight deck and rightly so!

You Americans are determined to get a runway collision aren't you?

Some serious investigation needs to be done ASAP before blood, bodies and aircraft parts are spread across a runway soon in the Land of the Free!
It is only a matter of time

[bean]

Another one. Tower controller clears Frontier to cross then same controller clears Spirit
for take off and only belatedly tells Frontier to hold short
https://youtu.be/FKrzEmmPLgM

[GALWC]

Is this any better?

KW6lAwLy_Os


Just the open spaces, but thanks

[Capn Bloggs]

Madness.

Should be one runway one frequency .But in this doing so will slow down traffic
We did try this a few years ago and it was a dog's breakfast. People going backwards and forwards on Ground and Tower was deemed just as bad so we went back to this system.

What's with all the "Heavy"s? Initial contact only, isn't it?

[Bug]

Just the open spaces, but thanks

In past I have had same problem and found a quick work around of clicking Quote at bottom right of the post containing missing video link.
The quote will come up and show the link.
Possibly someone else has suggested this - if so my apologies.

[Chesty Morgan]

What's with all the "Heavy"s? Initial contact only, isn't it?
Massaging egos.

[GALWC]

In past I have had same problem and found a quick work around of clicking Quote at bottom right of the post containing missing video link.
The quote will come up and show the link.
Possibly someone else has suggested this - if so my apologies.

A measure of success on playing around - clicking on 'Thread Tools' top right above originators thread, then click on 'Show Printable Version' and the video is revealed. Quicker than searching You Tube, so many thanks.

[Doors to Automatic]

Two controllers issuing takeoff and runway crossing clearances respectively is surely a recipe for disaster. It is a question of when rather than if.

[mike current]

Two controllers issuing takeoff and runway crossing clearances respectively is surely a recipe for disaster. It is a question of when rather than if.
And the fact that the FAA doesn't understand it (or it does, but decides to ignore it) is mind blowing

[Propellerhead]

Madness.


We did try this a few years ago and it was a dog's breakfast. People going backwards and forwards on Ground and Tower was deemed just as bad so we went back to this system.

What's with all the "Heavy"s? Initial contact only, isn't it?

That’s Canada. USA technically always require Heavy. In practice “Center” don’t want it but everyone from Approach to Ramp, and Ramp to Departure insist on it every transmission.

[SR-22]

That’s Canada. USA technically always require Heavy. In practice “Center” don’t want it but everyone from Approach to Ramp, and Ramp to Departure insist on it every transmission.

That's how it's written in ICAO Doc 4444, the initial call.

[Trossie]

What's with all the "Heavy"s? Initial contact only, isn't it?

Massaging egos.

That’s Canada. USA technically always require Heavy. In practice “Center” don’t want it but everyone from Approach to Ramp, and Ramp to Departure insist on it every transmission.Ego?? Or do I spot 'envy'?!!


What is this clearing an aeroplane to land when the one that has just aborted a take-off is still on the runway?? Aborts (especially on a 'heavy'?) can lead to high brake temperatures, etc.

I was happy flying into/out of LHR where any aeroplane in the runway area was on Tower frequency and landing clearances were only given when the runway area was clear (and sometimes given very low -- I heard someone acknowledging his landing clearance once with the rad alt call of "one hundred" in the background!).

CDG have you on Tower frequency for runway crossing, but they insist on speaking another language to so many aeroplanes that situational awareness goes out of the window!! (The Bulgarian that crossed in front of a departing 'heavy' was a good example of this problem -- early March 2020?) And then CDG clear you to land when the one ahead has not even landed, let alone vacated the runway area... They must be at as high a risk of (another!) runway collision as these US airports!

Good red stop bars controlled by the Tower controller has to be the best solution?

[ploughman67]

Madness.


We did try this a few years ago and it was a dog's breakfast. People going backwards and forwards on Ground and Tower was deemed just as bad so we went back to this system.

What's with all the "Heavy"s? Initial contact only, isn't it?


FAR AIM 7.4.8 c

Not ‘massaging egos’

[BFSGrad]

Good red stop bars controlled by the Tower controller has to be the best solution?Every crossing taxiway in this incident (H, G, F, YA) has runway entrance lights; i.e., stop bars.

[jumpseater]

Every crossing taxiway in this incident (H, G, F, YA) has runway entrance lights; i.e., stop bars.
What are the procedures for using them though? Are they illuminated 24/7/365 regardless of prevailing weather?

[Chesty Morgan]

Ego?? Or do I spot 'envy'?!

What would you think I was envious of?!

[MichalJ]

Two controllers issuing takeoff and runway crossing clearances respectively is surely a recipe for disaster. It is a question of when rather than if.
Think of intersecting runways.

[BFSGrad]

What are the procedures for using them though? Are they illuminated 24/7/365 regardless of prevailing weather?
The docket of the January 2023 JFK runway incursion incident goes into detail about how the runway status light system at JFK operates. I think it is accurate to say that, since it is a safety system, it operates all the time. As an automated system, it does require aircraft and vehicle position data from a ground surveillance system; e.g., ASDE-X.

In this incident, it is possible that the runway entrance lights (REL) for runway 4L illuminated late in the incident sequence as the system is designed to illuminate only when the departing aircraft exceeds 30 knots or a landing aircraft is within 1 mile. AvHerald reports that the SWR RTO was about 40 knots. The four crossing aircraft obviously had a valid ATC clearance to cross and the REL guidance is for the pilot to use their best judgment if the RELs illuminate after crossing the hold bar. Also note that runway 4L at JFK does not have takeoff hold lights installed (installed only on 31L).

In the January 2023 incident, the NTSB performance study determined that the nose of the AAL 777 had just crossed the runway 4L hold bar at J as the RELs illuminated.

[Nimmer]

Ex ATC, Gatwick tower and Dubai tower. This is a shocking incident, well done Swiss. 4 aircraft cleared to cross the runway, whilst the Swiss was cleared for take off!!!!! OMG. Sorry JFK ATC this can’t be defended in anyway. As has already been said, any aircraft crossing a runway should be on the same frequency as those landing or departing from it.

I am sure there is some form of procedure between tower and ground, to prevent the above, well I would hope there is, but in this occasion that failed, and there was a breakdown in communication between the tower and ground controller.

[ATC Watcher]

Think of intersecting runways.
And this where the root of the problem as in the US which allows LAHSO and simultaneous use , all this to allow more aircraft to use the airport at a given time , add to this staff shortage leading to fatigue and you get these headlines. .

[clearedtocross]

Same as with Boeing. If its too expensive and/or slow to do something the safe way, then the management cuts some corners and keeps fingers crossed...

Plus: Its high time digital and AI concepts are proposed and introduced to replace dinosaurs bidirectional analog voice channels as the main ATC communication framework. Then data can be displayed, selected and filtered to whom it concerns (e.g using the same or crossing runways)

[anson harris]

Massaging egos.

LIDO Country Rules and Regulations>USA>Communication>Phraseology: "Pilots of Super or Heavy aircraft should always use the word "SUPER" or "HEAVY" in radio communications."

[Chesty Morgan]

LIDO Country Rules and Regulations>USA>Communication>Phraseology: "Pilots of Super or Heavy aircraft should always use the word "SUPER" or "HEAVY" in radio communications."
Doesn't explain why they do it in the rest of the world.

[Awaywiththefairies]

Ego?? Or do I spot 'envy'?!!


What is this clearing an aeroplane to land when the one that has just aborted a take-off is still on the runway?? Aborts (especially on a 'heavy'?) can lead to high brake temperatures, etc.

I was happy flying into/out of LHR where any aeroplane in the runway area was on Tower frequency and landing clearances were only given when the runway area was clear (and sometimes given very low -- I heard someone acknowledging his landing clearance once with the rad alt call of "one hundred" in the background!).

CDG have you on Tower frequency for runway crossing, but they insist on speaking another language to so many aeroplanes that situational awareness goes out of the window!! (The Bulgarian that crossed in front of a departing 'heavy' was a good example of this problem -- early March 2020?) And then CDG clear you to land when the one ahead has not even landed, let alone vacated the runway area... They must be at as high a risk of (another!) runway collision as these US airports!

Good red stop bars controlled by the Tower controller has to be the best solution?


agree. With so much French being spoken, it’s near impossible to work out what’s actually going on unless you have a good working knowledge of the language. Clearing you to land while number xyz on approach is crazy!

[the_stranger]

Doesn't explain why they do it in the rest of the world.
When I flew on the e190, it was nice to know whether the aircraft 4NM in front of us on the localizer was a heavy or not, for both wake and runway occupancy after landing.

But outside of the US I rarely hear "heavy" being used that much, except maybe one in a while when checking in on tower, but again, that might help others building a mental picture.
And if course the Americans use it a lot also outside of the US, but they are used to it.

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes, I'm sure they do it just to be useful to you.

[Mr Albert Ross]

When I flew on the e190, it was nice to know whether the aircraft 4NM in front of us on the localizer was a heavy or not, for both wake and runway occupancy after landing.

But outside of the US I rarely hear "heavy" being used that much, except maybe one in a while when checking in on tower, but again, that might help others building a mental picture.
And if course the Americans use it a lot also outside of the US, but they are used to it.
Agreed.

I would rather have that extra situational awareness than have any opinions on people's "egos"!

[PEI_3721]

The latest version of 'Runway Safety Programme – Global Runway Safety Action Plan' Feb 2024, lists the top contributing factors for runway incursion.

There is a specific section on US risk, page 40.
The FAA analysis uses a weighting based on proximities to fatalities and/or damage, allocating credit for saving lives and minimizing damage. Perhaps this is a contributing factor for the apparent inaction - the data indicates that 'we' are safe; … need to look out of the window, visit the local airport.

https://www.icao.int/safety/RunwaySafety/Documents/GRSAP_Final_Edition02_2024-02-19.pdf

[sudden twang]

Did I hear Swiss asking for an intersection departure to be told to expect it and then read it back as a line up instruction only to be told to hold short by ATC?
Food for thought.

[BFSGrad]

Did I hear Swiss asking for an intersection departure to be told to expect it and then read it back as a line up instruction only to be told to hold short by ATC?.While SWR did include the phrase “line up 4L,” in his read back in response to ATC telling him to plan for a K3 departure at 4L, not clear if he actually intended to enter 4L as he did not use “line up and wait.” Regardless, ATC correctly noted the potential for SWR entering 4L and issued amended instructions to hold short 4L at K3. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

[mike current]

Did I hear Swiss asking for an intersection departure to be told to expect it and then read it back as a line up instruction only to be told to hold short by ATC?
Food for thought.

Yes it was a wrong readback and ATC spotted it and corrected it. That's what readbacks are for.
They needed the intersection to avoid going back in a queue of 20 or so aircraft waiting for departure or they would have needed to refuel. You can understand that after being cleared for takeoff on a runway with 4 crossing aircraft they might have been slightly rattled... I wonder if wishing to depart straight away was the best idea, but on the other had you'd want to get out of the place that tried to kill you as fast as possible...

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes it was a wrong readback and ATC spotted it and corrected it. That's what readbacks are for.
Hang on, it wasn't just a "wrong readback". They would have lined up had ATC not picked it up. It was a complete misread of the instruction. Readbacks are a backup slice in the cheese, not the primary method of safe operation.

​​​​​​​I wonder if wishing to depart straight away was the best idea
Agree with that.

[Nimmer]

Yes indeed, I wonder how rattled the Swiss crew actually were.

[RickNRoll]

I like the way they make sure the planes entering the runway hurry up, otherwise how else can there be a collision.

[ATC Watcher]

I like the way they make sure the planes entering the runway hurry up, otherwise how else can there be a collision.
Pity we have no " like " button on R&N you would definitively deserve one .:ok:

[mike current]

Hang on, it wasn't just a "wrong readback". They would have lined up had ATC not picked it up. It was a complete misread of the instruction. Readbacks are a backup slice in the cheese, not the primary method of safe operation.



Readbacks ARE the primary method of safe delivery of an ATC instruction. And it's the controller's responsibility to obtain a correct one.

[sudden twang]

Thanks BFSgrad and MC for the lesson on readbacks although somewhat unnecessary and I know JFK well.
Does anyone know the a/c type and the engine type?

[Capn Bloggs]

Readbacks ARE the primary method of safe delivery of an ATC instruction. And it's the controller's responsibility to obtain a correct one.
Of course they are but you've missed the point. The primary method of staying safe is to do what you're told by ATC. Swiss wasn't going to do that. The error was "caught" by the backup procedure; the readback.

[mahogany bob]

What comes across loud and clear is that ATC (and flying in general )is a very stressful job !

with this number of aircraft operating in such a confined space incidents must occur more regularly than admitted.

With a simple lapse in concentration by an overworked tired controller ,or a misheard clearance by a stressed pilot operating possibly with poor comms in a strange language with local dialects ( possibly in poor visibility )incidents - accidents seem almost inevitable!

having aircraft on the same runway on different frequencies is crazy and surely should never happen?

new technology ,with fail safe procedures built in , must be the way forward.

would more training ( listening to ATC accents / local dialects procedures etc ) be useful BEFORE flying into a strange airport - so that pilots would be practised in what to expect?

[FullWings]

As a regular visitor to JFK, this is a pretty bad one, even by their standards. Having it set up so that two controllers can give conflicting instructions on the use of one runway seems like an accident waiting to happen to begin with. At a busy airport, different controllers for each runway can be necessary, if not ideal.

I have always wondered about the value of a landing clearance in the States. Why don’t ATC just give it to you as soon as you enter US airspace, as quite normally there could be an indeterminate number of arrivals, departures and runway crossings between getting the clearance and touching down?

[ATC Watcher]

I have always wondered about the value of a landing clearance in the States. Why don’t ATC just give it to you as soon as you enter US airspace, as quite normally there could be an indeterminate number of arrivals, departures and runway crossings between getting the clearance and touching down?
An active US controller could better explain this than me, but as far as I understood it , the first time I questioned this years ago , was that in the US, the FAA regulations authorizes controllers to give clearance to land if the expectation is that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft will actually touch down ( or runway crossings are vacated ) It is more like a " continue approach " instruction than a guarantee .the runway is clear at the time the instruction is given as most of us do do in ICAOland. But waiting to be corrected.

[Dave Gittins]

My simple mind says that after maybe 8 hours of being in your own safety protected bubble, in the crucial last couple of minutes, irrespective of visibility, you are thrust into a VFR see and avoid situation, where the controller stops being the one looking out for your safety.

[Lake1952]

An active US controller could better explain this than me, but as far as I understood it , the first time I questioned this years ago , was that in the US, the FAA regulations authorizes controllers to give clearance to land if the expectation is that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft will actually touch down ( or runway crossings are vacated ) It is more like a " continue approach " instruction than a guarantee .the runway is clear at the time the instruction is given as most of us do do in ICAOland. But waiting to be corrected.

It is indeed a curiosity that landing clearances are issued so far in advance in the US. But having flown in the US for over 40 years, the alternative is being on short final and not having received a landing clearance yet from a busy controller. It's not great having to ask for a clearance while over the approach lights!

As for whether the Swiss crew may have been rattled, this situation was recognized early on by the crew. It was not a high speed RTO. And the Swiss crew quickly negotiated jumping the queue by asking for an intersection departure in order to avoid refueling.

[ATC Watcher]

@Lake1952 : I agree , we are basically discussing this here because there is nothing more serious happening and that spotters are nowadays posting audios and FR24 screenshots on line to make the Buzz. I am inclined to believe those incidents are not a new phenomena, but that they make headlines is new.
As to your remark :not having received a landing clearance yet from a busy controller. It's not great having to ask for a clearance while over the approach lights!
Indeed ! but normally a TWR controller should not be put in that situation , the problem in JFK ( and in other US airports) is that they are massively understaffed and some controllers are doing more tasks that they should.

[BFSGrad]

An active US controller could better explain this than me, but as far as I understood it , the first time I questioned this years ago , was that in the US, the FAA regulations authorizes controllers to give clearance to land if the expectation is that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft will actually touch down ( or runway crossings are vacated ) It is more like a " continue approach " instruction than a guarantee .the runway is clear at the time the instruction is given as most of us do do in ICAOland. But waiting to be corrected.
The subject of ICAO vs U.S. landing clearances has been thrashed extensively in other threads; e.g., FDX-SWA at KAUS and bizjet-SWA at KSAN.

7110.65, 3-10-6a:
Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft crosses the landing threshold.

In this incident, the LC cleared DAL668 to land on 4L at 5 miles using anticipated separation, correctly noting that SWR was taxiing on 4L at the time the landing clearance was issued. But the obligation of the LC to ensure that the required separation is maintained for the landing aircraft doesn’t change one bit if the landing clearance is issued at 5 miles vs 3 miles. Similarly, the level of vigilance for the flight crew to ensure that the landing runway remains clear doesn’t change with a landing clearance at 5 miles vs continue approach at 5 miles and cleared to land at 3 miles.

If the FAA were to transition to the ICAO scheme for consistency or safety, I have no complaint. But until then…

[Equivocal]

When I started out in ATC, doing aerodrome control training, in the very early 80s, it was normal practice for the ground controller to coordinate runway crossings for aircraft and vehicles internally (that is to say by using an intercom between the two working positions...or shouting across the VCR). The aerodrome controller then put a 'blocking strip' across the runway 'slot' on his/her stripboard. If you're not an aged controller, this may not make much sense to you but in simple terms, a physical space in front of the controller represented the runway and a physical strip was put in that place while the runway was 'given away' to someone else. A simple system which worked if applied correctly.

In those days the only person who usually could have full situational awareness of ground movements was the ground movement controller because aircraft were on one frequency and vehicles typically were on another (usually UHF) and so pilots couldn't hear vehicles and vice-versa. There were systems where the vehicle frequency was rebroadcast on the ground frequency but this often caused congestion on the GMC frequency. Back in those old days I think I recall seeing misunderstandings and recognised that it all those different communication channels were what I would come to know as a hole in the slice of cheese. After some, no doubt, egregious incident in the 90s (although I can't recall which), the UK introduced rules saying that everything happening on the runway had to be on a single frequency so as to provide everyone with potential for as close to full situational awareness as possible. At the time, I think it was a recommended practice in the ICAO SARPs. There was the predictable outcry from just about everybody - controllers didn't like the workload of all those frequency changes and the risk of congestion on the tower frequency, pilots similarly but to a lesser degree, vehicle operators about the expense of a second radio installation and training for drivers who would now be sharing an ATC frequency. But the rule was introduced and is now just day-to-day business. Problems were few and I doubt that a suggestion to go back to the old way would be viewed favourably by many, if any. How many events like the one starting this thread have been prevented I have no idea - how many incidents have occurred because of this way of working is maybe easier to evaluate from occurrence reports, but I am doubtful that there are many resulting from this way of working. It seems to me to be an easy win in terms of safety.

Arguments about the US being 'different' or busier than X, or ATC being short-staffed, are difficult to accept as valid reasons not to work the way that much of the rest of the world does, especially when one sees an incident like this. A proper evaluation of risks and benefits (rather than my vague recollections) would likely quantify identifiable safety benefits. It almost seems like the US is creating the environment for a serious accident and now it is just a matter of waiting for it to happen.

[B888]

In the Jeppesen charts for KJFK, the REF index, Overview/Weather there is a Statement:-

“ CAUTION : Possible Radio Interference or False Instructions may occur on Tower Frequencies “

[Lake1952]

In the Jeppesen charts for KJFK, the REF index, Overview/Weather there is a Statement:-

“ CAUTION : Possible Radio Interference or False Instructions may occur on Tower Frequencies “

Actually, when the proliferation of mailorder handheld VHF aviation band transceivers started 25-30 years ago, one of my concerns was the possibility that some yahoo on the top floor of the parking deck could wreak havoc by barking out last minute go around orders to landing aircraft. To my knowledge, that hasn't been a issue.

[ATC Watcher]

Actually, when the proliferation of mailorder handheld VHF aviation band transceivers started 25-30 years ago, one of my concerns was the possibility that some yahoo on the top floor of the parking deck could wreak havoc by barking out last minute go around orders to landing aircraft. To my knowledge, that hasn't been a issue.f
No, it has not because the controller will either hear the false transmission and correct it, or they will hear the pilot read back and react immediately. , that it was it was short lived .
GNSS spoofing on RNP/RNAV approaches is what is far more worrying ...