Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rather be flying:
thanks for being better at the math than I. I am wondering at what kind of buffeting the US Airways 737 experienced accelerating through the runway intersection a second or two after the departing A330?
spitoon:
two interesecting runways, controlled by two different controllers, and apparently using two different frequencies. plus each of the departing runways was blocked from view of the other by the terminals and an unusual number of planes parked on taxiways because of the weather.
redout:
I dont have numbers for flight movements for all five airports in the LTMA. I was able to get a value for the total number of annual flight movements for five airports in the New York Metropolitan area: Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Westchester County, and Teterboro (lots of general aviation aircraft in the latter two). The total is about 1.5 million flight movements annually. A little further distant as the crow flies, and omitted, are Stewart (Newburgh) and Islip airports.
thanks for being better at the math than I. I am wondering at what kind of buffeting the US Airways 737 experienced accelerating through the runway intersection a second or two after the departing A330?
spitoon:
two interesecting runways, controlled by two different controllers, and apparently using two different frequencies. plus each of the departing runways was blocked from view of the other by the terminals and an unusual number of planes parked on taxiways because of the weather.
redout:
I dont have numbers for flight movements for all five airports in the LTMA. I was able to get a value for the total number of annual flight movements for five airports in the New York Metropolitan area: Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Westchester County, and Teterboro (lots of general aviation aircraft in the latter two). The total is about 1.5 million flight movements annually. A little further distant as the crow flies, and omitted, are Stewart (Newburgh) and Islip airports.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near 50 West
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going into Newark one night, wind 290/20 landing r/w 29 and 22L accepted 22L as landing weight around 260,000kg. B727 making approach to r/w 29 on a 2 mile final we are at 2.5 miles. Our g/s 150kts his about 120kts. At 800ft atc now aware that the two A/C are going to meet somewhere around the threshold of 22L. ATC instruction to us was to do 'S Turns' Since my standard of flying is not as great as others who post here we elected to do a go around. Safe and professional. You are right you do need to put your A team hat on when flying in the USA mainly because ATC has only a B team hat in the top drawer.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Staines
Age: 42
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo, speaking as a non-pilot, a G/A sounds like a good call. However, I am pretty sure one of the american users is now going to say "If you don't like it, stay away. Bid for non-USA trips"...
Saturn V, I expect there would be a considerable buffet, but I suspect the USAir crew was not in the frame of mind to notice.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo, I've had the same solution offered to me on short finals - 'S' turns in a 747!!! What utter bolloxology!
Rather be flying - you hit the nail on the head. If it was a West Coast 'Cooler Commander' he probably enjoyed the experience.
Glad to see the sane europeans finally arriving on this otherwise Gung-Ho-Yank dominated thread.
Rather be flying - you hit the nail on the head. If it was a West Coast 'Cooler Commander' he probably enjoyed the experience.
Glad to see the sane europeans finally arriving on this otherwise Gung-Ho-Yank dominated thread.
Haven't been to BOS for several years, thank goodness, but it is a crappy airport runway layout. One (highly experienced) 757 crew was so busy with taxi clearances, turns and holding short, that they almost took off with no flaps 
. I read the condensed safety report.
Inferior airport operations (resulting from ATC management pressure) often request that pilots fly "S-turns" on final approach. One such airport with a very high frequency of go-arounds, is MSP (Minn.-St. Paul, MN). My last go-around there was about three months ago, but the individual controllers do an excellent job, considering the "supervisory pressure", possibly also political pressure.
Along with the unsafe Boston runway layout are, in my opinion, the others in my "Worst US Airport Category": Chicago's Midway, Houston Hobby and Cleveland.
These airports are NOT next to mountains, such as at Eagle (EGE), Colorado-at these others, the terrain is flat.
One of the worst approaches is the LAX Civet Arrival, where Approach Control might give you three runway changes as you are extremely busy mashing on buttons and trying to slow down in order to configure and also not miss a partially-blocked call to switch to Tower freq.
. I read the condensed safety report.Inferior airport operations (resulting from ATC management pressure) often request that pilots fly "S-turns" on final approach. One such airport with a very high frequency of go-arounds, is MSP (Minn.-St. Paul, MN). My last go-around there was about three months ago, but the individual controllers do an excellent job, considering the "supervisory pressure", possibly also political pressure.
Along with the unsafe Boston runway layout are, in my opinion, the others in my "Worst US Airport Category": Chicago's Midway, Houston Hobby and Cleveland.
These airports are NOT next to mountains, such as at Eagle (EGE), Colorado-at these others, the terrain is flat.One of the worst approaches is the LAX Civet Arrival, where Approach Control might give you three runway changes as you are extremely busy mashing on buttons and trying to slow down in order to configure and also not miss a partially-blocked call to switch to Tower freq.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 28th Jun 2005 at 04:25.
Just for grins, the following is a list of busy airports, since some people on this thread seem to think that's what's important here. Still, having two planes that apparantly can't see each other when they initiate their takeoff roll, using different frequencies, seems more relevant. It doesn't matter if they were the only two planes that took off all day.
http://geography.about.com/library/misc/blairports.htm
World's Busiest Airports
Dateline: 05/24/99 (Revised 06/22/00)
This is a list of the twenty busiest airports for passenger traffic, based on 1999 data from the Airport Council International. Links lead to the airport's official site, when available.
Since 1998, Atlanta has been the world's busiest passenger airport. New to the top 20 this year is #12, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. London's Gatwick Airport dropped off the list of 20 to #21.
Visit the ACI site for the ranking of almost 600 airports.
No. Airport Name Code Location Arrivals, Departures, & Transfers
1 Hartsfield International Airport ATL Atlanta, Georgia 77,939,536
2 Chicago-O'Hare International Airport ORD Chicago, Illinois 72,568,076
3 Los Angeles International Airport LAX Los Angeles, California 63,876,561
4 Heathrow Airport LHR London, United Kingdom 62,263,710
5 DFW International Airport DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas 60,000,125
6 Haneda Airport HND Tokyo, Japan 54,338,212
7 Frankfurt Airport FRA Frankfurt, Germany 45,858,315
8 Roissy-Charles de Gaulle CDG Paris, France 43,596,943
9 San Francisco International Airport SFO San Francisco, California 40,387,422
10 Denver International Airport DIA Denver, Colorado 38,034,231
11 Amsterdam Schiphol Airport AMS Amsterdam, Netherlands 36,781,015
12 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 34,216,331
13 Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW Detroit, Michigan 34,038,381
14 Miami International Airport MIA Miami, Florida 33,899,246
15 Newark International Airport EWR Newark, New Jersey 33,814,000
16 McCarran International Airport LAS Las Vegas, Nevada 33,669,185
17 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PHX Phoenix, Arizona 33,533,353
18 Kimpo International Airport SEL Seoul, Korea 33,371,074
19 George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH Houston, Texas 33,089,333
20 John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK New York, New York 32,003,000
http://geography.about.com/library/misc/blairports.htm
World's Busiest Airports
Dateline: 05/24/99 (Revised 06/22/00)
This is a list of the twenty busiest airports for passenger traffic, based on 1999 data from the Airport Council International. Links lead to the airport's official site, when available.
Since 1998, Atlanta has been the world's busiest passenger airport. New to the top 20 this year is #12, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. London's Gatwick Airport dropped off the list of 20 to #21.
Visit the ACI site for the ranking of almost 600 airports.
No. Airport Name Code Location Arrivals, Departures, & Transfers
1 Hartsfield International Airport ATL Atlanta, Georgia 77,939,536
2 Chicago-O'Hare International Airport ORD Chicago, Illinois 72,568,076
3 Los Angeles International Airport LAX Los Angeles, California 63,876,561
4 Heathrow Airport LHR London, United Kingdom 62,263,710
5 DFW International Airport DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas 60,000,125
6 Haneda Airport HND Tokyo, Japan 54,338,212
7 Frankfurt Airport FRA Frankfurt, Germany 45,858,315
8 Roissy-Charles de Gaulle CDG Paris, France 43,596,943
9 San Francisco International Airport SFO San Francisco, California 40,387,422
10 Denver International Airport DIA Denver, Colorado 38,034,231
11 Amsterdam Schiphol Airport AMS Amsterdam, Netherlands 36,781,015
12 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 34,216,331
13 Detroit Metropolitan Airport DTW Detroit, Michigan 34,038,381
14 Miami International Airport MIA Miami, Florida 33,899,246
15 Newark International Airport EWR Newark, New Jersey 33,814,000
16 McCarran International Airport LAS Las Vegas, Nevada 33,669,185
17 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PHX Phoenix, Arizona 33,533,353
18 Kimpo International Airport SEL Seoul, Korea 33,371,074
19 George Bush Intercontinental Airport IAH Houston, Texas 33,089,333
20 John F. Kennedy International Airport JFK New York, New York 32,003,000
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2004 the number of Air Transport flights from the big 5 in London totalled just short of 1 million but if GA was added as well from all the local fields ie Elstree, Biggin,Denham, Fairoaks, Redhill, Northolt
Stapleford, Southend to name a few I cannot even hazard a guess and all those helicopter tracks which criss cross around the Heathrow 27 approach
Heathrow 467759 2 runways
Gtawick 190287 1 runway
Stansted 163947 1 runway
Luton 58487 1 runway
London City 52995 1 runway
95% of all that traffic is crammed in to 18 hours a day
G-I-B
Stapleford, Southend to name a few I cannot even hazard a guess and all those helicopter tracks which criss cross around the Heathrow 27 approach
Heathrow 467759 2 runways
Gtawick 190287 1 runway
Stansted 163947 1 runway
Luton 58487 1 runway
London City 52995 1 runway
95% of all that traffic is crammed in to 18 hours a day
G-I-B
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: around
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, what intelligent chit chatter! we've been trying to work out a formula for years to work out an allowance for atc's (pay for business) alas no solution. you guys need to remember there are many variables which account for business. one not yet mentioned here is planes per controller! other things to count (before airport passenger numbers) are complexity of airspace, terrain, altitude(perfomance), equipment, weather (lhr gotta win that one) aircraft types (we have anything from C172 to B747). next point, stop throwing the DHL thing in. people died for that (atc included) and you're playing with people's emotions here! west coast - i hope you never come into "my" airspace! you give all americans a bad name! (living up to the stereotype) chow
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East Midlands
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember some years back I was in the jump seat on a jumbo operating into and out of Boston. There was an obviously Irish American on the tower frequency. When he told an aircraft 'clear to cross a runway' (which he did many times while we were on his frequency) I had to give it a double-take - it really did sound like he was saying 'clear to crash'. Spooky eh!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below is from the NTSB preliminary incident report. From the report and the distances cited in the newspaper article, it would appear the US Airways B-737 reached the intersection a second or so after the A-330 had rotated overhead.
On June 9, 2005, about 1940 eastern daylight time, an Airbus A330-301, EI-ORD, operated by Aer Lingus as flight 132 (EIN 132), and a Boeing 737-3B7, N394US, operated by US Airways as flight 1170 (USA 1170) were involved in a runway incursion at General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston, Massachusetts. There were no injures to the 12 crew members, and 260 passengers on the Airbus, or the 6 crew members, and 103 passengers on the Boeing. Neither airplane was damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for both flights. Aer Lingus flight 132 was conducted under the provisions of CFR Part 129, and was destined for Shannon, Ireland. US Airways flight 1170 was conducted under the provisions of CFR Part 121, and was destined for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both airplanes were under control of the BOS Air Traffic Control Tower. The Local Control West (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN 132 and the Local Control East (LCE) controller was responsible for USA 1170. At 1939:10, the LCW cleared EIN 132 for takeoff from runway 15R, a 10,083-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Five seconds later, the LCE cleared USA 1170 for departure from runway 9, a 7,000-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway.
The co-pilot of US Airways flight 1170 reported that he had called "V1," and then noticed the Aer Lingus A330 rotating just prior to the intersection of runways 15R and 9. He told the captain to "keep it down," and pushed the control column forward. He further stated:
"The Airbus passed overhead our aircraft with very little separation, and once clear of the intersection, the captain rotated, and we lifted off towards the end of the runway. I reported to departure control that we had a near miss at which time Aer Lingus reported 'we concur.'"
Both airplanes were equipped with flight data recorders, which were removed and forwarded to the Safety Board's Vehicle Recorders Division, Washington, DC.
According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), both airplanes were under control of the BOS Air Traffic Control Tower. The Local Control West (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN 132 and the Local Control East (LCE) controller was responsible for USA 1170. At 1939:10, the LCW cleared EIN 132 for takeoff from runway 15R, a 10,083-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway. Five seconds later, the LCE cleared USA 1170 for departure from runway 9, a 7,000-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, asphalt runway.
The co-pilot of US Airways flight 1170 reported that he had called "V1," and then noticed the Aer Lingus A330 rotating just prior to the intersection of runways 15R and 9. He told the captain to "keep it down," and pushed the control column forward. He further stated:
"The Airbus passed overhead our aircraft with very little separation, and once clear of the intersection, the captain rotated, and we lifted off towards the end of the runway. I reported to departure control that we had a near miss at which time Aer Lingus reported 'we concur.'"
Both airplanes were equipped with flight data recorders, which were removed and forwarded to the Safety Board's Vehicle Recorders Division, Washington, DC.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK/US ATC debate could go on forever. Lets face it there are occasional errors everywhere. I have had my share of G/As from both LHR and JFK, usually traffic slow to clear runway, to be fair.
My general perception is that there is a difference in culture. The UK is polite, precise, and seemingly unstressed, the US is informal, production oriented, and can sound stressed under pressure.
There are exceptions to both stereotypes. ( The most laid-back controller I ever came across was an ex-Marine in SJU.) Every time you entered his space there was a little "welcome back XYZ";when you left it "y'all take care now". In between he got the job done with a minimum of fuss and a sardonic sense of humour.
The biggest beef I have with the US ATC system is the use of "non-ICAO" R/T phraseology.
Standard phreaseology was developed so that those whose first language was not english would be able to clearly understand the intent behind various phrases. The same would apply to english speakers in a foreign environment. It is confusing and potentially dangerous to have to learn a number of colloquialisms to suit each country you fly through.
I have found that a number of airports seem to have a policy of "keep em high".
FRA, YYZ, MIA, ZUR all come to mind.
My problem with that is that I am acutely aware that there are many "nervous Nellies" amongst those in the back who pay my salary, and I strive to fly my airplane as smoothly and predictably as possible. A max drag/max rate descent is not what I would want to impose on those important customers in the normal course of events.
I know that I can do it and the aircraft can do it, as can it stop in remarkably short distances, but I do not accept that my reluctance to expose my pax to the edges of the performance envelope in any way indicates that I am a "B team" aviator.
No doubt 411A will disagree with me.
My general perception is that there is a difference in culture. The UK is polite, precise, and seemingly unstressed, the US is informal, production oriented, and can sound stressed under pressure.
There are exceptions to both stereotypes. ( The most laid-back controller I ever came across was an ex-Marine in SJU.) Every time you entered his space there was a little "welcome back XYZ";when you left it "y'all take care now". In between he got the job done with a minimum of fuss and a sardonic sense of humour.
The biggest beef I have with the US ATC system is the use of "non-ICAO" R/T phraseology.
Standard phreaseology was developed so that those whose first language was not english would be able to clearly understand the intent behind various phrases. The same would apply to english speakers in a foreign environment. It is confusing and potentially dangerous to have to learn a number of colloquialisms to suit each country you fly through.
I have found that a number of airports seem to have a policy of "keep em high".
FRA, YYZ, MIA, ZUR all come to mind.
My problem with that is that I am acutely aware that there are many "nervous Nellies" amongst those in the back who pay my salary, and I strive to fly my airplane as smoothly and predictably as possible. A max drag/max rate descent is not what I would want to impose on those important customers in the normal course of events.
I know that I can do it and the aircraft can do it, as can it stop in remarkably short distances, but I do not accept that my reluctance to expose my pax to the edges of the performance envelope in any way indicates that I am a "B team" aviator.
No doubt 411A will disagree with me.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was an obviously Irish American on the tower frequency. When he told an aircraft 'clear to cross a runway' (which he did many times while we were on his frequency) I had to give it a double-take - it really did sound like he was saying 'clear to crash'. Spooky eh!
Eh?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we've been trying to work out a formula for years to work out an allowance for atc's (pay for business) alas no solution. you guys need to remember there are many variables which account for business.
The UK national ATS provider also based its last pay increases on it, although there is some disquiet that the negotiators only used certain elements which favoured the larger units and did not take account of all the factors which the US model uses.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Local Control West (LCW) controller was responsible for EIN 132 and the Local Control East (LCE) controller was responsible for USA 1170.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Duncan BC Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers have a tough job with lots of pressure. I don't blame them when they get frustrated with people who pour sand in the gears and disrupt the flow. Can they do better? Of course. Can we do better? Of course. Incompitent people be they controllers or pilots have no place in our industry.
Idunno:
I have only just found this thread having just got back from my latest travels. You obviously have a great difficulty about flying in the USA and I tend to agree with many of the posters that you should probably stay at home.
411A made the statement that things "are different here" and that is absolutely true. What you have to get your head round is accepting that other countries have different ways of doing things and then find out how to use their system to your best advantage.
When I first started going to the USA there were no such things as SIDs and STARS. On taxi-out at JFK, LAX or ORD the ENTIRE clearance for the ENTIRE route was read out in EVERY DETAIL and, by God, you had to read it back to perfection or you went nowhere!
Nowadays it is quite simple.
What really bothered me was your quote:
"The Carnasie Approach at JFK is criminal - widebody heavies doing finals turns at 200'"
You are obviously a "push button" pilot. I always absolutely loved the Carnasie VOR approach for it gave me a chance to exercise my hand-flying skills and it was always enormous fun.
The most dangerous part of the Carnasie approach is actually the increased fuel burn involved (as opposed to a straight-in on 22L off the Atlantic) and if you cock it up you could easily be hurting for fuel.
Do you seriously imagine that the NY Port Authority are going to move thousands of residents out of Ozone Park just because you find it difficult?
Now just before you retort that I don't know what I'm talking about, I have a CAA and an FAA ATPL rated for the DC-10 and spent 3 years based at JFK for a Part 121 operator.
I have only just found this thread having just got back from my latest travels. You obviously have a great difficulty about flying in the USA and I tend to agree with many of the posters that you should probably stay at home.
411A made the statement that things "are different here" and that is absolutely true. What you have to get your head round is accepting that other countries have different ways of doing things and then find out how to use their system to your best advantage.
When I first started going to the USA there were no such things as SIDs and STARS. On taxi-out at JFK, LAX or ORD the ENTIRE clearance for the ENTIRE route was read out in EVERY DETAIL and, by God, you had to read it back to perfection or you went nowhere!
Nowadays it is quite simple.
What really bothered me was your quote:
"The Carnasie Approach at JFK is criminal - widebody heavies doing finals turns at 200'"
You are obviously a "push button" pilot. I always absolutely loved the Carnasie VOR approach for it gave me a chance to exercise my hand-flying skills and it was always enormous fun.
The most dangerous part of the Carnasie approach is actually the increased fuel burn involved (as opposed to a straight-in on 22L off the Atlantic) and if you cock it up you could easily be hurting for fuel.
Do you seriously imagine that the NY Port Authority are going to move thousands of residents out of Ozone Park just because you find it difficult?
Now just before you retort that I don't know what I'm talking about, I have a CAA and an FAA ATPL rated for the DC-10 and spent 3 years based at JFK for a Part 121 operator.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sat at the threshold of 13L a few days ago and watched a steady stream of wide-bodies circling from Canarsie toward us. We sat there for 20 minutes waiting for a break in the flow and permission to line-up.
But it was obvious that whoever was racking up a/c for Canarsie hadn't the slightest interest in giving the tower controller a break to slot the American Eagle ahead of us into the plan. It didn't surprise me then when the tower guy took a chance to line up the ERJ as a BA 747 was rolling around his final turn - probably about 3 miles out. The gap was non-existent, but he risked it.
The tower guy was screaming at a heavy that just landed to take an immediate exit (although he didn't seem to be dawdling) and he then cleared the Eagle ERJ for immediate take-off. It was obviously too late and the ERJ got about 1,000 feet into his roll before the controller told him to stop and the BA to go around - from about 200'.
I sat watching this unfolding with total disgust. I felt sorry for the poor bugger in the BA 747 having just flown all the way round that bloody approach only to now have to do it all again. I thought of the 'nervous nellies' down the back gripping their seats in terror as the power came on and the pull up began. Do you people have ANY IDEA how scared pax are by that?
I also thought of the pax on the ERJ, who had thought all was well and they were on their way, when suddenly the brakes are being slammed on. How were the 'nervous nellies' enjoying that experience?
And how then do the crews explain their actions to those pax on the PA? They have to settle those people down again for another attempt - so do you think telling them the truth helps? ATC f**ked it up folks - but here goes again!
But it didn't end there.
Having had that g/a the tower guy obviously decided to make life easier next time by switching a following American heavy to 13R - the take-off runway. Unfortunately he switched that poor bugger so late, he couldn't make the turn on or get the height off. He went around too.
Guess that Yank pilot didn't bring his A game that day?
More frightened pax!
Two go-arounds and a rejected take-off in 2 minutes. Pretty smart controlling.
All this was totally unnecessary, the wind was light and 22L was available. Even at that, the decision to send us to 13L was done as we taxied out - the t/o runway was 13R. Why this mixing? Probably because some smartarse thought it was a cool idea to 'increase runway utilisation' (hint: it didn't).
I sound angry? YES I AM. These idiots almost killed some friends of mine a few days ago. The clearance between the two a/c in Boston is now revealed to be effectively ZERO. The US Airways a/c had to take evasive action to prevent a certain collision. I'd like to buy that US Airways F/O a beer - and throw one over the idiots in the tower who almost killed everyone. Have you any idea where US ATC's reputation would be right now if that collision had happened? Or what kind of future Aer Lingus or US Airways could look forward to if it had happened?
Those same controllers will be back in a week, abusing pilots verbally on the airwaves - as is their normal practice, and issuing nutty instructions designed to scare passengers and create risk where none existed.
And you dare defend that?
I think your American pride is exagerrated and misplaced.
But it was obvious that whoever was racking up a/c for Canarsie hadn't the slightest interest in giving the tower controller a break to slot the American Eagle ahead of us into the plan. It didn't surprise me then when the tower guy took a chance to line up the ERJ as a BA 747 was rolling around his final turn - probably about 3 miles out. The gap was non-existent, but he risked it.
The tower guy was screaming at a heavy that just landed to take an immediate exit (although he didn't seem to be dawdling) and he then cleared the Eagle ERJ for immediate take-off. It was obviously too late and the ERJ got about 1,000 feet into his roll before the controller told him to stop and the BA to go around - from about 200'.
I sat watching this unfolding with total disgust. I felt sorry for the poor bugger in the BA 747 having just flown all the way round that bloody approach only to now have to do it all again. I thought of the 'nervous nellies' down the back gripping their seats in terror as the power came on and the pull up began. Do you people have ANY IDEA how scared pax are by that?
I also thought of the pax on the ERJ, who had thought all was well and they were on their way, when suddenly the brakes are being slammed on. How were the 'nervous nellies' enjoying that experience?
And how then do the crews explain their actions to those pax on the PA? They have to settle those people down again for another attempt - so do you think telling them the truth helps? ATC f**ked it up folks - but here goes again!
But it didn't end there.
Having had that g/a the tower guy obviously decided to make life easier next time by switching a following American heavy to 13R - the take-off runway. Unfortunately he switched that poor bugger so late, he couldn't make the turn on or get the height off. He went around too.
Guess that Yank pilot didn't bring his A game that day?
More frightened pax!
Two go-arounds and a rejected take-off in 2 minutes. Pretty smart controlling.
All this was totally unnecessary, the wind was light and 22L was available. Even at that, the decision to send us to 13L was done as we taxied out - the t/o runway was 13R. Why this mixing? Probably because some smartarse thought it was a cool idea to 'increase runway utilisation' (hint: it didn't).
I sound angry? YES I AM. These idiots almost killed some friends of mine a few days ago. The clearance between the two a/c in Boston is now revealed to be effectively ZERO. The US Airways a/c had to take evasive action to prevent a certain collision. I'd like to buy that US Airways F/O a beer - and throw one over the idiots in the tower who almost killed everyone. Have you any idea where US ATC's reputation would be right now if that collision had happened? Or what kind of future Aer Lingus or US Airways could look forward to if it had happened?
Those same controllers will be back in a week, abusing pilots verbally on the airwaves - as is their normal practice, and issuing nutty instructions designed to scare passengers and create risk where none existed.
And you dare defend that?
I think your American pride is exagerrated and misplaced.
As a pilot who has operated worldwide for in excess of 20 yrs (plus 12 yrs in Europe only) I do feel qualified to comment on this thread.
Whilst not commenting on specific airports (JFK, Chicago) I can say that generally US ATC is fine, under stress however they appear pushy as opposed to slick and have on several occasions put "foot in mouth", so to speak instead of controlling the situation.
In the UK in general they are extremely efficient but occasionally seem to create a 'B' team which have been less so.
I would rather have both UK or USA controllers over some of the ones I daily experience.
The extreme comments from both sides of the Atlantic seem to indicate the less professional of our colleagues however much experience they have.
Whilst not commenting on specific airports (JFK, Chicago) I can say that generally US ATC is fine, under stress however they appear pushy as opposed to slick and have on several occasions put "foot in mouth", so to speak instead of controlling the situation.
In the UK in general they are extremely efficient but occasionally seem to create a 'B' team which have been less so.
I would rather have both UK or USA controllers over some of the ones I daily experience.
The extreme comments from both sides of the Atlantic seem to indicate the less professional of our colleagues however much experience they have.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deary- me....
Calm down Dunno, I couldn't find you going beserk on the internet over the Milan ground-collision thread.....
"Carnarsie...criminal...mess... " - remember Kai Tak? We Brits created that. I loved it, was based there on 1011's and -400's for years, had several exciting approaches and separations, best fun a man could have with his pants on. Stay calm, prepared for a go-around, back-up plan in hand. Carnarsie's a walk in the park by comparison.
You can always refuse line-up clearance if you're not happy, as per AE flight you commented on; you just end up listening to aggravated New-yoyka controllers berating you. Just remember - YOU'RE in command - not the FAA, although they'd like to try and persuade you otherwise.
Back to topic:
I have found that several of the US airports are now operating in "Southwest Airlines" mode, ie: trying to vector everyone in on the fastest, steepest approach they think you can manage. My neighbour is an FAA Area-Manager; he told me "..we try to help them out - we love them..." yawn.
It used to infuriate me at LAX in particular. The weather would be hazy/foggy and they'd want you at high speed on the slope. Well guess what - you can't slow a 747-400 with a 10 kt tail wind from "at least 200" at the marker and still be stabilized by 1000ft without giving the pax a rough ride, or possibly deviating above the path to slow down. Silly. I used to "request to slow", now I just tell them I'm doing it.
And as for departing...well, ever seen some of the stuff at El Paso with tailwinds off 04 or ABQ? To satisfy who (no prizes)? Yes, you can do it, but why erode margins willingly like that?
Part of the underlying problem in the US is the lack of coherent government policy on Transportation. Laissez-faire economics has led to less-than optimum utilization of resources, including airport capacity. I'm amazed every time I sit waiting in the 777 behind a line of RJ's at ORD or wherever, pi$$ing away fuel. Meanwhile, Senator This-or-that campaigns to let his "pet" lobbying airline access to the same field despite it already operating at over-capacity.
Kudos to the US Air co-pilot. Nasty fright.
Calm down Dunno, I couldn't find you going beserk on the internet over the Milan ground-collision thread.....
"Carnarsie...criminal...mess... " - remember Kai Tak? We Brits created that. I loved it, was based there on 1011's and -400's for years, had several exciting approaches and separations, best fun a man could have with his pants on. Stay calm, prepared for a go-around, back-up plan in hand. Carnarsie's a walk in the park by comparison.
You can always refuse line-up clearance if you're not happy, as per AE flight you commented on; you just end up listening to aggravated New-yoyka controllers berating you. Just remember - YOU'RE in command - not the FAA, although they'd like to try and persuade you otherwise.
Back to topic:
I have found that several of the US airports are now operating in "Southwest Airlines" mode, ie: trying to vector everyone in on the fastest, steepest approach they think you can manage. My neighbour is an FAA Area-Manager; he told me "..we try to help them out - we love them..." yawn.
It used to infuriate me at LAX in particular. The weather would be hazy/foggy and they'd want you at high speed on the slope. Well guess what - you can't slow a 747-400 with a 10 kt tail wind from "at least 200" at the marker and still be stabilized by 1000ft without giving the pax a rough ride, or possibly deviating above the path to slow down. Silly. I used to "request to slow", now I just tell them I'm doing it.
And as for departing...well, ever seen some of the stuff at El Paso with tailwinds off 04 or ABQ? To satisfy who (no prizes)? Yes, you can do it, but why erode margins willingly like that?
Part of the underlying problem in the US is the lack of coherent government policy on Transportation. Laissez-faire economics has led to less-than optimum utilization of resources, including airport capacity. I'm amazed every time I sit waiting in the 777 behind a line of RJ's at ORD or wherever, pi$$ing away fuel. Meanwhile, Senator This-or-that campaigns to let his "pet" lobbying airline access to the same field despite it already operating at over-capacity.
Kudos to the US Air co-pilot. Nasty fright.