Runway incursion - JFK - 6 July "Two jets nearly crash at Kennedy"
Thread Starter
Runway incursion - JFK - 6 July "Two jets nearly crash at Kennedy"
Two jets nearly crash at Kennedy
By DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Federal Aviation officials are investigating a harrowing incident in which two planes - including a passenger jet - nearly collided at Kennedy Airport two weeks ago.
An Airborne Express DC-8 cargo plane averted the crash only by taking off early, clearing the airliner on the runway by a mere 75 feet, officials said.
The Israir Boeing 767, preparing to take off for Tel Aviv with an unknown number of passengers aboard, had improperly crossed onto the cargo plane's runway about 2 a.m. July 6, a rainy and foggy night, officials said.
A ground radar warning system was washed out by the downpour and failed to sound an alert, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters said yesterday.
The cargo plane's first officer spotted the 767 on the runway, but by then the Airborne Express aircraft was barreling along at 115 mph and committed to taking off. The DC-8 was able to lift off early, just clearing the 767.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the close call.
By DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Federal Aviation officials are investigating a harrowing incident in which two planes - including a passenger jet - nearly collided at Kennedy Airport two weeks ago.
An Airborne Express DC-8 cargo plane averted the crash only by taking off early, clearing the airliner on the runway by a mere 75 feet, officials said.
The Israir Boeing 767, preparing to take off for Tel Aviv with an unknown number of passengers aboard, had improperly crossed onto the cargo plane's runway about 2 a.m. July 6, a rainy and foggy night, officials said.
A ground radar warning system was washed out by the downpour and failed to sound an alert, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Jim Peters said yesterday.
The cargo plane's first officer spotted the 767 on the runway, but by then the Airborne Express aircraft was barreling along at 115 mph and committed to taking off. The DC-8 was able to lift off early, just clearing the 767.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the close call.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remember in milan linate (italy) some time ago: ground radar was off too-but there the accident happened...DC9 with plenty of passengers...
Interesting to see what comes out ie why was ground radar off or was it only the warning system? what will be implemented to avoid this? comparison possible with what happened at BOS? different freq or same used by controllers etc?
So far in this forum too little details to make judgments.
"ground radar was off due to downpour"???
sounds like some remote airports in africa-ILS U/S due to rain...
Interesting to see what comes out ie why was ground radar off or was it only the warning system? what will be implemented to avoid this? comparison possible with what happened at BOS? different freq or same used by controllers etc?
So far in this forum too little details to make judgments.
"ground radar was off due to downpour"???
sounds like some remote airports in africa-ILS U/S due to rain...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow had taxy routing greens and red stop bars when I joined BEA in 1967.
There is a perception of JFK having all modern equipment. Why dont they have a simular system?
What is the state of play regarding ILS's, how many runways still don't have one?
There is a perception of JFK having all modern equipment. Why dont they have a simular system?
What is the state of play regarding ILS's, how many runways still don't have one?
Taxiway stop lights reported at JFK
Nytimes Article (Free Registration Required)
the passenger plane, flown by Israir, an Israeli carrier that began service to the United States in March, had crossed over a line of amber and red lights embedded in the concrete. The lights are meant to warn pilots that they are crossing an active runway.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the U.S does lag behind in many aspects,especially when flying out of a class D or even a Midwest class C. Having flown out of kennedy in various capacities I noticed this..maybe if there was a FSDO on the field like Providence..things would have been different.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the U.S system. It does seem however that here things are still done with the eyeball and the slideruler.
Each Continent has its plus and minus I suppose.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the U.S system. It does seem however that here things are still done with the eyeball and the slideruler.
Each Continent has its plus and minus I suppose.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<surface movement radar can get washed out by heavy rain, not sure how or why but it happens.
>>
Usually because of the wavelength. The old surface radar at Heathrow had a wavelength approximately the size of a raindrop, hence when it rained everything blanked out! More modern equipment does not suffer in this way.
>>
Usually because of the wavelength. The old surface radar at Heathrow had a wavelength approximately the size of a raindrop, hence when it rained everything blanked out! More modern equipment does not suffer in this way.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the U.S does lag behind in many aspects,especially when flying out of a class D or even a Midwest class C. Having flown out of kennedy in various capacities I noticed this..maybe if there was a FSDO on the field like Providence..things would have been different.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the U.S system. It does seem however that here things are still done with the eyeball and the slideruler.
Each Continent has its plus and minus I suppose.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the U.S system. It does seem however that here things are still done with the eyeball and the slideruler.
Each Continent has its plus and minus I suppose.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Faire! That incursion reminds me of a situation years ago. I believe it was Bradley (KBDL) Foggy night, new controller at the helm. Aircraft was cleared for takeoff after a landing aircraft. Skipper of the departing plane refused takeoff clearance. Made the controller a tad testy. Skipper said 'I cant see the end of the rwy and Im not going to roll till you guys are sure the other guy is clear' It turned out the landing traffic was a bit lost and stopped on the runway...tragedy averted
moral is.
Question Authority
Trust yourself, the guy/gal next to you and your stomach.
Story above is subject to errors as it was told in a pub late at night many years ago.
moral is.
Question Authority
Trust yourself, the guy/gal next to you and your stomach.
Story above is subject to errors as it was told in a pub late at night many years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have asked here why they do not install Ground Movement lights so that crews can "follow the greens...". The reply I got:
"we'd eliminate several positions by doing that, so it's a non-starter with the Controllers Union." Seriously. (He was a tower director at a major intl airport, chatting to our pilots at a Union monthly meeting).
DFW does, however, have on test a runway incursion lighting system. It's still not very good, IMHO.
This JFK incident still sounds purely like pilot error to me, so those of you itching to start a wind-up Yank-bashing session, leave it out and grow up.
"we'd eliminate several positions by doing that, so it's a non-starter with the Controllers Union." Seriously. (He was a tower director at a major intl airport, chatting to our pilots at a Union monthly meeting).
DFW does, however, have on test a runway incursion lighting system. It's still not very good, IMHO.
This JFK incident still sounds purely like pilot error to me, so those of you itching to start a wind-up Yank-bashing session, leave it out and grow up.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trentino, the incident you describe sounds like this one at PVD.
On December 6, 1999, at about 8:35 p.m., United Airlines flight 1448, a Boeing 757, was involved in a runway incursion on runway 5 Right at Theodore Francis Green State Airport, near Providence, Rhode Island. At the time of the incident, it was dark and the reported visibility was one-quarter mile.
Listen and watch NTSB animation below.
PVD Incursion
On December 6, 1999, at about 8:35 p.m., United Airlines flight 1448, a Boeing 757, was involved in a runway incursion on runway 5 Right at Theodore Francis Green State Airport, near Providence, Rhode Island. At the time of the incident, it was dark and the reported visibility was one-quarter mile.
Listen and watch NTSB animation below.
PVD Incursion
Last edited by dawgweed; 25th Jul 2005 at 13:02.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: EGKK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'll say it!
Their Hollywood esque, cliche packed r/t is appalling and will one day result in a very unfortunate and very avoidable accident. Their very slick (or so they'd like to think) patter maybe fine for people who are brought up on it. But if they wish advertise their faciliities as `International`, then in the interests of safety allowances must be made for people who are unfamiliar and or operating in a second/third language. The very fact that JFK is by many considered to be a CAT C airfield due to its r/t says it all really.
Their Hollywood esque, cliche packed r/t is appalling and will one day result in a very unfortunate and very avoidable accident. Their very slick (or so they'd like to think) patter maybe fine for people who are brought up on it. But if they wish advertise their faciliities as `International`, then in the interests of safety allowances must be made for people who are unfamiliar and or operating in a second/third language. The very fact that JFK is by many considered to be a CAT C airfield due to its r/t says it all really.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAR ASR says it all.
Having migrated from the "flat earth society" the first time I visited JFK it was gusting 25 kts across, 600 feet cloudbase in heavy rain (at night).
We were given clearance to land about 12 miles out with at least two (we were aware of) on the approach ahead of us.
Becoming visual, (the wipers working overtime) with a mass of blurred lights ahead I thought it prudent to ask "has the preceding cleared the runway?"
The response was almost a joke..."of course he's cleared, I expect he's shut down and gone home!"
This chap had no idea, with clearances to land being given when the approach path/ runway is not clear is asking for problems. Why they do it I don't know.
I learnt very quickly.
Some time after, yet again with the wind on the crosswind limit and the preceding carrying out a windshear go-around I suggested "in the event off a go-around we will be carrying out the standard missed approach climbing to 4000!" The response was "Hell no, we have crossing traffic at 4000 and you would only be cleared to 3000"
We too did a windshear go-around and, having held for a while, landed off the second approach.
I took the time to ring ATC after landing to try and make the point that the last thing a pilot wants to do during a windshear go-around (full power, over-riding the electronics which limit the power and Rate of Climb) was to have the cleared height changed from 4000 to 3000... "Negative G during the attempt to acquire 3000 is not comfortable". I wish I had not bothered, he was not listening, he was the controller and he was in control. I didn't suggest that I thought he was not!
I seem to remember an accident where someone ran out of fuel on the approach to JFK. He has made many attempts to suggest his fuel state to ATC without using the magic word. No one listened and the result is history.
I would love for our colleagues "across the pond" to comment on the relative performance of ATC at LHR and JFK. It is obvious who has my vote!
Having migrated from the "flat earth society" the first time I visited JFK it was gusting 25 kts across, 600 feet cloudbase in heavy rain (at night).
We were given clearance to land about 12 miles out with at least two (we were aware of) on the approach ahead of us.
Becoming visual, (the wipers working overtime) with a mass of blurred lights ahead I thought it prudent to ask "has the preceding cleared the runway?"
The response was almost a joke..."of course he's cleared, I expect he's shut down and gone home!"
This chap had no idea, with clearances to land being given when the approach path/ runway is not clear is asking for problems. Why they do it I don't know.
I learnt very quickly.
Some time after, yet again with the wind on the crosswind limit and the preceding carrying out a windshear go-around I suggested "in the event off a go-around we will be carrying out the standard missed approach climbing to 4000!" The response was "Hell no, we have crossing traffic at 4000 and you would only be cleared to 3000"
We too did a windshear go-around and, having held for a while, landed off the second approach.
I took the time to ring ATC after landing to try and make the point that the last thing a pilot wants to do during a windshear go-around (full power, over-riding the electronics which limit the power and Rate of Climb) was to have the cleared height changed from 4000 to 3000... "Negative G during the attempt to acquire 3000 is not comfortable". I wish I had not bothered, he was not listening, he was the controller and he was in control. I didn't suggest that I thought he was not!
I seem to remember an accident where someone ran out of fuel on the approach to JFK. He has made many attempts to suggest his fuel state to ATC without using the magic word. No one listened and the result is history.
I would love for our colleagues "across the pond" to comment on the relative performance of ATC at LHR and JFK. It is obvious who has my vote!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All valid points...living only a mile from Kennedy and flying in and out every so often I do see this first hand.
Flying into and out of Islip I remember being 5 in the queue to land with my clearance 15 out. Looking in the regs over here it does mention that clearance to land simply implies adequate spacing is provided to all a/c..maybe this is why we are all cleared to land...In Europe, can anyone enlighten me what the regulatory meaning of 'cleared to land' is? Is it the same as here in the u.s.s.a
Woodpecker, I do believe that crash involved the Avianca 707 back in the early 90's.
Gentlemen, we must be careful. The U.S.S.A is listening
Flying into and out of Islip I remember being 5 in the queue to land with my clearance 15 out. Looking in the regs over here it does mention that clearance to land simply implies adequate spacing is provided to all a/c..maybe this is why we are all cleared to land...In Europe, can anyone enlighten me what the regulatory meaning of 'cleared to land' is? Is it the same as here in the u.s.s.a
Woodpecker, I do believe that crash involved the Avianca 707 back in the early 90's.
Gentlemen, we must be careful. The U.S.S.A is listening