Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Near miss on JFK runway

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Near miss on JFK runway

Old 22nd Jun 2011, 22:31
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 625
JFK

I am in JFK now and then and it is allways a mess. Gate blocked, alley blocked, Airplanes waiting everywhere. 30 Min after touchdown on 4R setting the brakes to get towed finaly onto the Gate.

Talking with Irish Pilots not a problem, they talk fast themselves. Having Colleagues with me who speak English in the optimum case as the second language at JFK is pure luck. It takes more time to repeat twice then speak slower and get the message thru the first time. Time consuming to speak fast three times as there is no time in JFK..... No space on the ground and construction ongoing the last 10 years. Landing off non precission approaches after a 10 to 14 hour trip is challenging if you hit all at once.

I had a RWY change from 13R to 22R recently and the same feeling when I looked left on the TWY for Airplanes taxiing towards 22R. Mentaly I am prepareing all odds on the T/O roll. Just in case. Glad when we have a few feet off the ground when someone taxies towards 22R after landing. He has no mirror.......

The Contoller see´s JFK day and night, we overseas customers now and then only and do not know the diffrent agenda of the day.

Thanks God that the Controller catched it and got the LH-Crew to listen and react in due time. Teneriffe was enough.
B737NG is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 23:02
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Only SLF here (FF with LH Miles and More) - but listening to the tape I do not hear any clearance... At 2045 they seem to say the length of runway required (?) but hate to say that I never hear "Clear for take-off"... Can someone correct me?

Last edited by grimmrad; 22nd Jun 2011 at 23:22.
grimmrad is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 23:53
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Are SOME of you guys seriously taking from this story, an opportunity to bitch about the proper and professional way ATC should have warned this crew to abandon take off? Seriously? Isn't the fact they did their job under duress which managed to avoid a near hit ? Work together guys! ATC reads these threads as well. And I'm certain those from JFK, LGA and Tieterboro are included. Excellent job ATC. As a pax and wife of a pilot, I wouldn't have cared if you had keyed up and said " STOP THE EFFIN PLANE !!!. Yes there needs to be a level of universal language and proper phraseology but no one is perfect. Especially in an emergency situation with the potential for catastrophe. I do remember a few years back on UAL flight from LAX to SFO and I was listening in on channel 9 and during takeoff I heard ATC say "UAL flt--- abort takeoff, you have traffic on the runway" I was on the R side of the a/c and about 2 seconds later a Delta a/c was seen taxing towards the runway parallel to us. I knew what was going on because I was listening but for those that didn't you heard a few gasp in the cabin. It was a close call and while it was ATC mistake most likely, ( I think that was the last time I chose to use LAX to non rev back home) they did get the crew's attention and saved a near hit.
SassyPilotsWife is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 23:59
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Only SLF here (FF with LH Miles and More) - but listening to the tape I do not hear any clearance... At 2045 they seem to say the length of runway required (?) but hate to say that I never hear "Clear for take-off"... Can someone correct me?
It was touched upon earlier in this thread--Apparently the source of the audio is from LiveATC.net. The site's feeds come from scanners, and as such, more often than not, some parts of the story are lost, usually because the scanner is locked onto a different frequency at a particular moment. Such is most likely the case with the takeoff clearance in this instance.

From the opening post on this topic, there at LiveATC ( Cancelled take off Clearance - JFK | LiveATC.net ):

I'm not sure what just happened I was just listening on JFK Tower and around 1050-1055z the controller shouted at Air China to cancel takeoff clearance, then proceeded to say all traffic is stopped. I'm not sure what happened, Air China rejected takeoff and returned to the ramp with hot brakes and someone started talking about the incident and the controller said "No need to talk about it on the air, we can all see what's going on here" and then he chuckled. I don't know how to pull up the audio, but if anyone is interested the rejected takeoff was at 1054z I believe. Happy listening

PS. I think it was Air China, the pilot had an Asian accent
Now, as has also been mentioned above, the news media has a very shallow depth of knowlege about aviation matters. (I'll suggest that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowlege of ATC phraseology wouldn't have mistaken "cancel takeoff clearance" for "cancel takeoff plans"), but it seems that they're well aware of the existence of the audio archives at LiveATC, because that's frequently the source of the sound bites that accompany any aviation incident related story.

What I wonder is this--if the pure happenstance at play had favored including Lufthansa's takeoff clearance in the audio feed, but eliminated the frantic "Cancel takeoff clearance!", would this story have even seen the light of day?

I also have to agree that it's a little pedantic, given the potential consequences averted, to gig the controller for improper phraseology here...
Ditchdigger is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 06:38
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
Wrong wrong wrong!

Listen to the tapes, as I have. The ATC's English is atrocious. Note how BA carefully and slowly repeat what ATC have uttered.
cresmer is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 07:37
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairest of them all
Posts: 143
I only get to KJFK once every few months and I do have to crank the volume up a tad and listen more carefully to radio transmissions. I think its a combination of slang, accent and the speed at which the controllers and pilots speak.

After a 16hr URL, other than winter wx and a possible Canarsie approach, poor comms is a threat and is one of the challengers operating into Kennedy for me.

And English is my first language
Unhooked is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 09:08
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,256
Why can't the JFK gabblers be sent over to London Heathrow (or I am sure many other airports around the world with a high proportion of foreign traffic) to hear how it should be done.

Originally Posted by SassyPilotsWife
As a pax and wife of a pilot, I wouldn't have cared if you had keyed up and said " STOP THE EFFIN PLANE !!!. Yes there needs to be a level of universal language and proper phraseology but no one is perfect. Especially in an emergency situation with the potential for catastrophe.
You should listen to the ATC (it's doubtless still somewhere on the web) from the accident to the landing BA 777 at Heathrow a couple of years ago, dealing with an actual sudden crash on the airfield, comms with the accident aircraft, sending the following landers round, etc. All the situations you describe and more. But immaculate phraseology at all times, all calm, clear and well enunciated. A real credit to the team.
WHBM is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 09:49
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Block 49
Posts: 37
It Aint" English - It's New York ATC!

WHBM: "JFK gabblers"? Very condescending and insulting of you . I certainly appreciate what and how JFK ATC handle the traffic in/out/around/on JFK, EWR and LGA. It's their way of doing business.

I have been operating long haul into JFK for over 14 years, and by all accounts, it is a challenge but that is what I like about JFK.

As the saying goes: "If you can make it in New York, then you can make it anywhere". Hell, that might even apply to ATC.

Cresmer: As the title suggests - it ain't English, it's New York ATC. PLEASE don't make BA the starring example, as BA is ALWAYS slow

Bottom line: JFK ATC recognised something going very pear-shaped, did something about it, by telling Lufthansa about it, thereby averting an accident. Did I miss something else? And yes, well done JFK ATC.
Weapons Grade is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 10:10
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,950
New York

Maybe time to chill - these guys did good to stop a catastrophe - when you're in the hot seat, you have to make decisions in real time (unlike the bean counters) - what makes our professions in safety critical industries so stimulating - how boring life would be if it was all predictable.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 10:27
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
There are a few things that would/will help in the incursion issue.

(1) I believe all transport aircraft should be equipped with a surface moving map display. Current FAA regulations only allow this on a Class III EFB, an expensive proposition. Approval for Class II units (much less expensive) was to have been accomplished on the FAA "Fast Track", but, to my knowledge, has not occurred.

Just amazing when you think about it....take delivery of a new transport aircraft and fly anywhere in the world with navigation accuracy measured in meters, autoland in virtual zero visibility, and then the guidance for surface movement is a piece of paper and a compass.

(2) When all aircraft are ADS-B equipped, a true cockpit based incursion warning solution will be available. RTCA currently has a committee researching and setting standards for this. The current system of warning to ATC, determining the threat, and contacting the aircraft involved is too time consuming.

(3) Electronic (CPDLC) transmission of taxi clearance to be displayed on moving surface map. "Follow the magenta line". This is also being tested.

I will end with a question...does anyone know if this ATC save was from an ASDE-X warning, or visual observation from the tower?
Shore Guy is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 11:51
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,548
Did somebody already mention on this thread the time of day of the occurrence?

Just having traveled as pax to a number of destinations in the US (LHR to Wash.Dulles to Austin TX to Wash Dulles to Orlando to Phila to NEWARK and back to LHR), at certain times of day both at Dulles and Philadelphia it is a ZOO out there! We taxied in a regional jet for 50 minutes for a 20 minute hop to Newark! And I noticed that all too often it is necessary for ATC to direct taxying aircraft across active runways.....

Add to the mix pilots for whom English as she is spoke in the colonies is not their first language, it is truly wonderful that the system works at all!

Anyway, for sheer beauty of design and comfort and security people who are efficient yet polite, give me Orlando any day.
mary meagher is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 12:09
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Proper use of radio

I was going into Gatwick the other day and I could not for the life of me understand what the female director was trying to tell us. After the other pilot asked her twice to repeat and me once she got really irritated and vectored us for the approach. We are both pretty descent English (with a colonial twist) speakers.

It bothered me not understanding her. I think she was trying to tell us to join an arrival, but I was unsure, and I still am. (She had a sidetone in her transmissions that made her voice blend in. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
DA50driver is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 17:46
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium/Russia
Age: 39
Posts: 66
Well he did say speakers
JCviggen is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 18:12
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the Old Folks' Home
Posts: 393
How Close????

Is there any indication as to just how close those two planes came to each other?

Is it worth all this talk?
Smilin_Ed is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 18:19
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Given the comments of the Virgin crew I think we can assume it was too close for comfort...
grimmrad is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 18:23
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,176
How Close?

Is there any indication as to just how close those two planes came to each other?

Is it worth all this talk?
The only thing that counts is reaction time in seconds given that a mistake happens and is discovered.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 19:03
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 111
Even if the distance between the aircraft was not THAT close, it would have been a whole lot different if the incursion had been recognized just 5 seconds later or so. The extra speed would have increased the distance to stop for the Lufthansa Airbus by quite a bit I would say. Good job by ATC and DLH Crew!
eagleflyer is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 19:36
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,286
<<And I noticed that all too often it is necessary for ATC to direct taxying aircraft across active runways.....>>

No.... really?? It happens all day, every day all over the world.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 19:50
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Magical Planet
Posts: 8
<<And I noticed that all too often it is necessary for ATC to direct taxying aircraft across active runways.....>>

No.... really?? It happens all day, every day all over the world.
Except in schiphol airport, netherlands, where they have complete taxiways around active runways, such as 18C. Why would they do that . . . ?
Dutch Mill is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 21:39
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lost
Posts: 330
My two cents:

It was just before 1900L I think. I was sat on the gate and saw the Lufty slowing to a stop. I must admit my first though was he'd landed pretty briskly on 22R as he was just past G when he halted. But that's well short for a landing so we flicked up 123.9 in case it was an abort and heard "Lufthaaansa (sic) just stay there no need to comment on what you see in front". Then we saw the EgyptAir pulling on to J from B. It certainly didn't look like he'd crossed at J. But I'm not too sure.

ATC were telling Lufty he could vacate at his leisure, whatever he needed, everyone was really mellow. "Ve just need some time to check the brakes, but ve are fine". I have no idea what time he needed but he was still floating around JFK when we left an hour later. I reckon we would have needed about 45 minutes if we'd aborted at 100 knots, and I'm pretty sure he was slower than that.

I have to say in defence (defense?) of the JFK ATCers, and TRACON, they know what they want, they tell you so and if you tell them what you want in plain English, they accommodate. What they can't handle is "Err errr". You don't need to be standard, just short. I'm 5'6. (Worst case you wind up going via FC for 22R).
Dunhovrin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.