JFK ATC exchange
The event occurred 24 Dec 2023. Do you have anything to add? JFK has a great many ATC exchanges every day.
I don’t see a lot in that. The ATC guy was a bit arsy but then you would be working there. What ATC fails to understand sometimes is that it does take time to exit a heavy aircraft, I am sure the pilot saying what he did would not have delayed the exit.
My opinion;
Longboat tried to make Victor and couldn’t quite make it happen so ended up in that annoying situation of having to move relatively slowly to the next exit. It’s a bit embarrassing when that happens because 90% of the time it is because you have misjudged your deceleration or landed longer than planned. It happens though and at some stage most pilots do it. The explanation about being heavy and full was a bit much, but not impolite.
The situation started moving away from normal/ professional when the controller said “ I don’t care about all that”. It changed the tone of the frequency for zero gain. Both aircraft remained professional on the radio despite the controller taking it yet further by bemoaning the Longboats communications to the aircraft who was busy dealing with a go-around.
Aviation can be tricky, planned exits aren’t always made. Introducing childish comments doesn’t help and could potentially hinder the smooth running of the frequency. At the end of the day it was no big deal, but the controller could have conducted themselves in a more professional manner.
Longboat tried to make Victor and couldn’t quite make it happen so ended up in that annoying situation of having to move relatively slowly to the next exit. It’s a bit embarrassing when that happens because 90% of the time it is because you have misjudged your deceleration or landed longer than planned. It happens though and at some stage most pilots do it. The explanation about being heavy and full was a bit much, but not impolite.
The situation started moving away from normal/ professional when the controller said “ I don’t care about all that”. It changed the tone of the frequency for zero gain. Both aircraft remained professional on the radio despite the controller taking it yet further by bemoaning the Longboats communications to the aircraft who was busy dealing with a go-around.
Aviation can be tricky, planned exits aren’t always made. Introducing childish comments doesn’t help and could potentially hinder the smooth running of the frequency. At the end of the day it was no big deal, but the controller could have conducted themselves in a more professional manner.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this standard JFK ATC? I'd imagine most pilots would just roll their eyes and carry on with their day, if it upset them.
The tower controller's second comment to the following aircraft "explaining how heavy he is", was beyond the realm of any sort of professionalism though. But as said, seems par for the course at JFK.
The tower controller's second comment to the following aircraft "explaining how heavy he is", was beyond the realm of any sort of professionalism though. But as said, seems par for the course at JFK.
Now, that probably did not actually delay vacating the runway - but it did tie up the channel "for zero gain." Especially since the controller was going to need the d*mn channel to give Silk Air the impending go-around. His later apology to Silk Air was likely because the go-around instruction came very late, thanks to Longboat's chattiness.
Same for the DHL pilot at SFO last month - don't be getting into explanations (whether it's "company night-visual policy" or "why I'm vacating slowly") on an active approach/runway frequency. Just get the job done as best you can. And if you must, talk about it later.
Is that actually how "professional" comms work in the UK/EU? Because over here, I will always back up controllers who say, in effect, "STFU and just do that piloting stuff!"
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it extraordinary and sad in fact that we have come to accept this extremely poor R/T exchanges as " normal " . Because really , all this has no place in professional R/T exchanges , and in fact this controller blocks the R/T unnecessarily , which is ironically what he was bitching about with the Norse 787 ( pilot explain us why he can't vacate instead of existing the runway quickly) True the Norse should not have made a long comment to start with , but the response was out of order.
The problem here is the typical US issue to priorities numbers of movements per hour over standard safety . Here Approach put the 2 too close to one another in "standard" terms and this causes the go around., not the vacating at the next :exit. by the preceding aircraft. A 1/2 NM more been arrivals would probably eliminate all this, but again numbers seems to always be the priority in US major airports. .
It will bite them hard one day .
The problem here is the typical US issue to priorities numbers of movements per hour over standard safety . Here Approach put the 2 too close to one another in "standard" terms and this causes the go around., not the vacating at the next :exit. by the preceding aircraft. A 1/2 NM more been arrivals would probably eliminate all this, but again numbers seems to always be the priority in US major airports. .
It will bite them hard one day .
The situation started moving away from professional," and changed the tone, when the Longboat pilot chose not to simply get off the runway when able, and starting trying to explainsomething on a busy frequency.
The explanation about being heavy and full was a bit much, but not impolite.
If pilots started routinely speaking to controllers like that every time the controlling left something to be desired, it would be disrespectful to the professional controller who is doing their human best at a difficult job. Luckily they’re either too busy trying to go down and slow down, or just too darn nice….not sure which
Have a great day!
The last radar trace showed longbow 787 at 100 ft with the trailing aircraft at 900 ft.
That gives the preceeding aircrat just over a minute to get off the runway which is more than adequate for both time and distance given 31R is 10000 ft long
As a professional airline pilot it is your responsibility to get off the active runway in an expeditious manner, obviously with safety being the overriding priority.. That may be tempered with a reverser inop or a brake locked out so we may never know, however either of those senerios could be mitigated by a call to the approach controller before being placed to the tower that you have some reason that will need extra spacing. (You hear it from 747-800 pilots all the time with a min approach speed of circa 160 kts lloking for more spacing from preceeding aircraft or requiring a "long" landing )
A 787 has magnificent braking capability so suggest there maybe more to this than what is readily apparent from this video.
The tower controller is not responsible for the spacing on final, that lies with approach, but he is responsible to get the aircraft down and off the runway asap.
That gives the preceeding aircrat just over a minute to get off the runway which is more than adequate for both time and distance given 31R is 10000 ft long
As a professional airline pilot it is your responsibility to get off the active runway in an expeditious manner, obviously with safety being the overriding priority.. That may be tempered with a reverser inop or a brake locked out so we may never know, however either of those senerios could be mitigated by a call to the approach controller before being placed to the tower that you have some reason that will need extra spacing. (You hear it from 747-800 pilots all the time with a min approach speed of circa 160 kts lloking for more spacing from preceeding aircraft or requiring a "long" landing )
A 787 has magnificent braking capability so suggest there maybe more to this than what is readily apparent from this video.
The tower controller is not responsible for the spacing on final, that lies with approach, but he is responsible to get the aircraft down and off the runway asap.
Some of you are making mountains out of mole hills. Nothing really bad about that. If anything, I suspect a little sarcastic New York humor. Come on, just let it go.
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: FL95
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love how they slur everything in their 'hot potato' american english first, and if a foreigner issues a 'say again', they will emphasize every syllable as if the were talking to a dull-witted dog.
Last edited by C2H5OH; 11th Jan 2024 at 11:24. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Down a little lower and to the left. Right there baby right there
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last radar trace showed longbow 787 at 100 ft with the trailing aircraft at 900 ft.
That gives the preceeding aircrat just over a minute to get off the runway which is more than adequate for both time and distance given 31R is 10000 ft long
As a professional airline pilot it is your responsibility to get off the active runway in an expeditious manner, obviously with safety being the overriding priority.. That may be tempered with a reverser inop or a brake locked out so we may never know, however either of those senerios could be mitigated by a call to the approach controller before being placed to the tower that you have some reason that will need extra spacing. (You hear it from 747-800 pilots all the time with a min approach speed of circa 160 kts lloking for more spacing from preceeding aircraft or requiring a "long" landing )
A 787 has magnificent braking capability so suggest there maybe more to this than what is readily apparent from this video.
The tower controller is not responsible for the spacing on final, that lies with approach, but he is responsible to get the aircraft down and off the runway asap.
That gives the preceeding aircrat just over a minute to get off the runway which is more than adequate for both time and distance given 31R is 10000 ft long
As a professional airline pilot it is your responsibility to get off the active runway in an expeditious manner, obviously with safety being the overriding priority.. That may be tempered with a reverser inop or a brake locked out so we may never know, however either of those senerios could be mitigated by a call to the approach controller before being placed to the tower that you have some reason that will need extra spacing. (You hear it from 747-800 pilots all the time with a min approach speed of circa 160 kts lloking for more spacing from preceeding aircraft or requiring a "long" landing )
A 787 has magnificent braking capability so suggest there maybe more to this than what is readily apparent from this video.
The tower controller is not responsible for the spacing on final, that lies with approach, but he is responsible to get the aircraft down and off the runway asap.
Unacceptable ATC attitude. That he did not "care" about the circumstances of a particular flight tells you all you need to know. The ATC guy could - and should - have said; 'Roger' instead of "I don't care about all that......." Extremely unprofessional; it's not a p*ssing contest,
If ATC put the approaching aircraft too close together causing a go-around; it is not the fault of the individual aircrews. We all miss our intended exits occasionally, usually for very valid reasons, and ATC really need to understand that - I would think they tell them that on the first day at ATC school ?
And the pilot controlling the 'plane is not the pilot who is talking on the radio, so the fact that PM was trying to explain to the idiot controller had no effect on PF exiting the runway.
ATC need to be able to change the plan at a second's notice to accommodate changes and events. They are selected and examined for their ability to do so, and most are brilliant at it - I could not do their job.
People like this ATC guy, however, need to look for another job.
If ATC put the approaching aircraft too close together causing a go-around; it is not the fault of the individual aircrews. We all miss our intended exits occasionally, usually for very valid reasons, and ATC really need to understand that - I would think they tell them that on the first day at ATC school ?
And the pilot controlling the 'plane is not the pilot who is talking on the radio, so the fact that PM was trying to explain to the idiot controller had no effect on PF exiting the runway.
ATC need to be able to change the plan at a second's notice to accommodate changes and events. They are selected and examined for their ability to do so, and most are brilliant at it - I could not do their job.
People like this ATC guy, however, need to look for another job.
Every big airport in the us has a common mantra: “keep moving, and clear the active”
i fly relative bugsmashers, but if I follow this way of thinking, I fit in well when I must intercalate myself in with the big boys.
i fly relative bugsmashers, but if I follow this way of thinking, I fit in well when I must intercalate myself in with the big boys.
Not sure what the controllers issue was? He gave the pilot of Longboat the option of exit U or U3 during the initial instructions. The pilot tried for exit U but couldn't make so went to the alternate U3.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the JFK controller was very restrained.... He did not start shouting over the radio like they usually do.
The tower controller is a poorly trained idiot. Any casual observer can guess that heavier aircraft take longer to stop. If the tower controller had requested the 787 before landing that he needed him to vacate U3 they he might have been able to modify his autobrake/reverse plan but telling him on the rollout has zero chance of success. Additionally, none of the exits qualify as a high-speed taxiway. Both U3 and V3 require slowing to walking pace before vacating as the 90deg turn will happily rip the tyres off the rims if you try and do it faster. Putting a heavy aircraft 4 miles behind another heavy on a runway with an LDA of only 2570m/8436' has a pretty fair chance of failure...... But you can't tell them that.... they think they know it all.
The tower controller is a poorly trained idiot. Any casual observer can guess that heavier aircraft take longer to stop. If the tower controller had requested the 787 before landing that he needed him to vacate U3 they he might have been able to modify his autobrake/reverse plan but telling him on the rollout has zero chance of success. Additionally, none of the exits qualify as a high-speed taxiway. Both U3 and V3 require slowing to walking pace before vacating as the 90deg turn will happily rip the tyres off the rims if you try and do it faster. Putting a heavy aircraft 4 miles behind another heavy on a runway with an LDA of only 2570m/8436' has a pretty fair chance of failure...... But you can't tell them that.... they think they know it all.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told my first time to JFK that I was going to be yelled at for something at some point, so don't make excuses, just roll with it. It doesn't matter if it's good R/T or not. It's the way it is. But guess what, most people going into JFK are very, very full of cargo and people, so that's why the controller is saying he doesn't care: because so is everyone else. I don't blame the controller for the first comment. Just shut up and get off the runway! The second comment to Silk West didn't need to be made. But I believe it's a requirement from New York through to New England that if you make a mistake you have to be reminded twice: once to you, and once to everyone else. At least, that's been my experience.
But, the pilots don't get off easy here either. Doing the math for this case, they covered the 1,040' between V and U3 in somewhere between 30 to 45 seconds (depending on how good the animation is). That's 17 to 23 knots. That's simply unacceptable to slow down to normal taxi speed when taxiing down the active runway unless the runway is slippery (which it wasn't on the 24th, the weather shows no precip and well above freezing conditions). V is not a 90* exit and it can be taken slightly faster (I've found no issues getting off at around 20 knots (not faster though). So if they were too fast at V to exit, it means they continued to slow down after they missed the exit or maintained their speed. That's what the controller is angry about - not that they missed the exit, but they continued slowing after missing their exit. I've found controllers in the US, unless they tell you which exit to use, don't often care where you get off - just make sure you're doing your best to then get off. Or, tell them in advance. Hey, I can't make V, we'll need to exit at the end. It's a team effort, so give the controllers the information they need to plan.
But, the pilots don't get off easy here either. Doing the math for this case, they covered the 1,040' between V and U3 in somewhere between 30 to 45 seconds (depending on how good the animation is). That's 17 to 23 knots. That's simply unacceptable to slow down to normal taxi speed when taxiing down the active runway unless the runway is slippery (which it wasn't on the 24th, the weather shows no precip and well above freezing conditions). V is not a 90* exit and it can be taken slightly faster (I've found no issues getting off at around 20 knots (not faster though). So if they were too fast at V to exit, it means they continued to slow down after they missed the exit or maintained their speed. That's what the controller is angry about - not that they missed the exit, but they continued slowing after missing their exit. I've found controllers in the US, unless they tell you which exit to use, don't often care where you get off - just make sure you're doing your best to then get off. Or, tell them in advance. Hey, I can't make V, we'll need to exit at the end. It's a team effort, so give the controllers the information they need to plan.
Last edited by +TSRA; 11th Jan 2024 at 16:54. Reason: edit for clarity getting off on V
Rather than trying to explain it would have been better for the pilot of Longboat just to say, "Unable" when challenged by ATC for being slow. That was all Sully said when being asked to land Teterboro. A short and sweet reply!!