PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Runway incursion - JFK - 6 July "Two jets nearly crash at Kennedy" (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/183048-runway-incursion-jfk-6-july-two-jets-nearly-crash-kennedy.html)

RevMan2 22nd Jul 2005 10:53

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.

EI-MICK 22nd Jul 2005 12:28

Were the controllers on different frequencies as usual??

I can see this heading the same way as the shamrock airbus incident at logan.

Groundloop 22nd Jul 2005 12:34

Before you jump in blaming ATC note the words "had improperly crossed onto the cargo plane's runway".

RevMan2 22nd Jul 2005 12:51

Ha! I was waiting for someone to bite......!

rhythm method 22nd Jul 2005 13:23

Perhaps someone hadn't brought their A-team baseball cap with them?

handflying 22nd Jul 2005 13:32

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...

Avman 22nd Jul 2005 13:56

For the record: the ground radar at Milan wasn't off; it simply hadn't been installed!

Geffen 22nd Jul 2005 16:45

surface movement radar can get washed out by heavy rain, not sure how or why but it happens.

woodpecker 22nd Jul 2005 17:03

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?

RatherBeFlying 22nd Jul 2005 17:34

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.

Feather #3 22nd Jul 2005 23:47

Half JFK is modern and the other half is B707 era as we used in the early '70's......just depends where you are on the a/p.

G'day ;)

Trentino 23rd Jul 2005 03:55

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.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR 23rd Jul 2005 08:24

<<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.

Faire d'income 23rd Jul 2005 10:15


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.
Trentino, very good post. It is too easy to dismiss criticisms as US/Europe/FR/Airbus/Boeing bashing, but sometimes there is a valid point.

Trentino 23rd Jul 2005 21:29

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.

RRAAMJET 24th Jul 2005 18:09

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. :hmm:

dawgweed 25th Jul 2005 00:46

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

QAR ASR 25th Jul 2005 02:38

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.

woodpecker 25th Jul 2005 09:36

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!

Trentino 25th Jul 2005 15:37

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

HEATHROW DIRECTOR 25th Jul 2005 16:27

"Cleared to land" in the UK means that you are #1 and the runway is clear for your arrival. There are other clearances which may be used under good weather conditions where #1 can be well down the runway, or expected to be clear of the runway when #2 lands. Landing clearances of whatever type are only issued to the next to land and not nos 3, 4 or 5 as is the practice in the USA. Despite the amount of traffic US controllers handle you can only get one aircraft on to the concrete at one time.... and only a certain number in a given period so I could never understand why they use their "multiple" landing clearance procedures.

None 25th Jul 2005 16:57

FAA Reg 7110.65P Landing Clearance
 
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0310.html#3-10-5

NOTE-
A clearance to land means that appropriate separation on the landing runway will be ensured. A landing clearance does not relieve the pilot from compliance with any previously issued restriction

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0310.html#3-10-3

3-10-3. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

a. Separate an arriving aircraft from another aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that the arriving aircraft does not cross the landing threshold until one of the following conditions exists or unless authorized in para 3-10-10, Altitude Restricted Low Approach.

1. The other aircraft has landed and is clear of the runway. Between sunrise and sunset, if you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks and the other aircraft has landed, it need not be clear of the runway if the following minimum distance from the landing threshold exists: (See FIG 3-10-1.)

2. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end


While it would be excellent for worldwide standardization if there was one Air Traffic Control regulation/terminology, I recognize the right for each soverign nation to apply modifications for their country's rules.

Many people find the practice "behind landing traffic, line up and wait" an unnecessary risk, especially at night, and even more so after the SD-330/MD-80 tragedy at LFPG a couple of years back.

I fly regularly out of JFK, and appreciate their talent in such a very restricted environment. However, I have to agree that they are very unprofessional with their terminology. Perhaps a word to our safety rep might fix this. Give me a few weeks to work on it before judging if there has been any improvement.

Ignition Override 26th Jul 2005 04:44

Does Kennedy not use a combination of landing runways to help limit problems with strong crosswinds? Could you guys have demanded another runway (functional ILS and approach lights) advising Approach Control about a possible divert, or would Newark's long runways (04R/L or 22R/L) reduce crosswinds much? I've only flown narrowbodies into JFK now and then, and am so accustomed to non-standard ATC (or pilot :O) terminology in the entire US that maybe I don't realize how lousy and unpedictable it is at some US airports.

SaturnV 26th Jul 2005 17:58

Excerpted from today's New York Times.


WASHINGTON, July 25 - With his plane hurtling down a Kennedy International Airport runway at nearly 100 miles per hour, the first officer of a DC-8 cargo jet looked ahead through the darkness and driving rain and asked the captain sitting at his left, "Is that an aircraft in front of us?"

The captain who gave the account was acting as the co-pilot, and as his eyes alternated between the windows and the instrument panel, he looked ahead but did not see anything. But the first officer saw what he thought were lights, the captain said, and asked again, "Is that an aircraft in front of us?" He swiftly took action, pulling back on the yoke and lifting the roaring jet's nose sharply into the air.

A disaster was averted by the narrowest of margins: the ABX Air DC-8 missed a fully loaded Israir Boeing 767, with 262 people on board, by 75 feet at the nose, the captain estimated, and as little as 45 feet at the tail, which was much lower because of the angle of the plane during its ascent. ....

In an interview on Sunday night, the captain of the cargo plane, Kerry McMahon, gave his first public account of the dramatic seconds when the two planes nearly collided. The first officer, who has not been identified by ABX, "did an outstanding job," Mr. McMahon said. "I'm glad I was flying with him that night."

Mr. McMahon said the two planes avoided collision because his plane was not carrying cargo and because the first officer decided shortly before takeoff to use full-power settings because of the weather. Had that not been the case, he said, the cargo plane would never have made it over the 767 flown by Israir, an Israeli carrier.

"We were empty," Mr. McMahon said. "To me, that's the reason we missed that aircraft. If we had been loaded down, we would probably have hit him."

.......

The 767 had stopped halfway down the runway, at a place where planes about to take off are typically moving at more than 100 miles per hour, nearly fast enough to become airborne. The Israeli government's chief air safety investigator, Itzhak Raz, said Israir's crew members told him that they had seen the DC-8's lights and thought someone was taxiing toward them.

"I don't want to say it 100 percent, but it's very possible that at this time, they were like freezing for a second, praying to God not to have an accident," Mr. Raz said of the Israeli crew. "It was very close."

A spokeswoman for the National Transportation Safety Board said that her agency was still waiting for audio and radar tapes and other information from the Federal Aviation Administration. The F.A.A.'s preliminary report, which Mr. Raz said matched what he knew so far, found that the Israir plane had missed a turn onto a taxiway and ended up on the runway instead. According to Israir, which began serving Kennedy Airport from Tel Aviv in March, the plane held 250 passengers, 9 flight attendants and 3 pilots. The DC-8 carried a crew of three.

Israeli officials, who asked not to be identified because the incident is still under investigation, said the captain of the Israir flight had been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.

..............


It is typical at airlines for the captain and the first officer to alternate roles during takeoffs. In the flight from Kennedy, Mr. McMahon said, it was his turn to serve as the "nonflying pilot," and as the plane approached the runway, it began raining hard.

Airline policy at ABX is to take off at reduced power settings, a practice that requires traveling more distance on the runway before takeoff but limits wear on the engines, he said. But because of the weather, the first officer asked if he could use full power. "I said, it's your leg, you make the decision, and he said he's more comfortable with that," Mr. McMahon said.

As the plane accelerated down the runway, the first officer looked out the windshield and the captain managed the radio communications and focused alternately on the windshield and the instrument panel. The plane was moving at more than 80 knots, or nearly 100 miles per hour, when the first officer asked whether there was an aircraft in their path. Mr. McMahon looked but did not see one. It was far too late to stop, he said - they could have steered off the runway and into the dirt, but probably would have hit the Boeing anyway.

After the first officer asked again, "Is that an aircraft in front of us?" he pulled back on the yoke, lifting the nose, a maneuver known to pilots as rotation. But once he had spotted the passenger jet, he pulled back hard so the climb would be abnormally steep, Mr. McMahon said.

The captain estimated that his cockpit was probably only about 75 feet above the fuselage of the 767, and that since his plane was 187 feet long and was pointed up very steeply, the tail was much lower. Mr. Raz calculated that if the DC-8 were at a 10-degree angle, its tail would have been about 45 feet above the fuselage. Fully loaded, the top of the Boeing 767 fuselage is about 23.5 feet off the ground. The tail rises about 30 feet above that.

The unauthorized presence of a plane or other vehicle on an active runway, known as "runway incursion," has been a major concern for years. In order to prevent it, the intersection at Kennedy Airport through which the Israir plane mistakenly crossed has a line of amber and red lights embedded in the concrete.

"After we got over him and I knew we didn't hit him, I called the tower and told them there was an aircraft on the runway," Mr. McMahon said. The tower controller did not immediately respond, he said, and Mr. McMahon repeated the information, to be sure the controllers on the ground understood the problem before clearing another aircraft for takeoff. "Do you understand, that there's an aircraft on Runway 22, right?" Mr. McMahon said he repeated.

Mr. McMahon said there was a slight pause, and the controller replied, "Yes, we're talking to him now."

Mr. McMahon did not find fault with the Israir crew. He said that in the dark, it was easy to get lost. "I've been there with bad weather before, and I can put myself in the same position as the other captain," he said. "He basically missed that turn, and I can see why."

Mr. Raz said of the first officer, "It was a very good decision to take off and not to try to stop or steer from the runway." He added, "It was very, very lucky, that's for sure."
Full story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/nyregion/26miss.html

Shore Guy 27th Jul 2005 05:31

I.O. and all,

Flying into JFK (or any of the three New York aerodromes….EWR/JFK/LGA) presents some interesting operational challenges. They (New York Tracon) will hold onto approaches/runways until operational limits reach limits or someone says “I’m not going to do that”…..rare to hear. After one recent Canarsie approach to mins (with weather well below ATIS report…tailwind/rain, etc.), I commented on tower frequency “I would STRONGLY recommend discontinuing that approach”. They are very reluctant to do so primarily because the airspace is so tight, when one airport re-aligns to a different runway, many times all three airports must do to also. Not so easy to do with all three seemingly undergoing endless construction/maintenance on runways and taxiways.

One recent accident at JFK comes to mind….a freight operator MD-11 off the end of 4R……tailwind/short runway/high ref/high weight/night. Everything has to work just right…this time it did not, but fortunately, the aerated concrete overrun saved the day.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X00863&key=1


Controllers (IMHO) view limits very differently than pilot types…..they will run you to the published limits. Sometimes in the airplane, you may not want to get that close to the edge.

Ignition Override 28th Jul 2005 04:40

Shore Guy: I'm surprised that you could state that extra comment on the radio without two different people both blocking your transmission.

This topic is quite educational. Except for flying into La "Garbage" (Guardia) last summer, I had forgotten about the influence on traffic at the other two airports. La "Garbage" (due to very short length of runways and the appreciation that I never lived next door in Queens or any other nasty adjoining town :ouch: ; never mind Jamaica by JFK :yuk: :ouch: :ouch: ) .

A friend was on the curving approach into JFK about 15 years ago behind Aeroflot. The Aeroflot crew was told to change runways twice and when they decided that a go-around was necessary, they told the ATC guy "your approach is for the s**ts" (Lufthansa might have used a word such as "beschissen"). Yep, for many pilots, a crappy airport but with a beautiful new terminal (the same company designed AMS Schipol) and very long runways.

ALV2500 31st Jul 2005 15:22

I landed at JFK in cat 2 weather a couple of weeks ago on RWY 22L. It was about 1am and we had a long taxi ahead of us. There were adequate hold short lights at our intersections which we could just see. We held short while a UK operators A340-600 taxied past. As big as that aircraft is we couldn't see it until it was right in front of us and even then all we saw was its nav lights. They too were having a hard time trying to maneuver around in the horrible conditions. It took a very long time to get to the gate.

Jerricho 31st Jul 2005 17:13

Edited because it was a stupid question, as I misread what you posted. Sorry about that.

ALV2500 1st Aug 2005 00:29

I'm not really sure of the answer to that unusual question.
My point was, despite adequate lighting, it was very difficult to see anything, even an A340 600.


AL


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:19.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.