There's a thread open on the ATC Forum re this - but for info, from UK CAP493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 =
Cancelling take-off :
1) (A/c identity) hold position, Cancel take-off – I say again cancel takeoff – acknowledge. Aircraft has not commenced take-off.

2) (A/c identity) stop immediately – I say again (a/c identity) stop
immediately – acknowledge. Aircraft commenced take-off.

Don't know what the USA equivalent should be.

Aborting T/O at about KIAS 100 in an A340 will give you about 100 minutes cooling time. Tried it myself.

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.

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?

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.

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 ):

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? :confused:

I also have to agree that it's a little pedantic, given the potential consequences averted, to gig the controller for improper phraseology here...

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.

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.

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.

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 :ugh:

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.:ok:

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.

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?

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.

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;).

Well he did say speakers

How Close????
 

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

Is it worth all this talk?

Given the comments of the Virgin crew I think we can assume it was too close for comfort...

How Close?
 

The only thing that counts is reaction time in seconds given that a mistake happens and is discovered.

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!

<<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 . . . ?