In fact listening to the ground frequency again it seems they did not turn right on B as instructed once they went onto the runway but in fact went right on A as were then instructed to join B at H. Amazing.


Also appears that they never got Take-off clearance as believe this is unedited audio.

Swiss cheese almost lining up and was ATC that broke the chain of events. :D

Still no audio files including a take-off clearance for the lufthansa guy??

Phone up the FAA and tell them not to bother investigating, you've got it all sussed from YouTube :rolleyes:

What Roffa said......... :ugh:

These tapes are NOT complete and don't paint a full picture. That people here are commenting about not hearing a takeoff clearance for LH is just insulting, frankly, to JFK TWR and LH.

As what what MS did or didn't do, I don't think THAT'S real clear from these tapes either! The info available here is incomplete and confusing. That YouTube picture suggests he's infringed at J but tx's from GND make it sound like he's infringed at G. Who knows? I know - ATC does! I suspect the FAA and the NTSB have a fair idea already, also.

Frankly speculating about this and that achieves bugger all. We'll hear the facts in a short time. What this thread does illustrate is how demanding JFK is on everybody, particularly the ATC team and aircrews. Having had my fair share of JFK flying, I have no doubt about that, so it's a matter of taking it slow and steady, esp when the wx is crap. I actually feel for the MS guys - I know what JFK is like on the ground...

Well done to the Luftie boys in getting the thing stopped promptly, and a BIG Bravo Zulu to the TWR and GND guys for picking the infringement so promptly (you can just make out the start of the GND girl's shock inhale of breath while talking to the AA aircraft, as she realises what's happening.... would be terrifying). Kudos to her for continuing on afterwards getting MS clear, obviously under pressure. Sounds like they relieved her after the immediate incident was cleared, quite rightly so.

Nice to hear QF108 Heavy there too - I miss that!

Exactly.

And it is just as likely that the "(callsign)" preceding "Cancel takeoff clearance" was omitted from the recording for the same reasons that the takeoff clearance itself was omitted--the recording originated from a scanner, which is not monitoring a single frequency, but scanning several frequencies.

It appears the recording could have originated from one of two feeds at LiveATC:

or


Does that help everybody to understand how any audio aquired from that website is most likely to be incomplete?

Reference the question of phraseology, in the thread down in the ATC Issues section of this site, there is a post by member controllerzhu, which describes the correct phraseology:
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/455...ml#post6530603

If that member's word is not good enough, the applicable part of the ATC order 7110.65 can be found online. (Link includes both sections for Takeoff Clearance, and Cancellation of Takeoff Clearance.):

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...atc0309.html.9

As usual, I will be happy to be corrected if any of the above is inaccurate.

I believe it is a matter of public record that, prior to departure from JFK, the MS crew was instructed to call an 718 AC phone number upon arrival in Cairo to discuss a "possible pilot deviation" while the ground controller was directed to specifically complement the LH crew. When LH finally taxied out for their departure, the controller indicated "everyone will wait for you". While time may tell a different story and Egypt may be unwilling to accept that their crew was at fault, the "what happened" seems pretty clear even if the "why" is still subject to debate.

Roffa and Ushuaia

Thanks, yes I do but the FAA will do their own report so I won't call to tell them.

The 777 actually infringed at H but you will find that out soon also from the NTSB.

Does it help to label anyone 'at fault'? Thankfully this even was resolved without ham to anyone.

The aviation business is built around ensuring safety and has many safeguards - some of which no doubt played a part in resolving this particular situation. The reason that these safeguards have been built in is because we are all human and we can all make mistakes or suffer misunderstandings.

What matters now is that we investigate the circumstances surrounding the event, understand what contributed to it and - most importantly - see what we can do to stop the chain of events that leads to an accident getting as far as it did. And, hopefully, that investigation will be conducted by people with all of the information that is available, and the results acted on by those with the authority to do so. Whilst I have some views on what may have happened and why, I await the results of a formal investigation - which may support my views....or may show that, in my ignorance, I am completely wrong.

Discussion amongst professionals is always of value - as is the learning value which may stop others from making the same or similar errors. But it would be nice to keep it to the professionals. :ugh:

I see the French BEA have decided that the French built A380 which was taxying on a French airport and stuffed its wintip into a French built structure was the fault of JFK controllers talking too fast! Really guys, leave the endless stupid JFK and USA bashing to us Canadians, we live next to them and its our national sport ,right after hockey and trying to take the British Royals seriously!

Not quite unrelated question. Assume this happens to you as PIC/PF. Now assume you are in the LH seat, you have an hour to take off to cool brakes - how good is your psyche? I may assume you are quite well, disaster averted, not your fault. Now - how about the Egypt Air guy? He probably knows he screwed up majorly, has to call upon arrival etc - but still has to do a 8h or so flight. Is he mentally fit to do that? Are there any rules for that?

Grimmrad, a very good question ! I think the answer should be roughly as follows, like someone in your profesion who bends his car on the way to the hospital to cut someone up, a pilot, like a doctor, should be able to seperate the incident from what he has to do next, most can I belive, some cultures have a problem doing this, there lies the problem. A little story from my past, we were waiting to go at a Canadian airport when tower let us know that the flight ahead of us had dived veritically into the ground with no hope of anyone walking away from that one, they then asked us if we still wanted to take of, I remember the collective spoken comments between the three of us was why the hell wouldnt we go? Like your job one has to seperate things and handle them at the right time, in this case after our flight was over and we were enjoying a good meal and a glass of very fine German beer!

Interestingly though, the ATC is usually relieved ASAP? Even in this case I believe. Not sure if for safety or for debriefing.

Both.
Such a rise in hormones can have desastrous impact on next decisions.
Technical debriefing must be done ASAP : infos must not be lost.

Psychological debriefing and support, or at least (organised) support from colleagues will be needed for both controllers. They'll probably suffer nightmares for some time.

- don't forget it is also a whole lot easier to replace a controller in a room than a pilot in the cockpit.

(Why can I never get the quote box in here if I hit "quote")

Good points. But - the difference here I believe is that a bend car has nothing to do with my qualities as a physician. And the plane going down has nothing to do (at least not immediately, you can always learn from the mistakes others made) with you piloting YOUR plane. But the Egypt Air guy screwed himself up in his profession quite visibly - and the ground instructions he missed after that indicate that he either never has been or at least is not now on top of his game. It might be tough to concentrate on your next case after your patient just died on the table from your mistake (cutting royaly into the inferior cava).

Good luck on that!

If I've heard the recording of the eventual departures of MS986 and LH411 from JFK correctly, the MS crew was given the phone number to call and the reason ("possible pilot deviation") immediately prior to taxi for departure. This sounds to me more like a doctor hearing while scrubbing up, over the hospital PA system, that the state medical board would like him to call about "possible malpractice" after he completes the upcoming brain surgery. I'm sure the MS crew knew they were going to have some questions to answer but being "called out" in so public a fashion just prior to takeoff certainly doesn't seem like the best way to handle it. Perhaps there's a legal reason to do so, but no flight safety reason I can come up with.

Thanks!
 

As a person who's spent a good bit of time sitting behind you folks, reading and drinking coffee, I would like to say thanks to all the men and women who work their asses off for not enough $, both in the pointy end and ATC, for keeping us safe..

well done to both, in this case.:ok:

Sing!!

Another runway incursion for the NTSB to investigate!

Just to make a comparison with another transportation industry which has to take safety seriously, consider what would have happened on a railway:

Assuming that the Egyptair flight had passed a location where it was supposed to stop, or took a wrong turn resulting in a runway incursion (not a rush to judgement, but an assumption for the purpose of the example) it would mean the aircraft had moved beyond where it was authorized by the ATC.

If a train crew made a similar mistake, like if a train passed a signal telling it to stop without stopping, or it entered a zone where it had been told maintenance forces were active without first contacting the maintenance supervisor by radio, it would be considered a major violation of its operating authority.

Assuming the violation doesn't result in an accident, once the violation was noticed, the train would be immediately brought to a stop, and the entire train crew would be relieved from duty, whether on a passenger train or freight train. Other than perhaps moving the train to a location where it wouldn't block road crossings or other train movements, the train wouldn't move again until a new crew could be brought to the location.

The rail traffic controller might also be relieved of duty, if the violation involved the controller's instructions or actions, or lack thereof.

Any employees taken out of service would then likely be subjected to an immediate drug test and an investigation. They would then have to endure any penalties that might be imposed following the investication before they would be allowed to return to duty.

The reasoning on the railway's part is that they don't know why the violation occurred, and whether one of the crew had a medical problem, or was under the influence of something. Until they can be sure of the cause, they can't afford to allow the crew to remain on duty.

One major difference, of course, is that trains can be brought to a stop pretty well anywhere to sort things out, which is not an option for an aircraft at FL 370, but it is still interesting that in an industry that tends to be far stricter than railways in the interpretation and enforcement of rules would allow a crew that has been involved in a major violation on the ground to continue, whether at fault or not.

As to crews that might not have broken any rules, but were involved in a close call, such as if the train they were operating struck a car at a road crossing, or they were on a train that could have been in an accident because of the rule violation of another train, the members of the crew are given the option to be relieved by a fresh crew if they want it. Note that the pay system does not penalize them if they ask for relief, other than they don't get paid again until they come back to work, or a doctor mandates some time off to recover.