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.

Seems like a typical ATC day in JFK to me.

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.

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 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 explain something on a busy frequency.

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!"

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 .

I guess it’s subjective but I’ll stick with my assessment that
There is a difference between going on a bit much and being rude. Everyone knows that certain airports in the USA have a reputation for being crass and this is the sort of controlling that sustains that reputation.
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.

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.

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.

The pilot is responsible for getting the aircraft down and off the runway..

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.

Douchebaggery is a required skill on the resume of JFK TWR, ground and ramp controllers. He's facetiousness was more uncalled for than the pilot's explanation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

I'm a native New Yorker and I have flown out of JFK for twenty years and without fail, I am regularly embarrassed by the JFK controllers particularly when communicating with foreign airlines. While Longboat didn't need to explain the pax and cargo, the controller was still unprofessional.

I had to look up 'intercalate' !

Stopping a small Cessna 421 is not quite the same as stopping a large heavy airliner ! Standing on the brakes, and having them banging in and out of anti-skid, is not a good plan to simply make a runway exit; for several reasons, not least of which will be passenger alarm and complaints. If the aircraft are that close on approach; they are TOO close, period. Over to you, ATC.

I don't specifically remember those exits at JFK, but certain runway exits can have strict maximum speed limits imposed by airlines, before an airliner begins to turn off.

And if you do miss an exit, it is not really practical in an airliner to put on engine power to speed up and then slam on the brakes for the next exit.

If an ATC guy cannot handle an unexpected event or change, he really needs to find another career.

Once upon a time, it behooved one to be an instrument rated pilot when applying to be a controller. (Max raw score on test was 200, being a veteran got you an extra ten, working for the civil service another 10 and being a real pilot was worth 15 or 20).
one would not be hired without a score of 215+

Now, there are a lot more factors in play, and actual experience doesn’t seem to count…

It was fairly slow from V to U3 but that is something that happens every now and again. Even great pilots who are usually the darlings of ATC will sometimes, once or twice, aim for one exit, stick with the attempt until the last second and then realise that it’s not a wise choice. From that point on you are locked into occupying the runway for longer than you and the controller wanted. You can’t then speed up to 50kts to exit at the next available. . It’s just an error of judgement which does happen to pilots, and controllers, and Engineers and Executive managers alike. Expect it, and when it happens, don’t lean into your pre- assigned identity as a loud-mouthed New Yorker, or a reserved Brit, lean into your chosen identity as a professional in the Aviation industry. It will serve you better and you may avoid excess attention :)

I would bet with near 100% certainty that if the Longboat pilot has simply said “unable” as alluded to in post #20, the controller would have badgered him for a reason before handoff to ground.

Whatever happened to the good old days when Kennedy Steve could verbally poke you in the eye with a sharp stick and you’d still want to have a beer with him afterward.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6c3be83b6d.jpg

That sounded like a lame excuse from the pilots and a snappy answer from the controller. Followed by a gracious and mature shrug from the pilots forced to go around.

Perfect summary by Penko.

How tight are they sequencing those heavies anyway?
"Caution wake turbulence".. it's not a VFR light aircraft. What are they supposed to do if they're not happy with the distance? Break off and reposition at which point approach will probably make them number 16...
In the UK (and Europe I think?) we would vector them 4 miles apart which is usually sufficient for no 1 to vacate and no 2 to get a landing clearance (unless there's a tailwind or something like that)

Sometimes aircraft are slow to vacate, it's just the nature of it. If this controller gets agitated with a comfortable go around I wonder what he would do in the event of a runway incursion or an emergency...

Up & down the eastern seabord you experience airport controllers who are brash, blow-hard, uncaring of your issues and generally don't seem to give a sh!t. Having operated the B744 into these destinations for many years I learnt to reply to BS requests simply with 'Unable due performance'. This would generally make the BS go away as they are venturing into subject areas of which they know zip. I was once requested to do a Carnarsie Approach with a 25kt crosswind from the right, only problem was the ATIS said 5 kts across and the wind was not offered by the tower so we blindly pressed on. When it became obvious that the mighty Jumbo was struggling around the final turn, the actual wind became evident and we threw it away, much to the annoyance of the tower. When pressed, he reported the actual wind which bore no relasionship to the ATIS. They switched runways after that as the cat was out of the bag.

But stuff comes around...... I went into Washington (IAD) one evening with an FO who didn't normally say very much. We cleared the final runway crossing and he asked the ground guy for taxy clarification. We got a sarcastic reply to the effect we should known our way around as we must have been there before.... Quick as a flash my FO came back and said "Excuse us Sir, we normally only ever operate to major international airports." He was my hero and I bought the beer that night!

The pilot should have made the designated taxi way. When he did not he should have owned it with a “sorry, we are expediting to the next”. Instead he doddled down the runway taking up radio air time with lame excuses.

Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

Since you were presumably in that cockpit during that landing and roll-out; can you tell us how ?

Originally posted by Big Pistons Forever
The pilot should have made the designated taxi way. When he did not he should have owned it with a “sorry, we are expediting to the next”. Instead he doddled down the runway taking up radio air time with lame excuses.

Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

That is probably the stupidest statement made here so far.

Two aircraft four miles apart and both cleared to land on same runway.
Is this normal practice in the US.

It absolutely is, you can be four aircraft on the same approach, and everybody is cleared to land...

Would there be merit in introducing new terminology at busy airports along the lines “XXX cleared to land, next 3” meaning that the next aircraft is 3 miles behind, hit the brakes a bit harder

No. No need to add pressure on the crews at the most critical stage of flight. They shouldn't be asked to make up for incompetent ATC.

No, also in busy airports the in trail separation is done by another unit , often not located at the airport itself, and the clearance to land given by the tower(s) . If APP makes it too tights there is very little to nothing the TWR controller can do to increase separation. If it does not work in the end due to a missed exit, the TWR controller gets frustrated and , like here apparently , passes his frustration to the wrong culprit.

And also it does nor seem to help or work , even when the controller mentions it , like in Austin for instance..

No, I think it would be confusing. Expedite clearance of the runway was never used. My perspective was the ATC expected the aircraft to vacate at V (based on the aircraft type, wind, and possibly where the aircraft was parking) and part way through the transmission realised that Longboat was going to miss V, and so the exit was U3, at this point it was game over and fate of SilkWest was sealed.

I've never done JFK Tower, never had the opportunity as the FAA has restrictions on the employment of foreigners.

I'm more shocked Norse had a full aircraft!