Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 02:26:12 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  767 almost lands on wrong runway at JFK Sunday 9/19
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 767 almost lands on wrong runway at JFK Sunday 9/19  (Read 32425 times)
john4321
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2010, 11:55:13 PM »

I'm still amazed that this runway near-incident almost happened. It reminds me of the possible Canary Island Tenerife type disaster that could have occurred. (pilot-error).

The Tenerife airport disaster in 1977 was a collision involving two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport (now known as Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands. With 583 fatalities, the crash remains the deadliest accident in aviation history. All 248 aboard the fully fuelled KLM flight were killed. There were also 335 fatalities and 61 survivors from the Pan Am flight, which was struck along its spine by the KLM's landing gear, under-belly and four engines. Rescue crews were unaware for over 20 minutes that the Pan Am aircraft was also involved in the accident, because of the heavy fog and the separation of the crippled aircraft following the collision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

john
Logged
svoynick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2010, 02:52:24 AM »

That clip was too funny, and more so in light of a recent experience I had. I was in a Cessna (as a pax) that nearly taxied into the path of a landing heavy fifteen seconds before touchdown... we were first in the line-up. Just as I happened to glance around behind us I noticed something. It took me a few seconds to register that the guy behind us was frantically flashing his landing lights and waving a phone in an attempt to keep us off the runway.

All this because ground gave us the wrong tower freq., and this was the pilot's first trip to that airport, so he assumed the perceived radio silence was SOP.
Just a clarification...  For the situation you described, are you saying this happened "because" the pilot got the wrong freq. from ground?  Respectfully, am I off-target to suggest that it happened because the pilot entered an active runway without a clearance?  

Are there controlled airports where it's "SOP" for silence to represent an implicit clearance?  (This is rhetorical...)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 02:56:12 AM by svoynick » Logged
Heading090
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2010, 02:07:50 PM »

How is possible that ATC did not detect that Aerogal ended up on the final for the wrong runway?

Somebody cleared him for approach and, I would hope, made sure that he was heading for the correct runway. Shouldn't the tower controller be first to detect the error (radar screen, visual observation)?

Before we send Aerogal crew for more training we may want to look on the ATC role in this incident.
Logged
flyflyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107



« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2010, 03:48:29 PM »

How is possible that ATC did not detect that Aerogal ended up on the final for the wrong runway?

Somebody cleared him for approach and, I would hope, made sure that he was heading for the correct runway. Shouldn't the tower controller be first to detect the error (radar screen, visual observation)?

Before we send Aerogal crew for more training we may want to look on the ATC role in this incident.
It was the Canarsie approach to runways 13. It requires an approach at an angle of about 90 degrees, and a sharp right turn on short final. The turn is only 2miles from the runway, so the time between turning, aligning and landing is really short. Landing clearance may be given before the plane has even turned.

We don't know the timing here. It is well possible that Delta was watching Aerogal's approach and spotted their mistake immediately, while Aerogal was still turning. A controller, busy watching his radar, would take several extra seconds to spot this.

And, ATC instructions were clear - "cleared to land 13L". The pilots are responsible for flying the plane. When they align with the wrong runway, it's their fault - not ATC's.

Ah, this reminds me of this great audio:
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/ual-56-vs-atc-at-sfo-last-night/
"I fly the airplane - YOU just clear us for take-off!grin
Logged
Flyingnut
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2010, 06:06:58 PM »

KJFK 13L Canarsie  Approach











« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 10:19:25 PM by beckerm13 » Logged

Marty
PPL - Instrument Rating
8 NW of KORD
flyflyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107



« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2010, 03:11:42 AM »

KJFK 13L Canarsie  Approach


He he, I like how the captain asks his flying co-pilot "You see the runway?". This is like 30 seconds before touch-down... smiley

Approach charts to runways 13:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2480636/JFK-VOR-OR-GPS-RWY-13LR-0804

Note the subtle difference between 13R and 13L: 13R requires a 90 degree turn at the same spot where 13L requires the first 45 degree turn...
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2010, 05:16:53 AM »

interestingly enough there's also a charted visual approach to 13L/R that seems to follow the VOR-GPS ground track
 http://airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1010/00610PARKWAY_VIS13LR.PDF (PDF file)
Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2010, 10:06:00 AM »

I'm still amazed that this runway near-incident almost happened. It reminds me of the possible Canary Island Tenerife type disaster that could have occurred. (pilot-error).

The Tenerife airport disaster in 1977 was a collision involving two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport (now known as Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands. With 583 fatalities, the crash remains the deadliest accident in aviation history. All 248 aboard the fully fuelled KLM flight were killed. There were also 335 fatalities and 61 survivors from the Pan Am flight, which was struck along its spine by the KLM's landing gear, under-belly and four engines. Rescue crews were unaware for over 20 minutes that the Pan Am aircraft was also involved in the accident, because of the heavy fog and the separation of the crippled aircraft following the collision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

john

Or how about US Air 1493 and Skywest 5569? Boeing 737-300 (N388US) collided with a Skywest Metroliner (N683AV) while landing at KLAX on 02/01/91. US Air 1493 was cleared to land on 24L while Skywest 5569 was holding in position for an intersection departure. Upon touchdown, the US Air crew noticed the Metroliner sitting on the runway, but it was too late. During the investigation, it was determined that Skywest's operating procedure was to turn the landing lights and strobe lights on ONLY AFTER being cleared for takeoff, she sat on the runway with her nav lights and anti-collision beacon on only. The Metroliner was invisible to the US Air crew as they made the approach. The NTSB recreated the conditions that evening, placing a Metroliner at the intersection Skywest 5569 was sitting at, and flew the approach in a helicopter. They could not see the Metroliner on the runway until they were almost over top of it. Controller Error was sighted in this crash that killed all 12 souls on the Metroliner and 22 souls on the B737.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA91MA018A&rpt=fi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1493

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w19910201.htm

Obviously, it was not controller error in the Aerogal incident. The tower controller did a great job handling the issue. And hats off to the ON POINT Delta crew! Way to keep your heads up! Had they not noticed the Aerogal turning final for the wrong runway, and taxied into position, the outcome could have been very similar to the above US Air-Skywest crash, only on a much grander scale. A B767-300, B757-200, and an E190 were the aircraft present at that time. Aerogal 700H was a B767-300, Delta 122 was a Boeing 757-200 bound for Shannon (EINN), and Jet Blue 1087, the aircraft that was rolling on the runway, was an E190 bound for KCLT.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 10:53:05 AM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2010, 01:12:48 PM »



Note the subtle difference between 13R and 13L: 13R requires a 90 degree turn at the same spot where 13L requires the first 45 degree turn...

Turning to line up for 13R off the Canarsie approach requires rather more effort than the more gradual turn for 13L. They must have really thought they were cleared for 13R.
Logged
NY Z Pilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2010, 11:32:06 AM »

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7697295&syndicate=syndicate&section
Logged
NY Z Pilot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2010, 11:33:14 AM »



Note the subtle difference between 13R and 13L: 13R requires a 90 degree turn at the same spot where 13L requires the first 45 degree turn...

Turning to line up for 13R off the Canarsie approach requires rather more effort than the more gradual turn for 13L. They must have really thought they were cleared for 13R.


Lead in lights go to 13L and 13R... he made a mistake. The tower now has control over turning the lights on/off for 13R.
Logged
flyflyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107



« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2010, 01:46:04 PM »


Pity, video won't show over here... Maybe US-only... But there is a text version:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7697310
Quote
"It's a night veteran air traffic controller Steve Abraham would like to forget.
[...]
The FAA has yet to get back to Eyewitness News on just how close the two planes got, but the Abraham says it was the closest of his 20 year career. He's also at a loss as to why the pilot tried to land on the wrong runway.
[...]
An internet flight tracking system showed the jet came within 300 feet of touching down on the runway."
300 feet!? shocked

Lead in lights go to 13L and 13R... he made a mistake. The tower now has control over turning the lights on/off for 13R.
No way!? Huh  Are you saying tower was not in control of those lights before the incident? It actually took so many years and one close call to figure out this simple, low-tech safety measure? ("Oh, right, we could install a light switch!!cheesy ). You'd assume it to be natural standard, that any tower has control of all its runway lighting...
Logged
dlarokk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2010, 03:16:50 PM »

ABC's story sounds a bit sensationalistic.
Logged
TC
Guest
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2010, 07:12:13 PM »

How is possible that ATC did not detect that Aerogal ended up on the final for the wrong runway?

Somebody cleared him for approach and, I would hope, made sure that he was heading for the correct runway. Shouldn't the tower controller be first to detect the error (radar screen, visual observation)?

Before we send Aerogal crew for more training we may want to look on the ATC role in this incident.

How is (it) possible?  How?  Because we are responsible for many things in a tower cab that you don't hear on the radio.  Coordinations, handling strip movement, tower teamwork, etc.  We SEPARATE the planes, we don't babysit them.  The a/c was cleared for the approach to and cleared to land on a specific runway.  We don't have the luxury of having all the other planes stop in midair or on the ground while we stare at this 1 guy to make sure he doesn't mess up.  There are other planes on the surface moving around in close proximity to active runways, even crossing them at times.  We watch them, too.  We have to watch everyone.  And we have aids, but in this instance the ground radar WASN'T WORKING.  Thank the agency for that.  God bless the pilot who 1st said something.  God bless the controller who took quick action and averted a disaster that the pilot nearly caused by his screw up.  Even after the aerogal fails to respond to the controller's first frantic instructions to turn he remained cool under pressure and PREVENTED a collision!!  And you question his actions???  You want to "look at" HIS role??  His role is simple.  It's spelled H-E-R-O.  Your remarks and insinuation leave me stunned.
Logged
TC
Guest
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2010, 07:23:04 PM »



Lead in lights go to 13L and 13R... he made a mistake. The tower now has control over turning the lights on/off for 13R.
No way!? Huh  Are you saying tower was not in control of those lights before the incident? It actually took so many years and one close call to figure out this simple, low-tech safety measure? ("Oh, right, we could install a light switch!!cheesy ). You'd assume it to be natural standard, that any tower has control of all its runway lighting...

[/quote]

And what would that do?  We're supposed to shut the lights off as JetBlue rolls down the runway?  Really?  Landing and departing on parallel  runways is something very common.  We can't just shut the lights off for all the runways aerogal or anyone else isn't cleared to land on!  There are other airport operations going on, people crossing and holding short of runways, etc.  You cannot just clear a guy to land and then shut off all the other lights.

The pilot made a mistake, plain and simple.  He brought his plane in to the wrong runway.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!