Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 03:04:49 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  JFK twr a bit irked
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: JFK twr a bit irked  (Read 9598 times)
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« on: February 08, 2013, 08:57:51 AM »

JFK 4L was being used for departures, 4R for arrivals. But xx269 hvy needed 4L for landing. His reason per the audio. Hmmm.
Logged
RonR
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2013, 11:23:13 AM »

Sounds like he didn't know the reason himself until after he landed  grin
Logged

Feed Provider:
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #1
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #2
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #3
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #4
ZBW Boston Center (CLIPR32/HTO31)
ZBW Boston Center (DXR19/SOUTHIE49)
Jetblast1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2013, 12:41:59 PM »

Could it be I heard it was Turkish?

They choose the left runway because of landing weight? (longer rwy)
Logged
RonR
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2013, 01:00:59 PM »

I think it was Korean Air...KAL269 arrived at KJFK around 820AM this morning from Anchorage...

Ron
Logged

Feed Provider:
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #1
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #2
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #3
ZBW/ZNY/ZDC (JFK Area) #4
ZBW Boston Center (CLIPR32/HTO31)
ZBW Boston Center (DXR19/SOUTHIE49)
777-200LR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2013, 02:55:02 AM »

This was the controller's fault for the following reasons:

1.) The pilot initially stated he wanted 4L because of "landing performance."  4L at JFK has 11351 ft. available for landing whereas 4R has only 8400.  Landing performance (i.e. braking distance) is highly correlated to the weight and type of the aircraft.  The controller didn't seem to understand that for some strange reason.

2.) The pilot said they are "approaching the minimums for 4R."  The pilot clearly meant minimums of braking/stopping performance.  The controller mistook the word minimums to mean minimum decision height for for ILS in that 4R is a CAT-III ILS runway with "lower minimums" than the CAT-I ILS for 4L.  But the pilot was not referring to ILS CAT scale minimums and was always referring to braking performance minimums with respect to stopping distance of available runway.

3.) The controller is a tool because he thinks he's lecturing the pilot on ILS minimums when it's clear to me he doesn't even understand the pilot.  The fact that the pilot was from another country should have told the controller that there might be something lost in the language translation with respect to what the word minimums meant.  The pilot was probably wondering why the controller is angry at him for simply wanting to safely stop his passenger jet on the longer runway with an extra 3,000 feet of stopping distance that was called for by the performance computer and mandatory to follow by Korean Air SOPs.

In fact, NTSB investigations have shown time and time again that Part 121 aircraft routinely violate company SOP's and FAR's when they land on shorter runways, especially when the runway is contaminated or there is a tailwind component. 

4.) This isn't the first time we've seen this type of arrogance from JFK controllers.  Avianca Flight 52 also comes to mind where the pilots declared "fuel priority" and the controllers instead put them back in the pattern and vectored them out over Cove Neck on a 20-mile final when they were on fumes.  It should have been obvious to JFK controllers that you don't vector a jet out for a 20-mile approach when it's low on fuel and has made numerous references about its low fuel status prior to declaring a missed approach.

JFK controllers were in the wrong here 100%.  Pilot was just doing his job.  JFK controller was not.

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too.  
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 04:25:16 AM by 777-200LR » Logged
Jetblast1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2013, 06:36:42 AM »

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too. 

I can take a joke  cheesy But there's only One (1) ME and that's me.    tongue
Logged
vb105
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2013, 12:46:27 PM »

777-200LR... couldn't have said it better myself. 100% correct.
Logged
rosie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2013, 10:19:44 AM »

This was the controller's fault for the following reasons:

1.) The pilot initially stated he wanted 4L because of "landing performance."  4L at JFK has 11351 ft. available for landing whereas 4R has only 8400.  Landing performance (i.e. braking distance) is highly correlated to the weight and type of the aircraft.  The controller didn't seem to understand that for some strange reason.

2.) The pilot said they are "approaching the minimums for 4R."  The pilot clearly meant minimums of braking/stopping performance.  The controller mistook the word minimums to mean minimum decision height for for ILS in that 4R is a CAT-III ILS runway with "lower minimums" than the CAT-I ILS for 4L.  But the pilot was not referring to ILS CAT scale minimums and was always referring to braking performance minimums with respect to stopping distance of available runway.

3.) The controller is a tool because he thinks he's lecturing the pilot on ILS minimums when it's clear to me he doesn't even understand the pilot.  The fact that the pilot was from another country should have told the controller that there might be something lost in the language translation with respect to what the word minimums meant.  The pilot was probably wondering why the controller is angry at him for simply wanting to safely stop his passenger jet on the longer runway with an extra 3,000 feet of stopping distance that was called for by the performance computer and mandatory to follow by Korean Air SOPs.

In fact, NTSB investigations have shown time and time again that Part 121 aircraft routinely violate company SOP's and FAR's when they land on shorter runways, especially when the runway is contaminated or there is a tailwind component.  

4.) This isn't the first time we've seen this type of arrogance from JFK controllers.  Avianca Flight 52 also comes to mind where the pilots declared "fuel priority" and the controllers instead put them back in the pattern and vectored them out over Cove Neck on a 20-mile final when they were on fumes.  It should have been obvious to JFK controllers that you don't vector a jet out for a 20-mile approach when it's low on fuel and has made numerous references about its low fuel status prior to declaring a missed approach.

JFK controllers were in the wrong here 100%.  Pilot was just doing his job.  JFK controller was not.

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too.  

So Mr. Smooth do you know whether the tower supervisor was standing behind the controller asking to find out the reason why KAL needed Ry 4L?
 Are you aware that there is standard phraseology for low fuel situations? Trying to blame AVA on JFK tower is myopic. Why don't you read the NTSB reports that speaks to CRM in the cockpit. The Avianca disaster changed air traffic control in the US forever. It was that event that started the whole concept of ground delay holding to reduce excessive airborne inventory events.
Pilots who violate landing weight and balance rules are an accident waiting to happen. Airports are routinely in high crosswind and tailwind configurations because the USER'S want the increased efficiency at the expense of safety!  shocked shocked The rules of the game have changed in the last 10 years, atc no longer determines runway config's the airlines do. So please don't blame atc for high crosswinds and tailwinds!

Have you ever stepped foot into a busy ATC tower?
Logged
Comfirm31L
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2013, 10:04:24 PM »

This was the controller's fault for the following reasons:

1.) The pilot initially stated he wanted 4L because of "landing performance."  4L at JFK has 11351 ft. available for landing whereas 4R has only 8400.  Landing performance (i.e. braking distance) is highly correlated to the weight and type of the aircraft.  The controller didn't seem to understand that for some strange reason.

2.) The pilot said they are "approaching the minimums for 4R."  The pilot clearly meant minimums of braking/stopping performance.  The controller mistook the word minimums to mean minimum decision height for for ILS in that 4R is a CAT-III ILS runway with "lower minimums" than the CAT-I ILS for 4L.  But the pilot was not referring to ILS CAT scale minimums and was always referring to braking performance minimums with respect to stopping distance of available runway.

3.) The controller is a tool because he thinks he's lecturing the pilot on ILS minimums when it's clear to me he doesn't even understand the pilot.  The fact that the pilot was from another country should have told the controller that there might be something lost in the language translation with respect to what the word minimums meant.  The pilot was probably wondering why the controller is angry at him for simply wanting to safely stop his passenger jet on the longer runway with an extra 3,000 feet of stopping distance that was called for by the performance computer and mandatory to follow by Korean Air SOPs.

In fact, NTSB investigations have shown time and time again that Part 121 aircraft routinely violate company SOP's and FAR's when they land on shorter runways, especially when the runway is contaminated or there is a tailwind component.  

4.) This isn't the first time we've seen this type of arrogance from JFK controllers.  Avianca Flight 52 also comes to mind where the pilots declared "fuel priority" and the controllers instead put them back in the pattern and vectored them out over Cove Neck on a 20-mile final when they were on fumes.  It should have been obvious to JFK controllers that you don't vector a jet out for a 20-mile approach when it's low on fuel and has made numerous references about its low fuel status prior to declaring a missed approach.

JFK controllers were in the wrong here 100%.  Pilot was just doing his job.  JFK controller was not.

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too.  

So Mr. Smooth do you know whether the tower supervisor was standing behind the controller asking to find out the reason why KAL needed Ry 4L?
 Are you aware that there is standard phraseology for low fuel situations? Trying to blame AVA on JFK tower is myopic. Why don't you read the NTSB reports that speaks to CRM in the cockpit. The Avianca disaster changed air traffic control in the US forever. It was that event that started the whole concept of ground delay holding to reduce excessive airborne inventory events.
Pilots who violate landing weight and balance rules are an accident waiting to happen. Airports are routinely in high crosswind and tailwind configurations because the USER'S want the increased efficiency at the expense of safety!  shocked shocked The rules of the game have changed in the last 10 years, atc no longer determines runway config's the airlines do. So please don't blame atc for high crosswinds and tailwinds!

Have you ever stepped foot into a busy ATC tower?


Hit the nail right on the head. Certain airlines prefer certain runway set ups simply because they taxi to the gate or to the dept rwy faster, even if its a 20 kt tailwind!!! Safety is not even a thought.
Logged
Jetblast1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2013, 02:50:39 AM »

I would rather think the airline pilots don't want to re-program the FMC/ CDU while in flight, everything is set-up before they even start....

I remember a pilot who needed 5 minutes at SFO to change from 28 left to 28 right only.... (this was for departing though) so, to change the runways for landing would give more workload.....
Logged
777-200LR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2013, 02:35:18 AM »

This was the controller's fault for the following reasons:

1.) The pilot initially stated he wanted 4L because of "landing performance."  4L at JFK has 11351 ft. available for landing whereas 4R has only 8400.  Landing performance (i.e. braking distance) is highly correlated to the weight and type of the aircraft.  The controller didn't seem to understand that for some strange reason.

2.) The pilot said they are "approaching the minimums for 4R."  The pilot clearly meant minimums of braking/stopping performance.  The controller mistook the word minimums to mean minimum decision height for for ILS in that 4R is a CAT-III ILS runway with "lower minimums" than the CAT-I ILS for 4L.  But the pilot was not referring to ILS CAT scale minimums and was always referring to braking performance minimums with respect to stopping distance of available runway.

3.) The controller is a tool because he thinks he's lecturing the pilot on ILS minimums when it's clear to me he doesn't even understand the pilot.  The fact that the pilot was from another country should have told the controller that there might be something lost in the language translation with respect to what the word minimums meant.  The pilot was probably wondering why the controller is angry at him for simply wanting to safely stop his passenger jet on the longer runway with an extra 3,000 feet of stopping distance that was called for by the performance computer and mandatory to follow by Korean Air SOPs.

In fact, NTSB investigations have shown time and time again that Part 121 aircraft routinely violate company SOP's and FAR's when they land on shorter runways, especially when the runway is contaminated or there is a tailwind component.  

4.) This isn't the first time we've seen this type of arrogance from JFK controllers.  Avianca Flight 52 also comes to mind where the pilots declared "fuel priority" and the controllers instead put them back in the pattern and vectored them out over Cove Neck on a 20-mile final when they were on fumes.  It should have been obvious to JFK controllers that you don't vector a jet out for a 20-mile approach when it's low on fuel and has made numerous references about its low fuel status prior to declaring a missed approach.

JFK controllers were in the wrong here 100%.  Pilot was just doing his job.  JFK controller was not.

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too.  

So Mr. Smooth do you know whether the tower supervisor was standing behind the controller asking to find out the reason why KAL needed Ry 4L?
 Are you aware that there is standard phraseology for low fuel situations? Trying to blame AVA on JFK tower is myopic. Why don't you read the NTSB reports that speaks to CRM in the cockpit. The Avianca disaster changed air traffic control in the US forever. It was that event that started the whole concept of ground delay holding to reduce excessive airborne inventory events.
Pilots who violate landing weight and balance rules are an accident waiting to happen. Airports are routinely in high crosswind and tailwind configurations because the USER'S want the increased efficiency at the expense of safety!  shocked shocked The rules of the game have changed in the last 10 years, atc no longer determines runway config's the airlines do. So please don't blame atc for high crosswinds and tailwinds!

Have you ever stepped foot into a busy ATC tower?

No, I do not know if tower super was standing behind tower mouth.  Pilot clearly articulated why he wanted 4L when he said "landing performance."  The only difference between 4L and 4R is the landing distance (~3,000 feet).  What else could Korean Air driver possibly mean?  The fact that aircraft was coming from the other side of Pacific and heavy should also clue ATC in to the fact that longer runway was needed for stopping distance not ILS CAT designation (I, II, II, III).   Pilots don't care about CAT designation unless they were landing in awful IMC, which was not even the case that day.  

Also, most carriers these days want longer runways for landing and tell pilots to go easy on brakes.  Reduces brake and tire maintenance costs.  Use TR's a bit longer and then coast until last taxiway.  No need to jump on brakes, which adds thousands of dollars each time you step on pedals or use Autobrakes 3 vs. 2 or 1.  Lot of foreign carriers intentionally brake easy on 25L @ LAX and taxi all the way till the end and make right at last taxiway U just to save money on brakes and tires.

Most heavies that land on 4R @ Kennedy in rainy conditions with tailwind component are probably violating SOP's and some FAR's.  EMAS don't count.  Pilot wants 4L, there's nothing to question — you give it and tell Korean Air to expedite egress and next T/O plane to line up and wait as soon as fat blue thing passes.  ATC wasted time bickering.  No need to be confrontational to Korean Air pilot as it adversely affects performance.

Standard phraseology back in 1990 I do not know, but pilot requesting non-standard "fuel priority" would be treated the same by me as fuel low or fuel emergency.  I would already deduce in mind that Avianca pilot is talking through second language and treat request conservatively (same as fuel emergency).  JFK treated "fuel priority" as nothing, which makes no sense.  Also, approach controller did not convey "fuel priority" message to tower controller.

But you are correct.  I am Mr. Smooth.

Logged
777-200LR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2013, 02:48:25 AM »

This was the controller's fault for the following reasons:

1.) The pilot initially stated he wanted 4L because of "landing performance."  4L at JFK has 11351 ft. available for landing whereas 4R has only 8400.  Landing performance (i.e. braking distance) is highly correlated to the weight and type of the aircraft.  The controller didn't seem to understand that for some strange reason.

2.) The pilot said they are "approaching the minimums for 4R."  The pilot clearly meant minimums of braking/stopping performance.  The controller mistook the word minimums to mean minimum decision height for for ILS in that 4R is a CAT-III ILS runway with "lower minimums" than the CAT-I ILS for 4L.  But the pilot was not referring to ILS CAT scale minimums and was always referring to braking performance minimums with respect to stopping distance of available runway.

3.) The controller is a tool because he thinks he's lecturing the pilot on ILS minimums when it's clear to me he doesn't even understand the pilot.  The fact that the pilot was from another country should have told the controller that there might be something lost in the language translation with respect to what the word minimums meant.  The pilot was probably wondering why the controller is angry at him for simply wanting to safely stop his passenger jet on the longer runway with an extra 3,000 feet of stopping distance that was called for by the performance computer and mandatory to follow by Korean Air SOPs.

In fact, NTSB investigations have shown time and time again that Part 121 aircraft routinely violate company SOP's and FAR's when they land on shorter runways, especially when the runway is contaminated or there is a tailwind component.  

4.) This isn't the first time we've seen this type of arrogance from JFK controllers.  Avianca Flight 52 also comes to mind where the pilots declared "fuel priority" and the controllers instead put them back in the pattern and vectored them out over Cove Neck on a 20-mile final when they were on fumes.  It should have been obvious to JFK controllers that you don't vector a jet out for a 20-mile approach when it's low on fuel and has made numerous references about its low fuel status prior to declaring a missed approach.

JFK controllers were in the wrong here 100%.  Pilot was just doing his job.  JFK controller was not.

Damn, I'm good.  Smooth too.  

So Mr. Smooth do you know whether the tower supervisor was standing behind the controller asking to find out the reason why KAL needed Ry 4L?
 Are you aware that there is standard phraseology for low fuel situations? Trying to blame AVA on JFK tower is myopic. Why don't you read the NTSB reports that speaks to CRM in the cockpit. The Avianca disaster changed air traffic control in the US forever. It was that event that started the whole concept of ground delay holding to reduce excessive airborne inventory events.
Pilots who violate landing weight and balance rules are an accident waiting to happen. Airports are routinely in high crosswind and tailwind configurations because the USER'S want the increased efficiency at the expense of safety!  shocked shocked The rules of the game have changed in the last 10 years, atc no longer determines runway config's the airlines do. So please don't blame atc for high crosswinds and tailwinds!

Have you ever stepped foot into a busy ATC tower?


Hit the nail right on the head. Certain airlines prefer certain runway set ups simply because they taxi to the gate or to the dept rwy faster, even if its a 20 kt tailwind!!! Safety is not even a thought.

There's not a single carrier @JFK who would ever pick 4R over 4L to land because every aircraft that lands on 4R MUST cross 4L to get to the gate.   What you say would only be the case for landing the 13's or 31's at JFK.

When landing 4's or 22's, no carrier wants 4R/22L.  Yet that's JFK's main landing runway and only CAT-III ILS.  So it's always ATC preference to give that runway, but never crew/carrier preference to land 4R/22L @ JFK.

Korean Air pilot did in fact select 4L over 4R for "safety."  You're going to see a lot more of that too as pilots get educated on the fact that they have been landing on runways too short for years.  Thousands of landings every year by majors violate FARs and company SOPs.  Read the NTSB report about Southwest overrun crash at Midway if you want to know what happens when pilots don't think about safety when landing wet, long, and w/tailwind.   

That and maintenance issue of using longer runways to save brakes/tires.  Nobody wants short runways except the baby jets.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 05:54:14 AM by 777-200LR » Logged
777-200LR
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2013, 05:43:48 AM »

I would rather think the airline pilots don't want to re-program the FMC/ CDU while in flight, everything is set-up before they even start....

I remember a pilot who needed 5 minutes at SFO to change from 28 left to 28 right only.... (this was for departing though) so, to change the runways for landing would give more workload.....

'Stepping over' to parallel runway for landing is no big deal.  All you have to do is enter new ILS frequency in CDU.  Can be done in 10-15 seconds...here's the button sequence on CDU for Boeing:

1.) NAV button
2.) Enter new ILS frequency (confirm with other pilot)
3.) Execute
[this sets new ILS runway for LOC and GLIDESLOPE]

Or, you can set new runway ILS via ARR button by selecting STAR + new runway via side selector buttons next to CDU screen, confirm, then Execute.  Then go back to NAV display and press the side button that corresponds to the new ILS frequency which should be automatically displayed, but not active.  Pressing button activates new ILS.

Either way takes about 10-15 seconds for non-flying pilot.

Not sure why it would take 5 minutes to switch CDU from 28R to 28L departure at SFO.  CDU re-programming can be done in 20-30 seconds for runway switch.  No departure SID for KSFO — including the quiet routes at night —  require any changes between 28R or 28L (both runways use identical departure routes to first waypoint of all SIDS).

What might take a while is after switching runways, you have to do 2 things:

1.) Switch to MAP mode and cycle through each new waypoint using the LEG command and confirm with both pilots.  After confirmation, you then EXECUTE.  Figure 20 seconds.

2.) Re-program ILS for 28L (or 28R), since ILS is also used for maintaining runway alignment and hand-flying after rotation until autopilot 'grabs' the route.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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!