MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16619 times:
It sounds corny but maybe the pilots of Aerogal were distracted by the problems in their home country.
It is proven that stress about problems at home, earlier accidents were collegues were involved, strikes and conflicts within the airline etc cause an increased risk of (new) accidents.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16530 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 1): It sounds corny but maybe the pilots of Aerogal were distracted by the problems in their home country.
Possibly, but it's more likely that it's just such a poor procedure that can lead to more errors than a typical straight-in approach, especially if the pilots are unfamiliar with the approach, the lighting, the surrounding lights, and JFK in general. The 13 operation, especially in weather, is just one reason JFK is my least favorite airport in the country to operate at. It's good that the Delta guys had awareness of what was going on in time to make a timely call to tower.
PapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 134 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15670 times:
Problems in Ecuador do not in any way explain confusion between left and right. A confusing approach procedure also does not explain why the flight crew lined up to the wrong runway. This seems to be a pretty big oops on the flight crew's part, but thankfully the error was caught before something ugly happened.
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2797 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13940 times:
I've goota believe, 13 right , being brand new (cement) was visually apparent to him first. 13 left is a runway that visually gets lost in the ground clutter and this turn from base to final comes up fast. Obviously the crew was not familiar with the airport as they should have been. That would have been quite a mess...Whew!
adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12137 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 8): I've goota believe, 13 right , being brand new (cement) was visually apparent to him first. 13 left is a runway that visually gets lost in the ground clutter and this turn from base to final comes up fast. Obviously the crew was not familiar with the airport as they should have been. That would have been quite a mess...Whew! Wow!
In situations like this when you have an airport with parallel runways, is it ever common for pilots to plug in the localizer (assuming there is one to 13L) to the nav radios regardless of doing a visual approach for additional peace of mind that they are landing on the proper runway?
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11872 times:
I can actually see the mistake between 13L and 13R but I am surprised Aerogal did not respond quicker to ATC. If they tell to move right and abort. You do it right away and acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever is acceptable imo.
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1620 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10947 times:
I witnessed an incident much like this at JFK. I'd gone out to catch the Concorde and got a bit of a show. A TAP A340 was cleared for 13L and attempted to land on 13R. He got pretty close before the tower screamed at him that he was on the wrong runway and to go around "IMMEDIATELY!!!". The crew from another aircraft piped in "wow, that's kind of scary". The A340 came back around about 15 minutes later on the correct 13L approach.
I've always wondered what the crew of that TAP flight told their passengers the reason for the go-around was - it's a good bet they blamed ATC. I also wonder whether they were called on the carpet in any way.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10173 times:
Quoting JohnJ (Reply 8): I've always wondered what the crew of that TAP flight told their passengers the reason for the go-around was - it's a good bet they blamed ATC. I also wonder whether they were called on the carpet in any way.
The TAP crew probably didn't have to tell their passengers much at all - 'there is an aircraft on the runway' is probably more than sufficient and almost nobody on the plane would have known that it was essentially a near-miss.
The more recent incident is definitely a little scary and thank goodness nothing came of it.
netjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10141 times:
Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 7): I can actually see the mistake between 13L and 13R but I am surprised Aerogal did not respond quicker to ATC. If they tell to move right and abort. You do it right away and acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever is acceptable imo.
Aerogal did not respond quicker because they were taken aback by the instruction to "go around"... they though they were lined up for the right runway.... when you're tired (long flight), unfamiliar and English is not your native language, things in aviation happen very, very quick
that approach looks very simple, but its not if you're not familiar.
richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4022 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10001 times:
Are landings on 13R at JFK common? I'm used to seeing 13L landings and departures on 13R but not the other way around.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6512 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9843 times:
I wonder if he was flying the Parkway Visual. If so, maybe he wasn't terribly familiar with this approach. For 13R you turn at the twin stacks but if you're sent out to 13L you're not suppose to turn until you get up to Aqueduct.
I have jumpseat into JFK a few times at night and the place looks VERY different during night time. The first time I saw it I knew it was JFK just because of navigation but my mind and eyes were telling me otherwise.
Quoting adam42185 (Reply 6): In situations like this when you have an airport with parallel runways, is it ever common for pilots to plug in the localizer (assuming there is one to 13L) to the nav radios regardless of doing a visual approach for additional peace of mind that they are landing on the proper runway?
13L has an ILS/LOC but 13R does not. You will at a minimum set your course for the visual approach.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9843 times:
Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 10): English is not your native language, things in aviation happen very, very quick
Which is why there needs to be more emphasis on actually understanding the English language than on just being able to speak it. You could probably teach a monkey how to speak English, but he wouldn't understand it. These people need to understand English, so that situations like this don't get worse than it was.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19695 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9563 times:
Quoting adam42185 (Reply 6): In situations like this when you have an airport with parallel runways, is it ever common for pilots to plug in the localizer (assuming there is one to 13L) to the nav radios regardless of doing a visual approach for additional peace of mind that they are landing on the proper runway?
The 13L isn't really a visual approach - it's a VOR approach with a rather long visual portion at the end. The approach would normally be loaded in the FMS, and I'm not sure whether any other frequencies would (or even could) be tuned in - I don't know the specifics of the 767's box.
Quoting richierich (Reply 11): Are landings on 13R at JFK common? I'm used to seeing 13L landings and departures on 13R but not the other way around.
Rare, but not unheard of. Sometimes they'll do it with arrivals that are going to terminals 1-4, but only if there isn't a lot of departing traffic waiting. Which isn't often.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Super Em From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8486 times:
RWY 13L has lead in lights when the visual approach is active. Like others have said before, the Aerogal pilot must have mistaken 13R for 13L hence the sharp turn for 13R. The pilot must not have been familiar with the layout of the airport.
It must be noted that sometimes pilots do request 13R for landing.
matheus From Brazil, joined Nov 2003, 135 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8422 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 13): Which is why there needs to be more emphasis on actually understanding the English language than on just being able to speak it. You could probably teach a monkey how to speak English, but he wouldn't understand it. These people need to understand English, so that situations like this don't get worse than it was.
In this case the ATC english was really clear and well pronounced, but isn't always in that way on USA, specially in busy airports. Some speak too fast and shorten some key words, so the undestanding may be difficult. You can ask for any non-native english speaker, the USA ATC is the on that you need to keep most attention.
dgehfx From Canada, joined May 2001, 132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7970 times:
I am an English native speaker but I found the Air Traffic controller's instructions verbose and unclear. Would it not be safer for ATC simply to say, " Aerogal. Go around. Turn right", rather than something like the, "...you need to be turning right right now..."?
I think it would be enlightening for AT controllers to study a foreign language for a year or so to be able to appreciate just how helpful simple, concise, clear instructions are even for a skilled, alert pilot who is communicating in a second language.
Soxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7261 times:
Quoting dgehfx (Reply 17): I think it would be enlightening for AT controllers to study a foreign language for a year or so to be able to appreciate just how helpful simple, concise, clear instructions are even for a skilled, alert pilot who is communicating in a second language.
If controllers know a different language, such as Spanish, are they allowed to speak to a pilot in that language, at least in emergency situations?
The quality of the pilot's radio and headphones should also be taken into account--sometimes a poor headset, combined with the noise of the airplane, can lead to mishearing or misinterpreting things. However, in this case, I did hear the pilot confirm 13L. And, I thought the controller's instructions were relatively clear and well-pronounced.
Pilot: "Request push, which way should we face?" JFK Ground: "You better face the front, sir, or you'll scare the pax!"
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5985 times:
Quoting dgehfx (Reply 17): I think it would be enlightening for AT controllers to study a foreign language for a year or so to be able to appreciate just how helpful simple, concise, clear instructions are even for a skilled, alert pilot who is communicating in a second language.
That is a great idea. We should treat them better in general too.
Barbro From Finland, joined Jun 2005, 60 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5896 times:
Wow, what a case...
I have to agree with dgehfx here. If the story is told exactly as it happened, the ATC's instructions could've been clearer and more commanding.
Otherwise, it is not at all surprising that there was such a long delay in the pilot's response. After all, he had a mindset that he was landing on the right runway, and if you are not mentally prepared that something is going wrong (as I think is the case most of the time), you are thinking everything is going right and there is no need to "have your thumb on the go-around button", so to speak. Add to that a long flight behind you, a little sleep-deprivation perhaps, even the effects of a lot of routine (as would be the case for a wide-body crew) that approaches tend to go through as planned, and it would be very surprising to the crew to hear ATC call for a go-around.
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2630 posts, RR: 12 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5868 times:
If there are any pilots on here from Aerogal or any other company where your English is good but not perfect, I would like to apologize on behalf of JFK ATC.
I do not work there but it is embarrassing for me as a pilot in the USA to listen to them continuously be very rude to foreign pilots. They are short tempered, they do not use standard phraseology, and they add so many words to their instructions that I have to wonder if they are almost doing it intentionally.
Five or six words was all the controller needed to say to this airplane, instead of a long-winded rant. What a disgrace.
I am not justifying poor English flying inbound to JFK -- crews really ought to be proficient and clearly some are not. But, tower knows this, and still does not react properly and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Just a few miles away, Newark ATC is the polar opposite of the JFK attitude. EWR controllers are the most professional I have encountered as far as busy northeast airports go. Sure, the airport itself is a logistical nightmare on a bad day, but really no more than the others in the region, yet they never lose their cool. I also commend them for being 'picky' with hearing specific things in the readback such as "Hold short four left" yet never impolite while asking a pilot to confirm the instruction. That is where they really differ from JFK.
IRISH251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5541 times:
From the media report:
“Controller: "Aerogal, there's also ....Go around fly runway heading&because you are lining up for the wrong runway. You need to start an immediate right turn."
and....
Controller: " But you need to start an immediate right turn. You need to turn right, there's somebody rolling underneath you.”
In my opinion, use of standard ATC phraseology would have helped. No heading onto which Aerogal was to turn was mentioned in the right turn “instruction”, which as reported here was not really an instruction anyway. In English, telling someone that they “need to do” something is not the same as telling them to do it. The reason for the go-around instruction could have been left until later as well.
matheus From Brazil, joined Nov 2003, 135 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Quoting Soxfan (Reply 18): If controllers know a different language, such as Spanish, are they allowed to speak to a pilot in that language, at least in emergency situations?
I don't know how much the words changes in different spanish speaking countries, but some time ago, a TAP was about to land in the taxiway at GRU and the controller instructed in brazillian portuguese to them to go around, they didn't understand because the word for that in european portuguese was different and landed in the taxiway anyway. After that, TAP is using only english on Brazillian airspace.
cmtehori From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5334 times:
Guys, a few things to consider:
1) It has happened in the past with TP, therefore it appears to be a tricky operation
2) Even pilots who are experienced and familiar with JFK have stated their dislike for this approach
3) This is not the common arrival. As stated before, 13L is usually the one to land, while 13R is the one used for t.o.
4) 13R has no localizer, which makes it much harder to line up to.
I'm no investigator but there's a few things that would help us understand what happened
1) What was the weather like?
2) Was JFK ATIS transmitting such approach?
3) Are there insturment charts published for 13R (VOR or NDB maybe?)
Thank God visibility allowed the DL pilot to observe and alert what he saw
25 FlyASAGuy2005: Do you mean 13L? 13R has a full ILS and LOC approach. 13R Has a published visual approach called the Parkway Visual (dual for 13L as well), as well a
26 Mir: It is the common arrival - they were supposed to be landing on 13L. The question is why the crew didn't follow the common arrival. -Mir
27 AirJamaica: As you stated 13L is usually the one to land. That was the RWY that was assigned to the Aerogal pilots, which they didn't line up with.
28 Boeing747_600: Isn't this the infamous "Canarsie-13" or more precisely the Parkway Visual 13 approach where you follow a lead-in light system all the way from 041 t
29 PITrules: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7pcnN5GlQ I don't think that controller did such a bad job. If he only said "Go-around" to AeroGal, that wouldn't hav
30 Mir: It's the VOR 13L/R. The two approaches are very similar, but not the same. I've never heard JFK using the Parkway Visual. -Mir
31 EA CO AS: I watched that report from WABC and the first thing I'm wondering is why the controller would tell Aerogal to fly runway heading if B6 was executing
32 B2468: Is mistaking 13R for 13L a common mistake? I was on MU587 on July 21 when we had to go around because we were cleared for 13L but were lined up with 1
33 netjets21: I have heard this sort of thing happen several times over youtube at JFK (not saying it doesn't happen elsewhere!) but does it seem like there could b
34 PGNCS: If you have looked at the VOR 13L/13R as charted and then actually flown it, especially at night and/or in poor weather, you would understand exactly
35 aviateur: This doesn't shock me at all, and it just as easily could have happened to American or British Airways or JetBlue.... Indeed similar confusion has occ
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 81 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, 
From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Mar 2008, 405 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 395 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2003, 135 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2001, 132 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2005, 60 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
