We’ve seen a concerning number of close calls at airports lately. In some cases they’re due to mistakes by pilots, while in other cases they’re due to mistakes by air traffic controllers. Here’s an especially bad incident involving the latter…
In this post:
Breakdown in ATC communication leads to close call
This incident happened at around 4:45PM local time on Wednesday, April 17, 2024, at New York Kennedy Airport (JFK). The details of this are pretty straightforward, they’re just kind of shocking:
- The tower controller on one frequency cleared SWISS flight LX17 for takeoff on runway 4L
- At the same time, the ground controller on another frequency cleared four different jets to cross runway 4L at the same time on various intersections — this included Delta flight DL29, American flight AA2246, Brickyard flight YX5752, and Delta flight DL420
- Fortunately the SWISS pilots saw the traffic on the runway, and aborted their takeoff at a low speed; the SWISS plane taxied off the runway, and then minutes later took off successfully
Below you can see a VASAviation video that depicts the movement of planes, and also shares air traffic control audio. Just keep in mind that the below video provides the audio from two separate frequencies, so the SWISS pilots wouldn’t have heard the clearance other planes had to cross the runway, and vice versa.
It’s noteworthy how calm everyone remains, and there’s no acknowledgement of the error that was made. Often if one party was clearly in the wrong, we’ll hear some raised voices and yelling, but that wasn’t the case here (I’m not saying that’s how it should be, but it often is).
This seems like such an avoidable mistake
Let me start by acknowledging that air traffic controllers have tough jobs — they’re overworked, and there’s a lot of pressure on them to always be right, given the importance of their jobs.
In this case, there was just clearly a breakdown in communication. How can it be that a controller on one frequency is clearing a plane for takeoff, while a controller on another frequency is clearing four planes to cross the same runway at the same time? Obviously one would assume there’s coordination between these controllers, so what went wrong that this didn’t happen here?
A few thoughts come to mind:
- You’d think that something like this could be prevented through basic technology, whereby when one controller gives an instruction involving an active runway, there’s some flashing light or prompt that makes it obvious for another controller not to give instructions involving that same runway
- A couple of months ago, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published recommendations on how to prevent runway incursions, and one of those recommendations was to “use a common frequency for runway operations (to increase situational awareness of pilots, drivers, ATCOs),” and that would have likely prevented this from happening
- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program that determines whether countries have a Category 1 rating, based on a particular government’s oversight of aviation; I can’t help but think that if another country had this frequency of errors, it might get more scrutiny from officials in the United States
Bottom line
A breakdown in communication between air traffic controllers at JFK caused a near disaster, as a SWISS jet was cleared for takeoff, while four other planes were cleared to cross the same runway. Fortunately the SWISS pilots figured out what was going on, and aborted their takeoff.
Of course mistakes happen, but the frequency of errors is becoming increasingly problematic, as this came a day before a similar incident at Washington National Airport.
What do you make of this JFK ATC incident?
Affirmative action at work. Simple math says if you lower your applicant pool size you must reduce competency.
Pretty simple here... one of the two controllers screwed up, likely the ground controller.
Local controller - has complete control of active runways.
Ground controller - control of taxiways.
When planes want to cross an active runway (where the Swiss flight was taking off), ground controller needs permission from the local controller.
Highly unlikely the local controller forgot he gave permission for the 4 planes to cross.
Side comment/question - anyone know the reason for the Alpha flight number suffixes which seem to be more common on flights to/from the US? This was Swiss 17K and I notice almost all BA flights have that alpha suffix
People are still addressing the wrong things. It's not about workload or radio frequencies, those are the consequences.
To fix the problem, remove humans.
Technology already exists.
There is a reason JP Morgan doesn't hire a million people to use abacus to calculate interests.
Eskimo must not live in the San Francisco bay area, where we are watching the trials and tribulations of introducing robo-taxi service-- automation does work but it takes a lot of effort to make it work under all circumstances.
@Eskimo: JP Morgan may not hire a million people to calculate interest, but they do hire a lot of people to manage funds and investment accounts.
@GBOAC
Robo taxis doesn't because it could crash into, guess what, humans. Remove humans from the road, drivers and pedestrian then robo taxi would work just fine even today. But you can't stop people for using roads. However it's s a lot easier to regulate the sky. Problem just like ATC or pilots, is most people still don't get the big picture and sadly some would never do.
And you are missing the point about...
@GBOAC
Robo taxis doesn't because it could crash into, guess what, humans. Remove humans from the road, drivers and pedestrian then robo taxi would work just fine even today. But you can't stop people for using roads. However it's s a lot easier to regulate the sky. Problem just like ATC or pilots, is most people still don't get the big picture and sadly some would never do.
And you are missing the point about JP Morgan. Not surprise if you're Tim Dunn. But yes fund managers could soon be obsolete but not today yet. Managing a portfolio has a lot more decisions making when there are a very very huge amount of uncontrollable decisions to be made.
Whereas, calculating interests is a repetitive, high accuracy and focus, but not even that complex tasks.
You can do that with a million people using an obsolete tool like abacus and still get some error.
Or use a spreadsheet that would accurately do the same thing a million times faster.
Did you know your XBox can run a flight sim game that replicates airport traffic and still have zero runway incursions?
Technology is already there.
You recognize that humans are flawed.
But what you don't seem to understand, is that such technology doesn't go from nascent, to functional, to reliable, to near-perfect-- without a whole bunch of bugs, fixes, and f-ups in between.
Why? Because it's created by humans.
Thus it'll be a longgggg time before any such tech would be sufficiently reliable to replace humanity in the...
You recognize that humans are flawed.
But what you don't seem to understand, is that such technology doesn't go from nascent, to functional, to reliable, to near-perfect-- without a whole bunch of bugs, fixes, and f-ups in between.
Why? Because it's created by humans.
Thus it'll be a longgggg time before any such tech would be sufficiently reliable to replace humanity in the context of ATC, and the only way it gets there, is with wholesale revelation of its flaws and unforeseen deficiencies.
Again, in the context of ATC, the latter isn't really what most people/governments would accept at this time. Who's going to be willing to put up with a bevy of intersection crashes while this tech sorts itself out? What other applications could it be used on, to set that learning curve before getting ready for ATC?
In response to the media frenzy over the DCA incident, the FAA administrator (who has never been a controller) announced new rules requiring more times between shifts. He did this without regard to consequences or figuring out with the union how good implementation might work.
This may result in even MORE overtime for the overworked controllers, and in some cases might even mean controllers are at their facilities 7 days a week. More stress,...
In response to the media frenzy over the DCA incident, the FAA administrator (who has never been a controller) announced new rules requiring more times between shifts. He did this without regard to consequences or figuring out with the union how good implementation might work.
This may result in even MORE overtime for the overworked controllers, and in some cases might even mean controllers are at their facilities 7 days a week. More stress, less morale.... hmm, I wonder if that could lead to more incidents?
Like I said, these articles do more harm than good. (Another example being that after the NY times made waves, our management started reducing recouperative breaks).
Write more about how we're overworked and UNDERPAID.
20 years ago, a MIDWEST mid-level radar facility paid their professionals the equivalent of 135K. Now, even a VHCOL mid-level only gets paid $120K.
If you want what you perceive to be better quality, maybe start by paying for it.
Retired controller here. Overworked, I agree 100% because the FAA refused to backfill for too many years. Underpaid, not a chance! My retirement is more than what you’re stating.
Technology has been in place for years to prevent these types of incidents. ATSAP took away controller responsibility. While I agree with not punishing controllers for human error, too many took it as a way to get by with substandard work. More time between shifts...
Retired controller here. Overworked, I agree 100% because the FAA refused to backfill for too many years. Underpaid, not a chance! My retirement is more than what you’re stating.
Technology has been in place for years to prevent these types of incidents. ATSAP took away controller responsibility. While I agree with not punishing controllers for human error, too many took it as a way to get by with substandard work. More time between shifts isn’t an answer either. Just more time to party/drink between shifts (yes, I’ve been there). Money doesn’t make harder workers!
I'm an Air Traffic Controller and am just amazed at FAA. They act like aviation overlords bestowing safety ratings to other countries, which already have much better practices & procedures... and they can't even fix their own home. The landing clearance to the arriving aircraft, when Swiss was on the runway, was also ridiculous, but I digress. FAA should clean up their own backyard before even thinking of saying other countries are not safe.
Has anyone looked into whether Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) was a factor in this case from the controllers involved? The FAA (and DOT) has been bragging about their DEI hirings in the last 2 years.
it isn't helpful to go there.
The problem is training and getting new hires up to speed. There is nothing that keeps any race or gender that prevents any race or gender from doing the job competently
@Tim Dunn: You get a lot of grief and derision for many of your comments, but this one is direct, concise, and most importantly spot on.
Too right Tim. I’m sick of people immediately bringing diversity into these incidents when there’s absolutely no reason to believe it had anything to do with it. I genuinely think some people will only be satisfied if old white dudes are allowed jobs.
I genuinely think some people will only be satisfied if ONLY old white dudes are allowed jobs.
@James1972,
Because for many of them, that's how it WAS throughout their life, and they're terrified of that ever changing.
Nope - If an organization prides itself on hiring people other than on merit, then they open the door to its hiring practices being questioned. It has nothing to do with any specific race or gender.
Just like Colgans hiring of inexperienced or unprofessional personnel was questioned (rightfully so) after the crash in Buffalo.
No, but have you looked into whether Racism, Ignorance, Bigotry & Stupidity (RIBS) are key to your personal life? You can occasionally get them at McDonald’s.
It depends. For some happenings, the intersectionality analysis to assign blame requires that race and other factors be the deciding factors. For other incidents, the DEI questions are strictly verboten.
But what are they basing their hiring decisions on? Anyone qualified or showing the aptitude and attitude to do the job should be considered. Attributes that have nothing to do with the job should not. Not everyone who is "fill in the blank" is qualified to be an air traffic controller. I'm a white dude and I'm certainly never have been.
Was there a coordinator in the tower that contributed to the error?
There should be a single frequency - even if there are two controllers due to workload - for all traffic that involves a single runway.
Given that takeoff lines at JFK can easily be 15-20 planes long, the fact that Swiss was able to get approval for an intersection departure rather than the end of the runway seems to indicate the line wasn't that long and that they didn't have huge reserves, even given a...
There should be a single frequency - even if there are two controllers due to workload - for all traffic that involves a single runway.
Given that takeoff lines at JFK can easily be 15-20 planes long, the fact that Swiss was able to get approval for an intersection departure rather than the end of the runway seems to indicate the line wasn't that long and that they didn't have huge reserves, even given a rejected takeoff.
ATC probably gave them an intersection departure as a "mea culpa" - and they did say "I'm sorry" which hasn't been said in too many other ATC incidents.
Timmy, there are to things on other issues too.
You might see one Air Lines more premium and completely ignore other facts.
By having everyone on the same frequency, under currently technology you can't transmit over others. Imagine time wasted in a busy airport like JFK just to wait and listen to other planes talk.
Automate everything then no more talking, it's possible that by the time a human finish a word, every...
Timmy, there are to things on other issues too.
You might see one Air Lines more premium and completely ignore other facts.
By having everyone on the same frequency, under currently technology you can't transmit over others. Imagine time wasted in a busy airport like JFK just to wait and listen to other planes talk.
Automate everything then no more talking, it's possible that by the time a human finish a word, every plane on the ground would have gotten precise instructions gate to gate all over the world.
Actually us pilots have been advocating for the single frequency idea for quite awhile and would have prevented this and the DCA close calls from progressing as far as they did. It has to do with us being able to monitor the instructions OTHER people are being given and building our own mental picture and if an instruction to us doesn’t sound quite right to verify it. If all were on a common freq for...
Actually us pilots have been advocating for the single frequency idea for quite awhile and would have prevented this and the DCA close calls from progressing as far as they did. It has to do with us being able to monitor the instructions OTHER people are being given and building our own mental picture and if an instruction to us doesn’t sound quite right to verify it. If all were on a common freq for rnwy 4L the crossing traffic would have refused the instructions as all 4 would have just heard Swiss get cleared for takeoff. It’s an ICAO “best practice” and has been being advocated FOR YEARS by both ALPA Safety, NTSB and ATA….. the only pushback comes from the FAA…. And Eskimo
Hey Ben, thanks for sharing this. Just one small correction...the controller on 119.1 who gave instructions for all those planes to cross runway 4L is the tower controller for aircraft landing on 4R, not the ground controller as you state. There are 2 tower frequencies at JFK. 123.9 is usually for the departing runway and 119.1 is usually for the arriving runway. When JFK is in a northeast flow (landing and departing the 4s) the...
Hey Ben, thanks for sharing this. Just one small correction...the controller on 119.1 who gave instructions for all those planes to cross runway 4L is the tower controller for aircraft landing on 4R, not the ground controller as you state. There are 2 tower frequencies at JFK. 123.9 is usually for the departing runway and 119.1 is usually for the arriving runway. When JFK is in a northeast flow (landing and departing the 4s) the tower controller on 119.1 will be the one to cross the inbound traffic across the departing runway and once clear of the departing runway the inbound traffic will "monitor" ground 121.9 while taxiing on alpha or bravo to their ramp. As you said there was simply a breakdown in communication here.
Also, there is indeed technology that should prevent this. There is a red stop bar light at the runway hold short line of 4L on the crossing taxiways that should inform pilots that this runway is in use. The question now is were these red stop bar lights functioning during this incident or did 4 different planes simply ignore the red stop bar as they crossed runway 4L. Every professional pilot knows that you never cross a red runway stop bar light even if given instructions to cross a runway by ATC.
Looking forward to your upcoming reviews!
ATCs are overworked, and overstretched. We need to make sure there’s enough of them up and down the country and that they’re up to the task and paid fairly. Slap another $15 on flight tickets if we must
I am a bit surprised that JFK apparently does not have automated runway lighting, which blocks crossings when in use (red bar plus orange flashing).
On board communication systems gives pilots the ability to transmit on one frequency and listen out on more than one frequency. How come four pilots missed out the take off clearance for the Swissair plane and the Swissair pilot missed out the permission for four planes to cross the live runway. It was fortunate that the Swissair pilot saw the planes enter the runway on his takeoff path. If it had been in poor visibility...
On board communication systems gives pilots the ability to transmit on one frequency and listen out on more than one frequency. How come four pilots missed out the take off clearance for the Swissair plane and the Swissair pilot missed out the permission for four planes to cross the live runway. It was fortunate that the Swissair pilot saw the planes enter the runway on his takeoff path. If it had been in poor visibility conditions the outcome may have been different.
Because those same pilots are required to be monitoring 121.5 on com 2 which is the frequency ATC would try to reach out to them in case there is a stuck mike or other loss of their assigned freq….. happens quite often in JFK on the ground.
I used to be a controller. This practice is an accident waiting to happen. The solution is simple. Aircraft must not cross an active runway unless cleared to do so on the frequency being used the controller responsible for that runway. In that way everyone knows what is going on.
Would it feasible to eliminate the problem by not having aircraft cross runways fullstop?
Where not an island with two runways, have all cross beyond the end of the runway.
This is the best solution, but it is incredibly expensive and difficult since it often involves buying land outside of airport borders. ATL just open its second end-around taxiway to great fanfare.
In most cases it just isn’t feasible.
The ATL end-around taxiways are game changers, millions in savings a year and risk savings.
You may have been a controller, but it definately doesn't sound like you were a tower controller... certainly not one with runway crossings.
The notion that this would solve the problem because the pilots would know what's going on too is... to put it lightly... ignorant.
When aircraft are on takeoff roll, I will frequently put vehicles on the runway... and when I'm combined with GC, I'll cross the runway.
The airplanes don't all just...
You may have been a controller, but it definately doesn't sound like you were a tower controller... certainly not one with runway crossings.
The notion that this would solve the problem because the pilots would know what's going on too is... to put it lightly... ignorant.
When aircraft are on takeoff roll, I will frequently put vehicles on the runway... and when I'm combined with GC, I'll cross the runway.
The airplanes don't all just stop their takeoff because they hear me do these things. They have to assume that the runway access is happening on an intersection behind them. And with their workload in the flight deck, they're not going to have time to check charts to verify the intersections.
Not to say this couldn't ever help, but it's not worth it for the added workload on the Local controller. The actual solution is for controllers to simply not cross a runway ahead of a departing aircraft.
The calm in the voice of the Swiss PM is increadible, situational awareness great (to avoid refueling..)
Flame on: Do European Pilots just expect chaos in US airports? Flame off
Would it be better for the pilot to scream and floor it instead? lol
They are trained. Anything and everything is expected by a pilot at any airport in any country. They are prepared to abort.
When I see people boarding the plane in high heels and flip flops, I know they are not prepared for an emergency. CO DC10 LAX-HNL had to abort. It burst into flames and many of the injuries were severe...
Would it be better for the pilot to scream and floor it instead? lol
They are trained. Anything and everything is expected by a pilot at any airport in any country. They are prepared to abort.
When I see people boarding the plane in high heels and flip flops, I know they are not prepared for an emergency. CO DC10 LAX-HNL had to abort. It burst into flames and many of the injuries were severe burns to the feet as people had to run out over the burning wings. Be prepared to run through fire.
When you drive a car, you must be prepared for anything.
Yeah, ATC at US airports, and especially so at JFK & SFO do have a certain reputation with European pilots. So the European pilots will try to stay as calm, focused and de-escalatory as possible.
Many Swiss Intl Airlines pilots are also Swiss army pilots, this is the tradition to hire them.
Swiss wanted to take off at K3, slightly closer to where they turned off the runway, rather than K1, presumably to save time.
"due to aborted takeoff" => "you messed up, please allow us that flexibility" - makes sense.
"due to ... avoid refuelling" What was logic there?
There might have been a queue from K3 to K1, but would they have been so close to fuel limit that that would have made a difference?
A minor detail, "Brickyard" is Republic Airlines
How do they get “brickyard” for Republic, do you know?
It derives from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which is near their headquarters.
In the olden days, it was common for airlines to have call signs that were symbolic instead of just their names. BA still uses "Speedbird" after the BOAC logo; SAA used Springbok for the same reason (though that had some other connotations). Pan Am was "Clipper" after the sailing ships of yore.
Republic is based in Indianapolis, so they choose Brickyard as a nod to the Indy 500.
They're based in Indianapolis, IN. The race track which hosts the Indy 500 is know as 'The Brickyard.'
BEEN saying this:
USA has had an incredible run (no mainline mass-fatality since 2001)... but when that streak does end, it's likely going to be due to a runway incursion.
Maybe it's just media, but they seem to be happening *W*A*Y* too frequently lately, especially in the northeast. :(
This is what happens when foreign countries don't implement the 1500 hour minimum requirement for pilots.
(I am being sarcastic, but it makes about as much sense as most of the other arguments).
Not sure if this is directed to Sean - but you seem to understand the larger pictures.
I am middle-aged and have been thinking about a second career and one of the options that I thought would be good for me was a Flight Controller, but my understanding of the "rules" is that I am not eligible - even though I think I might actually enjoy and be good at it. Interestingly, the US...
Not sure if this is directed to Sean - but you seem to understand the larger pictures.
I am middle-aged and have been thinking about a second career and one of the options that I thought would be good for me was a Flight Controller, but my understanding of the "rules" is that I am not eligible - even though I think I might actually enjoy and be good at it. Interestingly, the US army would have no problems putting thru Officer Training and on the front lines. The point? If they need more ATC, then maybe they need to look at their hiring practices.