Any controllers here?

[FPK1]

Any controllers have any thoughts about this incident?

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...o-planes-nearly-collide-at-jfk-airport.141329

 

[Velocity173]

Simple. AAL106 was instructed to and read back “cross 31L at Kilo.” Instead, they crossed 4L at Juliet. Per the .65, you can’t have a vehicle / aircraft cross a runway until after the departing aircraft is passed the crossing area. It’s a PD all the way.

 

[Velocity173]

The only hit the controllers could take on this would maybe be poor runway scan. Hard to tell from computer re-enactments if AAL106 was encroaching on 4L as DAL1943 was being cleared for takeoff.

 

[Larry in TN]

The only hit the controllers could take on this would maybe be poor runway scan. Hard to tell from computer re-enactments if AAL106 was encroaching on 4L as DAL1943 was being cleared for takeoff.

Yeah, don't know the timing of the transmissions and the aircraft positions.

What about the ground controller missing that AA didn't readback the assigned departure runway? How big of a deal will that be?

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah, don't know the timing of the transmissions and the aircraft positions.

What about the ground controller missing that AA didn't readback the assigned departure runway? How big of a deal will that be?

Could be big but really the read back SHOULD include the assigned runway but the only required read back in this case is the hold short instruction. If the taxi instruction is read back it just must be correct, not necessarily word for word (complete).

Kinda like in the movie Sully where a couple POA members brought up the lack of read back of runway number from Sully for take off clearance. It’s not a requirement for a runway read back, only that the clearance be acknowledged.

 

[luvflyin]

Could be big but really the read back SHOULD include the assigned runway but the only required read back in this case is the hold short instruction. If the taxi instruction is read back it just must be correct, not necessarily word for word (complete).

Kinda like in the movie Sully where a couple POA members brought up the lack of read back of runway number from Sully for take off clearance. It’s not a requirement for a runway read back, only that the clearance be acknowledged.

3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the movement area in concise and easy to understand terms. The taxi clearance/route must include the specific route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the correct runway assignment.
NOTE−
1. A pilot’s read back of taxi instructions with the runway assignment can be considered confirmation of runway assignment.

 

[Velocity173]

3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the movement area in concise and easy to understand terms. The taxi clearance/route must include the specific route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the correct runway assignment.
NOTE−
1. A pilot’s read back of taxi instructions with the runway assignment can be considered confirmation of runway assignment.

It’s still not a required read back though. Only that a read back CAN meet the requirement for confirming runway assignment. Confirmation of the ATIS could meet that requirement. Just acknowledging the clearance could meet that requirement.

It’s a SHOULD and not a SHALL:

 

[luvflyin]

It’s still not a required read back though. Only that a read back CAN meet the requirement for confirming runway assignment. Confirmation of the ATIS could meet that requirement. Just acknowledging the clearance could meet that requirement.

It’s a SHOULD and not a SHALL:

View attachment 114059

What's the full paragraph of where that c. 2. is? I'm not finding it in 3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS of the .65Z. Here's that again, highlighted by me.

3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the movement area in concise and easy to understand terms. The taxi clearance/route must include the specific route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the correct runway assignment.

Yes, pilot read backs should include the runway assignment. But if they don't, it does not change the Controllers requirement to 'confirm' it.

 

[Velocity173]

What's the full paragraph of where that c. 2. is? I'm not finding it in 3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS of the .65Z. Here's that again, highlighted by me.

3−7−2. TAXI AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS
Issue the route for the aircraft/vehicle to follow on the movement area in concise and easy to understand terms. The taxi clearance/route must include the specific route to follow. When a taxi clearance to a runway is issued to an aircraft, confirm the aircraft has the correct runway assignment.

Yes, pilot read backs should include the runway assignment. But if they don't, it does not change the Controllers rule to 'confirm' it.

Correct, the controller must confirm runway assignment but it doesn’t require them to get a read back of the runway assignment. Only states that they CAN confirm it by a read back. Doesn’t state that’s a MUST, SHALL or WILL to meet that requirement. It leaves runway confirmation subject to interpretation.

It’s different than hold short instructions in that it specifically states to obtain a read back for hold short instructions. There’s no other way to meet that confirmation for the instruction. If runway assignment read back was a required at all times, then that would’ve transferred it to 2-4-3 along with hold short instructions years ago…but it wasn’t.



I