Back to Squawk list
  • 17

FAA investigating near-miss between two airplanes at JFK airport

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced Sunday it is investigating a near-miss between a passenger airplane operated by Delta and another operated by American Airlines at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York on Friday. Why it matters: The FAA said, based on preliminary information, that a Boeing 737 operated by Delta had to halt its takeoff roll after air traffic controllers noticed that a Boeing 777 operated by American Airlines had crossed the runway being used… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Pa-Leeze, get it straight, it was simply a "miss" or better yet, a "Near - Hit".
eji74 5
Reminds me of a bit from the late George Carlin:

"It's not a near-miss, it's a near-hit! A collision is a near-miss!"
Atanu Dey 3
Grady, you beat me to it. They did not hit but could have. Therefore, near-hit.

Reminds me: Would you rather be nearly drowned or nearly saved?
alan curtis 1
Near means close. Nearly means almost.
It was a miss, but a close miss and not a miss-by-a-mile. Ergo, a near miss or nearly a hit.

The only meaning I can come up with for "near hit" is hit that was close to something else, like the witness.
Jim Allen 3
You know the chief pilot is going to chew their collective asses out, as they should.
sparkie624 7
What is there to investigate... AA made a runway incursion that also caused a major ground incident, but Delta was able to stop in time.. AA Clearly goofed up here. The Crew of AA made a wrong turn at the wrong time...It is kind of like someone turn to enter an interstate using the exit ramp... A good setup for a bad day, but glad it didn't happen that way.
bentwing60 6
U nailed it sparkie, not exactly a "who done it" here.
Sean Awning 4
Maybe FAA and NTSB want to find out whether this incident wasn't a result of the changes in cockpit procedures.
D Rotten 5
Is the pilot one of those 'lets lower the bar'/'bottom of the barrel' new hires??
John McCurdy 1
Do you really think AA allows a "bottom of the barrel" new hire to pilot a 777? or are you just trolling

brownbearwolf 2
The more complex an Aero is, the less time one has to look outside. The moving maps seems to mind set some pilots into doing other duty-work hoping the moving map will play magic. Well why not. A Hint to Avionic OEM"s. If airport 10-9 page software detects two Aeros being where one shouldn't be, then come out audible with the TRAFFIC as what is used TCAS wise, but RUNWAY INCURSION, instead. I offered a suggestion a couple of years ago to have some form of detection system on the ground that when and Aero on an active runway is moving for a take-off. Then detectors along the taxi-way runway entry points activate triggering an audio waring on ADC 1 and 2's frequencies of the incursion. If ADC is a male voice, then the waring needs to be a female voice and vis versa to brake the procedural flow of expected verbal instructions. There are other forms of electronic surface detecting methods that can be used like SMR. The trick is to incorporate in the software, a level of out of place movements. Aero A cleared for take-off on RWY X, voice command being a switch on device or mini speed cameras that detecting runway end increasing motion, activates the other sensors. The as XPDRs are on during movements' while not low power angle radiated sensors detecting RF past the Runway Strip Boundary, excited the waring mode.
zuluzuluzulu 2
I think slow talking would be helpful. Sometimes airport communication sounds like rapid fire static.
Kevin Rutherford 2
And the FAA should be asked why they have not upgraded JFK runway/taxiway lighting with runway stop bars that light up. Even on a night with great visibility these types of runway lights (like DFW) would very well have prevented this
David Skidmore 3
Not positive but I believe I read that these lights were in fact in place on the runway in question but the AAL first officer was distracted and did not see them:
Why was the Delta flight not able to continue and the passengers couldn't leave until the next day due to "staffing issues". They were not at fault.
LakeGator 3
The aircraft needed to be evaluated to be sure there was no damage caused by the emergency stop at high speed is my understanding.
stardog01 0
Would there be penalties on the AA pilot(s) if they are found to have not followed instructions when they crossed 4L where another aircraft was departing?
Rosomak 3
Doubt it. I’m sure AA is in the ASAP program like everyone else. They know who screwed up, that’s not the issue. It the WHY they screwed up. ASAP and AA’s SMS program will probably result in remedial training, reviewing of airport diagrams, signage, lighting, SafeTaxi, etc.
Dr Stephen Vadas 0
And the distraction of the third pilot in the cockpit jump seat.
ScottCurtis777 1
Just the opposite. The 3rd pilot on the jumpseat is able to watch the entire operation as they are "not controlling the aircraft" (Capt taxiing and FO doing comms, monitoring taxi route, etc). As such, the jumpseat pilot is quite valuable the operation, that's why all pilots are required to be in the cockpit from pushback until well into the climb phase of flight, then back up front prior to Top of Descent until chocked at the gate.
Unfortunately, because the AA 777 was allowed to continue its flight to LHR, the CVR recording was lost, and CVR probably would have shed some light on how the AA 777 pilots ended up at 31L instead of 4L as directed.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.