This actually took place at Kennedy Airport. Here is the full recording, along with it being analyzed and explained by an actual 747 Pilot.... All of it. (Starts at 9:00 in the video, and runs to 15:10). It took me all of 2 minutes to find this.
Air China / Kennedy Ground Analysis By A 747 Pilot
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
I live about 15 minutes from JFK. My BIL worked for the Port Authority there for years. He told me if I knew how many times a week they foamed runways or had near misses I wouldn't fly anymore.
It's hard to believe they could turn over an almost $400 million dollar aircraft, containing God knows how many people, to such a confused, dumbfounded crew. Who appears to not even be able to understand the spoken word. Let alone answer a simple, direct question. I admire that ground controllers patience, to say the least.
First example: JFK vs. Speedbird 747.
Somewhat agree with his analysis of the British Airways 747. The pilot didn't want to comply with the speed assignment, when in fact, he could, so, tower canceled his approach clearance. I take tower's side on this one. Why should the airplane behind speedbird have to eat the go-around when it was speedbird that didn't fly the approach speed? You ignore ATC, but the guy behind you gets the shaft when you're going too slow and reduce the aircraft separation? Nah - you go around speedbird, we will let the airplane behind you, the one who was following instructions, land instead of you landing and him going around.
I flew the 747 for 5 years. Complying with the 180 to the marker is a peice of cake in that jet. Much easier to comply in the jet than in a smaller, slower airplane like the A320. British Airways was being snotty. They got what they deserved.
Those kind of speed assignments happen every single day in major airports. Even when I am in London, I comply with the local authorities' request. I have not had to break any company SOP or FARs to comply with those restrictions.
Boston and American? Thought that was funny. All good. Both folks maintained their cool. A sidestep late in the approach means you turn off all the guidance and automation, and not everyone is comfortable with that based on all the considerations in the approach; weather, experience, traffic, skill, etc. Some days you accept the offer. Some days, you don't.
Air China?
Yeah...Air China... They are, well, Air China. They are considered "qualified" by their nation if they can speak about 250 words of English. Standard phraseology. They don't actually speak English. They speak the precise words used by controllers, and not one more word. And they often don't speak them well.
So, using more words in English doesn't improve the situation.
I assume nothing when Air China, or any Asian carrier, is taxiing nearby.
Just how they are.
JFK is busy. So is EWR. LGA. ORD. SFO. LAX. LAS. DEN. ATL.... get the idea?
Somewhat agree with his analysis of the British Airways 747. The pilot didn't want to comply with the speed assignment, when in fact, he could, so, tower canceled his approach clearance. I take tower's side on this one. Why should the airplane behind speedbird have to eat the go-around when it was speedbird that didn't fly the approach speed? You ignore ATC, but the guy behind you gets the shaft when you're going too slow and reduce the aircraft separation? Nah - you go around speedbird, we will let the airplane behind you, the one who was following instructions, land instead of you landing and him going around.
I flew the 747 for 5 years. Complying with the 180 to the marker is a peice of cake in that jet. Much easier to comply in the jet than in a smaller, slower airplane like the A320. British Airways was being snotty. They got what they deserved.
Those kind of speed assignments happen every single day in major airports. Even when I am in London, I comply with the local authorities' request. I have not had to break any company SOP or FARs to comply with those restrictions.
Boston and American? Thought that was funny. All good. Both folks maintained their cool. A sidestep late in the approach means you turn off all the guidance and automation, and not everyone is comfortable with that based on all the considerations in the approach; weather, experience, traffic, skill, etc. Some days you accept the offer. Some days, you don't.
Air China?
Yeah...Air China... They are, well, Air China. They are considered "qualified" by their nation if they can speak about 250 words of English. Standard phraseology. They don't actually speak English. They speak the precise words used by controllers, and not one more word. And they often don't speak them well.
So, using more words in English doesn't improve the situation.
I assume nothing when Air China, or any Asian carrier, is taxiing nearby.
Just how they are.
JFK is busy. So is EWR. LGA. ORD. SFO. LAX. LAS. DEN. ATL.... get the idea?
We had this interesting situation here at a flight school in Northern California operating out of Redding Municipal Airport. But there I learned that some Chinese airlines send their prospective pilots to the US for training because it's a lot easier than in China where the military controls the airspace and there isn't really a culture of private civilian flight. But it got really, really bizarre. The school apparently rents a house used by these Chinese flight students, and this one guy was more or less expelled (I heard that English proficiency was one of his problems) but the school took part in a forcible "deportation".
Flight school linked to alleged kidnapping: 8 things to know
Flight school at the center of controversy has a long history in Redding.
www.redding.com
IASCO has contracts with Chinese airlines, who send the students to the United States to learn their cockpit skills. The airlines pay the students' tuition.
John Fitzpatrick, the school's former chief operating officer, said the students train in this country because the military owns the airspace in China, so it's cheaper for the airlines to send their students to the U.S. to train.
"Also, the U.S. is a better place to learn and practice their English," Fitzpatrick said.
IASCO settlement: Jonathan McConkey, Kelsi Hoser plead no-contest to misdemeanors
Jonathan McConkey, the school’s former general manager, and Kelsi Hoser, the school’s ex-director of administration and secretary, pleaded no-contest.
www.redding.com
Similar threads
