Runway incursions and wrong turns are one of the most common forms of safety hazzards while flying. While many of theses happen in poor visibility, they also happen in broad daylight in good visibility. Lots of factors contribute - keeping track of other airplanes, unfamiliarity with an airport, inherent visibilty limitations in the cockpit, overworked controllers, old airports with lots of taxiways and roads and open expanses of concrete.. It is not as rare as the discussion here might suggest - and a high priority concern for the FAA.And in response to the gent who suggested that Northern European pilots are better than non-Northern Europeans, consider that the worst runway incursion of all time was at Tennerife, and the cause was an impatient KLM captain flying into a Pan Am 747 - both western airlines with western crews. Colin Ware

Runway incursions and wrong turns are one of the most common forms of safety hazzards while flying. While many of theses happen in poor visibility, they also happen in broad daylight in good visibility. Lots of factors contribute - keeping track of other airplanes, unfamiliarity with an airport, inherent visibilty limitations in the cockpit, overworked controllers, old airports with lots of taxiways and roads and open expanses of concrete.. It is not as rare as the discussion here might suggest - and a high priority concern for the FAA.And in response to the gent who suggested that Northern European pilots are better than non-Northern Europeans, consider that the worst runway incursion of all time was at Tennerife, and the cause was an impatient KLM captain flying into a Pan Am 747 - both western airlines with western crews. Colin Ware

Technically that was a take off roll commenced without ATC clearance rather than a runway incursion, since both aircraft were actually cleared to be on the runway, one backtracking, the other lined up and supposedly holding at the take off point, except he did not hold. Worst case of 'get-home-itis' in history, coupled with some poor ATC.Al

coupled with some poor ATC.Al

Seriously Al? The guy had a massive workload, unheard of in such a small airfield, with loads of A/C parked on the taxiways, zero visibility, no ground radar and a 747 taking off without clearance. What do you mean by poor ATC exactly please?KLM tried to blame it on him saying his english was bad, but every other pilot there said they could understand him no problem

Seriously Al? The guy had a massive workload, unheard of in such a small airfield, with loads of A/C parked on the taxiways, zero visibility, no ground radar and a 747 taking off without clearance. What do you mean by poor ATC exactly please?KLM tried to blame it on him saying his english was bad, but every other pilot there said they could understand him no problem

With the way international air accident investigations are conducted, and whom is allowed to be part of such investigations, there is no denying that a bit of 'blame the other guy' goes on for sure, and it is obvious in the case of Tenerife that KLM were shamefully trying to pass the blame off on Spanish ATC because Van Zanten was literally their 'poster boy' for their adverts, when it was clearly almost entirely his fault. But...In spite of the unusual workload at Los Rodeos that day owing to the diversions caused by a terrorist threat which put those aircraft on the ground there, when you know pilots have poor visibility and you cannot see the aircraft you are directing, it is simply far too dangerous to allow one aircraft onto a runway to line up for take off when you have another one coming down it the other way. If the KLM 747 had been told to hold at the runway entry point instead of being told to line up and wait, the pilot's impatience would have been held in check. Even the Pan Am 747's crew could hear that the guy was eager to go, and that should have been noted by ATC and nipped in the bud, which is one of the reasons why his job is described as a 'controller'.To be entirely fair though, the Pan Am crew are sometimes portrayed as entirely blameless in this incident, and they are not. They could - and indeed should - have informed ATC that they were having difficulties locating their allocated runway turn off in the poor visibility, because it is actually a pilot's duty to inform ATC of any problems they are having which prevent them from expediting an instruction given to them by ATC, that duty is even mentioned in one of the questions for the test to gain an ATP Certificate, so it's no secret. ATC should really have noted that this might be a problem, but the Pan Am crew could have told the controller it was the case and removed any doubt about it. In an air accident investigation, it is not duty of the investigators to point the finger of blame, as the KLM guys tried to do, but it is their duty to point to the causes of it, and these were not solely rooted in Van Zanten's impatience, even though it might be convenient to neatly tie up the cause in such a simple conclusion. Like most air accidents, it was a case of a cascade of failings - granted, of varying magnitude - rather than one thing alone.Al

With the way international air accident investigations are conducted, and whom is allowed to be part of such investigations, there is no denying that a bit of 'blame the other guy' goes on for sure, and it is obvious in the case of Tenerife that KLM were shamefully trying to pass the blame off on Spanish ATC because Van Zanten was literally their 'poster boy' for their adverts, when it was clearly almost entirely his fault. But...In spite of the unusual workload at Los Rodeos that day owing to the diversions caused by a terrorist threat which put those aircraft on the ground there, when you know pilots have poor visibility and you cannot see the aircraft you are directing, it is simply far too dangerous to allow one aircraft onto a runway to line up for take off when you have another one coming down it the other way. If the KLM 747 had been told to hold at the runway entry point instead of being told to line up and wait, the pilot's impatience would have been held in check. Even the Pan Am 747's crew could hear that the guy was eager to go, and that should have been noted by ATC and nipped in the bud, which is one of the reasons why his job is described as a 'controller'.To be entirely fair though, the Pan Am crew are sometimes portrayed as entirely blameless in this incident, and they are not. They could - and indeed should - have informed ATC that they were having difficulties locating their allocated runway turn off in the poor visibility, because it is actually a pilot's duty to inform ATC of any problems they are having which prevent them from expediting an instruction given to them by ATC, that duty is even mentioned in one of the questions for the test to gain an ATP Certificate, so it's no secret. ATC should really have noted that this might be a problem, but the Pan Am crew could have told the controller it was the case and removed any doubt about it. In an air accident investigation, it is not duty of the investigators to point the finger of blame, as the KLM guys tried to do, but it is their duty to point to the causes of it, and these were not solely rooted in Van Zanten's impatience, even though it might be convenient to neatly tie up the cause in such a simple conclusion. Like most air accidents, it was a case of a cascade of failings - granted, of varying magnitude - rather than one thing alone.Al

I see, thanks for the great explanation Al (it's not like it was unexpected :(). It's sad to think that there's so many things that could've been done to avoid the disaster... probably the accident where the most factors played part in the tragic outcome?Starting with the territorial terrorist act that had them all diverted to Los Rodeos to begin with. Damn, I'm jealous of you brits now that the IRA quit. 21st century and we're still battling this crap here

The sectarian violence in Ireland is far from over, in fact there was a photographer shot there just the other day, but as you say, I know ETA are still very much in business, since i have quite a lot of Spanish relatives.Back on topic, the thing with air accidents and near misses, is that it is easy to sit here and pass judgement with the benefit of hindsight, but we should remember that there probably isn't one of us that has never made any kind of mistake. I know I've made a couple of mistakes when flying and got away with it. All we can hope to do is learn from such things.Al

so what about coming back to the topic? Is this JFK Situation realy worth being a thing for the news? Nothing happend but some delay, some FAA research and some worn brakes. Is it soimportaint to point out what could have happen if...?Either EA did not know his way around and did not like to ask for directions or the controller did not check his ground radar, or even both did not do their jobs. Just a side idea: At the end of each taxiway leading to the runway, could some RFID transponder be installed, which are to be deactivated by the ground-controller, otherwise are active and telling the aircrafts closing onto them, that they are approaching a danger zone, triggering an alarm in the cockpit and even initiating a automatic braking of the aircraft, if the pilot is "asleep". even it could be completely automated that these RFID transponder are active as long as a aircraft is on the active runway. as long as there is a aircraft, no other can get onto it. Only a ground-controller can deactivate them on one taxiway entry to the assigned runway part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8_yK7Twz8E&feature=player_embeddedThere is a video taken from within the Lufthansa Airbus with the captain making his announcements explaining the situation to the Passengers.Also be aware that the ATC recording that is played is edited so the actual takeoff clearance is not heard - in case anyone was wondering why they were rolling without clearance.

This is just my opinion, so no flaming my post please. IMHO, accidents are more likely to happen at older airports which were designed during a time when the Boeing 707 was the largest airliner in service and air traffic at peak times would be considered slow by today's standards. As air traffic numbers and aircraft sizes both expanded, so did airports to cope with the growing needs of the aviation industry and these changes to the airports aren't always the "best" due to financial and physical constraints (by now most airports are locked into a finite space surrounded by suburbia. Newer airports which are designed to cope with large amounts of traffic and the size of modern commercial airline aircraft (on the ground and in the air) have far better layouts and are generally built in areas where approaches and departures can be set up much more efficiently. Taxiways are better set out, as are runways and thus the chances of incidents such as that at JFK are minimised. Just my $0.02!

Also be aware that the ATC recording that is played is edited so the actual takeoff clearance is not heard - in case anyone was wondering why they were rolling without clearance.

Wow, are you sure?

Wow, are you sure?

Well you never know - there was some discussion on another board where there seemed to be a lot of people under that impression!

I've heard the ATC recording, they had clearance.

I've heard the ATC recording, they had clearance.

I was answering dazz's comment which I think was an attempt at sarcasm? I didn't mean to come across as saying that they may have rolled without a clearance - I meant that some people on another board seemed to be under that impression...ah now Im just confusing myself never mind! haha! :(

I was answering dazz's comment which I think was an attempt at sarcasm? I didn't mean to come across as saying that they may have rolled without a clearance - I meant that some people on another board seemed to be under that impression...ah now Im just confusing myself never mind! haha! :(

No sarcasm, I was just asking :(

No sarcasm, I was just asking :(

No worries mate - I think I just managed to confuse myself and everyone else! :( I do have the excuse of being on some pretty powerfull painkillers at the moment though! haha!