 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An medium large transport crew refused a 'cancel takeoff' clearance as they were past the speed that it could be safely accomplished on a short, wet runway at lga.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 217160 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199207 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : lga |
| State Reference | NY |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 14000 flight time type : 3000 |
| ASRS Report | 217160 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 5000 |
| ASRS Report | 217619 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance none taken : insufficient time |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Lga using runway 31 for departure and 22 for lndgs. Visibility good but runway wet. First officer flying aircraft. Tower cleared us for an 'immediate' takeoff to which we responded that 'we were on the roll.' at some point we heard tower say something about cancel a takeoff clearance but they were partially cut out and no urgency in transmission. Neither of us felt that it pertained to us. They then said clearly, 'flight number, cancel takeoff clearance and advise if you can hold short of runway 22.' the speed was 110-120 KTS. I saw that there was an aircraft on final for 22 that was still 100-200 ft in the air and was no factor. I immediately advised 'negative' and elected to continue the takeoff as I wasn't sure that we could stay clear of flushing bay, much less runway 22. The landing aircraft was issued a go around clearance. There was no evasive action required. This is the second time in 3 yrs that I have been given this 'cancel takeoff clearance' at a speed at which a successful abort would be doubtful. In both cases there were alternatives available to ATC which would have negated the necessity for such action. There has to be a better way to handle this situation. I believe that in this case, the controller was more concerned with noise violation from the go around than our stopping ability. Supplemental information from acn 217619: I feel tower had no idea how fast we were going and what it takes to abort a takeoff at high speeds. Runway was a little wet and I feel that if we had tried to abort, we may not have stopped on the runway. Giving a go around is much safer to an aircraft already in flight with altitude than to abort a takeoff at high speed.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN MLG CREW REFUSED A 'CANCEL TKOF' CLRNC AS THEY WERE PAST THE SPD THAT IT COULD BE SAFELY ACCOMPLISHED ON A SHORT, WET RWY AT LGA.
Narrative: LGA USING RWY 31 FOR DEP AND 22 FOR LNDGS. VISIBILITY GOOD BUT RWY WET. FO FLYING ACFT. TWR CLRED US FOR AN 'IMMEDIATE' TKOF TO WHICH WE RESPONDED THAT 'WE WERE ON THE ROLL.' AT SOME POINT WE HEARD TWR SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CANCEL A TKOF CLRNC BUT THEY WERE PARTIALLY CUT OUT AND NO URGENCY IN XMISSION. NEITHER OF US FELT THAT IT PERTAINED TO US. THEY THEN SAID CLRLY, 'FLT NUMBER, CANCEL TKOF CLRNC AND ADVISE IF YOU CAN HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22.' THE SPD WAS 110-120 KTS. I SAW THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT ON FINAL FOR 22 THAT WAS STILL 100-200 FT IN THE AIR AND WAS NO FACTOR. I IMMEDIATELY ADVISED 'NEGATIVE' AND ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE TKOF AS I WASN'T SURE THAT WE COULD STAY CLR OF FLUSHING BAY, MUCH LESS RWY 22. THE LNDG ACFT WAS ISSUED A GAR CLRNC. THERE WAS NO EVASIVE ACTION REQUIRED. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN 3 YRS THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS 'CANCEL TKOF CLRNC' AT A SPD AT WHICH A SUCCESSFUL ABORT WOULD BE DOUBTFUL. IN BOTH CASES THERE WERE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO ATC WHICH WOULD HAVE NEGATED THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH ACTION. THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION. I BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE, THE CTLR WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH NOISE VIOLATION FROM THE GAR THAN OUR STOPPING ABILITY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 217619: I FEEL TWR HAD NO IDEA HOW FAST WE WERE GOING AND WHAT IT TAKES TO ABORT A TKOF AT HIGH SPDS. RWY WAS A LITTLE WET AND I FEEL THAT IF WE HAD TRIED TO ABORT, WE MAY NOT HAVE STOPPED ON THE RWY. GIVING A GAR IS MUCH SAFER TO AN ACFT ALREADY IN FLT WITH ALT THAN TO ABORT A TKOF AT HIGH SPD.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.