37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 472364 |
Time | |
Date | 200005 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : lga.airport |
State Reference | NY |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : lga.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B727-200 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : takeoff roll |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : lga.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 04 |
Flight Phase | descent : vacating altitude landing : go around |
Route In Use | approach : instrument precision |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 14000 flight time type : 4000 |
ASRS Report | 472364 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : ground less severe other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance controller : separated traffic flight crew : executed go around flight crew : rejected takeoff |
Consequence | Other |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 12000 vertical : 600 |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Company ATC Human Performance Airport FAA Airspace Structure |
Primary Problem | Airspace Structure |
Narrative:
Cleared for takeoff runway 13 at lga (usual landing traffic for crossing runway 22, on approach about 2 mi out). As our takeoff began, lga tower asked us to discontinue the takeoff and hold short of runway 22. They also requested runway 22 landing traffic go around, which they did. As we were moving no more than an estimated 20 KTS, we coasted to a gentle stop, short of runway 22, with little if any braking. Usual announcements made to passenger concerning a discontinued takeoff, and we eventually were resequenced and went on our way, only after appropriate procedures and checklists reviewed as well as informative announcements made to passenger. We felt the beginning of our takeoff had adequate spacing on the landing traffic. But, the system and concept of trying to accommodate air traffic demands is strained for both pilots and controllers alike, so if one of the 'team' feels the need to take the safe side, it's best to do so. Frankly, I feel the ATC system is at its limit, both on the airport and in the air. Who will have the strength to say 'enough!' (am flying out of lga, a lot! It's a 'hot spot!') little 'margin' is left for typical human error or just common sense flexibility to reality of problems (communication glitch, an emergency or aircraft abnormal problem, etc).
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B727-200 FLT IS TOLD TO ABORT THEIR TKOF FROM RWY 13 WHEN ANOTHER ACR FLT IS ON A 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 4 WHICH WAS SENT AROUND AT LGA, NY.
Narrative: CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 13 AT LGA (USUAL LNDG TFC FOR XING RWY 22, ON APCH ABOUT 2 MI OUT). AS OUR TKOF BEGAN, LGA TWR ASKED US TO DISCONTINUE THE TKOF AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22. THEY ALSO REQUESTED RWY 22 LNDG TFC GO AROUND, WHICH THEY DID. AS WE WERE MOVING NO MORE THAN AN ESTIMATED 20 KTS, WE COASTED TO A GENTLE STOP, SHORT OF RWY 22, WITH LITTLE IF ANY BRAKING. USUAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE TO PAX CONCERNING A DISCONTINUED TKOF, AND WE EVENTUALLY WERE RESEQUENCED AND WENT ON OUR WAY, ONLY AFTER APPROPRIATE PROCS AND CHKLISTS REVIEWED AS WELL AS INFORMATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE TO PAX. WE FELT THE BEGINNING OF OUR TKOF HAD ADEQUATE SPACING ON THE LNDG TFC. BUT, THE SYS AND CONCEPT OF TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE AIR TFC DEMANDS IS STRAINED FOR BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS ALIKE, SO IF ONE OF THE 'TEAM' FEELS THE NEED TO TAKE THE SAFE SIDE, IT'S BEST TO DO SO. FRANKLY, I FEEL THE ATC SYS IS AT ITS LIMIT, BOTH ON THE ARPT AND IN THE AIR. WHO WILL HAVE THE STRENGTH TO SAY 'ENOUGH!' (AM FLYING OUT OF LGA, A LOT! IT'S A 'HOT SPOT!') LITTLE 'MARGIN' IS LEFT FOR TYPICAL HUMAN ERROR OR JUST COMMON SENSE FLEXIBILITY TO REALITY OF PROBS (COM GLITCH, AN EMER OR ACFT ABNORMAL PROB, ETC).
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.