comment: >
  
  Yeah "plans" is not standard language. Journalists suck.
context: Here's the article's description of what happened:
  
  The FAA said a Boeing 737 operated by Delta Air Lines stopped its takeoff around 8:45 p.m. when air traffic controllers noticed another American Airlines aircraft crossing the runway. The Delta flight “stopped its takeoff roll approximately 1,000 feet” from the point where the American Airlines Boeing 777 had crossed, according to the FAA’s preliminary analysis. >
  
  From another article on this story, the current information suggests Air Traffic Control instructed a plane to turn at a certain intersection, but they turned at the wrong one, which put them into the path of another plane beginning to take off. Traffic Control was able to get the pilots to stop, however. Quick and great work by all involved if accurate. >
  
  Well... All except for the pilot that turned at the wrong intersection. >
  
  I make a mistake at work, someone down stream is mildly inconvenienced for a few minutes. Pilots make a mistake, it's a headline. I'll take my spreadsheets please and thank you. >
  
  Right? Jesus lmao
  I don't understand what kind of fortitude it takes to do high risk/sensitive jobs where mistakes mean lives or other destruction. I certainly don't have it. >
  
  Agreed. That's why I asked my boss to stop telling me what my work is used for. >
  
  And the airlines are lobbying to get one pilot removed from every plane for cost cutting measures! What a great time to do that. >
  
  I can't imagine the public willing to fly on a plane with crew of one. About a month ago a pilot died shortly after takeoff and the plane returned to the airport safely. >
  
  But... but... 
  THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS!!! >
  
  They were just trying to high five! >
  
  A couple of years ago my wife was coming into SFO and her plane had to pull up at the last minute because another plane was on the runway. She gets nervous flying now which I can understand. Seems pretty dangerous. >
  
  It’s not too uncommon for something like that to happen. As long as everyone was monitoring the situation it’s not a big deal.
  It the plane that landed in front of them “missed their turn” off of the runway, they have to “take the next exit”.  If that happens, the plane behind them will see if they exit the runway in time, with both The tower and your pilot monitoring the situation.  And you have to get past the line to be fully off the runway before the runway is considered “empty”. So they might have been physically clear, but not clear enough with some extra room for safety. 
  If the plane that missed their turn isn’t clear, your wife’s plane will go around, and there was never a reduction in safety. 
  I’ve done this in a little Cessna before.  I was thinking “I’ll probably be safe, the guy is starting to exit.”   Then i realized what what was drilled into my head, probably safe isn’t safe enough. “If in doubt, go around!”  And I did a go around. It’s a total non-event. >
  
  The airline industry has put it in reverse. They’re FUBAR !!! >
  
  Hard to take an article seriously that misquotes the ATC audio as “cancel takeoff plans.”  WTF. >
  
  Sounds more like "cancel takeoff clearance" doesn't it? >
  
  That’s exactly what was said.  Because that’s what they had… a takeoff clearance. >
  
  Yeah "plans" is not standard language. Journalists suck. >
  
  Some journalism for basic news articles is computer generated, probably most soon given AI >
  
  AA pilots fucked up. End of investigation. >
  
  So you're saying to boycott airlines because of a lack of focus on safety... in a post about a situation where safety measures prevented a collision and an investigation is about to be conducted by the relevant government agency? >
  
  A near miss of this caliber is serious. Did you miss the part where I said someone was sucked into a jet engine recently too? That's not a near miss. >
  
  Hence the investigation to figure out what went wrong, why it happened, and how to prevent in the future. >
  
  Here's the article's description of what happened:
  
  The FAA said a Boeing 737 operated by Delta Air Lines stopped its takeoff around 8:45 p.m. when air traffic controllers noticed another American Airlines aircraft crossing the runway. The Delta flight “stopped its takeoff roll approximately 1,000 feet” from the point where the American Airlines Boeing 777 had crossed, according to the FAA’s preliminary analysis. >
  
  From the story:
  "'The safety of our customers and crew is always Delta’s number one priority,' the representative said in a statement. 'Delta will work with and assist aviation authorities on a full review of flight 1943 on Jan. 13 regarding a successful aborted takeoff procedure at New York-JFK. We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay of their travels.'
  A spokesperson for American Airlines said the company will defer to the FAA for comment."
  I think we can tell the guilty party right there. >
  
  "We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay of their travels." The absolute money line lol - they know they did good and that customers were happier to stay alive, yet kept it kind of humble >
  
  I think I would have been happier if the crew took a moment to regroup and proceeded to take off >
  
  It's not just about the crew's nerves, that sort of rejected takeoff puts a lot of wear and stress on the aircraft's tires, brakes and all assorted systems in proximity (such as hydraulics, which also operate the aircraft's control systems). Going back to the gate and rebooking the passengers is the mechanically appropriate move. >
  
  So, you're telling me that an airplane stops suddenly but 1000 feet from the area it is trying to avoid and it can no longer be trusted to be mechanically sound? This is not helping my fear of flying at all. >
  
  Remember that planes are the most advanced method of travel, only operated by those with tens of thousands of hours of experienced, monitored and directed by a network of dedicated watchers who do nothing but make sure everything is working, and the planes can basically fly themselves when given permission to do so.
  Flying is beyond safe.
  What's dangerous is getting into a line of distracted, tired,  unmonitored, annoyed and angry humans directing two or three tons of unmaintained steel and rubber who haven't been provided active training or assessment since they were unable to vote.
  It's a miracle we get home safely from getting taco bell.
  In this case, the concern is that the plane's brakes went from being 100% reliable to 99% reliable. So to make sure that everyone stays safe the plane will have a full checkup done to get the reliability up to 100%. >
  
  Well, there are limits. Years ago I was in Tajikistan talking with a consultant on a new runway for the main airport. Without the new runway, only older Russian planes could land there as the runway was so rough that western planes developed hairline cracks in the metal after they used the airport. >
  
  I'm only familiar with US airports and planes, so that's a solid point. Your milage may vary by location (for cars and planes) >
  
  That first one is damning.  It's 100% on the pilot in command of AA106.  They were told to cross the other runway (31L) at Kilo (K in the background picture) and instead crossed the ACTIVE runway (4L) at Juliet (J in the diagram).  So they were on taxiway Bravo (B) and lost situational awareness.
  You can also hear the "OMG we almost just died" tone in Delta 1943's voice.  I wouldn't be surprised if those guys needed some time off, oh my God.  A few seconds later and everybody on both planes is dead.  Almost another Tenerife.  OOF.  
  My only question is whether the pilots of Delta 1943 saw AA106 first or heard the cancel takeoff clearance message first.
  ALSO LOL that the ground controller was prepared to let AA106 take off on 31L after that.  Just casually like "OK now that you have the number to call, since you're already there, you gonna take off from 31L or what?"  Cold as ice. >
  
  1943 was Delta. Not AA. >
  
  From another article on this story, the current information suggests Air Traffic Control instructed a plane to turn at a certain intersection, but they turned at the wrong one, which put them into the path of another plane beginning to take off. Traffic Control was able to get the pilots to stop, however. Quick and great work by all involved if accurate. >
  
  Well... All except for the pilot that turned at the wrong intersection. >
  
  I make a mistake at work, someone down stream is mildly inconvenienced for a few minutes. Pilots make a mistake, it's a headline. I'll take my spreadsheets please and thank you. >
  
  Right? Jesus lmao
  I don't understand what kind of fortitude it takes to do high risk/sensitive jobs where mistakes mean lives or other destruction. I certainly don't have it. >
  
  Agreed. That's why I asked my boss to stop telling me what my work is used for. >
  
  That's why we didn't tell Ender >
  
  Sucks that the author is an asshole, the book was great. >
  
  And the airlines are lobbying to get one pilot removed from every plane for cost cutting measures! What a great time to do that. >
  
  We need some level-headed decision making and empowered enforcement of regulations by the FAA. Not to piggyback but how the fuck did the FAA miss the Boeing "single point of failure" MCAS when approving the 737 Max? They must be asleep at the desk!
  Somebody needs to clean house and reinvigorate the FAA. Or we will start to see a lot more of this I think.
  Edit: 737 Max. >
  
  737 Max.
  The failure here is tax cuts. FAA and many other federal agencies receive less and less funding. If you cut taxes, you need to reduce spending someplace. Hence cost cutting solutions, such as allowing aviation industry to effectively self-police in some areas. While it is true that engineer employed by, let say Boeing, is just as capable to work on the certification of an airplane as the one employed by FAA, it is also true that engineer employed by Boeing may be under completely different kind of pressure from the upper management than the one employed by FAA. >
  
  It’s the old Republican strategy of “take all funding and strength from the enforcement board and tell the public government programs never work” and idiots keep falling for it!  USPS, the IRS, the SEC, if you’re in England the NHS, these actually work great when a bunch of conservative jackoffs aren’t actively trying to sell them for parts. >
  
  Absolutely THIS times 1,000.  I remember Congresswoman Michele Bachmann making a motion on the floor of the house that congress investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, saying that whoever was responsible for the lack of safety regulation would be held accountable.  It was quickly pointed out that she was the author of the bill that eliminated the jobs of the regulators that used to be on board the rig.  This same pattern recurs again and again.  Look at energy distribution in Texas. >
  
  Man there's a politician I haven't heard of for a long while, definitely for the best. >
  
  Delta: "The flight was delayed overnight due to crew resources..." 
  Read:  "The Delta crew needs to change their shorts." >
  
  AA pilots fucked up. End of investigation. >
  
  Ground: American xxxx, possible pilot deviation.  Let me know when you are ready to copy a phone number.
  Aaxxxx: Gullllllp, ready to copy... >
  
  So what does this actually mean? They phone the number and have to admit they fucked up? What happens if they just don’t phone? >
  
  It means they didn't follow instructions causing safety risk.  They take initial statements on recorded line and provide additional information about what will happen next.  If you don't call, that gets added to the list of fuck ups you just committed.  FAA likes when you follow the rules and regs, not when you blatantly refuse to follow them.  Would pretty much seal the fate on your license in this case.  
  Could be ATC fd up I didn't hear audio, but that is for FAA to confirm.  They need cooperation from all parties to take corrective action and make sure it doesn't happen again.  All parties are well aware how serious these types of things are. >
  
  Crossed active on Juliet instead of right on kilo, parallel to traffic.  Then held short of wrong runway.  Ouch.  Bad day, could have been alot worse. Thanks for the audio! >
  
  Pilots are being overworked and underpaid. Dangerous combination. >
  
  Pilots are being paid insane wages right now, this is the best time ever to become a pilot. All airline pilots belong to a group of very strong group of unions and have very strict duty requirements that cannot be broken. Due to the high cost of becoming an airline pilot they are in very short supply so they have all the leverage now. The trope of being overpaid and underworked is over and will never be coming back. >
  
  A couple of years ago my wife was coming into SFO and her plane had to pull up at the last minute because another plane was on the runway. She gets nervous flying now which I can understand. Seems pretty dangerous. >
  
  Was she on a Singapore Airlines flight? This was more than 2yrs ago though. I might have been on the same flight as your wife. I was looking out the window when I saw a Southwest Airline crossing our runway when we were going back up in the air. It took me awhile to realize it was a near miss. I thank those Singapore Airlines pilots for seeing the plane about to cross as we were about to land and suddenly pulling up. >
  
  An aircraft doing a go-around is not a near miss and happens daily. If it were actually a near miss, it would make the news, like the Air Canada incident at San Francisco. What happened was probably as simple as ATC telling your aircraft that the runway was still occupied, and instructing them to go-around. >
  
  It was not a go-around. We were already almost down on the runway when we went back up. That's why I saw the Southwest Airline crossing the runway below. >
  
  On the Go >
  
  They were just trying to high five! >
  
  it was the ATC in the grassy knoll >
  
  Somebody get Harrison Ford off the tarmac >
  
  The airline industry has put it in reverse. They’re FUBAR !!! >
  
  So you're saying to boycott airlines because of a lack of focus on safety... in a post about a situation where safety measures prevented a collision and an investigation is about to be conducted by the relevant government agency? >
  
  A near miss of this caliber is serious. Did you miss the part where I said someone was sucked into a jet engine recently too? That's not a near miss. >
  
  US major airline passenger fatalities in US airspace by year:
  - 2010: 0
  - 2011: 0
  - 2012: 0
  - 2013: 0
  - 2014: 0
  - 2015: 0
  - 2016: 0
  - 2107: 0
  - 2018: 1
  - 2019: 1
  - 2020: 0
  - 2021: 0
  You are now more likely to win a national lottery jackpot more than once than to even know a person ever killed in a US airline crash.  We’re starting to measure US airline fatalities by multiple TRILLIONS of passenger miles. >
  
  Just a quick correction, you've got 2107 there, but by then airplane aren't going to be flying as all airports will be underwater thanks to global warming. >
  
  Hard to take an article seriously that misquotes the ATC audio as “cancel takeoff plans.”  WTF. >
  
  Sounds more like "cancel takeoff clearance" doesn't it? >
  
  That’s exactly what was said.  Because that’s what they had… a takeoff clearance.