DL985 SDQ > JFK Sequenced to Close Behind a Heavier Jet

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

May 23, 2018, 9:36 pm

HWGeeks

Original Poster

Join Date: Jun 2009

Location: Somewhere

Programs: Delta Plat

Posts: 3,395

DL985 SDQ > JFK Sequenced to Close Behind a Heavier Jet

So I have had go-arounds before, even an aborted landing on the same flight in the title. But I never had a go around for the reason in the title.

The pilot came on and said we went around because ATC sequenced us to close to a heavier plane.

Is there any way to know what type of plane was ahead of us?
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...dl985#117a8680

May 23, 2018, 9:43 pm

Eastbay1K

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jul 1999

Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA

Programs: Jumbo mas

Posts: 38,850

Smart pilot. I once had the wake of a TW 747 almost smash us into the ground on SFO approach. (I was likely in a 737.) We were within seconds of landing when the plane started shaking violently from side to side - I thought a wing would hit the runway. The pilot got control of the plane, we were at altitude shortly thereafter, and then he came over the PA, and told us what happened.

May 23, 2018, 10:47 pm

HWGeeks

Original Poster

Join Date: Jun 2009

Location: Somewhere

Programs: Delta Plat

Posts: 3,395

we didn't have any turbulence on the way down, something I think is odd for JFK but it made me curious if go arounds I have experienced in the past were for the same reason

May 24, 2018, 4:55 am

SuperG1955

Join Date: Jan 2008

Location: NYC, MSY

Programs: DL DM, 1.5MM, NEXUS, Sky Club Lifetime, Admirals Club Lifetime, LowValueCustomer everywhere

Posts: 6,468

Quote:

Originally Posted by HWGeeks

You can listen to LiveATC for all of the communications

You can learn about Wake Turbulence and ATC Separations at Wake_turbulence

Added: Most of the current commercial aircraft have similar approach speeds so ATC can sequence them based on the Separation Criteria but there are situations where the lead aircraft might be on the low end of their approach speed and the following aircraft might be a little 'hot' which would cause them to go below the Separation Criteria and require a missed approach for the following aircraft.

Last edited by SuperG1955; May 24, 2018 at 5:11 am Reason: more information

May 24, 2018, 5:42 am

Cory6188

Join Date: Jun 2003

Location: NJ

Programs: DL DM, Marriott Plat

Posts: 870

Believe me, you should be glad the pilot did the go-around. A few years ago, I was landing at LAX in a Compass E175, when we went from a perfectly smooth approach to a sudden, near 90-degree bank to the right. I was pretty positive it was wake turbulence, and we were still a fair bit above the ground, so I wasn't too freaked out, but there were definitely a few screams in the cabin. Not something you want to experience if you don't know what it is (or even if you do!).

May 24, 2018, 7:31 am

HDQDD

Join Date: Dec 2009

Location: RDU

Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum

Posts: 3,240

Quote:

Originally Posted by HWGeeks

This is normal for busy airports, especially ones with complicated/congested airspace like the NY Metros. If the plane in front of you slows down too much for the approach (or because of the one in front of it did, etc.), it's easy to become too close and have to go around. I used to hear these all the time at ORD (Ahh how I miss UA's Channel 9) prior to the RWY reconfiguration.

May 24, 2018, 8:01 am

TTT

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: 45° North

Programs: DL DM MM, HH Diamond

Posts: 10,196

Quote:

Originally Posted by HWGeeks

we didn't have any turbulence on the way down, something I think is odd for JFK but it made me curious if go arounds I have experienced in the past were for the same reason

I did a little looking at flightradar24 for JFK arrivals last night. It looks like DL985 landed at 21:07. The few arrivals before were the following:
DL303 763 Landed: 21:05
AA256 321 Landed: 21:05
DL790 A320 Landed: 21:01
AA2527 738 Landed: 21:01
BA179 744 Landed: 20:58
DL2354 739 Landed: 20:55
AA4670 175 Landed: 20:52

I bolded the "heavy" aircraft. My guess is you were sequenced behind the BA179 who was a bit slower than expected and your flight got spun around.

May 24, 2018, 8:12 am

davetravels

In memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: May 2005

Location: PIT

Programs: DM life is over 2MM PM now & NW MillionAir Wyndham Rewards Plat -Hotels.com Silver -Accor Silver

Posts: 15,408

I read this thread just before I went to bed last nite . . . .

Now I realize why I woke up from a dream where, a plane I was on, made a sudden right turn and very steep climb during a landing!

Noooooooo, I don't remember what airline, city or aircraft type it was!

May 24, 2018, 9:06 am

thunderlounge

Join Date: Dec 2017

Posts: 1,107

Quote:

Originally Posted by davetravels

Noooooooo, I don't remember what airline, city or aircraft type it was!

But you remember the cabin, right?

davetravels likes this.

May 24, 2018, 10:05 am

#10

Often1

Suspended

Join Date: Aug 2010

Location: DCA

Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL

Posts: 50,262

Despite the recent WN tragedy, US commercial aviation is as safe as it has ever been, largely because there is zero risk tolerance. Those separation criteria err on the side of caution and that is a good thing. On approach, it is close to impossible to be certain that the "heavy" aircraft will maintain speed. Likelihood of anything bad is small, but words such as "likelihood" translate into "no go" these days. That is a good thing.

May 24, 2018, 12:11 pm

#11

CarmenOM

Join Date: Oct 2009

Location: MSP

Programs: Delta PM, 1MM

Posts: 3,793

I keep seeing this thread title on the list and read it that the SDQ-JFK route is in line to be discontinued. When you throw in the variations of meaning and pronunciation on the second word, “to close” does not read the same as “too close.”

davetravels likes this.