AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SoCal-USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see any problem here?
All I saw (heard) was a Captain take command of a possibly serious situation and FLY his airplane the safest way he saw possible.... Sometimes the port authority, ATC and any number of things non-critical can make that a hard thing to do.....Sometimes trying to comply with some of these jag offs IS an EMERGENCY !!!
Bravo for the Captain there
All I saw (heard) was a Captain take command of a possibly serious situation and FLY his airplane the safest way he saw possible.... Sometimes the port authority, ATC and any number of things non-critical can make that a hard thing to do.....Sometimes trying to comply with some of these jag offs IS an EMERGENCY !!!
Bravo for the Captain there
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope after all this blows over that the Captain takes the trouble to visit JFK ATC and see for himself what goes on on the other side of the mike and similarly the controller takes the trouble to get onto the flight deck of an inbound to see the workload from the Captains perspective.
This whole scenario seems to have been caused by a lack of understanding of how the other side works and the constraints which each party has to work under, rightly or wrongly. It is an object lesson in how an understanding of the other persons job helps everyone to get the end result that we are all striving to achieve.
The sooner that it is a compulsory requirement for all flight crew to visit their local ATC facility and for all controllers to fly a sector in and out of their airport the better. It is a sad indictment of the Aviation Authorities concerned that this is not mandatory requirement. This incident clearly illustrates their shortcomings.
This whole scenario seems to have been caused by a lack of understanding of how the other side works and the constraints which each party has to work under, rightly or wrongly. It is an object lesson in how an understanding of the other persons job helps everyone to get the end result that we are all striving to achieve.
The sooner that it is a compulsory requirement for all flight crew to visit their local ATC facility and for all controllers to fly a sector in and out of their airport the better. It is a sad indictment of the Aviation Authorities concerned that this is not mandatory requirement. This incident clearly illustrates their shortcomings.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
From what I understand:
There WAS a lot of communicating that went on between this aircraft and ATC before we get "the tape" that we were able to listen to.
The crew had already declared min fuel, which is explained previously.
Since the crew was low on fuel, they may have had to land. If they had been vectored around the box again, they may not have had enough fuel.
Comments:
The crew needed enough fuel for the trip, arrival, go-around, flight to the alternate, approach at the alternate, etc. BEFORE they left their destination. Once they were already in NYC, there are infinite numbers of reasons why they may have not had enough fuel to go to their alternate, or to go around the box again.
The FAA procedures, like, "We are declaring an emergency...", are 100% correct, and they do NOT need to be changed to ICAO standard. That is like saying that the Kenya CAA's decision to make pilots pass the "Conversion Exam" to convert their license (NOT the Air Law exam), is wrong, and the KCAA should change to ICAO standard. Each CAA is legally allowed to do what they want. When a countries procedures are different from ICAO, that is correct, and each country needs to decide for themselves the best way to do things. If we don't like how a particular CAA does things (see the KCAA decision above), then too bad for us.
I do think that things could have been handled differently ealier in this situation, but they weren't, and obviously, the capt felt he was boxed-in, and did what he needed to do. No crashing by anyone, so it all ended well!
cliff
LFW
From what I understand:
There WAS a lot of communicating that went on between this aircraft and ATC before we get "the tape" that we were able to listen to.
The crew had already declared min fuel, which is explained previously.
Since the crew was low on fuel, they may have had to land. If they had been vectored around the box again, they may not have had enough fuel.
Comments:
The crew needed enough fuel for the trip, arrival, go-around, flight to the alternate, approach at the alternate, etc. BEFORE they left their destination. Once they were already in NYC, there are infinite numbers of reasons why they may have not had enough fuel to go to their alternate, or to go around the box again.
The FAA procedures, like, "We are declaring an emergency...", are 100% correct, and they do NOT need to be changed to ICAO standard. That is like saying that the Kenya CAA's decision to make pilots pass the "Conversion Exam" to convert their license (NOT the Air Law exam), is wrong, and the KCAA should change to ICAO standard. Each CAA is legally allowed to do what they want. When a countries procedures are different from ICAO, that is correct, and each country needs to decide for themselves the best way to do things. If we don't like how a particular CAA does things (see the KCAA decision above), then too bad for us.
I do think that things could have been handled differently ealier in this situation, but they weren't, and obviously, the capt felt he was boxed-in, and did what he needed to do. No crashing by anyone, so it all ended well!
cliff
LFW
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leverage
I just listened to this audio, the PIC initially threatened to declare emergency to get what he wanted. As a controller for the past 39 years, I would have tried to accommodate the request however my understanding would be that the only reason for the declaration of emergency was to get another runway. In the event this was the case, this would be a gross abuse of "emergency" status and should have been followed up on by FSDO.
Imagine if everyone declared emergency everytime they didn't get what they wanted. Total Chaos!
Imagine if everyone declared emergency everytime they didn't get what they wanted. Total Chaos!
Thousands of times I haven’t received what I want, learn to accept it. If however I’m a mayday/emergency status, my needs have elevated beyond the controllers workload. A workload I recognize and accept when all is operating normally.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
I guess the bottom line for this incident is that regardless of the proper decision making in runway for which runway is being used, if you have a situation like this, you divert.
