AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency. [Archive]

alwaysmovin

7th May 2010, 22:53

JESUS....I understand the pilot couldn't land as it was over his limits but he didn't even give the controller a chance:ugh:....and then telling atc what he was going to do........eh hello ....you are not the only plane in the sky......In a normal emergency ok you can do what you want....but really just how low on fuel was he???. ....If he was so low on fuel surely he should have said it earlier when he realised the winds were getting near limits and may go over.....

Also "I said 3 times I'm declaring an emergency'"...... I didn't hear anyone say he wasn't getting 31 after this.......didn't this moron even consider the heading was for traffic and then he'd prob get the runway he asked for....

...or am I missing something??

AdamFrisch

7th May 2010, 23:53

Apparently the NYC controllers have their own way of doing things according to this answer from different forum:

I think some people need to understand ZNY center does not operate like some other centers in the country. "Min Fuel" means nothing to NY, because they have 200 other a/c coming over the pond all declaring "Min Fuel."

You can ask for whatever you need, your not gonna get it. Even in this case the crew "declared" and still the controllers tried to play stupid, and act like they didn't hear the crew declare an emergency.

You can request 31R as soon as you get the local ATIS, which was maybe 150mi out. All your request is going to go in the garbage, they are not going to change the entire arrival configuration for one a/c, needless to say how this change will affect EWR or LGA. The crew did the right thing by declaring and deviating from FAR necessary to get that aircraft safely on the ground.

Spend some time here flying in and out of JFK and you'll understand how things work here.

On the beach

8th May 2010, 00:05

I've listened to the tape 3 times now and not once did I hear any reference to fuel emergency. Maybe the crew declared a fuel emergency before, in which case, no problem. But I hope the crew listen to the tape and take on board the assistance that was trying to be offered and appreciate the increased workload that was handled very professionally by the controller. No doubt the controller was also co-ordinating with colleagues around to facilitate the American pilots safe and expeditious landing, which, unfortunately the tape doesn't record. Whoever the controller was, a job well done, in difficult circumstances.

Pera

8th May 2010, 05:52

I don't think that crew will have to worry about ATC for a while!

FoxHunter

8th May 2010, 08:38

Sounds like the crew did their job. If you need more information about an emergency they have telephones on the ground that work just fine and there is time for a long conversation.

fuzzy6988

8th May 2010, 14:30

Whoever the controller was, a job well done, in difficult circumstances.

I commend the controller's professionalism in handling this situation.

HM79

8th May 2010, 14:52

Dangerous landing at JFK Airport | Video | 7online.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7425662)

The ac's first transmission after being told the crosswind was too high was "we cannot accept 22 if we do not get 31r we are GOING to declare an emergency" The plan was to bring the ac overhead the airport and vector him for an ils to ry 31r.

The time spent bringing the ac overhead was not thought to be an issue because at NO time prior the ac's declaration of need for 31r was there any mention of fuel issues. The above link is the local news story of the event. Please remember that atco's in NY DO NOT make rwy selection decisions!!

All runway selection decisions in NY are made by FAA management in very close coordination with the AIRLINES. (The users make every decision about runway selection!!) It is all about capacity.

Controllers vector where they are told to vector, management makes all the runway decisions based on capacity first.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

8th May 2010, 15:25

Pity this is in two threads.. However..

HM79, you mean that if a bigorous front goes through and the striong wind changes 50 degrees they have to wait for FAA to discuss the matter with the airlines? That sounds somewhat contrary to safety considerations.

HM79

8th May 2010, 17:44

What I mean is that atc's in NY constantly subject ac to crosswinds that are at or just below the ac max allowable wind. These decisions are capacity related. I have been told by FAA management that there is no degradation to safety landing in crosswind vs landing into the wind, regardless of velocity as long as it is within the parameters of the ac.
Capacity is king!!!!:eek:

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

8th May 2010, 17:50

HM79.. I suspect that's the case at many places. At Heathrow most everything is governed by noise abatement. Nevertheless, minute by minute operation of the airfield is in the hands of ATC so if the weather changed, the TWR decide if a runway change is appropriate and do not have to seek advice from operators (at least, they didn't used to!).

ComJam

9th May 2010, 00:02

I have to say the controller was extremely professional throughout...the crew on the other hand....!

You can't bully ATC into giving you a different runway by threatening them with an Emergency, you certainly shouldn't randomly decide that you're going to turn left to position for the runway you want....there's more than one a/c out there...

I don't think he actually declared an Emergency at all (technically) ICAO Standard Phraseology requires the use of "Mayday Mayday" or "Pan Pan Pan" to do that...and as for "fuel priorities":

Fuel Reserves Approaching Minimum:
’Fuel Emergency’ or ‘fuel priority’ are not recognised terms. Flight crews short of fuel must declare a PAN or MAYDAY to be sure of being given the appropriate priority. (Source: ICAO Phraseology Reference Guide)

FoxHunter

9th May 2010, 00:18

They did not Bully, just informed ATC what they were doing.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 707-321B HK-2016 Cove Neck, NY (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900125-0)

Sir Herbert Gussett

9th May 2010, 00:43

If you declare an emergency then YOU are flying the plane - not ATC! Get everything under control and THEN tell ATC what you are going to do...!

I don't understand these young ones that seem to think absoloutely everything they do in an emergency has to be confirmed by an ATCO before they actually do it. I've sat in a simulator session where one wanted to ask ATC if he could cut the fuel to the #2 engine after a simulated birdstrike!!! :ugh:

Who cares if he didn't "technically" declare an emergency? He says 'we are declaring an emergency' - if it wasn't standard R/T then he can get moaned at afterwards. Not anyone's job to question his judgement. He has an emergency situation then he has top priority.

Pera

9th May 2010, 01:47

Declaring an emergency doesn't make all the other planes go away! The pilot must comply with ATC instructions. If he has a dire fuel emergency or controllability issues tell ATC and you'll get whatever you need. They must be given a chance to get other aircraft out of the way.

ROKAPE

9th May 2010, 01:57

The Pilot must not comply with ATC demands/control/orders.
The buck stop with the Captain, he has ultimate authority over the operation of the aircraft whether in an emergency or normal operations.
ATC provides a service from the air-conditioned, dohnut and tea room bunker. If the crew believe a direction is not in the best interest of safety or operational procedures they have every right to fly the aircraft as they see fit......as the crew of this AA flight did.

atcpilot

9th May 2010, 03:25

This captain and crew did just right. Too bad more of us don't refuse to let folks on the ground fly our aircraft.

West Coast

9th May 2010, 05:08

The pilot must comply with ATC instructions.

Actually no. That is one of the byproducts of declaring an emergency.

The reg's allow me to do as I need. Most of the time during an emergency ATC is one helluva an asset to have. Sometimes it's a detriment and the PIC does what is necessary. He or she will have to answer for it and others will pass judgement (and not the type passed here)

My speakers are deferred right now so I cant listen to the tapes, as such I'm talking in general terms.

While most of the time we're all on the same page of music, there's situations where ATC's priorities and the crews differ.

NZScion

9th May 2010, 08:26

My 2c, with 20/20 hindsight and with all the stress of driving a laptop, instead of a B767 in what appears to have been a very sticky situation, also having listened to the tape, but without claiming to know the full background on the situation:

1. As has already been mentioned, using the correct phraseology "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" to declare the emergency would have gotten the immediate attention of the controller and all others on the frequency. It seems to me that the controller did not pick up the full meaning of "OK we've declared an emergency, we're going to land 31 Right."

Stick the magic word repeated three times in instead of "OK we've declared an emergency" and everyone would have been on the same page.

2. After declaring the emergency, the crew could have been a lot clearer regarding their urgent requirement for 31R. Something along the lines of "require runway 31R immediately" might have been better. Also, when given a heading instruction by the controller, a quick "negative, unable" might have been beneficial.

However, having said this, the crew Aviated, Navigated, and got the punters on the ground safely. Having the comms in a pressure cooker situation spot on is just icing on the cake. Good job.

Pera

9th May 2010, 08:48

Actually no.

Actually YES. := If you can't comply then you say so and an alternate clearance will be issued. You are not the only aircraft in the sky and you can't keep your aircraft safe if your actions place it in conflict with other aircraft.

This crews communications skills were lacking. Any of these would have worked.

'we can't accept the crosswind, require runway 31 L'
'mayday mayday mayday, emergency fuel, require 31L'
'unable runway heading, require immediate turn for runway 31L'
'pan pan x3, require 31L due crosswind'

Give ATC half a chance. :ugh:

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

9th May 2010, 11:11

This and the similar thread in R&N is very sad indeed and demonstrates a severe breakdown in professional relations between the crew and ATC. I can well imagine a controller issuing an initial instruction to stay on a heading whilst he sorts out the situation; the pilot has no idea what other traffic maybe very close at hand. Unless the aeroplane was on fire or in imminent danger of crashing - neither of which appears to fit this scenario - it is somewhat unorthodox for the pilot to say he is going to so something, or demand another runway at a busy place like JFK. For one thing, he has no idea of what might happening on that runway and could be placing his aircraft in considerable danger.

There are a number of pilots in these threads who I hope never to fly behind. ATCOs and pilots know who is ultimately responsible, just as I am ultimately responsible for the safety of my car and passengers but I don't go barging down the wrong side of a motorway because there's a jam on my side.

I never came across a situation like this in my career and I hope this matter is thoroughly investigated and the crew be required to account fully for their actions.

ComJam

9th May 2010, 12:30

Sir Herbert wrote:

I hope the reference to "young ones" was directed at me :)...if it was, I wasn't suggesting that everything has to be confirmed by an ATCO...however, self positioning in very busy airspace onto a Runway that isn't in use for landing without giving ATC a chance to sort it out shows a huge lack of Airmanship in my opinion.

Ultimately it's the Captains responsability...yes, it's up to the Captain what he does with his a/c in an Emergency...yes, is it sensible that he should inform ATC of his intentions prior to actioning them...yes.

If he was soooo short of fuel that he couldn't afford to be vectored for 31R shouldn't he have diverted already?!

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

9th May 2010, 13:07

ComJam... take a look at Sir Herbert's profile and you'll realise he isn't worth debating with.

Sir Herbert Gussett

9th May 2010, 14:48

I hope the reference to "young ones" was directed at me :)...if it was, I wasn't suggesting that everything has to be confirmed by an ATCO...however, self positioning in very busy airspace onto a Runway that isn't in use for landing without giving ATC a chance to sort it out shows a huge lack of Airmanship in my opinion.

Ultimately it's the Captains responsability...yes, it's up to the Captain what he does with his a/c in an Emergency...yes, is it sensible that he should inform ATC of his intentions prior to actioning them...yes.

If he was soooo short of fuel that he couldn't afford to be vectored for 31R shouldn't he have diverted already?!

It was not aimed at you, no... I just have a habit of going along a completely different topic with little warning! :E

HEATHROW DIRECTOR I'm glad you don't consider me being "worth debating". I've just looked at your profile and say this to you: I'm still in the industry and I hope to hell that when I leave I'll be enjoying retirement enough that I don't find it compulsory to log onto bloody PPRuNe to try and keep my neck in! Take your outdated perspective and plotter off to happy retirement.

dpk737

9th May 2010, 15:50

I think this thread is moving into Ego zones.
I completely agree with Heathrow Director, and the car example he gave explains it perfectly.
In a busy air traffic areas, we do need ATC services not only for your own safety but also for the safety of others.
Come on let's not break the professional relationship between Pilots and ATCO's - it's a very symbiotic relation:ok:

Happy landings.

West Coast

9th May 2010, 16:56

Actually YES

Actually no.

My speakers have taken an early retirement so I haven't listened to the communications between American and JFK ATC so I'm not passing any judgement on this situation, speaking in general terms.

Sec. 91.3

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

The above is FAR 91.3. It is the regulation I fly under. I would be very surprised if in your country pilots aren't given the same latitude.

The regulations are very clear, I'm provided the latitude to do I as I need to keep the aircraft safe. I may have to answer and receive judgement from others on the ground but I don't need squat from the controller at the moment if the situation is that dire. I don't know if it's an ego thing for the controllers, but that's just the way it is. If time permits I fully acknowledge that working with the controller is in the best interests of all involved and that almost all emergencies allow time to receive "amended clearances", but somewhere someday there's going to be a situation in which the PIC must make an immediate decision.

Yeah, just what I want to do, wait on a congested frequency not able to get a word in, or dealing with a controller who may not fully grasp the magnitude of the emergency, a controller who denies something because of a perceived conflict with traffic, etc, etc as I wait for my "amended" clearance.

I'll amend my own clearance if it's dire enough thank you very much.

You can retort all you want, it won't change the authority I have to do as I need to. Might make you feel better, but that's it.

Sir Herbert Gussett

9th May 2010, 17:15

I'm agreeing here with West Coast - and I hope all others will!

criss

9th May 2010, 17:39

Too bad then he haven't used all his authority earlier on...

Guy D'ageradar

9th May 2010, 17:58

ATC provides a service from the air-conditioned, dohnut and tea room bunker

I don't know if it's an ego thing for the controllers, but that's just the way it is.

Notwithstanding the fact that a (supposedly) highly qualified pilot is unable to spell the word "doughnut" the above goes a long way in explaining the mindset of the posters (none of whom, I am sure, have ever bothered their ar$es visiting a busy ATC unit to see the chaos they cause).

As long as "sky gods" such as these take to the air in the misplaced belief that they have carte blanche to do as they wish and to hell with everyone else, such incidents will continue unabated. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have news for you guys - YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY AIRCRAFT IN THE SKY!!!!

When will that ever sink in?

Yes, we all know that you are ultimately responsible for YOUR aircraft - what you fail to understand is that WE are responsible for ALL OF THEM - AND WILL BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR IT!! If you have any doubt of that, get off of your sheepskin lined pedestal and have a look around these forums for examples....try starting with a few recent Italian cases.

Every controller that I have ever met will, without exception, do all in their power to aid and assist each and every aircraft under their control - whether it be in normal circumstances or in an emergency. Clearly, any aircraft having declared an emergency WILL have priority.

We are not, however, either mind readers or magicians. If you have not previously indicated a problem and/or actually declared an emergency (hopefully, using the unambiguous phraseology developed for the purpose), it is highly unlikely that the fact will be known outside of your immediate vicinity. (for the septics amongst you, think fart range). As an aviator friend would say -" I may have a pair of balls but neither of them is crystal"!

By all means aviate, navigate, communicate - that's what we would expect - do not, however, assume that all surrounding aircraft can be magically made to disappear with a sweep of the radar to accommodate your whims. Same goes for unilaterally deciding to help yourself to an out-of-use runway. It may or may not be in useable condition, full of vehicles, etc.

For the reasonable amongst you, please do not take this as an out-and-out attack on the piloting community - my wish is to highlight the idiocy of the few, not to alienate those professionals who still understand the meaning of the term "airmanship".

Rant mode off, enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Guy.

ayrprox

9th May 2010, 18:11

Not knowing the full story behind this particular instance makes it easy to make false assumptions. in the lead up to this, if the pilots had said to ATC the situation they were in with their fuel (and by that i mean that they didnt just say we're tight on fuel or the usual we need direct stuff we all hear, but in the we have enough fuel for one approach and then we will have to declare an emergency kind of way)then i would hope the controller would then have understood the severity and reacted accordingly.
If, however the first time the pilot had even mentioned emergency is when he actually declared, thats a different story and , completely out of order.
From my point of view, and the rules in the us may differ, once the pilot says we're declaring an emergency, all bets are off. the rule book gets thrown out the window and that aircraft gets to route its most expeditious route to its runway of choice. seperation responsibilities be it 3 miles/5miles etc become less imperative and we should provide all help. we rely on the fact that the captain will not make that call lightly and should not 2nd guess. squawk 7700 so everyone knows and go about your business, coordinating when possible.
If the captain made the call for less than genuine reasons then, in the subsequent investigation he/she should be rightly called on that, and punished accordingly if found guilty of wrong.
some people are saying the pilot should have worked with the controller by just maintaining the heading as asked, but again , he has made the decision to declare. swear under your breath, think that he's being an asshole to yourself, but as they say in the military , honour the threat, and let the investigators seek out the truth afterwards. do all you can to assist and worry about it later.
just my 2 pennies worth :ok:

OA32

9th May 2010, 18:31

Most points are valid, however if the a/c was that low on fuel then an emergency, at the very least a pan call, should have been declared a lot sooner. The pilot stating that they needed 31R or they would declare an emergency is not the same as actually declaring an emergency there and then. I as an ATCO would have probably done the same thing (depending on the traffic situation of course) while co-ordinating with the approach controller. This seems to be a common trait amongst pilots in failing to declare an emergency with the correct phraseology, the most famous being Houston we have a problem.

I can see the point of the pilots, however using ambiguous RT did not help the controller understand the urgency of their situation and maybe a refresher would be in order.

A better call may have been,

May-Day May-Day May-Day (Callsign) unable to accept RWY 22 due crosswind, request immediate vectors for 31R due (insert emergency of choice)

I'm pretty sure that would get the immediate attention and understanding of the controller to which it is directed.

West Coast

9th May 2010, 18:42

Guy

in the misplaced belief that they have carte blanche to do as they wish

It's not a misplaced belief, it's a regulation written about as clear and as unambiguous as anything can be. It's likely written in the blood of pilots and passengers past. Can you offer up any regulation stating or even inferring that I DON'T have the right to do as I need if I invoke my emergency authority and the nature of the emergency requires drastic action?

I trust your rant was cathartic, but it doesn't change that I can do as I see fit if the situation dictates it, clearance, amended clearance or no clearance.

I'm gonna be scared to Sh1te likely from an emergency that dire, also scared that I might prang someone, but sometimes it has to be done. I acknowledge that there are other aircraft out there and I will still exercise due diligence to the degree I can with regard to other aircraft but I sure as hell am not going to let ATC paint me into a corner when I lose a motor on takeoff and need an immediate turn, or when I lose one while at a low CI cruise number at cruise altitude meaning I have to start down NOW because I don't have any excess speed to trade to hold altitude. There are plenty more examples.

Sudden Stop

9th May 2010, 18:44

Guy D - you're spot on there. The only thing I'd add is -

The Captain is untimately responsible for the safety of his a/c and his passengers - granted, and with that in mind: I think he failed to ensure the safety of either by going against ATC instructions.

Other than TCAS, as soon as he decided to manoeuvre away from where ATC needed him to go, he had no way to know if he was going to plough into another a/c.

emmajoy

9th May 2010, 19:08

Sir Herbert Gussett

9th May 2010, 19:55

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
This regulation does not mean a pilot can blindly career around a controlled area without regard of other aircraft, by definition driving your aircraft up the ass end of another aircraft is unsafe and so your actions would not be covered by the above regulations. Doing what is “safe” and what you “like” are very different scenarios if you can’t differentiate between the two you should not be flying.

Nobody has suggested - anywhere at all in this thread - that they would "blindly career around a controlled area without regard of other aircraft". You were the first to mention it and so you're ridiculing yourself! Nutter.

What people have said is... IF NEEDED, they would go against an ATCO's instructions to ensure the safety of their flight in an emergency. ATC have no idea what's going on in a cockpit in an emergency situation and it's always our priority to deal with that emergency (by "AVIATING") before we tell them what has happened.

Guy D'ageradar

9th May 2010, 20:21

West Coast,

I'm gonna be scared to Sh1te likely from an emergency that dire, also scared that I might prang someone, but sometimes it has to be done.

Please indicate exactly where on the aforementioned tape you noticed any reference to "an emergency that dire". I may only have heard an abridged version - can't be sure - the only problem indicated was a breach of crosswind limits - not, as far as I am aware, a "dire emergency".

I sure as hell am not going to let ATC paint me into a corner when I lose a motor on takeoff and need an immediate turn, or when I lose one while at a low CI cruise number at cruise altitude meaning I have to start down NOW because I don't have any excess speed to trade to hold altitude.

I repeat, each and every controller that I have worked with for the last 20 years would do all they possibly could to help in those situations. I see no indication of such a situation in the tapes provided.

S.H.G.

ATC have no idea what's going on in a cockpit in an emergency situation and it's always our priority to deal with that emergency (by "AVIATING") before we tell them what has happened.

I agree wholeheartedly - however, we cannot provide assistance until a) we know there is a problem and b) we have some indication of what is required. It is in YOUR best interests to let us know ASAP. A lot can be done, but only if/when we know it is necessary.

For the record, most ATC manuals also have a clause stating that controllers can/should do whatever may be deemed necessary in unforeseen circumstances. We can and will do everything possible to help however, I repeat, I have two balls but neither of them are crystal!!!!!

emmajoy

9th May 2010, 22:35

SHG thank you for making my point, contrary to some posters beliefs pilots do not have the authority to do as they like or as needed! Regs state that pilots may deviate from any rule to the “extent required” to meet that emergency! that’s all. “extent required” indicates levels or degrees of action that are logical and within reason. The phrase I can do as ``I need`` is not mentioned in the Regs for a reason, it has no graduating levels and would be abused. Screwing up the JFK traffic pattern because he’s short of fuel indicates poor airmanship, planning and abuse of the Regs, A simple diversion at the correct time would have resolved this issue.

Sir Herbert Gussett

9th May 2010, 22:41

My point always has been and always will be that pilots do not have to consult with ATC immediately after an emergency occurs, I think we all agree on that.

I was bewildered when a trainee that had came through the modular route last year in the sim thought he can't do any flying in an emergency until he got ATC's permission. I threw the biggest manual I could find in the bloody building at him!!

West Coast

9th May 2010, 23:32

Regs state that pilots may deviate from any rule to the “extent required” to meet that emergency!

And while operating the aircraft the PIC and not the controller gets to determine to what degree they are going to deviate. Not to say there isn't going to be a day of reckoning for the PIC, but that happens after the fact.

westausatc

10th May 2010, 06:27

West Coast and SHG,

I (and I would like to hope all of my fellow controllers!) realise that you are ultimately responsible for the safety of your aircraft. To me, that means at any time, you can choose to disobey us (not just an emergency) but you had better had a damned good reason for doing so!

The thing that is getting most of us controllers 'uppity' about this is that the pilot sprouts off about declaring an emergency three times, tells the controller to move all other traffic for him, etc. but does not take 5 seconds to add that in addition to the excessive cross-wind on 22, they are also in a fuel emergency. If, when the tower controller initially told him to maintain runway heading, the pilot had responded with something like 'we need to turn now as we are minimum fuel/fuel emergency/whatever you want to call it', (while the book may call for the word perfect PAN or MAYDAY, let's be realistic about the workload facing the crew!) the controller would have gotten the FULL picture and probably been able to do something about it right away. By not having that full picture, the controller thought there was more time available to sort things out than there was.

By all means, do whatever you need to to keep your @rse safe but while under control, instead of demanding the same thing three times, make sure we have the full picture and then we will be able to get the situation resolved in a much safer manner.

mary meagher

10th May 2010, 07:11

ATC welcomes visits from Pilots, in my experience. Although they may be safe in their bunkers, I think controllers have a more uncomfortable seat than the pilot! (quoting PUSHING TIN, you do everything right for twenty years, one little mid-air and they never let you forget it.....!)

Pilots should as part of the basic training in airmanship, VISIT controllers, both enroute and tower, if only to appreciate that they are human beings too, not the voice of a deity above you.....

As I mentioned in my post over on the other thread, when the controller asked me to descend approaching Tallahassee, I declined, as if I was going to run out of fuel I preferred maximum possible height for the final glide.....! Having met and talked to real live controllers face to face, one feels a lot happier about their help in time of need.

New York controllers are famous for their sang froid, skill and expedition.
Dealing with that particular airspace, they've got to be good! Nevertheless it does seem that they should be able to change runways on their own, without consulting management......

RAAFASA

10th May 2010, 12:06

ATC have no idea what's going on in a cockpit in an emergency situation and it's always our priority to deal with that emergency (by "AVIATING") before we tell them what has happened.

True. Using the same logic, the pilot(s) have little or no idea what is going on OUTSIDE their cockpit. ATC's priority is to keep the emergency acft and every other acft in the airspace safe.

Recent example in my neck of the woods demonstrated how far from reality the pilot's version of events can actually be:

Acft RTB with a PAN. Once back on the ground he emailed his boss (who emailed mine, who emailed me) saying he was not at all happy with ATC's handling of his emergency, for the following reasons:

1) He said he was "vectored all over the sky for separation" (untrue, and yes, tapes confirm, he was vectored twice, both in response to his request for a "SW heading" and then an "E heading to remain close to the airfield" - never for separation, which was applied vertically at this stage).

2) He said he was delayed on descent. (He was given intial descent to F130 (from F200) with a MED 1 acft passing beneath at F110 - the A020 ft was used because the pilot was cleared to dump fuel and had not advised fuel dump complete and A020 is required for the vapour zone. The pilot called visual with the MED 1 acft and was told "further descent available in 2 mins due fuel dump". He then advised that he had "delayed" the fuel dump and was given further descent).

3) He said he was never given an area of ops and a block level clearance for him to trouble shoot. (Wrong again, once clear of other traffic he was issued "operate within 20nm radius of xxxx block A050-A100). He then asked for a futher heading (NE this time) and the controller confirmed "heading available if required, but you are cleared to manouvre as required within 20nm of xxxx")

4) He said he had to ask for another acft to be vectored out of his way when he decided to do a dirty dart on to final. (Wrong again, he reported sighting the other acft and asked for a VSA in front, which he was given, the other acft was then broken off the ILS and vectored back out to the north - not required for separation purposes, but better for sequencing).

At the time of the emergency, including the MED 1 acft, there were 12 other acft within 20nm, of these a further 3 were either in conflict, or heading towards conflict with the emergency acft (vertical solved this initially) and the controller had to get them out of the way as well as process the remainder of the traffic on frequency.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the cockpit workload of a pilot trying to troubleshoot several different warnings/alerts, however, I can not make all the other acft simply disappear immediately from your preferred area of ops.

Have to say my smpathy waned somewhat after both reading the initial email (which was rather nasty in tone) and then the deafening silence which followed after we sent them the transcript of what really happened along with an invitation to come over and review the tapes...:cool:

But the real eye-opener, to me, was that the pilot's perception of what actually occurred could be so far removed from reality and that he seemed to suggest that ATC deliberately "stuffed him around"?!!!

The sky is not so big in TMA....

ROKAPE

10th May 2010, 12:48

RAAFASA

10th May 2010, 13:07

More controllers should visit cockpits on black hairy congested nights as part of their training (not the morning jam runs).

As for barging through airspace with other aircraft in it, I know it's difficult for the scope dopes to get a grip on this, but aircraft still have windows.....

dohnut

Ah, but my "scope" works in full IMC - how about those windows? :rolleyes:

As for your first, I've been lucky enough to have done jump seat rides (pre 9/11 when all it required was a request and ATC ID) in very interesting conditions, heavy icing, landing during thunderstorms with reported windshear, vis at minimas etc..

Also lucky enough to score a back seat ride in an F18 - 45 mins of aeros, went supersonic, pulled 7.3G in the climb out - awesome. At the end I watched the pilot stride off to brief for his next sortie while I staggered to my car and sat there for 20 mins trying to get the "jelly" out of my limbs!!!

So I have tremendous respect for cockpit workload, and the mental and physical stressors that pilots handle so well. But I have yet to meet the pilot whose SA can compete with that provided by radar.

Cockpit field of vision is limited (how's your rear-view mirror working for you?) and, particularly in an emergency situation, I expect the pilot will be mostly focussed on his own issues rather than trying to keep track of all the other traffic in the zone/sector. Hence, my job.

You can help me out by clearly stating your intentions/requests/requirements and updating your situation when able, I will help you out by affording appropriate priority (yours may not be the only emergency in progress) and facilitating those intentions/requests/requirements whilst also keeping you away from other airborne metal objects and terrain..... you're welcome. :rolleyes:

Guy D'ageradar

10th May 2010, 13:21

Rokape

More controllers should visit cockpits on black hairy congested nights as part of their training (not the morning jam runs).

I fully agree - however, in the current political climate, this is much easier said than done. Like RAAFASA, I have often jump seated, whenever available, be it as slf or on training/mail flights/sim checks and always find it fruitful. :ok:

In the same vane, I believe it should be compulsory for CPL holders to visit a busy ATC unit on occasion - again not during the regular lulls in traffic but when it's busy. I believe that this would be a huge eye-opener for many. Going by your monotonously regular derogatory comments, I assume that you are one of those that considers this completely unnecessary, as you appear to know it all already! :ugh::ugh:

Sir Herbert Gussett

10th May 2010, 13:53

Have had a fascinating tour around ATC bunkers and shared a pint with a few afterwards! It is more than ridiculous that it isn't as easy as it should be for ATCO's to sit in my jumpseat for a few flights .... I'd have every bloody ATCO flying with me at least once if I could...!

On the little occassions I've been lucky enough to have an ATCO in the cockpit, they often have fascinating stories to tell and can have a laugh (best of all they know when it's time to shut up!)

Bergerie1

10th May 2010, 15:21

I fully agree that pilots should visit an ACC at a busy time to see what the other half have to do. Equally, surely it should still be possible to arrange for ATCOs to ride on the jump seat to see what the pilots do. Back in the 1990s BA had a programme with NATS for doing exactly that. I have long since retired, but surely even after 9/11 it must be possible for the powers that be to arrange an official programme. Too many commonsense things like this have been sacrificed in the name of security.

IRISHinUS

10th May 2010, 15:23

Just my 2 cents as a New York based pilot:

1. In the US, under FAA regs, the declaration of an emergency does NOT require use of "Mayday", i.e. it is a non-ICAO standard, in fact it's discouraged (obviously doesn't apply to non-US pilots who must comply with their own ICAO-compliant standards). We are required to state "declaring an emergency" and that's it. (Of course for international destinations we must comply with the ICAO standard etc etc, we're talking here about a US airline in the US).

2. Also under US regs you may declare "Min fuel" as a heads up to ATC that any "undue delay" will result in a fuel emergency, frequently used in New York airspace. It is a non-emergency call and one still typically follows the flow of aircraft to the airport. It would be a surprise for a US controller to suddenly receive a fuel emergency from a US airline without first receiving the "min fuel" call. (that's in defence of the controller)

3. However, the controller was told that they would declare an emerg. if they didn't get the required runway. To me that sounds like a sort of "min fuel" call. The controller's mistake, in my view, was to say that he would "pass on the request" or something to that effect, that showed an undue concern that would have transmitted to the pilots that they were about to get sent out 50 miles to join the end of the line. Under those circumstances the pilots subsequent emergency call seems not only reasonable but required.

4. After receiving the emergency call, rather than ask what they intended, the controller's reaction was to issue an instruction (runway heading for the moment), this would have transmitted to the crew that "this guy just doesn't get it". If they have an emergency that absolutely allowed them to tell the controller what they were doing and it was the controllers job to get traffic out of their way.

5. I have had to go-around in New York and immediately declare min fuel, the controllers reaction was to FIRST say, "Ok, I'll get you right back in after the three on final, turn to XXX heading ...". That reassured me that this controller "gets it" and wont force me to declare an emergency. If the controller had said "I'll pass that on blah blah .." I would have done precisely what this crew did. All pilots think of Avianca Flight 52 when put in this situation, the pilots were not clear or decisive and let themselves get intimidated by the NY controllers, it got them killed along with scores of passengers.

6. I would say that the post-emergency investigatory interview with the pilots would have two questions, 1) were you low on fuel? 2) Why didn't you declare min fuel earlier? If those questions can be answered reasonably their interview would probably be no more than 5 minutes. I'd think the controller will have many more questions to answer.

Guy D'ageradar

10th May 2010, 18:13

B1

Fam flights are slowly creeping back into the system - however, the logistics of arranging one are often near impossible.

At my location, the sectors that are "available" are very often used for training flights - when that doesn't happen fam flights are still often refused because "the captain does not want a controler n the cockpit". I kid you not.

It really can be mission impossible, especially for some nationalities that often require visas but still do not know 3 days before "flight" if they will be going.

Bergerie1

11th May 2010, 06:15

Guy D'a

I am glad to hear that fam flights are creeping back in again. However, I would like someone to take some positive action to re-instate them and make the system work. It always greatly saddened me the way people sat in their various boxes without trying to understand the complexities of the whole system and the problems other people had to face.

I used to spend some time at West Drayton in the old days seeing what the approach controllers had to do. And I used to take some of them on the simulator to see what we did. Only good came out of it. We really do need to know much more about how to help each other.

Is there anyone in authority who reads these posts who can do something about it?

ASD

11th May 2010, 08:07

I think maybe its time for USA to follow ICAO rules and recommendations...

Then the pilot would (should) have used the terms MAYDAY in the emergency call...

The pilot should have had enough fuel to make it to its alternate aerodrome plus a missed approach at alternate (what are the FAA requirements?)

From an ICAO perspective, the pilots decided to continue without following ATC instructions (which is all good and well if he was in dire need and the plane was in critical danger if he followed ATC instructions - but this doesnt seem the case?), so how low on fuel was he?

I think the biggest concern is not pilot vs ATC, but FAA vs ICAO.

Pera

11th May 2010, 09:31

Just my 2 cents as a New York based pilot:

Nice job.

3. To me that sounds like a sort of "min fuel" call.

Ah... the post modern emergency call. This pilot did a lot of talking but not much communicating.

4. After receiving the emergency call, rather than ask what they intended, the controller's reaction was to issue an instruction

He issued the only thing he could without coordinating with the APR controller. It was after all just a go around due crosswind.

this would have transmitted to the crew that "this guy just doesn't get it".

Of course he didn't get it. They didn't communicate.

If they have an emergency that absolutely allowed them to tell the controller what they were doing and it was the controllers job to get traffic out of their way.

Which is exactly what he did once he realised what the aircraft was doing... (whatever they wanted regardless of the consequences)

5. I have had to go-around in New York and immediately declare min fuel You got a prompt response because you communicated with the controller.

I'd think the controller will have many more questions to answer.

I really don't know how you would come to that conclusion. Are they training controllers in mind reading now!

Despite my responses I enjoyed reading a post from your perspective but this controller should get a medal not a tea and biscuits meeting.

If correct communication had happened the aircraft would have got what they needed and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

ROKAPE

11th May 2010, 09:57

Ah, but my "scope" works in full IMC - how about those windows?

RAAFASA touché sir! Valid points taken.

Was it IMC? Bless TCAS, PFD/ND's and two pilots in the cockpit to manage workloads....

Many pilots operate in congested airspace minus RADAR and the services of any form of ATC.

mary meagher

11th May 2010, 15:18

Actually, RAAFASA, I do have a rear view mirror!

And have to operate in very congested airspace without the benefit of ATC, and have to lift my wing to have a look before turning......

BUT became convinced of the merit of radio after the glider behind me once advised that I was in conflict with oncoming traffic.......

Right of way? don't count on it! We all have to look out for each other ....every little helps!

speedbird716

13th May 2010, 05:47

Well isn't this an interesting discussion...

OK, I've checked my FOM for the 757/762/763 and the max crosswind speeds are 30/29/33kts respectively with a max tailwind of 10kts for all a/c. If the winds were 320/23G35, that would have exceeded the aircraft's max crosswind/tailwind component. The pilot would have needed 31R, but what is unclear to me is why the pilot felt he needed to threaten the controller with an emergency if he didn't get 31R? From the ATC tapes I've heard, we don't know if there was previous discussion between AA2 and ZNY approach or the tower about the winds and conditions for 22L or if there was a fuel emergency involved. If there was a potential fuel emergency involved and it was impossible for the aircraft to make an extended orbit, then it would have been useful for the pilot to explain that from the start.

However, once the pilot declared an emergency, for whatever reason, he should have been immediately been given immediate priority for 31R. Things got ugly between the pilot and the controller when the controller didn't immediately give AA2 the left turn. The pilot then informed the tower of his intentions (correctly so) and once this was clear to everyone, the controller cleared him for immediate landing on 31R. Once that exchange was complete, the controller was clearly scrambling to get traffic out of the way.

This is a tough call...I believe in this particular situation, there should have been traffic directed to land on 31R or 22L and in situations in which a landing would have exceeded the crosswind limit, the pilot should indicate his intention to go around and request 31R (and get it) based on his judgment of the conditions. While I recognize this would have created a mess at the airport, better that than a situation in which a pilot declares an emergency simply to get the runway he needs to safely land the aircraft.

BTW, in the USA, I do not believe is not necessary for pilots to declare a mayday to declare an emergency. AFAIK,they only need to state that they are declaring an emergency and that places ATC on notice that an emergency exists and that they must act accordingly. We had an incident at KSEA last year in which an Asiana 777 lost an engine on takeoff and only "declared an emergency" as the aircraft was able to fly on one engine and return (three hrs later after dumping fuel).

If a pilot declares a mayday during an emergency - in US airspace, then the aircraft is in an extremely dire situation.

Dave Lamb/speedbird716

Cows getting bigger

13th May 2010, 06:52

Of course, if someone had the foresight to ascertain the forecast/actual winds and aircraft limits thus designating a sensible runway (rather than sticking with a 'temporary' protocol) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Alternatively, is the current runway designation protocol so backward that there has to be a number of GAs (with the potential for fuel emergencies etc) before management get off their backsides and decide on designating a runway that is far safer? Of course, safety and business priorities often conflict. :rolleyes:

kontrolor

13th May 2010, 23:56

declaring an emergency for no apparent or justified reason is opening a can of worms. If there was no reason for this, I sure hope that the cpt in question gets some kind of "reward". If cpt thinks atc has made an error > there is a way to tell it.

Capt - Chaos

14th May 2010, 00:02

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

On the beach

14th May 2010, 00:34

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.

atpcliff

25th May 2010, 21:14

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