AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.

[Plectron]

Mark my words here - the day is coming. Many, many companies are pushing hard for less fuel over destination. Couple that with some inexperienced, docile Captain and a clueless 400 hour (total time) co-pilot. Sooner or later it isn't going to work out so well.

Just for the record. 24 years with a large American major airline and never a cross word to me reference fuel. I tried to be reasonable when it was reasonable, but I wasn't shy either.

[Wino]

Yes, Lawrence, Cedarhurst, Woodmere and Hewlett
DING DING DING DING... We have a WINNER!

The answer I was looking for was Lawrence.....


and if you happen to be on the west coast, the answer is "Balboa Island"

Those two communities are the biggest impediments to air safety in North America...


Ventus,

With all due respect... Low fuel situations happen all the time. And the better the weather, the less "slop" fuel is loaded, making every little delay and vector more critical. You need to read the whole thread. Fuel loading is explained repeatedly, and how little extra there is (and the fact that no alternate is filed) has already been discussed and shouldn't be a suprise to anyone.

Cheers
Wino

[FLCH]

Mark my words here - the day is coming. Many, many companies are pushing hard for less fuel over destination. Couple that with some inexperienced, docile Captain and a clueless 400 hour (total time) co-pilot. Sooner or later it isn't going to work out so well.

Exactly!! and if and when it happens the roaches will run for cover pointing at one person and one person only.

It's our obligation to mitigate risks as part of the job, if that includes going against the ATC "flow" so be it.

[aterpster]

Wino:
and if you happen to be on the west coast, the answer is "Balboa Island"

Those two communities are the biggest impediments to air safety in North America...

Help me understand that one.

I worked on the defunct El Toro Marine Air Base fiasco and indeed understand that the Balboa Island set wanted to transfer the KSNA noise over to El Toro.

But, they lost that mighty battle.

The remaining hazard with KSNA is its runway length. Are you implying that the Balboa Island set is the sole culprit in not getting a longer, safer runway?

[p51guy]

I guess he is talking about the 1,000 ft cutback and left turn for noise abatement. I started flying with the airlines at SNA and it was kind of fun actually. The new generation pilots seem to think it is dangerous though. Automation complicates simple maneuvers sometimes. Oh well.

[protectthehornet]

Captain Plectron is quite right about the reduction in fuel that the bean counters would love to foist upon us all.

I also recall when FedEX wanted to get MEL approval for the Whiskey Compass...come on boys and girls...if the bean counters could, they would get MEL authority for the right wing.

I agree with wino and the rest about certain communities that have too much say over runway useage. Balboa island and ksna...and if I may remind you, the original movie and book , "Airport" made a big deal about noise abatement...warning us some 40 years ago!!!!

I flew out of KSNA and hated it.

If they had longer runways, the planes would be heavier and make more noise over the rich folk.

I flew out of DCA for most of my career...and we had unusual noise abatement drift out procedures for many years...but still KSNA was harder and closer to the stall.

I recall that Wilbur and Orville had to travel hundreds of miles to get the right wind for their earliest flights. They wouldn't have stood a chance with the modern airport.

The Wright's were Right...into the wind!!!

[FLCH]

Balboa island

Pardon the drift, a friend of mine has a Balboa Island sticker on his flight bag like the ones we see on cars like EI or UK etc.... Balboa Island is BI in big capital letters....hehehe....

[p51guy]

Being a regular out of SNA gave you lots of practice on the cutback procedure. Occasional visitors would find it quite different from normal noise abatement procedures. When AA started flying in from Dallas a very high percentage went around because they couldn't get down after crossing the hills east of the airport. We knew we had to slow down early for the steep descent. They figured it out later so could land the first time too.

[Wino]

Ventus,
If all aircraft continue to be despatched that way, with more and more cutting the "margins" (fuel and MEL's) to the bone (under the demands of "competitive pressure"), what is going to happen some stormy crappy night when some one has a drama, blows a bunch of tires, gear gets twisted and mangled, thing grinds to a halt and blocks a runway ? Then everyone stacked up behind is suddenly min fuel together ? What a bloody drama that "could" turn out to be - and I mean "bloody".


Dude, on crappy nights its common to have TOO MUCH fuel... Have had to fly lower, have the boards out, even hold to burn gas on crappy nights.

These issues do NOT happen when the weather is crappy. When the weather is crappy, there is an alternate, there is known holds a fuel for that, etc... DAY VFR clear day, no alternate and minimum legal fuel is the norm....


The problem is the day VFR with a little bit of wind, and the airports refusal to bow to the obvious and align the airport with the wind. The controllers don't have the lattitude to properly align the airports, so its not their fault either. Listen to the ATIS at JFK, and there is usually a sentence to the effect "In the interest of noise abatement,please stay with assigned runway" or something to that effect.

Its a great big **** You from the Lawrence and the other noise sensitive communities, whom I am not sympathetic with.


Cheers
Wino

[aterpster]

Wino:

Another facet of JFK operations is that reconfiguration often has to be coordinated with LGA's configuration.

[Wino]

Another facet of JFK operations is that reconfiguration often has to be coordinated with LGA's configuration.

Actually, its much worse than that, it effects Newark Teteboro and White plains as well...

Cheers
Wino

[Air Tourer]

"Min for regs only". Pr., Dispatchers, Chief pilots, ect getting the blame.

If the regs are so dodgy, shouldn't they be adjusted?
Shouldn't it be easy for the Captain to order a bit more fuel if he wants to?
Are they so intimadated they're not game to?
Who's running the show?

[Wino]

Actually "the show" is run at all airlines by marketing. budget for "the show" is set by accounting. Then flight tries to make something safe and productive out of the mess left by the first two...

Everything you are suggesting costs money, Every added pound of fuel not needed is actually waste. (just ask any of the walls where all the fuel savings signs are posted)

Cheers
Wino

[Ozgrade3]

Put simply, this dispaly was the most unprofessional dispalayof foot stomping temper tantrum/dummy spit I've seen in my 24 years in this industry.

On the upside, flight schools and training departments have a wonderful clip of poor airmanship, to show students for the next 30 odd years.

[WhatsaLizad?]

As opposed to the reasoned, even tempered, polite, professional and patient request to dump fuel by the Swissair Captain on fire near Halifax.

It was a NY thing, get over it.

[protectthehornet]

it was a new york thing...get over it...

in 9 words you have covered it allllll!!!!! Bravo to you...its the way things are done when they have to get done.

Bravo

[100BMEP]

Kufos to the Crew of AA2. Since my "alma mater" instituted the low arrival fuels, I am surprised there has not been a serious incident.
6500 lbs of fuel on a 767/300 is not very much (unless you fly a desk and recieve a management bonus for cost savings).
Can you say Avianca???

[p51guy]

The AA pilots did the only safe thing, going around and landing, when dispatch wasn't allowed to give them additional fuel for go arounds, etc, because of management orders. The pilots could have it put on and a notation is made it was a captain's request. This is probably being documented to see who is going with their program and who isn't.

All pilots should put on additional fuel so nobody can be singled out as not a company player. It is a sad way to run an airline but pilots have the ability to counter marginal fuel loads. Maybe the FAA needs to increase the minimum arrival fuel requirement if the airlines won't. This wasn't a problem until recently. The FAA would make it a level playing field for all airlines making it safer for all carriers. Increasing fuel load by a pilot doubles the paperwork but an FAA ruling would be more efficient since the initial paperwork would be utilized.

[DC-ATE]

I retired 20 years ago and we had a "fuel monitoring" program back then too. I got called in at least once a month or more. SO WHAT? I just told them why I added the fuel and that was that. Come on guys.....who's in charge anyway?!

[Plectron]

Thanks WhatsaLizad?. Perfect!!

[Wino]

DC-ATE,

With all due respect, if you retired 20 years ago, you don't know what you are talking about. In the last 5 years there has been a significant reduction in the required fuel that we load as per FAA regulations. Your old 10 percent of overwater enroute burn... We don't get that now. its 5 percent. There goes a SIGNIFICANT amount of the slop fuel that we always had. Alternates? Not required on many days etc....

20 years ago I remember the fuel monitoring programs as well... But we weren't regularly showing up on vapors.... And their actual ability to monitor us was very poor. Now with all the computers, they know everything....

The days of "wander fuel" which is where the 10 percent reserves used to come from are over.

And furthermore, AA just put out a letter to the pilots from the managing director of flight operations. Dated May 24th...

Let me quote from the letter...

Our expectation is that you will accept the flight plan as fueled by the dispatcher. Going forward, if you feel that you need to add fuel for safety or operational reasons, you will need to submit a p2 with the objective factors driving your decision.

That bold was in the letter, I didn't add it. These are VERY different times my friend.

Cheers,
Wino

[aterpster]

Wino:
That bold was in the letter, I didn't add it. These are VERY different times my friend.

True, when I retired 19 years ago the unions still had brass family jewels.

[DC-ATE]

Wino -
These are VERY different times my friend.

Oh, I know that only too well; reading everything here and on other Forums. I'm glad I'm out of this 'racket'. But.....don't we have Captains any more?!?! There is NO excuse for NOT having the fuel you feel you need. Nuff said.

[galaxy flyer]

Put simply, this dispaly was the most unprofessional dispalayof foot stomping temper tantrum/dummy spit I've seen in my 24 years in this industry.

You are wrong and not just the spelling. The Captain went along with JFK ATC and the Company's fuel planning as long as he could, but in the race to find out who was really in charge, time ran out. The Captain is the "final authority and is directly responsible" for the flight and he exercised his authority quite correctly. Could the R/T been better, yes; but the end result would have been no different.

I think Wino's company's rules are not exceptional, in fact, LHR has had an on-going "discussion" with airlines about required fuel reserves and planes arriving in an entirely predictatable hold with inadequate reserves asking for priority handling. This is not unique to NYC.

GF

[silverstrata]

Muren:
The Controller was very slow to understand and acknowledge the emergency, 3xmayday is preferred, but come on everyone has to understand the way this was said.



The way I read this, is that the controller wanted a full and formal confirmation of a declaration of emergency. The first declaration by AA2 sounded like a 'yah-boo toys out of the pram' declaration. What the controller wanted was a considered formal declaration, and what he got was "I told you three times" - ok, not a standard formal declaration, but at least it was now firmly on the table as a Mayday.

But I still think that ignoring the radar vector without very good reason was unnecessary. If it had been a smoke and fire situation the controller would have done everything possible, but this scenario still smelt of 'yah-boo toys out of the pram'.

Would be interesting to see the fuel-dip afterwards. If AA2 was down on vapours, I'm with the captain. If he still had 6 tonnes in the tanks, its tea and biscuits time.

But if the situation was the former (on vapours), a response like "sorry, we are really low on fuel here, I am declaring an emergency and need an immediate landing" would have had ATC doing everything they could for them. Its all about communication - and not crying 'wolf', when all you can see is sheep.




Ventus:
Isn't it mandatory to carry fuel for a missed approach and then a diversion to an alternate in the US ? It is in this part of the world.

Even in Europe, you only need 30 minutes hold, if the wx is good and there are two runways and no expected delays. No diversion fuel required. Heathrow and Manch would normally get a mandatory 20 mins extra, but who defines 'expected delays' or 'busy airport'?


.

[Plectron]

We don't do tea and biscuits in the USA. If you have an interview with the company it isn't a capricious and condescending experience where the pilot in question is at the mercy of his "betters". It is a formal review with a union rep present if the pilot requests it.

Caning isn't allowed either.

[aterpster]

silverstrata:
The way I read this, is that the controller wanted a full and formal confirmation of a declaration of emergency. The first declaration by AA2 sounded like a 'yah-boo toys out of the pram' declaration. What the controller wanted was a considered formal declaration, and what he got was "I told you three times" - ok, not a standard formal declaration, but at least it was now firmly on the table as a Mayday.

Your subjective characterization of the crew aside, I did not infer that the controller was expecting the so-called magic "Mayday X 3."

I don't believe training of U.S. air carrier crews includes the use of Mayday X 3, at least not in domestic airspace.

I did do it once on the ground at ORD, but that's a whole 'nother story.

[Dutch_Ajax]

The first time the pilot speaks about emergency he says: "if you don't give us 31R we are going to declare an emergency". The second time, after the controller tells the pilot to continue runway heading, he says:"OK, we are declaring an emergency to land 31R...". When the controller confirms the emergency the pilots responses: "Three times we are declaring an emergency...". The fact is that, before that last transmission, the pilot only once actually declared an emergency, the first time he said he was going to declare an emergency if he was not cleared to land on 31R.

Furthermore everything else is a presumption, because we don not know the actual reason for the emergency.

I really hate it when people start judging and blaming only on presumptions!

I would expect people that are working in aviation themselves to be more detached.

[Checkerboard 13]

I don't believe training of U.S. air carrier crews includes the use of Mayday X 3, at least not in domestic airspace.

I believe it might not be completely unheard of:


15:27:32.9 RDO-1
mayday mayday mayday. uh this is uh Cactus fifteen thirty nine hit birds, we've lost thrust (in/on) both engines we're turning back towards LaGuardia.

[aterpster]

Checkboard 13:
I believe it might not be completely unheard of...(use of Mayday X3

I didn't state that it has been completely unheard of.

No doubt its been used in U.S. domestic airspace. As I said earlier in the thread I used it once myself on the ground at ORD when nothing else would work.

But, use of Mayday X3 by U.S. crews in domestic airspace is not typically how emergencies are declared.

[aterpster]

Dutch Ajax:
The first time the pilot speaks about emergency he says: "if you don't give us 31R we are going to declare an emergency". The second time, after the controller tells the pilot to continue runway heading, he says:"OK, we are declaring an emergency to land 31R...". When the controller confirms the emergency the pilots responses: "Three times we are dreclaring an emergency...". The fact is that, before that last transmission, the pilot only once actually declared an emergency, the first time he said he was going to declared an emergency if he was not cleared to land on 31R.

Sort of like counting angels on the head of a pin.

[criss]

Isn't this thread becoming a bit pathetic?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Isn't this thread becoming a bit pathetic?

No! because the discussions and creep of all of these threads helps us all to learn more, and share knowledge and experience; these things are important and I believe as Old Smokey does; that PPRuNe has [and can] save lives and licenses:ok:

[criss]

I can't see how a discussion who is more important can help. Discussion about the emergency itself, fuel policies etc. might, but all we have here os some bickering who was more stupid and how do you call mayday...

[Pugilistic Animus]

:} Silly Pilots:}
Criss
that's normal...we'll get back on track here... see, you've already turned the discussion around with your keen observation:D

:}

[Admiral346]

From the ASN:

24 JUN 1975

Type:Boeing 727-225 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=102) Operator:Eastern Air Lines (http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6299) Registration: N8845E
PROBABLE CAUSE: "... However, the adverse winds might have been too severe for a successful approach and landing even had they relied upon and responded rapidly to the indications of the flight instruments. Contributing to the accident was the continued use of runway 22L when it should have become evident to both air traffic control personnel and the flight crew that a severe weather hazard existed along the approach path."

Greetings,

Nic

[SeniorDispatcher]

That would be EAL66... Microburst....

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 727-225 N8845E New York-John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (JFK) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19750624-1)

(NTSB AAR linked at the above...)

[L337]

The US way of running aviation is about a 50 years ahead of anything found in the EU

The stupid statement of the day. You have to be a troll.

[Dutch_Ajax]

RTO:
The US way of running aviation is about a 50 years ahead of anything found in the EU, and as someone mentioned, has evolved into a system that works, handles more traffic, is simpler, safer and more efficient.

L337, you are fully correct! What a naive and arrogant thing to say.

RTO, you are probably flying IMC, get out of that cloud! You still don't get the point with the emergency call. The way the pilot communicates the emergency causes all the confusion. :ugh:

And why stick to standard ICAO phraseology when you can make up your own RT, the standard ICAO phraseology is in your opinion probably only for non native English speakers. :{

[Plectron]

That fact is that the big US airports handle far higher numbers of operations and that after time you get used to the way the particular facility gets things done. Co-operate and Graduate. Although busy, LRH has no where near the number of movements of the big US airports.

I don't think there was any communication gap in this event. There was no confusion that lasted more than a second or two. The real problem seems that our jolly friends in the UK don't like the way it was handled and feel obligated to talk down their noses to us. I hate to break it to you. New York is not part of Britain and has not been under it's thumb for a long time.

[JW411]

I have been following this thread pretty closely but it is just possible that I have missed something (at my age, this is not difficult).

I have heard comment that the crew made the comment that "this is the third time I have called an emergency" when there was only one such call on the JFK Tower frequency.

Have we absolutely established that the crew had not already declared an emergency on the JFK Approach frequency before changing to JFK Tower?

I just wonder if this saga might not have already been brewing long before the so-called "outburst".

[belloldtimer]

:rolleyes:When I was in school we were taught to use the term "Pan, Pan, Pan" instead.....

Just curious what happened to that being used to declare an emergency?

[criss]

Some strange school it was then, ask for a refund if it's not too late...

Plectron - maybe, but LHR is not the only airport serving London. Some American airports handle much more traffic than LHR, but quite often they are the single airport for this area, have many more runways (ATL for example), and airspace around them is far from being as complex as that around LHR.

PA - I think I was right after all...

[misd-agin]

Criss - U.S. airports are bigger but quite often are the only airports? Obviously you're unaware of the tremendous amount of business, and civilian flying, that is done at airports around major U.S. cities.

2007 LHR had 466,000 flights. Add Gatwick's 253,000, Stansted's 182,000 and you're at 900,000 flights. Add London City airport and you're approaching 1 million.

NYC? - 2007 JFK/EWR/LGA had 1,200,000. Add HPN's 153,000, TEB's 200,000, for a total over 1,400,00.

KATL(970K) handled twice as many flights LHR(466K), and is not the only airport that serves the Atlanta market. A primary reliever airport, PDK(Peachtree DeKalb) has approx. 230,000 annual movements. Two airports alone at 1.2 million.

L.A. basin? - 7 airports with airline service, 14 general avaition airports with towers, 5 military airports, and 9 uncontrolled airports. KLAX, ONT, BUR, SNA, LGB, VNY alone have almost 1.9 million flights.

KDFW, KDAL, and Addison airport (KADS) alone have 1.0 million movements. The three airports form a triangle with about 6 mile(10 km) legs.

[galaxy flyer]

And that 1.4 million movements in NYC can be contained in a 20 nm circle! Add in about a dozen heliports and small airports in that circle and you can see that nowhere is more traffic jammed. I fly out of BDL and can file a flight plan to TEB on the phone, run out to a Global and get a clearance w/o delay. Did it last week--try that for a clearance from Gatwick to Stansted!

GF

[criss]

Misd-agin - how many (parallel) rwys does KATL have? :) And London also has some more airports that you counted. In terms of complexity of airspace around, I don't think you can compare it. Anyway, as I stated in my previous posts, that's not a kind of discussion I want to make, as I think it's main purpose is to serve some egos...

[Plectron]

Speedbird 101, fly LON QDR 280 degrees.......

[West Coast]

In terms of complexity of airspace around, I don't think you can compare it.

Perhaps you should ask why it's been designed to that level of complexity if the number of operations don't justify it when compared to significantly busier terminal areas elsewhere.

[411A]

Perhaps you should ask why it's been designed to that level of complexity if the number of operations don't justify it when compared to significantly busier terminal areas elsewhere.

No need to ask, as the UKCAA has, I expect, no direct answer....:ugh:

[criss]

"when compared to significantly busier terminal areas elsewhere."

... even though the numbers given above don't justify that statement. Anyway, I'm quitting this ego match.

[Plectron]

Or why you are always given the ever meaningful vectors that parallel the airway when you overfly the country. Maybe pay is based on number of vectors?

[L337]

Plectron and 411A win the willie waving contest. Yay!

[finfly1]

When will we learn how this event turns out? Like the flight attendant being dropped off in Miami, it generates a lot of interest and speculation here, and then disappears.

[protectthehornet]

hi boys and girls. has anyone seen a published report on what happened? I mean the official one, not just the news article?

anyone?

oh well...when it happens again...!

[heavy.airbourne]

RTO - thank you for putting into few words what I was thinking all the time - a man of reason within a bunch of wise cracks. :ok:
I wish I knew how many here have long haul and heavy a/c experience, but by what I read in this place those cannot be more than a handful. Pathetic!

[Plectron]

Ya Think? You mean some folks might be fibbing a bit? Posing? Not what they claim? Naaaw, not in this business.

[aterpster]

protecthehornet:
hi boys and girls. has anyone seen a published report on what happened? I mean the official one, not just the news article?

anyone?


There was no incident such as a near miss nor an accident, so the NTSB would not get involved. It will almost certainly be handled internally between the FAA and AAL.

I can't speak for AAL but at my airline the captain was required to file a written report of Use of Emergency Authority on a company form. That went to headquarters and was often the last anyone heard of it; i.e. it's "yesterday's news."

Contrary to what some commentators have said, it is highly unlikely the crew was removed from their in-progress pairing or their subsequent schedule.

[Pugilistic Animus]

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.

:p

[Murexway]

The AA crew flying JFK-LAX-JFK is pretty senior, they're extremely familiar with NYC ATC, they knew what they were doing, they know their 767 AFM limitations, and they did what was required. They filed the required report and that was that.

[Plectron]

Thank you Murexway, PA, & others. Finally, a few voices of reason.

[4runner]

They said they are going to declare an emergency. This indicates that if ATC does not clear them for 31, the WILL declare an emergency and do what the crew needs to do. All you have to do to declare an emergency is to state "we're declaring an emergency". That's it. I'm sure you armchair, virtual airline wannabes are flipping through the pages of your manuals and handbooks. This was an experienced and capable captain and you are in no position to pass judgement. I personally dislike American Airlines for a number of reasons mainly related to jumpseating, but if this guy was a senior captain there, he knows his stuff. The airline is called the Sky Nazis for a reason. By saying we are going to declare an emergency, the captain was merely telling JFK that he is landing on 31 and if necessary, will declare an emergency if ATC does not comply with his request for 31. He didn't have to be such a ******** about it though. He was right in his decision but I think he could of handled it a little more diplomatically and with greater regard to other traffic. There are 3 major airports within 25 miles of JFK and this is probably the busiest airspace in the world. The captain used his authority and safely landed the plane. Nuff said. This would never happen in Asia or Africa I don't think. Only a western pilot speak up like this. After working overseas for a few years, I have come to the conclusion that many pilots outside of the West will do whatever ATC tells them to, regardless of safety or common sense. A perfect example was last week in Nairobi when an aircraft was held and randomly vectored for 50 minutes because of a VIP(not notamed) departure. The aircraft being held questioned ATC and another aircraft(of Kenyan registry) chimed on the frequency to "do what the controller tells you to do". This is why Africa accounts for 10% of all air traffic but 90% of all air accidents. Good job fellas, you sound like an asshole but you did your job and didn't take any ****. I won't invite you out for a beer but I'll feel safe with you at the controls.

[stepwilk]

I assume you're including Qantas and New Zealand in "Western." No Ozzie or Kiwi would ever not speak up, mate.

I'm a New Yorker, but I wear an All Blacks shirt.

[WhatsaLizad?]

I personally dislike American Airlines for a number of reasons mainly related to jumpseating, but if this guy was a senior captain there, he knows his stuff. The airline is called the Sky Nazis for a reason.

What is your problem with jumpseating on AA? What was the response when you addressed the problem through your company's or the Allied Pilot's Association jumpseat representative?

[4runner]

stepwilk, you know what I meant:-) I was trying to be as politically correct at being politically incorrect as possible mate. Are you OH by chance cause I think we've flown together?

[4runner]

The problem was jumpseating in Dallas and JFK. In Dallas, gate agent flat refused to list me as there was already "too many jumpseaters" to a place in FL when I don't think there were any. At least not that I saw, i.e. no one in uniform, no purty neat bags, no one grabbing a used USA Today:-), etc. In Kennedy, jumpseaters must check in at ticket counter and once again, "too many jumpseaters". Just put a bad taste in my mouth, nothing against you guys, just being a little crybaby here because your gate agents were uncooperative. I didn't go to our jumpseat coordinator...Once again my friend, nothing against you guys, I'm just bitching because that's what pilots do.

[West Coast]

I use the JS to get to/from work and the times I've used AA it was nothing but a positive experience.

People who bitch about the privledge really should remember it's just that. Also ask if it was them who brought on the bad experience.

[WhatsaLizad?]

4runner,

Most AA pilots are interested in maintaining jumpseat relations in the industry. You may have been dumped on by a gate agent who was too lazy to do the work. I also know that getting to FL from any other AA station can be a cluster-(shayg?), and from another hub it's even worse. it's that bad for AA pilots themselves 350 out of 360 days a year, and even after 20 years, I'd rank my "pick the JS commuter" skills as 50/50 at best.

Another question I'd ask is if your JS agreement with AA an unlimited one? if not, that would screw your odds most days out of NY or MIA.

Even after almost 20 years of first negotiating for jumpseat privileges, AA pilots still fight a running battle with some management, Flight Attendants and gate agents who despise the privilege (I mean what we paid for). Most are good, but some are a pain. A quick call to APAand I gaurantee you that it will be followed up.

thx

[Desk Jockey]

FAA AIM

6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications
a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.
b. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.
c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.
d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.



CAA CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual
States of Emergency


1.2.1 The states of emergency are classified as follows:
a) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
b) Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance.

The pilot should start the emergency call with the appropriate international RTF prefix
as follows:
a) Distress ‘MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY’
b) Urgency ‘PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN’

[c220cdi]

Terrible airmanship and rt procedures. And this crew with faa licences had no idea how to declare an emergency properly under icao(to which the usa has signed up to) procedures.We are all supposed to be professional and it sounds he declared his emergency for spite.The controllers acted entirely professionally in this situation and i hope the faa flight ops inspectors met this aircraft on arrival at the gate to check the fuel.If the pilot could not land due to cross winds and fuel permitting should have diverted to his alternate considering the runway works would have been published in the notams

[Wino]

C220cdi

Please take the time to read the thread, you have identified yourself as yet another one who piles on and doesn't know of which you speak.

There is no requirement for an alternate in the USA if the weather is VFR. So there was no alternate for the arrival flight. While internationally it is correct to use mayday and Pan, it is NOT required in the USA, simply declaring an emergency will suffice.

Even with a runway closed, there were 3 seperate pieces of concrete totalling 6 actual runways to choose from at JFK. JFK is NOT a single runway operation even now with 31l/13r closed. The problem here is that JFK aligns its runways for noise, not safety, or even max flow of traffic.


This is an airport where a jet has already run out of fuel and crashed.

Cheers
Wino

[411A]

...yet another one who piles on and doesn't know of which you speak.

Yup, second the motion.
There are exceptions to ICAO, and although Mayday is recognised elsewhere, EMERGENCY works far better in the USA.

Some folks whom have not actually flown to the USA would therefore be sadly uninformed.

[Idle Thrust]

I'll add a third to the motion. And I think we can add Canada to the USA in this regard - not sure about the absolute wording of the regs but "Declaring an Emergency" is the norm here. In over 40 years I never heard "Mayday" and only a very few "Pans" but plenty of "Declarings".

It has always amused me that the UK produces the most R/T Police (Nigel comes to mind) yet it has numerous weird deviations from normal R/T that the rest of the world is expected to follow - FL One Hundred comes to mind.

[aterpster]

When all else fails read the entire thread.:rolleyes:

[Johnny767]

For our friends across the pond, it is different in North America.

At the Airline that pays my rent, we teach "Mayday" for consistency, to accomodate the Overseas Operations.

But...as has been stated many times; "Declaring an Emergency" is perfectly O/K on our little Continent.

[criss]

Do we need all these posts?? We can argue forever, but I would hope ATC in the US would recognize both mayday and declaring emergency, the same way I would recognize "declaring emergency" even if it's not in my book here...

[c220cdi]

Well mr 411 and idle hands, good posts but in fact i do hold an faa atp, cfi,cfii,mei, and lived and worked in the us for 10 years based in kteb and think the aviation system is great over there. I can understand your resentment of the radio police in europe and i would not consider myself one of them. As i said the usa as im sure you know has signed up to icao and most of their procedures and if the usa has differences it must file it with icao and publish them .Auctually i could count on one hand all the times icao was mentioned during my study of the atp gliem manual. you can have all the local procedures you like but if this incident had been an accident the crew would have a very serious finding against them . yes we all know what saying on the radio im declareing an emergency means thats fine in english speaking countrys but take that to other places not so hot on english (and they are there ) and you have a big problem . My point is the pilot snapped at the controller " Ive told you 3 times " well if he done it right the first time the controller would have been in no doubt .Well thats my two cents worth and wont make a differnce

[SLFinAZ]

I'm sorry but this is the observational garbage that baffles me. He (AA captain) was perfectly fine until gusting winds made a landing outside of limits. Now had he pressed on and an incident occurred he would have been in a position where he had clearly busted SOP's. He requests what he needs (in effect a PAN PAN PAN) with the caveat that circumstances will require him to declare an emergency if he does not get an immediate positive confirmation. When that is not given he declares an emergency and states his intentions in a timely manner.

Here is my question phrased in the context of my understanding. If he continues as requested while waiting for some type of approval what are the logistics involved with regard to rerouting traffic once he crosses beyond a certain point?

Given his fuel state and the tremendous congestion (both at primary and alternates) what benefit does he gain by hesitating here vs initiating a perfectly safe and timely "correction" that doesn't force wholesale disruption of traffic?

Assuming he waited in the Que and was near minimum (as everything here seems to indicate) then the moment the wind went over his limits he was left with limited options...the best of which is exactly what he did.

I certainly know who I'd prefer to have in the pointy end:ok:

[Pugilistic Animus]

These recent post are such a tease...I just want to know the outcome...:8

this was a fun one:}

[Wino]

Pugilistic Animus

Pilots submitted written report in accordance with company procedures after using his emergency authority. Report accepted, pilot flying. case closed.

Said Pilots not looking to make a big deal out of it. Same thing for all the controllers... Life goes on. Everyone did what they needed to do, aircraft is still useable, people weren't hurt, what more need be said?

Airport authorities will continue to ignore safety in the interest of noise... The beat goes on...

Cheers
Wino

[nugpot]

17 pages of posturing from pilots who weren't there! No wonder management thinks we are overpaid prima donnas.

Thanks Wino for some clarity on the opinion of those who were involved.

[411A]

Airport authorities will continue to ignore safety in the interest of noise... The beat goes on...


So very true, from the days of the thrust cutbacks at 800aal in the 707 (been there, done that) until today...and it ain't gonna change.
Life does indeed go on.
17 pages of posturing from pilots who weren't there! No wonder management thinks we are overpaid prima donnas.
Yup!

[aterpster]

411A:
So very true, from the days of the thrust cutbacks at 800aal in the 707 (been there, done that) until today...and it ain't gonna change.
Life does indeed go on.

Oh, yeah, in the old "water wagon." :)

My understanding is that JFK's configuration is more often influenced by coordination with LGA and EWR traffic.

And, on the day of the incident that created this thread, ATC was trying to maintain capacity with Runway 31L closed.

[Wino]

aterpster

a quote from the JFK atis...

"In the Interest of Noise abatement, please use assigned runway."

They keep JFK pretty quarantined down there on the south shore of Long Island, and its use of runways does not particularly effect the other airports, atleast to the degree that EWR and LGA effect TEB.

I know there is a JFK controller here on the thread, and please let him correct me, but I believe JFK is the one airport in the NYC area that can switch runways without effecting the other 3 major airports....

JFK has a lot of flexibility that way because of a couple of 1000 square miles of ocean directly south of it before the Watrs area starts. The only downside is that while they carryout the swap, they have to stop their own departures and arrivals for about 10 minutes or so to get everything squared away...(That will create a hold at Camrn or CCC while they realign, and then a backlog that will take a while to work out)

JFK controllers have had more trouble with the NY Daily News than anything else including the runway closure. A few months before the runway closure there was a near miss (not so near, but don't let that effect the coverage of the story) caused by a go around while using crossing runways. That had lead to a knee jerk FAA/ATC management decision increasing spacing of departures and arrivals when landing one way and taking of the other (IE depart on the 13s, and landing on the 22s) that created some REALLY impressive departure delays at JFK for a while. Those of you who operate in and out of JFK can remember those days from a year ago or so...

Cheers
Wino

[aterpster]

Wino:
I know there is a JFK controller here on the thread, and please let him correct me, but I believe JFK is the one airport in the NYC area that can switch runways without effecting the other 3 major airports....

The Canarsie VOR/13L/R does not conflict with LGA. The 13L ILS does if LGA is using 4. I believe LGA has to go to 13 when JFK has to use the 13L ILS.

As to that noise abatement stuff on the ATIS, that was on there in 1964.

When we had the really noisy airplanes, the most severe noise reduction procedure was departing 13R with a right turn over the populated area near the beach.

The controller you refer to would have to comment about 22 operations, but I believe those, too, can conflict with LGA.

And, I did say "more often" in my previous message, which I intended to imply that noise can be a factor, too. Just operating that airport creates a noise problem.:)

[Wino]

You are right about the ILS to the 13s... Which is why in 20 years operating out of that airport I have never shot an ILS in that direction...

Certain 22 approaches might conflict as well, hence the common use of VOR approaches, which take the final approach course off of the direct runway heading. Of course, it is quite possible that the choice of the VORs might ALSO have to do with noise rather than conflict or safety, it only takes one well connected person who to move the airplanes it seams these days.

Unless they have owned the house for 50 years or more, I am not sympathetic however.




Cheers
Wino

[HM79]

EVERY runway decision in NY is based on capacity, the thought of noise abatement is only ever considered on the midnight shift. The JFK atis statement about noise abatement I believe originated in the 60's and is an effort to persuade ac not to request non-standard ruways due to the impact on the operation.

JFK runway decisions almost always impact LGA. The impact may only have an affect LGA climbs but they are impacted. Nobody has enjoyed this thread more than me because I was there when it happened.:ugh:

[Airbubba]

Here's a Chicago Tribune story on AA's recent push to reduce fuel reserves:

An airline feud over how much to fuel - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-biz-0627-pilots-fuel-20100626,0,2516875,full.story)

I have to agree with this guy's analysis:

Aeronautics professor Les Westbrooks said the situation at American is troubling because it signals a further chipping away of the captain's authority, while the captain's responsibility for the safety of everyone on board hasn't changed.

"Everybody wants to tell the captain what to do, but if something goes wrong, it will be the captain who will lose his or her license," said Westbrooks, a retired Air Force and airline pilot who is an associate professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

He disagreed with American's assessment regarding reserve fuel. "Reserve fuel should not be touched," he said. "It is there for reserve."

[WetFeet]

As a retired controller I am maybe not up to date wih terminology, so this may be a daft question.

An earlier poster says NY has 200 flights a day arriving from over the pond on min fuel, but, if a pilot says he is on "min fuel" what does he/she mean?

In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.

If flights are arrving at JFK and declaring min fuel then they either have more fuel than they are indicating, so are not really in an emergency situation, or should have diverted earlier. Sometimes one just gets a feeling pilots are declaring min fuel just so they can get to the gate earlier.

It might be useful if everyone was talking about the same thing when talking about min fuel so that the appropriate level of urgency can be applied to the situation.

ps I'm not saying all pilots do this, but I am sure a handful do.

[Jetjock330]

In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.Wetfeet,
Those good ol days of carrying 30 minutes extra at destination has gone, like Concorde, never to be seen again.

Fuel is calculated from A to B (no extra) then to Alternate C and 30 minutes. This last thirty minutes is what must be remaining in the tanks upon landing and is not considered to hold for 30 minutes at alternate at all. Landing anywhere with less than this in tanks is an emergency in itself.

There is a 3% contingency between A and B and can be considered used for weather and inefficient levels, so it does not mean you may have it on arrival at B, as much as you try to protect it.

At times, on arrival at an airport with two independent runways, the alternate may be dropped completely and the alternate is now the 2nd runway at destination airport. This allows a little extra time at destination, but certain parameters must prevail with weather, delays and conditions. The theory is, why divert away to a single runway alternate from a massive airport, with many runways, only to be on final approach once again with 30 minutes in the tanks remaining, and a low cost carriers busy airport. It would be better to remain at JFK, LHR, and have a second or third attempt and land with more fuel at times than a diversion flight.

I say again, this requires certain conditions and is not fully reliable until within one hour of destination or top descent, due delays, WIP, weather types of approach in use.... etc... and ATC informed.

Consider this, someone else diverting from La Guardia to JFK and landing with 30 minutes in tanks, is in the same scenario as this B767. Min fuel and wind that now exceeds his limitations even by a knot. No go-around fuel at alternate is planned. This was the plan instigated by this captain, which would make it legal for him to land, within limits of wind and fuel at such short notice.

[L337]

In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.

I have been flying since 1975 and 30 minutes holding at the alternate has never been a requirement in the UK.

If flights are arrving at JFK and declaring min fuel then they either have more fuel than they are indicating, so are not really in an emergency situation, or should have diverted earlier.

I wish life was that simple. And if you think it is that simple then you need to use the search function here on PPRuNe.

Sometimes one just gets a feeling pilots are declaring min fuel just so they can get to the gate earlier.

Fuel remaining goes in the Techlog. It is subject to inspection having declared an emergency. Once found out, and if caught "cheating" the FAA/CAA are going to have an uncomfortable conversation with the offending (ex) Captain.

It simply does not happen. Call me naive, but I don't believe it happens.

[protectthehornet]

about 20 years ago or so, I recall American coming to KSFO...flights were declaring ''min fuel''...perfectly legal to do. Bay approach (now called nor cal) said: fine, you are blank flying miles to the outer marker, if unable say alternate.

No short cut was given. It was a simple transfer of information.

But, a declaration of emergency puts a pilot back in the driver's seat. IF he has to, he may violate , to the extent necessary, the other regs. At that point the pilot could just go to the airport and land.

But then the questions start.

There were soooo many American flights on min fuel that instead of flying distance given, ATC would just say: roger, expect vectors to Oakland (the airport across the bay from San Francisco)..

American wanted to save money...went with min fuel. All legal.

In the final analysis, the FAA is responsible. Do you want no problems? FAA should increase fuel requirements for certain airports...and that's all she wrote.

[JW411]

I think we are into thread drift again!

Fuel planning is just about the most in-exact science known to man because none of us actually knows what EXACTLY is going to happen.

For example, when I flew DC-10s for Laker many years ago, we used to carry an extra 1 hour holding fuel for JFK and ORD. Guess what happened; we would get stuffed into the Micke holding pattern for an hour when the weather was crap and still end up diverting.

I then flew the same aircraft for a Part 121 carrier and they had a "Plog Fuel" policy unless there were extenuating circumstances. I was very unhappy with this to start with but I got to love it in the end.

If I bowled up to Long Island and was told to take up the hold at Micke intersection for "at least 40 minutes", I didn't have to make a decision. I just asked for immediate vectors to BDL and landed.

This only happened on a very few occasions. The diversion caused the company an expense of a few thousand dollars but there were several plus points:

1. The punters cleared customs, immigration etc at BDL, and so, when we finally got to JFK we were treated as a domestic arrival so they could pick up their bags and go home.

2. We (the crew) were on the ground (which is a very good place to be when the weather at JFK is crap). We could now pick up lots of very nice fuel for the onward journey.

3. All the grey areas about how long to hang on in the hold before diverting have been removed.

4. The overall saving from the annual fuel bill makes it more likely that we are going to get paid next month.

On balance, I like the Plog fuel policy unless there are some other really serious considerations.

[protectthehornet]

jw411 makes some fine points about fuel and diversions.

Now a days, I can see doing that (US domestic) and getting to BDL (that's in connecticut for you foreign folks) and having the crew go out of duty time sitting it out in BDL (which has an excellent on airport hotel if you get stuck there and have the money...but I digress).

So, in the fuel equation must add the crew going off duty at an airport without a new crew available for a day or two. Putting passengers up at a hotel can get expensive too, though modern times has cheap airlines letting passengers sleep on a plane with no water or operating toilets.

Don't get me wrong, JW411 has some fine points. And sitting in a holding pattern in rotten weather watching the fuel go down down down is not fun at all.

[4runner]

You Brits and your airmen phraseology...Sometimes I think it's just another excuse for snobbery or to scold your cousins across the pond. If someone bought me a beer for every time I've had to "translate" for Speedbird and xxx control here in the Dark Continent, I'd be wasted until next year. We signed up for ICAO huh? Well, if I had a beer for every time I've been nervous as my SA wasn't where I like it due to ATC in French I'd be wasted until 2020. This is occurring in ICAO countries BTW. Big ICAO countries. In the US, the controllers will ask if "Are you declaring an emergency?". I had a few Brit ATP students a few years back who were, and I quote, "appalled" that a class D airport had an uncontrolled ramp at a 4 plane flight school and that an airport with a 9000 ft. runway did not have an operating control tower and were scared to go anywhere near the place. The British CAA, heard from a few English buddies that it should stand for, Can't Aviate Anywhere. There sure are alot of you guys filling up the skies in Florida though. Calm down fellas, this is how we do things.

[Plectron]

4Run Great!! And "spot on". Just be careful, I got kicked off the forum for a week for something not much harsher than that - these guys are "ever so sensitive". This is their sandbox and they haven't got much left.

[criss]

Pathetic...

[SeniorDispatcher]

>>>Here's a Chicago Tribune story on AA's recent push to reduce fuel reserves:

>>>An airline feud over how much to fuel - chicagotribune.com

>>>I have to agree with this guy's analysis:

As someone who plans fuel loads all the live long day, I must chime-in here and most respectfully disagree. To me, the academic fellow's comments are the ones actually disturbing because they mirror the fundamental FAR misinterpretations that he as well as the airline itself are operating under--that latter aspect being even more disturbing. [My usual disclaimer: We're discussing a U.S. FAR 121 domestic/flag ruleset here.] [My emphasis.]

First off, one can't have a company policy that's contrary to FARs. If the "analysts" are in essence "planning" fuel loads via historical data, the FARs are still the FARs, and thus controlling. When confronted with the question of whether to comply with a company policy or the FARs, complying with the FARs is always the smart play for any licensed airmen (and in the US, dispatchers are indeed licensed airmen.)

§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.

(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.

(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—

(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;

(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and

(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.

(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.

Under 121.533(b), as well as the similarly-worded 121.535(b) for Flag Ops, fuel load planning is something both dispatchers and PICs are jointly responsible for, since it's something that's quite obviously in the "pre-flight" phase. Normally, the dispatcher has all the planning done and the signed (his/hers) dispatch release transmitted to the local station ops, where the PIC gets it. If the PIC disagrees with the fuel amount, they shouldn't sign the dispatch release since doing so constitutes their legal agreement that the flight can be conducted safely, as originally planned. (I love the media coverage of this point, i.e. pilots are being "forced" to fly yada, yada, yada. Nobody's holding a Glock to anyone's head to sign--if you don't agree, don't sign, and call your dispatcher..)

Yes, I know their management sent a 5/24 memo mentioning to go with the dispatcher's fuel loads. That's BS too, as it's also contrary to 121.533(b) and 121.535(b).

The FARs on fuel planning are actually pretty simple. FAR 121.639 is essentially fuel A-B, and alternate (if required), and then the :45 minute reserve.

§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—

(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;

(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and

(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.

The various aspects below (especially (b) and (d)) offer the dispatcher and PIC a wide lattitude for planning. Again, these FARs don't mention anything about an airline's "analysts" being involved in the fuel planning--that's strictly the purview of the dispatcher and PIC.

§ 121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:

(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.

(b) Anticipated traffic delays.

(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.

(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.

For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.

All dispatchers want to minimize the weight of the aircraft as far as fuel is concerned, and for the obvious economic savings. That said, any dispatcher worth their salt doesn't like to see diversions, since they're a major PITA for a variety of reasons. It basically comes down to operational threat assessment. Dispatchers watch airports all throughout their shift, and they know where the problems are, what the AARs are, and (via ATC's FSM), they also know when the peaks and valleys of actual airport demand are. Even with those items, there's sill the unknown, and that's again where 121.647(d) comes in.

I'm fortunate to work for an airline that has a diversion rate that's a small fraction of what AAL's is, and our management doesn't MICRO-manage us, and trusts our judgement. If a PIC doesn't like my fuel load, they call, we discuss it, and come to a new mutual agreement. Sometimes it's more; sometimes they go with the original. Most crews are unaware of all the tools available within a dispatch office (since they almost never visit or sit-in), and once aware, they often agree with the original. If not, "the biggest chicken wins" and we go with the more conservation approach. That has limits, of course--if someone wants an alternate and a gazillion pounds of gas that's going to whack payload, we're going to have to "chat", but that's a rarity.

In the linked article, someone from AAL mentions how many minute's worth of fuel aircraft were arriving with. Funny how they don't mention if some of those flights were ones with alternates (and fuel to reach it) that just had the good fortune to not need to divert. That kind of BS can skew the figures, and it can ignore the reality that the fuel was loaded to mitigate the operational threats that sometimes necessitate diversions.

To be fair, it's not all that difficult to see how AAL got themselves into this mess. In a nutshell, they may have had a sweetheart deal for all those MD-80s back in the early 1980s, but they apparently overlooked the fact that the new airframe was powered by the latest variants of the the JT8D--a basic engine design that first saw service nearly 20 years earlier. It shouldn't have come as a surprise that the high-bypass engines on 747s, A300s, 767s, and 757s would eventually be scaled-down and appear elsewhere, the 737-300/-400/-500 being the obvious examples. If AAL had limited their MD-80 buy, and not hitched their wagon to what became (with rising Jet-A prices) such an economically obsolete engine, well, one wonders how much $$$ they would have saved in the last 25-30 years, not to mention today. That's certainly not the total reason for the mess they're in today cost-wise, but you can't help but wonder.

In no event does it justify the nitnoid fuel policies they appear to have. The PICs and dispatchers there already have the regulatory basis and ability to tell the purveyors of their goofy policies to go pound sand, but why they don't is another matter entirely.

Anyone notice that other U.S. Part 121 airlines don't seem to have the problem(s) that AAL does? I don't think it's as much a safety issue (true, it can be, in some cases), but I think it's more of a schedule reliability issue. Looking at their diversion rate (mentioned in the linked article), it's just about double of anybody else.

[4runner]

Noise abatement, what a crock. "Hello? Mayor's office? Yes, I just moved next to a large international airport and all I hear is airplane noise. It's very loud. Why did I move next to a large airport? Well, the house was cheap...." What's next??? Shutting down highways due to road noise? No more emergency vehicles as they are too loud? A couple years back, my company was fined by the Toronto airport or TC for taking off at 5:58 am after being cleared for T/O as their noise abatement procedure doesn't allow for departures before 6 am. Really....

[protectthehornet]

when in the course of human events it becomes neccesary to land into the wind, we will declare an emergency preserving the inanelienable WRIGHTS (;-) ) of headwind, control, and the pursuit of flight attendants.

[p51guy]

Independence day is an example of taking control of your own people and doing what is best for them. Sometimes you have to do that in your airplane too. Happy 4th of July to all on this side of the pond.

[protectthehornet]

just watching the movie, "zero hour'' (used as the basis for ''airplane''). I want all you ''mayday'' fans out there to know that the brave canadian captain didn't use mayday to let people know things were bad.

but Dana Andrews (Ted Stryker) used Mayday, three times, just like you guys were making a big fuss about.

happy, pappy?

[Murexway]

Anyone notice that other U.S. Part 121 airlines don't seem to have the problem(s) that AAL does? I don't think it's as much a safety issue (true, it can be, in some cases), but I think it's more of a schedule reliability issue. Looking at their diversion rate (mentioned in the linked article), it's just about double of anybody else.AA management uses the AAdvantage program. They run everything to the advantage of AA, including the Railway Labor Act. Labor contract negotiations drag on for years - until the cost to operate the airline without an agreement exceeds the cost to settle. Until the two lines on the graph intersect, the company fiddles. Meanwhile, they also try to browbeat the pilots/dispatchers into keeping the current cost line lower so that the two lines don't intersect.

For the Captains, anyway, when faced with written reports and "counseling" for requesting additional fuel, it's just easier to accept the fuel load and if ATC says "Holding" the Captain says "Divert."