AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Galaxy Flyer:
I was based at JFK (on DC-10s) when PanAm had their famous diversion to EWR.
Next day, I was conducting a PIC upgrade with the local FAA guy observing. He told me later (in the bar) that the PanAm computer plan had only allowed the straight-line distance from JFK to EWR (23 nms). As you say, getting you out of the JFK traffic pattern and into the EWR pattern soaks up at least 120 nms.
The FAA guy asked me how we dealt with the problem. I was delighted to tell him that we had simply told the producer of our computer plans NEVER EVER to accept an alternate of less than 150 nms.
He was well impressed and told me that this suggestion was already winging its way towards PanAm!
I was based at JFK (on DC-10s) when PanAm had their famous diversion to EWR.
Next day, I was conducting a PIC upgrade with the local FAA guy observing. He told me later (in the bar) that the PanAm computer plan had only allowed the straight-line distance from JFK to EWR (23 nms). As you say, getting you out of the JFK traffic pattern and into the EWR pattern soaks up at least 120 nms.
The FAA guy asked me how we dealt with the problem. I was delighted to tell him that we had simply told the producer of our computer plans NEVER EVER to accept an alternate of less than 150 nms.
He was well impressed and told me that this suggestion was already winging its way towards PanAm!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I was based at JFK (on DC-10s) when PanAm had their famous diversion to EWR.
And, in all of this as you point out, what is on the paperwork is one thing, you may still be out of gas in the real world.
Airbubba:
Actually, I would have gone for 1984 or 1985 but my memory is not what it was.
Or else, they did it twice!
What I do remember was that the Fed was Jim McN.
Actually, I would have gone for 1984 or 1985 but my memory is not what it was.
Or else, they did it twice!
What I do remember was that the Fed was Jim McN.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: mars
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pilot made a good decision ...lets stop analizing it...Thank god we did not have another AVIANCA crash where the crew, may be because of language were unable to state the seriousness of their situation causing many people to loose their lives. Good Job guys 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Actually, I would have gone for 1984 or 1985 but my memory is not what it was.
Or else, they did it twice!
Or else, they did it twice!
http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/pls/...9791020053099C
Here is a contemporary news item in the right top column of the Ocala, Florida paper:
Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive Search
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worry for the future and current pilots
I learned to fly in an era of regulated airlines and non fired controllers.
I learned that ATC could vector you into the side of a mountain unless YOU knew where you were and what was going on.
We are in an age in which an airline doesn't want to send a 767 from the west coast to New York with a 2 hour fuel reserve...that's money talking for you.
We are in an age in which ATC thinks you can fly forever and just take their word that you have to do what they say...and it will all work out.
If you get a vector, ATC is to provide the reason for the vector. In this case,, fly runway heading VECTORS for immediate landing on 31right. But nope...just fly runway heading.
The American captain didn't want to fly to New York with min fuel. But his company made him (of course the FAA could mandate 2 hour reserves upon landing at kennedy, but they don't)
All the airlines won't reduce scheduling with a 25% ( possible 50% if you figure it one way) loss of runway capacity at Kennedy.
So, knowing all this, watching things go down the tubes for the last 30 minutes, the captain makes his choice with an emergency. He could have told everyone how to make things right before he left the hotel for the airport...but no one will listen.
someone mentioned my ego...I don't use my ego unless everyone else has screwed up so badly that I have to finally say, in a nice way of course...none of you know what you are doing...and I will make it work my way.
I learned that ATC could vector you into the side of a mountain unless YOU knew where you were and what was going on.
We are in an age in which an airline doesn't want to send a 767 from the west coast to New York with a 2 hour fuel reserve...that's money talking for you.
We are in an age in which ATC thinks you can fly forever and just take their word that you have to do what they say...and it will all work out.
If you get a vector, ATC is to provide the reason for the vector. In this case,, fly runway heading VECTORS for immediate landing on 31right. But nope...just fly runway heading.
The American captain didn't want to fly to New York with min fuel. But his company made him (of course the FAA could mandate 2 hour reserves upon landing at kennedy, but they don't)
All the airlines won't reduce scheduling with a 25% ( possible 50% if you figure it one way) loss of runway capacity at Kennedy.
So, knowing all this, watching things go down the tubes for the last 30 minutes, the captain makes his choice with an emergency. He could have told everyone how to make things right before he left the hotel for the airport...but no one will listen.
someone mentioned my ego...I don't use my ego unless everyone else has screwed up so badly that I have to finally say, in a nice way of course...none of you know what you are doing...and I will make it work my way.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aiming point:
Only an active AAL pilot could tell us what their management's view and reaction would be currently to any fuel add by the captain.
Bet they wish now they had used their "Command Authority" at the beginning of the flight to carry an extra 20 minutes contingency fuel.....how much less stressful it would have been.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances of this turning out to be Orlando revisited. That captain showed the purser who was boss. This captain showed the ATC controller who is boss. I hope he was below minimum fuel for his sake.
One thing I find interesting on this thread is how many think ATC is "in control" as one put it several pages ago. I find this attitude very common among airline pilots and the "younger" generation. This is most emphatically WRONG! They coordinate traffic, provide advice on how best to manage traffic, but they don't run your plane. Yes, 99 times out of 100 times, I agree to their requests and comply, but reserve judgement on the advisability of their plan
I have thought for a quite a while now that "Controller" is the wrong name they should be called "Facilitators" or "Coordinators", because that is their job - to facilitate or coordinate safe and efficient flow of air traffic. Too many ATCer's these days seem to be control freaks.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've operated flights into NY Tracon for over thirty years. Two different flight plan providers, and tens of different dispatchers. When the closest legal alternate is listed (e.g. for JFK, EWR, PHL), the routing is almost always great circle direct, or perhaps a near direct airway. About 18 hours of the day, this will never, ever happen. But you are "legal".
Remember, Legal is not safe all the time. That is when Captain authority comes in. Perhaps (not second guessing here) this "situation" could have been remedied by a few extra thousand pounds before takeoff (One main runway closed at JFK is a prescription for delays). Or not accepting dispatched direct routing to alternate you know you will not get without adding some fuel to the extra column.
In today's climate, you may get a phone call in a day or two (that you would never have gotten twenty years ago) asking why you needed additional fuel. The answer should be simple.....Captain authority, safety, airmanship, and experience. Period.
End of conversation.
Remember, Legal is not safe all the time. That is when Captain authority comes in. Perhaps (not second guessing here) this "situation" could have been remedied by a few extra thousand pounds before takeoff (One main runway closed at JFK is a prescription for delays). Or not accepting dispatched direct routing to alternate you know you will not get without adding some fuel to the extra column.
In today's climate, you may get a phone call in a day or two (that you would never have gotten twenty years ago) asking why you needed additional fuel. The answer should be simple.....Captain authority, safety, airmanship, and experience. Period.
End of conversation.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to x pounds for the journey, plus the mandated reserves, plus extra for the headwind, a bit more for the hold, a bit for the missed approach, some more for diversion, a bit more for the missed approach at diversion, some for the insurance company, and a bit extra for the (pardon my political incorrectness) wife and kids?
As a student pilot 40 years ago, my favourite instructor Herr Stogmuller told me to make sure we had air in the tyres and none in the tanks. Air was removed most effectively from the tanks by displacing it with AvGas. When it reached the brim, stop filling.
As a student pilot 40 years ago, my favourite instructor Herr Stogmuller told me to make sure we had air in the tyres and none in the tanks. Air was removed most effectively from the tanks by displacing it with AvGas. When it reached the brim, stop filling.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have thought for a quite a while now that "Controller" is the wrong name they should be called "Facilitators" or "Coordinators", because that is their job - to facilitate or coordinate safe and efficient flow of air traffic. Too many ATCer's these days seem to be control freaks.
You're not the only aircraft in the sky and any unilateral action you take will affect other aircraft. Hence someone needs to be 'in charge' or 'controlling' all of those aircraft in the sky at the same time or we're going to see lots of aluminium tubes welded together and falling back to earth. Simples!BD
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-cheer up
Whatever happened to x pounds for the journey, plus the mandated reserves, plus extra for the headwind, a bit more for the hold, a bit for the missed approach, some more for diversion, a bit more for the missed approach at diversion, some for the insurance company, and a bit extra for the (pardon my political incorrectness) wife and kids
Commercial pressures killed that a long time ago. Do you realize that if the weather at your destination is VFR, you don't need an alternate on an airlines type instrument flight plan? So interestingly, high winds tend to make for clear skies, which should allow more aircraft in and out of the NY area, but in practice actually leads to MORE holding, all without alternate fuel, as the NY airports are forced to use less than "optimal" runway configurations. But of course, when you prepared a flight plan on the west coast 7 hours ago, the holds hadn't started yet, so dispatcher can't give you "hold" fuel....
For every extra pound of fuel carried (tankered) a percentage of which will be burned enroute. The pressure from all the companies is now to take the barest min fuel. You can add from there, but if you ask for an extra 3k lbs of fuel, it seams like a lot. (MANAGEMENT will certainly say its a lot) but in a 767 you haven't gained but a few minutes, because you are starting with such rediculously low numbers to start with.
The FAA can fix this by refusing to allow the NYC airports to be filed "no alternate" until the runway repairs are complete, but or course, no one has died recently of fuel starvation at JFK, so why act? Plus, the ATA (The paid shills for the airlines) would howl about how its just another cost being heaped on an over taxed and broke industry.
Cheers
Wino
Whatever happened to x pounds for the journey, plus the mandated reserves, plus extra for the headwind, a bit more for the hold, a bit for the missed approach, some more for diversion, a bit more for the missed approach at diversion, some for the insurance company, and a bit extra for the (pardon my political incorrectness) wife and kids
Commercial pressures killed that a long time ago. Do you realize that if the weather at your destination is VFR, you don't need an alternate on an airlines type instrument flight plan? So interestingly, high winds tend to make for clear skies, which should allow more aircraft in and out of the NY area, but in practice actually leads to MORE holding, all without alternate fuel, as the NY airports are forced to use less than "optimal" runway configurations. But of course, when you prepared a flight plan on the west coast 7 hours ago, the holds hadn't started yet, so dispatcher can't give you "hold" fuel....
For every extra pound of fuel carried (tankered) a percentage of which will be burned enroute. The pressure from all the companies is now to take the barest min fuel. You can add from there, but if you ask for an extra 3k lbs of fuel, it seams like a lot. (MANAGEMENT will certainly say its a lot) but in a 767 you haven't gained but a few minutes, because you are starting with such rediculously low numbers to start with.
The FAA can fix this by refusing to allow the NYC airports to be filed "no alternate" until the runway repairs are complete, but or course, no one has died recently of fuel starvation at JFK, so why act? Plus, the ATA (The paid shills for the airlines) would howl about how its just another cost being heaped on an over taxed and broke industry.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD,
May as well give up - something tells me these plonkers won't be listening to any answers as they obviously know it all already!
Gents, it is called air traffic control because that is exactly what it is.
With a bunch of egos like yours mixing it up out there, how long do you think you would last without our instructions?
YES. Instructions. Not requests, not suggestions. Sure, you are within your rights to ignore them IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IT but you had better have a damned good reason for doing so if you want to keep that precious ATPL.
One day you will realise that by far the best way to make this system work is to do it together, rather than the oft seen "I'm alright, f*$k everyone else" attitude posted here.
Nothing to do with being control freaks or otherwise - we simply are REQUIRED to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of ALL aircraft. Not just yours. Someone has to be at the back of the queue. Often, it will be the primadonna who always asks for the wrong end of the runway, even after being informed that he's no. 12 in the sequence (for example).
Please help us to help you. Fly the speeds INSTRUCTED - not what you think you'll get away with. Take the vectors - it's for your safety, not mine. And for god's sake, if you have an emergency, A) tell me in a clear and concise manner and B) tell me what it is. That way I can know what's required and do it. Leave me guessing, as this guy did, and watch the chaos that ensues.
May as well give up - something tells me these plonkers won't be listening to any answers as they obviously know it all already!
Gents, it is called air traffic control because that is exactly what it is.
With a bunch of egos like yours mixing it up out there, how long do you think you would last without our instructions?
YES. Instructions. Not requests, not suggestions. Sure, you are within your rights to ignore them IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IT but you had better have a damned good reason for doing so if you want to keep that precious ATPL.
One day you will realise that by far the best way to make this system work is to do it together, rather than the oft seen "I'm alright, f*$k everyone else" attitude posted here.
Nothing to do with being control freaks or otherwise - we simply are REQUIRED to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of ALL aircraft. Not just yours. Someone has to be at the back of the queue. Often, it will be the primadonna who always asks for the wrong end of the runway, even after being informed that he's no. 12 in the sequence (for example).
Please help us to help you. Fly the speeds INSTRUCTED - not what you think you'll get away with. Take the vectors - it's for your safety, not mine. And for god's sake, if you have an emergency, A) tell me in a clear and concise manner and B) tell me what it is. That way I can know what's required and do it. Leave me guessing, as this guy did, and watch the chaos that ensues.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hilton/Sheraton/Marriott
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that he chose to transfer part of his own responsibility to the dispatcher
Sat in line for departure at a certain Eastern Seaboard airport last night whilst reroutes were being given to multiple aircraft due Severe Weather. At least one pilot replied that in addition to loading the route he'd have to contact his despatcher before being ready for departure..which was a right royal PITA because of the delays it generated at the holding point. So the question is when does the despatcher's authority/responsibility for the flight end - can the Cdr not accept a reroute without running it past someone in the office?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiggy said>>>
Sat in line for departure at a certain Eastern Seaboard airport last night whilst reroutes were being given to multiple aircraft due Severe Weather. At least one pilot replied that in addition to loading the route he'd have to contact his despatcher before being ready for departure..which was a right royal PITA because of the delays it generated at the holding point. So the question is when does the despatcher's authority/responsibility for the flight end - can the Cdr not accept a reroute without running it past someone in the office?
Not to quibble, but I'm going to refer to "dispatcher" here versus your "despatcher" term to clearly distinguish between the US FAR Part 121 incarnation of the former versus the latter term more commonly used outside the US and its FARs...
The US Part 121 dispatcher's authority and responsibility ends when the flight blocks-in at the destination. A common misconception is that the dispatcher is strictly a clerical paperwork generator (the flight plan and dispatch release) and once we send that, we're done. That paperwork is clearly the "initiating" aspect of the FAR 1.1-defined "operational control", but there are two other aspects--"conducting" and "terminating".
As far as a PIC having to coordinate a weather re-route with their dispatcher, that was the subject of a FAA legal interpretation back in the 1990s from FAA AGC-200 to Glenn Morse (then with the ATA). The reason for it was that normally, the most wind-advantageous route or ATC Pref route route will be utilized in a dispatch release, and thus what the fuel load is based on. If the PIC and dispatcher are in agreement that the flight can operate safely as planned per the conditions as set forth in the dispatch release, each of the two signs it.
When weather runs amuck and re-routes start being issued, it's necessary (as per the legal interp) that the PIC contact their dispatcher to ensure sufficient fuel is aboard to accomodate the re-route. If it's not, and they're off the gate, they may have to tinker with the alternate and contingency fuel already onboard to make it work. If not, it's back to the gate to get more gas.
Many reroutes are codified and referenceable (See PLAYBOOK ), and as such fuel can be considered for their potential use. For example, the normal Chicago-Houston route takes one over STL and LIT, and into Houston from the NE side. If the dispatcher suspects a reroute might occur later due to possible weather in the STL, LIT or enroute environs, it's a common practice to also plan the flight via MZV, STJ, TUL, FUZ and into Houston from the NW side. The difference in fuel burns between "normal" and "reroute" will be added as additional contingency fuel, and the flight will be released and filed via the normal route (so if the reroute doesn't occur, the flight won't be over MLW on arrival at the destination.) A remark will be added to the reelase that advises the PIC that his min fuel load also has considered the MZV reroute, so if that ATC later pulls the trigger to use that reroute at the very last-minute, all the necessary coordination has already taken place.
Conversely, some reroutes are not predictable, given the obvious dynamic nature of the weather. More often than not in such situations, the dispatcher is already carrying additional contingency fuel, but verification still needs to take place that it's sufficient to accomodate the reroute.
Sat in line for departure at a certain Eastern Seaboard airport last night whilst reroutes were being given to multiple aircraft due Severe Weather. At least one pilot replied that in addition to loading the route he'd have to contact his despatcher before being ready for departure..which was a right royal PITA because of the delays it generated at the holding point. So the question is when does the despatcher's authority/responsibility for the flight end - can the Cdr not accept a reroute without running it past someone in the office?
Not to quibble, but I'm going to refer to "dispatcher" here versus your "despatcher" term to clearly distinguish between the US FAR Part 121 incarnation of the former versus the latter term more commonly used outside the US and its FARs...
The US Part 121 dispatcher's authority and responsibility ends when the flight blocks-in at the destination. A common misconception is that the dispatcher is strictly a clerical paperwork generator (the flight plan and dispatch release) and once we send that, we're done. That paperwork is clearly the "initiating" aspect of the FAR 1.1-defined "operational control", but there are two other aspects--"conducting" and "terminating".
As far as a PIC having to coordinate a weather re-route with their dispatcher, that was the subject of a FAA legal interpretation back in the 1990s from FAA AGC-200 to Glenn Morse (then with the ATA). The reason for it was that normally, the most wind-advantageous route or ATC Pref route route will be utilized in a dispatch release, and thus what the fuel load is based on. If the PIC and dispatcher are in agreement that the flight can operate safely as planned per the conditions as set forth in the dispatch release, each of the two signs it.
When weather runs amuck and re-routes start being issued, it's necessary (as per the legal interp) that the PIC contact their dispatcher to ensure sufficient fuel is aboard to accomodate the re-route. If it's not, and they're off the gate, they may have to tinker with the alternate and contingency fuel already onboard to make it work. If not, it's back to the gate to get more gas.
Many reroutes are codified and referenceable (See PLAYBOOK ), and as such fuel can be considered for their potential use. For example, the normal Chicago-Houston route takes one over STL and LIT, and into Houston from the NE side. If the dispatcher suspects a reroute might occur later due to possible weather in the STL, LIT or enroute environs, it's a common practice to also plan the flight via MZV, STJ, TUL, FUZ and into Houston from the NW side. The difference in fuel burns between "normal" and "reroute" will be added as additional contingency fuel, and the flight will be released and filed via the normal route (so if the reroute doesn't occur, the flight won't be over MLW on arrival at the destination.) A remark will be added to the reelase that advises the PIC that his min fuel load also has considered the MZV reroute, so if that ATC later pulls the trigger to use that reroute at the very last-minute, all the necessary coordination has already taken place.
Conversely, some reroutes are not predictable, given the obvious dynamic nature of the weather. More often than not in such situations, the dispatcher is already carrying additional contingency fuel, but verification still needs to take place that it's sufficient to accomodate the reroute.