AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive operated both ways, "Dispatched" and "flight followed"
If you were flight followed (supplemental/charter ops) you just tell em what you did.
If you are dispatched, you have a lot more resources at your disposal, if you know how to use em, but the flip side is you and the dispatcher both have to agree with what you are doing. If you declare an emergency, then you do what you want and tell dispatch what you did (time allowing)...
Dispatch can declare an emergency for an airplane as well... (usually happens in cases of fuel burn issues on long overwater legs (think bermuda or hawaii) But can happen as a result of passenger action, threats against the aircraft, something datalinked in about the systems on the aircraft etc...
Cheers
Andrew
If you were flight followed (supplemental/charter ops) you just tell em what you did.
If you are dispatched, you have a lot more resources at your disposal, if you know how to use em, but the flip side is you and the dispatcher both have to agree with what you are doing. If you declare an emergency, then you do what you want and tell dispatch what you did (time allowing)...
Dispatch can declare an emergency for an airplane as well... (usually happens in cases of fuel burn issues on long overwater legs (think bermuda or hawaii) But can happen as a result of passenger action, threats against the aircraft, something datalinked in about the systems on the aircraft etc...
Cheers
Andrew
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keepthembodies movin
no
....
This whole things is about everyone (except the pilots) trying to get more for their money by being lucky. That flight took off and everyone from the ATA to ATC, to the airline management was keeping their fingers crossed.
The pilot, 32 years ago would have taken extra fuel for screwing around...but things are different.
IF he took off and had a problem, he had been told somewhere along the line...well, declare an emergency!
The emergency could have been avoided by adding two hours of holding fuel (at 1500'msl) and he could have waited out the winds for the runway.
But we all know that would cost management money.
The system is broken. It is very broken when an emergency has to be declared to make an otherwise normal flight work.
And to you controllers out there making your case on this forum...you aren't making it well at all. Don't tell me blindly to follow your ''instructions.''. I made a point awhile back about vectors. IF you give me a vector, you have to say the reason for the vector. EG: Runway heading vectors for immediate return to runway 31 right...that would have precluded the emergency declaration.
American 723, fly heading 250, vectors for ILS 27Right approach.
but you guys are short changing things with...fly runway heading.
That's BS and we both know it.
no
....
This whole things is about everyone (except the pilots) trying to get more for their money by being lucky. That flight took off and everyone from the ATA to ATC, to the airline management was keeping their fingers crossed.
The pilot, 32 years ago would have taken extra fuel for screwing around...but things are different.
IF he took off and had a problem, he had been told somewhere along the line...well, declare an emergency!
The emergency could have been avoided by adding two hours of holding fuel (at 1500'msl) and he could have waited out the winds for the runway.
But we all know that would cost management money.
The system is broken. It is very broken when an emergency has to be declared to make an otherwise normal flight work.
And to you controllers out there making your case on this forum...you aren't making it well at all. Don't tell me blindly to follow your ''instructions.''. I made a point awhile back about vectors. IF you give me a vector, you have to say the reason for the vector. EG: Runway heading vectors for immediate return to runway 31 right...that would have precluded the emergency declaration.
American 723, fly heading 250, vectors for ILS 27Right approach.
but you guys are short changing things with...fly runway heading.
That's BS and we both know it.
Thanks guys, interesting stuff.
Yep, there were a least two of those.
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
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTH has a good point. If they were down to 6500 # fuel and were beyond xwind component to land they may have accepted an expedited approach to 31R but they didn't know what ATC had in mind for them after the fly runway heading clearance. They probably thought they would have to do the same thing to land on 31R they did on the approach. Land without ATC approval because they needed to get on the ground.
The pilots have filed their reports so we will know soon enough why this flight ended up doing what they did. Maybe AA will start putting on more fuel for New York area flights so this doesn't happen again. Legal fuel works for paperwork, but the pilot needs to add fuel as necessary to avoid repeats of this. I had to do this a few times, not many, but the pilot is more in tune with the airports and weather tendancies than the dispatcher a lot of times. Never have I been denied more fuel so asking for extra is no problem if performance allows it.
The pilots have filed their reports so we will know soon enough why this flight ended up doing what they did. Maybe AA will start putting on more fuel for New York area flights so this doesn't happen again. Legal fuel works for paperwork, but the pilot needs to add fuel as necessary to avoid repeats of this. I had to do this a few times, not many, but the pilot is more in tune with the airports and weather tendancies than the dispatcher a lot of times. Never have I been denied more fuel so asking for extra is no problem if performance allows it.
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
readytocopy said>>>
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.
There have been several mentions of AV52 in this thread, especially as it relates to ATC and language issues. That said, I've yet to see anyone demonstrate any awareness of the fact that in their final report the NTSB said: "Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather." That contributing factor ranked ahead of the ATC and language issues involved with this accident. Avianca's operational control system (under Part 129) was inferior to that of airlines operating under Part 121.
JW411 said>>>
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.
I don't know of a single flight planning system that doesn't add some sort of major distance bias (to account for vectoring) when computing a fuel burn to an alternate. The computer flight plan may still show EWR as being only 20-whatever miles from JFK, but a longer distance has undoubtedly been considered in the fuel calcs. This can be verified (or not) either via your dispatcher, and/or the computer geeks in the back room.
protectthehornet said>>>
The American captain didn't want to fly to New York with min fuel. But his company made him
With all due respect, unless someone had a Glock to the PIC's head forcing him to sign the flight's dispatch release, nobody "made" him do anything.
§ 121.663 Responsibility for dispatch release: Domestic and flag operations.
Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations shall prepare a dispatch release for each flight between specified points, based on information furnished by an authorized aircraft dispatcher. The pilot in command and an authorized aircraft dispatcher shall sign the release only if they both believe that the flight can be made with safety. The aircraft dispatcher may delegate authority to sign a release for a particular flight, but he may not delegate his authority to dispatch.
Don't agree with a fuel load? Simply, DON'T SIGN THE RELEASE, call your dispatcher, and come (return) to fuel figure that you can both agree upon.
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(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.
Managements don't plan fuel loads---dispatchers do. While it's obviously true that management has their policy desires, they're not supposed to conflict with the FARs that FAA expects the dispatcher and PIC to follow, none the least of which, in this case is:
§ 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.
aiming point said>>>
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.
..not to mention compliant with 121.533(b) above. ((121.535(b) for the 121 flag folks)
aterpster said>>>
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.
Likewise, only AAL2's PIC and dispatcher know what was/wasn't planned or discussed relative to the flight's planned fuel load. There seems to be an obvious retroactive conclusion afoot here that because they reportedly arrived with 6.5, it could only be because the flight wasn't planned properly. Absent someone from AAL with detailed knowledge chiming in, the assumption that AAL2 wasn't properly planned is just that--an assumption.
Shore Guy said>>>
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.
Your concerns are previously discussed above...
Wino said>>>
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....
The days of Jet-A @ .25 a gallon are long gone, and with prices now $2.50 a gallon, the amount off loss from carrying fuel weight goes up proportionately. It's not something airlines can ignore, no matter how much some folks long for the old days. That said, fuel loads should cover realistic operational threats, and not "What if a meteor his the intersection of the only two runways?"
I'm sure some out there might assume that we calculate fuel loads by lobbing darts at a dartboard, but we actually utilize a number of items (other than just the TAF). The CCFP. FSM data that indicates the projected AAR versus demand at ETA. SPTs that occur every two hours during the operational day that update users on actual conditions, and what's expected to occur in the next 2-4 and 4-6 hours. ATC "Hotlines" that go live when WX hits a major terminal area, where affected towers, TRACON, Center, and adjacent ATC facilities handle things minute-to-minute as WX opens/closes airspace.
If any of the above items seem foreign to crews, they are things that could be observed first-hand were pilots ever to spend some meaningful time in their airline's dispatch office/OCC. Dispatchers spend a minimum of 5 FAR-mandated hours (if not more) on cockpit jumpseat observation rides (part of annual recurrent), but there's no similar requirement for pilots to come visit their dispatchers. If they did visit, they'd get an eye full, and a more-informed opinion on how their dispatcher can be their ally, and not a perceived adversary.
Keepthembodiesmoving said>>>
Hornet, would it not be closer to the truth to say that he chose to transfer part of his own responsibility to the dispatcher?
No transfers--FAR 121,533(b) is a joint thing; please see above.
aiming point said>>>
This "Dispatchers" power and control over the Flight-Crew is fascinating.
Seems the pilots live in constant fear and stress of the dispatcher, what a real stranglehold for pilots to operate under.....could be very inhibiting to a crews "gut instincts" and freedom to make the safest decisions without any additional systemic encumbrances.
Possible sarcasm aside, pilots have little reason for any "fear" or "stress" regarding their dispatchers, were they truly to understand both the historical, and continuing need for the operational control function. Sure, technology has changed immensely from what was there in the 1930s, but what hasn't changed is that all the humans involved with the process are still of the Mk-I variety, and still easily capable of human error. PICs catch dispatcher mistakes, but the converse is also true--dispatchers catch PIC mistakes, and believe me, I've seen some lu-lus. No dispatcher I know expects to get a call from a PIC requesting permission to turn 10 left for weather, nor permission to pull and turn the illuminated red handles with the numbers on them. If it's anything else regarding weather, mechanical, or operational factors, give us a jingle via ACARS, phone, or radio.
Is this really such a good way for the system to operate? Advice can be very helpful but "joint control"....not sure that can be such a positive thing......at least from what I read here.
The "system" has been around since 1938, and its record speaks for itself.
This site is frequented by nearly all pilots, and a handful (maybe) of dispatchers---is it then so surprising that "what you read here" is pretty much the pilot perspective to the near exclusion of a dispatcher's?
Wino said>>>
If you are dispatched, you have a lot more resources at your disposal, if you know how to use em, but the flip side is you and the dispatcher both have to agree with what you are doing. If you declare an emergency, then you do what you want and tell dispatch what you did (time allowing)...
Dispatch can declare an emergency for an airplane as well... (usually happens in cases of fuel burn issues on long overwater legs (think bermuda or hawaii) But can happen as a result of passenger action, threats against the aircraft, something datalinked in about the systems on the aircraft etc...
Thanks for "getting" it...
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.
There have been several mentions of AV52 in this thread, especially as it relates to ATC and language issues. That said, I've yet to see anyone demonstrate any awareness of the fact that in their final report the NTSB said: "Contributing to the accident was the flight crew's failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather." That contributing factor ranked ahead of the ATC and language issues involved with this accident. Avianca's operational control system (under Part 129) was inferior to that of airlines operating under Part 121.
JW411 said>>>
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.
I don't know of a single flight planning system that doesn't add some sort of major distance bias (to account for vectoring) when computing a fuel burn to an alternate. The computer flight plan may still show EWR as being only 20-whatever miles from JFK, but a longer distance has undoubtedly been considered in the fuel calcs. This can be verified (or not) either via your dispatcher, and/or the computer geeks in the back room.
protectthehornet said>>>
The American captain didn't want to fly to New York with min fuel. But his company made him
With all due respect, unless someone had a Glock to the PIC's head forcing him to sign the flight's dispatch release, nobody "made" him do anything.
§ 121.663 Responsibility for dispatch release: Domestic and flag operations.
Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations shall prepare a dispatch release for each flight between specified points, based on information furnished by an authorized aircraft dispatcher. The pilot in command and an authorized aircraft dispatcher shall sign the release only if they both believe that the flight can be made with safety. The aircraft dispatcher may delegate authority to sign a release for a particular flight, but he may not delegate his authority to dispatch.
Don't agree with a fuel load? Simply, DON'T SIGN THE RELEASE, call your dispatcher, and come (return) to fuel figure that you can both agree upon.
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(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.
Managements don't plan fuel loads---dispatchers do. While it's obviously true that management has their policy desires, they're not supposed to conflict with the FARs that FAA expects the dispatcher and PIC to follow, none the least of which, in this case is:
§ 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.
aiming point said>>>
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.
..not to mention compliant with 121.533(b) above. ((121.535(b) for the 121 flag folks)
aterpster said>>>
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.
Likewise, only AAL2's PIC and dispatcher know what was/wasn't planned or discussed relative to the flight's planned fuel load. There seems to be an obvious retroactive conclusion afoot here that because they reportedly arrived with 6.5, it could only be because the flight wasn't planned properly. Absent someone from AAL with detailed knowledge chiming in, the assumption that AAL2 wasn't properly planned is just that--an assumption.
Shore Guy said>>>
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.
Your concerns are previously discussed above...
Wino said>>>
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....
The days of Jet-A @ .25 a gallon are long gone, and with prices now $2.50 a gallon, the amount off loss from carrying fuel weight goes up proportionately. It's not something airlines can ignore, no matter how much some folks long for the old days. That said, fuel loads should cover realistic operational threats, and not "What if a meteor his the intersection of the only two runways?"
I'm sure some out there might assume that we calculate fuel loads by lobbing darts at a dartboard, but we actually utilize a number of items (other than just the TAF). The CCFP. FSM data that indicates the projected AAR versus demand at ETA. SPTs that occur every two hours during the operational day that update users on actual conditions, and what's expected to occur in the next 2-4 and 4-6 hours. ATC "Hotlines" that go live when WX hits a major terminal area, where affected towers, TRACON, Center, and adjacent ATC facilities handle things minute-to-minute as WX opens/closes airspace.
If any of the above items seem foreign to crews, they are things that could be observed first-hand were pilots ever to spend some meaningful time in their airline's dispatch office/OCC. Dispatchers spend a minimum of 5 FAR-mandated hours (if not more) on cockpit jumpseat observation rides (part of annual recurrent), but there's no similar requirement for pilots to come visit their dispatchers. If they did visit, they'd get an eye full, and a more-informed opinion on how their dispatcher can be their ally, and not a perceived adversary.
Keepthembodiesmoving said>>>
Hornet, would it not be closer to the truth to say that he chose to transfer part of his own responsibility to the dispatcher?
No transfers--FAR 121,533(b) is a joint thing; please see above.
aiming point said>>>
This "Dispatchers" power and control over the Flight-Crew is fascinating.
Seems the pilots live in constant fear and stress of the dispatcher, what a real stranglehold for pilots to operate under.....could be very inhibiting to a crews "gut instincts" and freedom to make the safest decisions without any additional systemic encumbrances.
Possible sarcasm aside, pilots have little reason for any "fear" or "stress" regarding their dispatchers, were they truly to understand both the historical, and continuing need for the operational control function. Sure, technology has changed immensely from what was there in the 1930s, but what hasn't changed is that all the humans involved with the process are still of the Mk-I variety, and still easily capable of human error. PICs catch dispatcher mistakes, but the converse is also true--dispatchers catch PIC mistakes, and believe me, I've seen some lu-lus. No dispatcher I know expects to get a call from a PIC requesting permission to turn 10 left for weather, nor permission to pull and turn the illuminated red handles with the numbers on them. If it's anything else regarding weather, mechanical, or operational factors, give us a jingle via ACARS, phone, or radio.
Is this really such a good way for the system to operate? Advice can be very helpful but "joint control"....not sure that can be such a positive thing......at least from what I read here.
The "system" has been around since 1938, and its record speaks for itself.
This site is frequented by nearly all pilots, and a handful (maybe) of dispatchers---is it then so surprising that "what you read here" is pretty much the pilot perspective to the near exclusion of a dispatcher's?
Wino said>>>
If you are dispatched, you have a lot more resources at your disposal, if you know how to use em, but the flip side is you and the dispatcher both have to agree with what you are doing. If you declare an emergency, then you do what you want and tell dispatch what you did (time allowing)...
Dispatch can declare an emergency for an airplane as well... (usually happens in cases of fuel burn issues on long overwater legs (think bermuda or hawaii) But can happen as a result of passenger action, threats against the aircraft, something datalinked in about the systems on the aircraft etc...
Thanks for "getting" it...
Last edited by SeniorDispatcher; 15th May 2010 at 23:33.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
senior dispatcher
it must be nice to live in the non real world
if your airline says...we won't carry extra fuel to JFK and we would rather you divert during the construction, or in this case, declare...
then you have to put up with it or jump through alot of hoops.
I know part 121 as well as anyone here...
the flying world has never been more cost conscious and by that pushing the envelope.
we both know the 767 could easily have carried another couple of hours of fuel...but they didn't...and it is cost...even pennies matter...and that's the name of that tune.
Ihope P51 guy will find out the truth for us...even if it boils down to the captain had to pee really bad!
it must be nice to live in the non real world
if your airline says...we won't carry extra fuel to JFK and we would rather you divert during the construction, or in this case, declare...
then you have to put up with it or jump through alot of hoops.
I know part 121 as well as anyone here...
the flying world has never been more cost conscious and by that pushing the envelope.
we both know the 767 could easily have carried another couple of hours of fuel...but they didn't...and it is cost...even pennies matter...and that's the name of that tune.
Ihope P51 guy will find out the truth for us...even if it boils down to the captain had to pee really bad!
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
protectthehornet said>>>
senior dispatcher
it must be nice to live in the non real world
Believe me, I'm well-rooted in reality, even if it doesn't seem to be yours at your outfit.
if your airline says...we won't carry extra fuel to JFK and we would rather you divert during the construction, or in this case, declare...
In addition to the FARs I previously cited, I think you'll find another one (and a legal interp) that says that one can't predicate a flight with declaring to be a planned option.
then you have to put up with it or jump through a lot of hoops.
Where's your outfit's pilot/dispatcher unions (and safety committees) on all this? How about your airline's POI?
I know part 121 as well as anyone here...
OK, but why do you appear to not be complying with it and instead kowtowing to real/perceived company and management pressures?
Just asking..
senior dispatcher
it must be nice to live in the non real world
Believe me, I'm well-rooted in reality, even if it doesn't seem to be yours at your outfit.
if your airline says...we won't carry extra fuel to JFK and we would rather you divert during the construction, or in this case, declare...
In addition to the FARs I previously cited, I think you'll find another one (and a legal interp) that says that one can't predicate a flight with declaring to be a planned option.
then you have to put up with it or jump through a lot of hoops.
Where's your outfit's pilot/dispatcher unions (and safety committees) on all this? How about your airline's POI?
I know part 121 as well as anyone here...
OK, but why do you appear to not be complying with it and instead kowtowing to real/perceived company and management pressures?
Just asking..
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel to destination plus alternate plus 45 minutes and expected holding fuel is the the fuel needed in the USA. Pilots need to step in at this point and say what other delays might happen like depending on time of day, MIA always has holding about 6PM because of thunderstorms in the area in the summer on a regular basis. Unfortunately the above formula doesn't work well on those days. I have landed there many times thankful I added fuel. 13 yrs at MIA and only one diversion. Much holding with that extra fuel so no diversion. Put on the fuel you need.
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
p51guy said>>>
Fuel to destination plus alternate plus 45 minutes and expected holding fuel is the the fuel needed in the USA.
Ironically, that's just about what I carry as a minimum at most places. Arrival fuels at Podunk tend to be less...
Fuel to destination plus alternate plus 45 minutes and expected holding fuel is the the fuel needed in the USA.
Ironically, that's just about what I carry as a minimum at most places. Arrival fuels at Podunk tend to be less...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SeniorDispatcher:
That suggestion is most decidedly not real world.
Can you image a line captain going to the POI? He probably would be in trouble with both the company and the union's safety committee if he did that.
Plus, you surely must know more POIs than not are paper-pushing hacks. They take their marching orders from AFS-200 at FAA DC. The current "order of the day" at FAA DC for very strong political reasons is "green."
Yeah, tell me you've encountered some sharp, buck-FAA-headquarters, POIs. No doubt; perhaps 1 in 20.
How about your airline's POI?
Can you image a line captain going to the POI? He probably would be in trouble with both the company and the union's safety committee if he did that.
Plus, you surely must know more POIs than not are paper-pushing hacks. They take their marching orders from AFS-200 at FAA DC. The current "order of the day" at FAA DC for very strong political reasons is "green."
Yeah, tell me you've encountered some sharp, buck-FAA-headquarters, POIs. No doubt; perhaps 1 in 20.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
senior dispatcher
for a moment, we will assume that the american flight departed with ''legal'' fuel.
not more, not less.
anyone who goes to any airport has to at least consider a runway closure due to an emergency ahead of your flight.
so, you tell me...why didn't american take another two hours of fuel...or even thirty more minutes...or whatever you would think is right?
why?
now, my OUTFIT, still allows us to gas up as we can justify...not just for fun, but no problem.
other outfits might not be as lucky.
so, why didn't american take more fuel...as you MIGHT know, most of us are paid by the minute...if we have to hold, we actually earn MORE money.
I'm sure the american captain made it as clear as he could...either give me runway 31 right or I declare an emergency and take it myself.
the controller could have said, I will give you 31 right...fly runway heading to 2000' turn and enter the downwind...clear to land 31right.
but he didn't...DID HE?
so, in a rare moment, an airline pilot made good on his word.
for a moment, we will assume that the american flight departed with ''legal'' fuel.
not more, not less.
anyone who goes to any airport has to at least consider a runway closure due to an emergency ahead of your flight.
so, you tell me...why didn't american take another two hours of fuel...or even thirty more minutes...or whatever you would think is right?
why?
now, my OUTFIT, still allows us to gas up as we can justify...not just for fun, but no problem.
other outfits might not be as lucky.
so, why didn't american take more fuel...as you MIGHT know, most of us are paid by the minute...if we have to hold, we actually earn MORE money.
I'm sure the american captain made it as clear as he could...either give me runway 31 right or I declare an emergency and take it myself.
the controller could have said, I will give you 31 right...fly runway heading to 2000' turn and enter the downwind...clear to land 31right.
but he didn't...DID HE?
so, in a rare moment, an airline pilot made good on his word.
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
aterpster said>>>
That suggestion is most decidedly not real world.
Can you image a line captain going to the POI? He probably would be in trouble with both the company and the union's safety committee if he did that.
Plus, you surely must know more POIs than not are paper-pushing hacks. They take their marching orders from AFS-200 at FAA DC. The current "order of the day" at FAA DC for very strong political reasons is "green."
Yeah, tell me you've encountered some sharp, buck-FAA-headquarters, POIs. No doubt; perhaps 1 in 20
You read the suggestion in the context of a line pilot contacting them, when it was intended as your union or safety committee contacting. As far as the line guys, FAA still has their 800 number, no?
I actually know/have know several POIs, but I did better than your 1-in-20 ratio. They don't all have horns...
That suggestion is most decidedly not real world.
Can you image a line captain going to the POI? He probably would be in trouble with both the company and the union's safety committee if he did that.
Plus, you surely must know more POIs than not are paper-pushing hacks. They take their marching orders from AFS-200 at FAA DC. The current "order of the day" at FAA DC for very strong political reasons is "green."
Yeah, tell me you've encountered some sharp, buck-FAA-headquarters, POIs. No doubt; perhaps 1 in 20
You read the suggestion in the context of a line pilot contacting them, when it was intended as your union or safety committee contacting. As far as the line guys, FAA still has their 800 number, no?
I actually know/have know several POIs, but I did better than your 1-in-20 ratio. They don't all have horns...
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
protectthehornet said>>>
so, you tell me...why didn't american take another two hours of fuel...or even thirty more minutes...or whatever you would think is right?
BTSOOM; I wasn't there...
ATCSCC runs special telcons on the JFK situation every day, and dispatchers know what AAR to expect. Dispatchers that have a firm grasp on their FAR responsibilities will offer any bean-counting management types the fickle-finger-of-fate and plan whatever fuel they think is appropriate as per 121.647. It happens every day, albeit not everywhere..
I said this before, but it bears repeating--if crews interfaced better (individually and collectively) with their dispatchers, they'd realize that we have more commonalities than differences, and can (with proper awareness and support) be allies moreso than adversaries. If the culture of an airline's pilot group is unable to understand that and/or get behind that, well, then nothing will improve. It's a shame, because it really doesn't have to be that way.
And, BTW, I have no issue with what the PIC of AAL2 did, other than to note that he could have offered "fuel" as the reason (to ATC), which would have helped the overall situation. It seems clear why he perhaps didn't, but it would have helped if he had.
so, you tell me...why didn't american take another two hours of fuel...or even thirty more minutes...or whatever you would think is right?
BTSOOM; I wasn't there...
ATCSCC runs special telcons on the JFK situation every day, and dispatchers know what AAR to expect. Dispatchers that have a firm grasp on their FAR responsibilities will offer any bean-counting management types the fickle-finger-of-fate and plan whatever fuel they think is appropriate as per 121.647. It happens every day, albeit not everywhere..
I said this before, but it bears repeating--if crews interfaced better (individually and collectively) with their dispatchers, they'd realize that we have more commonalities than differences, and can (with proper awareness and support) be allies moreso than adversaries. If the culture of an airline's pilot group is unable to understand that and/or get behind that, well, then nothing will improve. It's a shame, because it really doesn't have to be that way.
And, BTW, I have no issue with what the PIC of AAL2 did, other than to note that he could have offered "fuel" as the reason (to ATC), which would have helped the overall situation. It seems clear why he perhaps didn't, but it would have helped if he had.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Input from Senior Dispatcher
In following this thread, I am truly impressed with the refreshing contributions from Senior Dispatcher. Always wondered how the chaps at the sharp end could, in the 30 minutes after arriving at the gate, work out the details of routing, taking best advantage of tailwinds, avoiding VA, providing for known eccentricities of destination ATC, and still allow for the 20 minute walk around in all weathers to double check on what the line engineers have just double checked on anyway.
My eyes have been opened. It all depends on teamwork, and one of the team players who is keeping an eye on the big picture is the Dispatcher.
Though pilots grumble, eg. Aiming Point in his post, that "Pilots live in fear of the dispatcher.....thereby inhibiting gut instinct and freedom to make the safest decisions...." I should think most would be very happy to have the dispassionate dispatcher to consult and advise on vital elements both before takeoff and enroute.
My eyes have been opened. It all depends on teamwork, and one of the team players who is keeping an eye on the big picture is the Dispatcher.
Though pilots grumble, eg. Aiming Point in his post, that "Pilots live in fear of the dispatcher.....thereby inhibiting gut instinct and freedom to make the safest decisions...." I should think most would be very happy to have the dispassionate dispatcher to consult and advise on vital elements both before takeoff and enroute.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dreadfully irresponsible remarks from the pilots having listened to recordings. Horrendous really for wide bodied pilots flying for Americans number 1 airline. Even the tone from his voice was very demeaning and arrogant to the ATC officer. If you ultimately cant land, you divert. And what about the other traffic behind him and ahead of him, how did they land ?
The closed runway may have been undergoing significant repairs - the approaching pilots certainly did not know its state at the time of requesting it. Further, injuries to ground personel could have resulted as im sure they were quickly hussled off the runway.
This is a real case of bully boy tactics. This pair of pilots should be hauled into the conference room for a cup of coffee, hit play on the recorder, and than ask what the hell is going on. Frankly, they should be ****** out the door and fired for this. What they did was potentially very dangerous.
The closed runway may have been undergoing significant repairs - the approaching pilots certainly did not know its state at the time of requesting it. Further, injuries to ground personel could have resulted as im sure they were quickly hussled off the runway.
This is a real case of bully boy tactics. This pair of pilots should be hauled into the conference room for a cup of coffee, hit play on the recorder, and than ask what the hell is going on. Frankly, they should be ****** out the door and fired for this. What they did was potentially very dangerous.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im afraid there is no way out of it, its dreadful behaviour. How anyone could not think so is simply beyond me. Get rid of them I say and make an example of them. This kind of corporate bullying should not be tolerated. Real shame on them and their actions.