AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stator vane
I think this paragraph sums up this thread perfectly. There are learning points to be made on both parties, most of which has already been discussed. But most importantly it is communication. The AA pilot could have communicated his reasonings and need for 31R to ATC, and the controller could have informed the AA crew better of his intentions and plan to get them onto 31R.
As with so many other incidences, lets learn from this, take away how things could be handled better so that if/when a similar situation arises, those involved will act in a manner which is safest for all in the sky.
i am convinced that both the pilot and the controller--upon reflection could see ways that both could have done better-but i would also wager that they would buy each other beers and shake hands at the local as well. and both will be better at what they both do from here on out. no terminations should be given!
As with so many other incidences, lets learn from this, take away how things could be handled better so that if/when a similar situation arises, those involved will act in a manner which is safest for all in the sky.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: between the ground and the sky
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw my two pence worth in, I have listened to the tape a couple of times and I hear a decisive AA flight crew, obviously completely aware of the type of airspace and situation that they were in, the skipper makes a difficult choice and executes its, albeit quite forcefully, the controller meanwhile is slightly thrown off balance as he now has to make adjustments to allow the emergency traffic make a left turn/visual, reroute other approaches, whilst reconciling in his own mind that the AA 2 is now actually 'declaring an emergency' when the initial transmission stated 'we will have to declare and emergency'. Yes there are some standard phraseology issues, which are cleared up pretty quickly but ultimately everyone does their job. Its easy to point the finger, I am sure the work in progress at JFK is less than ideal, it doesnt suit crews or the controllers, but as a previous post stated this crew were certainly not going to be another Avianca 52.
DRM.
DRM.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Westborough
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ireland105
"I think most people would find the general tone of the pilot highly unprofessional and arrogant. Clearly, he was talking "at" the ATC officer rather than to him. No we are not looking for "diplomacy" as you so elequantly put it, rather a bit of professionalism and a concept of working together."
Seems you missed the PIC stated if he didn't get 31R he would declare an emergency, and did when ATC told him to fly the runway heading, skip the diplomacy and elequantly as you are in New York and transmissions are a little more short and to the point.
"Throwing himself into a line of traffic on another runway without appropriate approval is of course dangerous and needs to be recognised as such during both pilots review next week. So, if it was an cross wind than you go around and take further instructions. If its to do with low fuel than what were they doing without sufficient reserves on board - answer me that. Hopefully all will become more clear next Wednesday."
Just for your info 31R was a departure runway so there was no line of traffic landing, after you declare you can do anything to meet the emergency and the pic stated they were on the visual, going missed might add 75 nm and flying or more. In so far as low fuel for whatever reason they refused to fly the runway heading twice by atc and landed safe and nice they didn't follow the pushy NY Controller who ignored the emergency.
"I think most people would find the general tone of the pilot highly unprofessional and arrogant. Clearly, he was talking "at" the ATC officer rather than to him. No we are not looking for "diplomacy" as you so elequantly put it, rather a bit of professionalism and a concept of working together."
Seems you missed the PIC stated if he didn't get 31R he would declare an emergency, and did when ATC told him to fly the runway heading, skip the diplomacy and elequantly as you are in New York and transmissions are a little more short and to the point.
"Throwing himself into a line of traffic on another runway without appropriate approval is of course dangerous and needs to be recognised as such during both pilots review next week. So, if it was an cross wind than you go around and take further instructions. If its to do with low fuel than what were they doing without sufficient reserves on board - answer me that. Hopefully all will become more clear next Wednesday."
Just for your info 31R was a departure runway so there was no line of traffic landing, after you declare you can do anything to meet the emergency and the pic stated they were on the visual, going missed might add 75 nm and flying or more. In so far as low fuel for whatever reason they refused to fly the runway heading twice by atc and landed safe and nice they didn't follow the pushy NY Controller who ignored the emergency.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you again, Capt PTH, for so eloquently stating what seems obvious to me. I really don't see what a certain group has its knickers in a bundle over.
Maybe it's just me -20,000 hours and a bunch of 767 into Kennedy but what do I know?
I had a bit of time off from this site but I have been following it. If anyone is interested in what triggered my time off and the message accompanying please feel free to msg me.
Does anyone believe that, if the Captain in question did wrong, that the folks down at the Dallas schoolhouse are not capable of looking into it? Or the FAA for that matter?
He was fully aware of the consequences of his actions and did what he felt he had to do.
Just for the record - very few AA guys know about this site and the ones that do don't read it much. I suspect the tone here would be decidedly different if they did.
And, for the record - I think the Captain did what he had to do at the time and it was a non-event. It worked out fine. Thanks again PTH for standing up to the abuse of a brother aviator.
Maybe it's just me -20,000 hours and a bunch of 767 into Kennedy but what do I know?
I had a bit of time off from this site but I have been following it. If anyone is interested in what triggered my time off and the message accompanying please feel free to msg me.
Does anyone believe that, if the Captain in question did wrong, that the folks down at the Dallas schoolhouse are not capable of looking into it? Or the FAA for that matter?
He was fully aware of the consequences of his actions and did what he felt he had to do.
Just for the record - very few AA guys know about this site and the ones that do don't read it much. I suspect the tone here would be decidedly different if they did.
And, for the record - I think the Captain did what he had to do at the time and it was a non-event. It worked out fine. Thanks again PTH for standing up to the abuse of a brother aviator.
Last edited by Plectron; 19th May 2010 at 07:43.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Ireland,
Once again you appear to be wrong, as the pilot's reports have already been accepted, prior to today, and said pilots returned to flight.
Of course you also said...
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.
So we know where you stand, not a position shared by anyone with knowledge of JFK ops, including the air traffic controllers.
The number of factual errors you have made here is frankly astounding. Even your grandstanding is wrong. AA is America's 3rd largest airline at this point...
I would suggest that you go back and read the thread from the VERY beginning. Also do a little research on dispatch fuel and flight planning for VFR days and rethink your posts. Both the Pilots and the controllers on this thread will be waiting for your apology.
Cheers
Wino
PS, not spoken about here but needs to be mentioned. Runway alignment at NY often has more to do with avoiding flying over wealthy connected neighborhoods rather than wind direction or safety. Ireland, are you one of those people that buys a house near an airport because its cheap, then files a lawsuit to move the planes away? Is that your goal, keep planes from flying over your house?
Once again you appear to be wrong, as the pilot's reports have already been accepted, prior to today, and said pilots returned to flight.
Of course you also said...
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.
So we know where you stand, not a position shared by anyone with knowledge of JFK ops, including the air traffic controllers.
The number of factual errors you have made here is frankly astounding. Even your grandstanding is wrong. AA is America's 3rd largest airline at this point...
I would suggest that you go back and read the thread from the VERY beginning. Also do a little research on dispatch fuel and flight planning for VFR days and rethink your posts. Both the Pilots and the controllers on this thread will be waiting for your apology.
Cheers
Wino
PS, not spoken about here but needs to be mentioned. Runway alignment at NY often has more to do with avoiding flying over wealthy connected neighborhoods rather than wind direction or safety. Ireland, are you one of those people that buys a house near an airport because its cheap, then files a lawsuit to move the planes away? Is that your goal, keep planes from flying over your house?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cusco
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot in this instance dished out what the ATC blokes dishes out daily to foreign pilots who are non native English speakers.
Having said that, I guess the PIC will probably be in for some kind of reprimand by the pen pushing management.
Having said that, I guess the PIC will probably be in for some kind of reprimand by the pen pushing management.
Whatever the outcome it's important to really understand the law...91.3 or your country's equivalent...
Yes, Lawrence, Cedarhurst, Woodmere and Hewlett 
PS, not spoken about here but needs to be mentioned. Runway alignment at NY often has more to do with avoiding flying over wealthy connected neighborhoods rather than wind direction or safety. Ireland, are you one of those people that buys a house near an airport because its cheap, then files a lawsuit to move the planes away? Is that your goal, keep planes from flying over your house?
Buttonpusher
So, why were they min fuel ?
I don't fault the controllers, just the situation and equipment they are handed to deal with the influx of traffic.
Low fuel situations happen more than you think, and if you do fly into the NY area regularly, you would know how things sometimes unfold.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Min fuel happens ocassionally if you fly long enough. Winds, altitude limitations because of atc or turbulence, deviations for wx, speed restrictions and holding may cut into reserve fuel. If you are all lined up on final in VMC most pilots wouldn't declare minimum fuel landing with 1 hr fuel remaining. Having to go around because of the increase in crosswind would have made them critical on fuel according to reports. Their actions had to be justified by them and I am sure they were.
I have been there a couple of times in a long career. Notice you almost never hear min fuel declared. I wonder how many of those flights could have comfortably gone around and been sequenced back for another approach? 100%?
I have been there a couple of times in a long career. Notice you almost never hear min fuel declared. I wonder how many of those flights could have comfortably gone around and been sequenced back for another approach? 100%?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Buttonpusher
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.
It's our obligation to mitigate risks as part of the job, if that includes going against the ATC "flow" so be it.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino:
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?
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...
Those two communities are the biggest impediments to air safety in North America...
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?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Buttonpusher
Balboa island
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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