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
Another facet of JFK operations is that reconfiguration often has to be coordinated with LGA's configuration.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA
"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?
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?
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
On the upside, flight schools and training departments have a wonderful clip of poor airmanship, to show students for the next 30 odd years.
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.
It was a NY thing, get over it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatzalizard
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
in 9 words you have covered it allllll!!!!! Bravo to you...its the way things are done when they have to get done.
Bravo
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kudos
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???
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???
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino:
True, when I retired 19 years ago the unions still had brass family jewels.
That bold was in the letter, I didn't add it. These are VERY different times my friend.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino -
These are VERY different times my friend.
These are VERY different times my friend.
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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 26th May 2010 at 12:02.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Caning isn't allowed either.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silverstrata:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
facts and presumptions
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterpster
I don't believe training of U.S. air carrier crews includes the use of Mayday X 3, at least not in domestic airspace.
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.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard 13:
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.
I believe it might not be completely unheard of...(use of Mayday X3
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.