AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
about 20 years ago or so, I recall American coming to KSFO...flights were declaring ''min fuel''...perfectly legal to do. Bay approach (now called nor cal) said: fine, you are blank flying miles to the outer marker, if unable say alternate.
No short cut was given. It was a simple transfer of information.
But, a declaration of emergency puts a pilot back in the driver's seat. IF he has to, he may violate , to the extent necessary, the other regs. At that point the pilot could just go to the airport and land.
But then the questions start.
There were soooo many American flights on min fuel that instead of flying distance given, ATC would just say: roger, expect vectors to Oakland (the airport across the bay from San Francisco)..
American wanted to save money...went with min fuel. All legal.
In the final analysis, the FAA is responsible. Do you want no problems? FAA should increase fuel requirements for certain airports...and that's all she wrote.
No short cut was given. It was a simple transfer of information.
But, a declaration of emergency puts a pilot back in the driver's seat. IF he has to, he may violate , to the extent necessary, the other regs. At that point the pilot could just go to the airport and land.
But then the questions start.
There were soooo many American flights on min fuel that instead of flying distance given, ATC would just say: roger, expect vectors to Oakland (the airport across the bay from San Francisco)..
American wanted to save money...went with min fuel. All legal.
In the final analysis, the FAA is responsible. Do you want no problems? FAA should increase fuel requirements for certain airports...and that's all she wrote.
I think we are into thread drift again!
Fuel planning is just about the most in-exact science known to man because none of us actually knows what EXACTLY is going to happen.
For example, when I flew DC-10s for Laker many years ago, we used to carry an extra 1 hour holding fuel for JFK and ORD. Guess what happened; we would get stuffed into the Micke holding pattern for an hour when the weather was crap and still end up diverting.
I then flew the same aircraft for a Part 121 carrier and they had a "Plog Fuel" policy unless there were extenuating circumstances. I was very unhappy with this to start with but I got to love it in the end.
If I bowled up to Long Island and was told to take up the hold at Micke intersection for "at least 40 minutes", I didn't have to make a decision. I just asked for immediate vectors to BDL and landed.
This only happened on a very few occasions. The diversion caused the company an expense of a few thousand dollars but there were several plus points:
1. The punters cleared customs, immigration etc at BDL, and so, when we finally got to JFK we were treated as a domestic arrival so they could pick up their bags and go home.
2. We (the crew) were on the ground (which is a very good place to be when the weather at JFK is crap). We could now pick up lots of very nice fuel for the onward journey.
3. All the grey areas about how long to hang on in the hold before diverting have been removed.
4. The overall saving from the annual fuel bill makes it more likely that we are going to get paid next month.
On balance, I like the Plog fuel policy unless there are some other really serious considerations.
Fuel planning is just about the most in-exact science known to man because none of us actually knows what EXACTLY is going to happen.
For example, when I flew DC-10s for Laker many years ago, we used to carry an extra 1 hour holding fuel for JFK and ORD. Guess what happened; we would get stuffed into the Micke holding pattern for an hour when the weather was crap and still end up diverting.
I then flew the same aircraft for a Part 121 carrier and they had a "Plog Fuel" policy unless there were extenuating circumstances. I was very unhappy with this to start with but I got to love it in the end.
If I bowled up to Long Island and was told to take up the hold at Micke intersection for "at least 40 minutes", I didn't have to make a decision. I just asked for immediate vectors to BDL and landed.
This only happened on a very few occasions. The diversion caused the company an expense of a few thousand dollars but there were several plus points:
1. The punters cleared customs, immigration etc at BDL, and so, when we finally got to JFK we were treated as a domestic arrival so they could pick up their bags and go home.
2. We (the crew) were on the ground (which is a very good place to be when the weather at JFK is crap). We could now pick up lots of very nice fuel for the onward journey.
3. All the grey areas about how long to hang on in the hold before diverting have been removed.
4. The overall saving from the annual fuel bill makes it more likely that we are going to get paid next month.
On balance, I like the Plog fuel policy unless there are some other really serious considerations.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jw411 makes some fine points about fuel and diversions.
Now a days, I can see doing that (US domestic) and getting to BDL (that's in connecticut for you foreign folks) and having the crew go out of duty time sitting it out in BDL (which has an excellent on airport hotel if you get stuck there and have the money...but I digress).
So, in the fuel equation must add the crew going off duty at an airport without a new crew available for a day or two. Putting passengers up at a hotel can get expensive too, though modern times has cheap airlines letting passengers sleep on a plane with no water or operating toilets.
Don't get me wrong, JW411 has some fine points. And sitting in a holding pattern in rotten weather watching the fuel go down down down is not fun at all.
Now a days, I can see doing that (US domestic) and getting to BDL (that's in connecticut for you foreign folks) and having the crew go out of duty time sitting it out in BDL (which has an excellent on airport hotel if you get stuck there and have the money...but I digress).
So, in the fuel equation must add the crew going off duty at an airport without a new crew available for a day or two. Putting passengers up at a hotel can get expensive too, though modern times has cheap airlines letting passengers sleep on a plane with no water or operating toilets.
Don't get me wrong, JW411 has some fine points. And sitting in a holding pattern in rotten weather watching the fuel go down down down is not fun at all.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Brits and your airmen phraseology...Sometimes I think it's just another excuse for snobbery or to scold your cousins across the pond. If someone bought me a beer for every time I've had to "translate" for Speedbird and xxx control here in the Dark Continent, I'd be wasted until next year. We signed up for ICAO huh? Well, if I had a beer for every time I've been nervous as my SA wasn't where I like it due to ATC in French I'd be wasted until 2020. This is occurring in ICAO countries BTW. Big ICAO countries. In the US, the controllers will ask if "Are you declaring an emergency?". I had a few Brit ATP students a few years back who were, and I quote, "appalled" that a class D airport had an uncontrolled ramp at a 4 plane flight school and that an airport with a 9000 ft. runway did not have an operating control tower and were scared to go anywhere near the place. The British CAA, heard from a few English buddies that it should stand for, Can't Aviate Anywhere. There sure are alot of you guys filling up the skies in Florida though. Calm down fellas, this is how we do things.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Run Great!! And "spot on". Just be careful, I got kicked off the forum for a week for something not much harsher than that - these guys are "ever so sensitive". This is their sandbox and they haven't got much left.
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
>>>Here's a Chicago Tribune story on AA's recent push to reduce fuel reserves:
>>>An airline feud over how much to fuel - chicagotribune.com
>>>I have to agree with this guy's analysis:
As someone who plans fuel loads all the live long day, I must chime-in here and most respectfully disagree. To me, the academic fellow's comments are the ones actually disturbing because they mirror the fundamental FAR misinterpretations that he as well as the airline itself are operating under--that latter aspect being even more disturbing. [My usual disclaimer: We're discussing a U.S. FAR 121 domestic/flag ruleset here.] [My emphasis.]
First off, one can't have a company policy that's contrary to FARs. If the "analysts" are in essence "planning" fuel loads via historical data, the FARs are still the FARs, and thus controlling. When confronted with the question of whether to comply with a company policy or the FARs, complying with the FARs is always the smart play for any licensed airmen (and in the US, dispatchers are indeed licensed airmen.)
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
Under 121.533(b), as well as the similarly-worded 121.535(b) for Flag Ops, fuel load planning is something both dispatchers and PICs are jointly responsible for, since it's something that's quite obviously in the "pre-flight" phase. Normally, the dispatcher has all the planning done and the signed (his/hers) dispatch release transmitted to the local station ops, where the PIC gets it. If the PIC disagrees with the fuel amount, they shouldn't sign the dispatch release since doing so constitutes their legal agreement that the flight can be conducted safely, as originally planned. (I love the media coverage of this point, i.e. pilots are being "forced" to fly yada, yada, yada. Nobody's holding a Glock to anyone's head to sign--if you don't agree, don't sign, and call your dispatcher..)
Yes, I know their management sent a 5/24 memo mentioning to go with the dispatcher's fuel loads. That's BS too, as it's also contrary to 121.533(b) and 121.535(b).
The FARs on fuel planning are actually pretty simple. FAR 121.639 is essentially fuel A-B, and alternate (if required), and then the :45 minute reserve.
§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
The various aspects below (especially (b) and (d)) offer the dispatcher and PIC a wide lattitude for planning. Again, these FARs don't mention anything about an airline's "analysts" being involved in the fuel planning--that's strictly the purview of the dispatcher and PIC.
§ 121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.
All dispatchers want to minimize the weight of the aircraft as far as fuel is concerned, and for the obvious economic savings. That said, any dispatcher worth their salt doesn't like to see diversions, since they're a major PITA for a variety of reasons. It basically comes down to operational threat assessment. Dispatchers watch airports all throughout their shift, and they know where the problems are, what the AARs are, and (via ATC's FSM), they also know when the peaks and valleys of actual airport demand are. Even with those items, there's sill the unknown, and that's again where 121.647(d) comes in.
I'm fortunate to work for an airline that has a diversion rate that's a small fraction of what AAL's is, and our management doesn't MICRO-manage us, and trusts our judgement. If a PIC doesn't like my fuel load, they call, we discuss it, and come to a new mutual agreement. Sometimes it's more; sometimes they go with the original. Most crews are unaware of all the tools available within a dispatch office (since they almost never visit or sit-in), and once aware, they often agree with the original. If not, "the biggest chicken wins" and we go with the more conservation approach. That has limits, of course--if someone wants an alternate and a gazillion pounds of gas that's going to whack payload, we're going to have to "chat", but that's a rarity.
In the linked article, someone from AAL mentions how many minute's worth of fuel aircraft were arriving with. Funny how they don't mention if some of those flights were ones with alternates (and fuel to reach it) that just had the good fortune to not need to divert. That kind of BS can skew the figures, and it can ignore the reality that the fuel was loaded to mitigate the operational threats that sometimes necessitate diversions.
To be fair, it's not all that difficult to see how AAL got themselves into this mess. In a nutshell, they may have had a sweetheart deal for all those MD-80s back in the early 1980s, but they apparently overlooked the fact that the new airframe was powered by the latest variants of the the JT8D--a basic engine design that first saw service nearly 20 years earlier. It shouldn't have come as a surprise that the high-bypass engines on 747s, A300s, 767s, and 757s would eventually be scaled-down and appear elsewhere, the 737-300/-400/-500 being the obvious examples. If AAL had limited their MD-80 buy, and not hitched their wagon to what became (with rising Jet-A prices) such an economically obsolete engine, well, one wonders how much $$$ they would have saved in the last 25-30 years, not to mention today. That's certainly not the total reason for the mess they're in today cost-wise, but you can't help but wonder.
In no event does it justify the nitnoid fuel policies they appear to have. The PICs and dispatchers there already have the regulatory basis and ability to tell the purveyors of their goofy policies to go pound sand, but why they don't is another matter entirely.
Anyone notice that other U.S. Part 121 airlines don't seem to have the problem(s) that AAL does? I don't think it's as much a safety issue (true, it can be, in some cases), but I think it's more of a schedule reliability issue. Looking at their diversion rate (mentioned in the linked article), it's just about double of anybody else.
>>>An airline feud over how much to fuel - chicagotribune.com
>>>I have to agree with this guy's analysis:
As someone who plans fuel loads all the live long day, I must chime-in here and most respectfully disagree. To me, the academic fellow's comments are the ones actually disturbing because they mirror the fundamental FAR misinterpretations that he as well as the airline itself are operating under--that latter aspect being even more disturbing. [My usual disclaimer: We're discussing a U.S. FAR 121 domestic/flag ruleset here.] [My emphasis.]
First off, one can't have a company policy that's contrary to FARs. If the "analysts" are in essence "planning" fuel loads via historical data, the FARs are still the FARs, and thus controlling. When confronted with the question of whether to comply with a company policy or the FARs, complying with the FARs is always the smart play for any licensed airmen (and in the US, dispatchers are indeed licensed airmen.)
§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.
(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.
(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—
(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;
(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and
(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.
(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.
(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.
Under 121.533(b), as well as the similarly-worded 121.535(b) for Flag Ops, fuel load planning is something both dispatchers and PICs are jointly responsible for, since it's something that's quite obviously in the "pre-flight" phase. Normally, the dispatcher has all the planning done and the signed (his/hers) dispatch release transmitted to the local station ops, where the PIC gets it. If the PIC disagrees with the fuel amount, they shouldn't sign the dispatch release since doing so constitutes their legal agreement that the flight can be conducted safely, as originally planned. (I love the media coverage of this point, i.e. pilots are being "forced" to fly yada, yada, yada. Nobody's holding a Glock to anyone's head to sign--if you don't agree, don't sign, and call your dispatcher..)
Yes, I know their management sent a 5/24 memo mentioning to go with the dispatcher's fuel loads. That's BS too, as it's also contrary to 121.533(b) and 121.535(b).
The FARs on fuel planning are actually pretty simple. FAR 121.639 is essentially fuel A-B, and alternate (if required), and then the :45 minute reserve.
§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
The various aspects below (especially (b) and (d)) offer the dispatcher and PIC a wide lattitude for planning. Again, these FARs don't mention anything about an airline's "analysts" being involved in the fuel planning--that's strictly the purview of the dispatcher and PIC.
§ 121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:
(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.
(b) Anticipated traffic delays.
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.
All dispatchers want to minimize the weight of the aircraft as far as fuel is concerned, and for the obvious economic savings. That said, any dispatcher worth their salt doesn't like to see diversions, since they're a major PITA for a variety of reasons. It basically comes down to operational threat assessment. Dispatchers watch airports all throughout their shift, and they know where the problems are, what the AARs are, and (via ATC's FSM), they also know when the peaks and valleys of actual airport demand are. Even with those items, there's sill the unknown, and that's again where 121.647(d) comes in.
I'm fortunate to work for an airline that has a diversion rate that's a small fraction of what AAL's is, and our management doesn't MICRO-manage us, and trusts our judgement. If a PIC doesn't like my fuel load, they call, we discuss it, and come to a new mutual agreement. Sometimes it's more; sometimes they go with the original. Most crews are unaware of all the tools available within a dispatch office (since they almost never visit or sit-in), and once aware, they often agree with the original. If not, "the biggest chicken wins" and we go with the more conservation approach. That has limits, of course--if someone wants an alternate and a gazillion pounds of gas that's going to whack payload, we're going to have to "chat", but that's a rarity.
In the linked article, someone from AAL mentions how many minute's worth of fuel aircraft were arriving with. Funny how they don't mention if some of those flights were ones with alternates (and fuel to reach it) that just had the good fortune to not need to divert. That kind of BS can skew the figures, and it can ignore the reality that the fuel was loaded to mitigate the operational threats that sometimes necessitate diversions.
To be fair, it's not all that difficult to see how AAL got themselves into this mess. In a nutshell, they may have had a sweetheart deal for all those MD-80s back in the early 1980s, but they apparently overlooked the fact that the new airframe was powered by the latest variants of the the JT8D--a basic engine design that first saw service nearly 20 years earlier. It shouldn't have come as a surprise that the high-bypass engines on 747s, A300s, 767s, and 757s would eventually be scaled-down and appear elsewhere, the 737-300/-400/-500 being the obvious examples. If AAL had limited their MD-80 buy, and not hitched their wagon to what became (with rising Jet-A prices) such an economically obsolete engine, well, one wonders how much $$$ they would have saved in the last 25-30 years, not to mention today. That's certainly not the total reason for the mess they're in today cost-wise, but you can't help but wonder.
In no event does it justify the nitnoid fuel policies they appear to have. The PICs and dispatchers there already have the regulatory basis and ability to tell the purveyors of their goofy policies to go pound sand, but why they don't is another matter entirely.
Anyone notice that other U.S. Part 121 airlines don't seem to have the problem(s) that AAL does? I don't think it's as much a safety issue (true, it can be, in some cases), but I think it's more of a schedule reliability issue. Looking at their diversion rate (mentioned in the linked article), it's just about double of anybody else.
Last edited by SeniorDispatcher; 18th Jul 2010 at 17:12.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise abatement, what a crock. "Hello? Mayor's office? Yes, I just moved next to a large international airport and all I hear is airplane noise. It's very loud. Why did I move next to a large airport? Well, the house was cheap...." What's next??? Shutting down highways due to road noise? No more emergency vehicles as they are too loud? A couple years back, my company was fined by the Toronto airport or TC for taking off at 5:58 am after being cleared for T/O as their noise abatement procedure doesn't allow for departures before 6 am. Really....
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when in the course of human events it becomes neccesary to land into the wind, we will declare an emergency preserving the inanelienable WRIGHTS (;-) ) of headwind, control, and the pursuit of flight attendants.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Independence day is an example of taking control of your own people and doing what is best for them. Sometimes you have to do that in your airplane too. Happy 4th of July to all on this side of the pond.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mayday,mayday,mayday
just watching the movie, "zero hour'' (used as the basis for ''airplane''). I want all you ''mayday'' fans out there to know that the brave canadian captain didn't use mayday to let people know things were bad.
but Dana Andrews (Ted Stryker) used Mayday, three times, just like you guys were making a big fuss about.
happy, pappy?
but Dana Andrews (Ted Stryker) used Mayday, three times, just like you guys were making a big fuss about.
happy, pappy?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone notice that other U.S. Part 121 airlines don't seem to have the problem(s) that AAL does? I don't think it's as much a safety issue (true, it can be, in some cases), but I think it's more of a schedule reliability issue. Looking at their diversion rate (mentioned in the linked article), it's just about double of anybody else.
For the Captains, anyway, when faced with written reports and "counseling" for requesting additional fuel, it's just easier to accept the fuel load and if ATC says "Holding" the Captain says "Divert."
