AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...yet another one who piles on and doesn't know of which you speak.
There are exceptions to ICAO, and although Mayday is recognised elsewhere, EMERGENCY works far better in the USA.
Some folks whom have not actually flown to the USA would therefore be sadly uninformed.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll add a third to the motion. And I think we can add Canada to the USA in this regard - not sure about the absolute wording of the regs but "Declaring an Emergency" is the norm here. In over 40 years I never heard "Mayday" and only a very few "Pans" but plenty of "Declarings".
It has always amused me that the UK produces the most R/T Police (Nigel comes to mind) yet it has numerous weird deviations from normal R/T that the rest of the world is expected to follow - FL One Hundred comes to mind.
It has always amused me that the UK produces the most R/T Police (Nigel comes to mind) yet it has numerous weird deviations from normal R/T that the rest of the world is expected to follow - FL One Hundred comes to mind.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For our friends across the pond, it is different in North America.
At the Airline that pays my rent, we teach "Mayday" for consistency, to accomodate the Overseas Operations.
But...as has been stated many times; "Declaring an Emergency" is perfectly O/K on our little Continent.
At the Airline that pays my rent, we teach "Mayday" for consistency, to accomodate the Overseas Operations.
But...as has been stated many times; "Declaring an Emergency" is perfectly O/K on our little Continent.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we need all these posts?? We can argue forever, but I would hope ATC in the US would recognize both mayday and declaring emergency, the same way I would recognize "declaring emergency" even if it's not in my book here...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ireland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well mr 411 and idle hands, good posts but in fact i do hold an faa atp, cfi,cfii,mei, and lived and worked in the us for 10 years based in kteb and think the aviation system is great over there. I can understand your resentment of the radio police in europe and i would not consider myself one of them. As i said the usa as im sure you know has signed up to icao and most of their procedures and if the usa has differences it must file it with icao and publish them .Auctually i could count on one hand all the times icao was mentioned during my study of the atp gliem manual. you can have all the local procedures you like but if this incident had been an accident the crew would have a very serious finding against them . yes we all know what saying on the radio im declareing an emergency means thats fine in english speaking countrys but take that to other places not so hot on english (and they are there ) and you have a big problem . My point is the pilot snapped at the controller " Ive told you 3 times " well if he done it right the first time the controller would have been in no doubt .Well thats my two cents worth and wont make a differnce
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but this is the observational garbage that baffles me. He (AA captain) was perfectly fine until gusting winds made a landing outside of limits. Now had he pressed on and an incident occurred he would have been in a position where he had clearly busted SOP's. He requests what he needs (in effect a PAN PAN PAN) with the caveat that circumstances will require him to declare an emergency if he does not get an immediate positive confirmation. When that is not given he declares an emergency and states his intentions in a timely manner.
Here is my question phrased in the context of my understanding. If he continues as requested while waiting for some type of approval what are the logistics involved with regard to rerouting traffic once he crosses beyond a certain point?
Given his fuel state and the tremendous congestion (both at primary and alternates) what benefit does he gain by hesitating here vs initiating a perfectly safe and timely "correction" that doesn't force wholesale disruption of traffic?
Assuming he waited in the Que and was near minimum (as everything here seems to indicate) then the moment the wind went over his limits he was left with limited options...the best of which is exactly what he did.
I certainly know who I'd prefer to have in the pointy end
Here is my question phrased in the context of my understanding. If he continues as requested while waiting for some type of approval what are the logistics involved with regard to rerouting traffic once he crosses beyond a certain point?
Given his fuel state and the tremendous congestion (both at primary and alternates) what benefit does he gain by hesitating here vs initiating a perfectly safe and timely "correction" that doesn't force wholesale disruption of traffic?
Assuming he waited in the Que and was near minimum (as everything here seems to indicate) then the moment the wind went over his limits he was left with limited options...the best of which is exactly what he did.
I certainly know who I'd prefer to have in the pointy end
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugilistic Animus
Pilots submitted written report in accordance with company procedures after using his emergency authority. Report accepted, pilot flying. case closed.
Said Pilots not looking to make a big deal out of it. Same thing for all the controllers... Life goes on. Everyone did what they needed to do, aircraft is still useable, people weren't hurt, what more need be said?
Airport authorities will continue to ignore safety in the interest of noise... The beat goes on...
Cheers
Wino
Pilots submitted written report in accordance with company procedures after using his emergency authority. Report accepted, pilot flying. case closed.
Said Pilots not looking to make a big deal out of it. Same thing for all the controllers... Life goes on. Everyone did what they needed to do, aircraft is still useable, people weren't hurt, what more need be said?
Airport authorities will continue to ignore safety in the interest of noise... The beat goes on...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 pages of posturing from pilots who weren't there! No wonder management thinks we are overpaid prima donnas.
Thanks Wino for some clarity on the opinion of those who were involved.
Thanks Wino for some clarity on the opinion of those who were involved.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport authorities will continue to ignore safety in the interest of noise... The beat goes on...
Life does indeed go on.
17 pages of posturing from pilots who weren't there! No wonder management thinks we are overpaid prima donnas.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A:
Oh, yeah, in the old "water wagon." 
My understanding is that JFK's configuration is more often influenced by coordination with LGA and EWR traffic.
And, on the day of the incident that created this thread, ATC was trying to maintain capacity with Runway 31L closed.
So very true, from the days of the thrust cutbacks at 800aal in the 707 (been there, done that) until today...and it ain't gonna change.
Life does indeed go on.
Life does indeed go on.
My understanding is that JFK's configuration is more often influenced by coordination with LGA and EWR traffic.
And, on the day of the incident that created this thread, ATC was trying to maintain capacity with Runway 31L closed.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
a quote from the JFK atis...
"In the Interest of Noise abatement, please use assigned runway."
They keep JFK pretty quarantined down there on the south shore of Long Island, and its use of runways does not particularly effect the other airports, atleast to the degree that EWR and LGA effect TEB.
I know there is a JFK controller here on the thread, and please let him correct me, but I believe JFK is the one airport in the NYC area that can switch runways without effecting the other 3 major airports....
JFK has a lot of flexibility that way because of a couple of 1000 square miles of ocean directly south of it before the Watrs area starts. The only downside is that while they carryout the swap, they have to stop their own departures and arrivals for about 10 minutes or so to get everything squared away...(That will create a hold at Camrn or CCC while they realign, and then a backlog that will take a while to work out)
JFK controllers have had more trouble with the NY Daily News than anything else including the runway closure. A few months before the runway closure there was a near miss (not so near, but don't let that effect the coverage of the story) caused by a go around while using crossing runways. That had lead to a knee jerk FAA/ATC management decision increasing spacing of departures and arrivals when landing one way and taking of the other (IE depart on the 13s, and landing on the 22s) that created some REALLY impressive departure delays at JFK for a while. Those of you who operate in and out of JFK can remember those days from a year ago or so...
Cheers
Wino
a quote from the JFK atis...
"In the Interest of Noise abatement, please use assigned runway."
They keep JFK pretty quarantined down there on the south shore of Long Island, and its use of runways does not particularly effect the other airports, atleast to the degree that EWR and LGA effect TEB.
I know there is a JFK controller here on the thread, and please let him correct me, but I believe JFK is the one airport in the NYC area that can switch runways without effecting the other 3 major airports....
JFK has a lot of flexibility that way because of a couple of 1000 square miles of ocean directly south of it before the Watrs area starts. The only downside is that while they carryout the swap, they have to stop their own departures and arrivals for about 10 minutes or so to get everything squared away...(That will create a hold at Camrn or CCC while they realign, and then a backlog that will take a while to work out)
JFK controllers have had more trouble with the NY Daily News than anything else including the runway closure. A few months before the runway closure there was a near miss (not so near, but don't let that effect the coverage of the story) caused by a go around while using crossing runways. That had lead to a knee jerk FAA/ATC management decision increasing spacing of departures and arrivals when landing one way and taking of the other (IE depart on the 13s, and landing on the 22s) that created some REALLY impressive departure delays at JFK for a while. Those of you who operate in and out of JFK can remember those days from a year ago or so...
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino:
The Canarsie VOR/13L/R does not conflict with LGA. The 13L ILS does if LGA is using 4. I believe LGA has to go to 13 when JFK has to use the 13L ILS.
As to that noise abatement stuff on the ATIS, that was on there in 1964.
When we had the really noisy airplanes, the most severe noise reduction procedure was departing 13R with a right turn over the populated area near the beach.
The controller you refer to would have to comment about 22 operations, but I believe those, too, can conflict with LGA.
And, I did say "more often" in my previous message, which I intended to imply that noise can be a factor, too. Just operating that airport creates a noise problem.
I know there is a JFK controller here on the thread, and please let him correct me, but I believe JFK is the one airport in the NYC area that can switch runways without effecting the other 3 major airports....
As to that noise abatement stuff on the ATIS, that was on there in 1964.
When we had the really noisy airplanes, the most severe noise reduction procedure was departing 13R with a right turn over the populated area near the beach.
The controller you refer to would have to comment about 22 operations, but I believe those, too, can conflict with LGA.
And, I did say "more often" in my previous message, which I intended to imply that noise can be a factor, too. Just operating that airport creates a noise problem.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right about the ILS to the 13s... Which is why in 20 years operating out of that airport I have never shot an ILS in that direction...
Certain 22 approaches might conflict as well, hence the common use of VOR approaches, which take the final approach course off of the direct runway heading. Of course, it is quite possible that the choice of the VORs might ALSO have to do with noise rather than conflict or safety, it only takes one well connected person who to move the airplanes it seams these days.
Unless they have owned the house for 50 years or more, I am not sympathetic however.
Cheers
Wino
Certain 22 approaches might conflict as well, hence the common use of VOR approaches, which take the final approach course off of the direct runway heading. Of course, it is quite possible that the choice of the VORs might ALSO have to do with noise rather than conflict or safety, it only takes one well connected person who to move the airplanes it seams these days.
Unless they have owned the house for 50 years or more, I am not sympathetic however.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVERY runway decision in NY is based on capacity, the thought of noise abatement is only ever considered on the midnight shift. The JFK atis statement about noise abatement I believe originated in the 60's and is an effort to persuade ac not to request non-standard ruways due to the impact on the operation.
JFK runway decisions almost always impact LGA. The impact may only have an affect LGA climbs but they are impacted. Nobody has enjoyed this thread more than me because I was there when it happened.
JFK runway decisions almost always impact LGA. The impact may only have an affect LGA climbs but they are impacted. Nobody has enjoyed this thread more than me because I was there when it happened.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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:
An airline feud over how much to fuel - chicagotribune.com
I have to agree with this guy's analysis:
Aeronautics professor Les Westbrooks said the situation at American is troubling because it signals a further chipping away of the captain's authority, while the captain's responsibility for the safety of everyone on board hasn't changed.
"Everybody wants to tell the captain what to do, but if something goes wrong, it will be the captain who will lose his or her license," said Westbrooks, a retired Air Force and airline pilot who is an associate professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
He disagreed with American's assessment regarding reserve fuel. "Reserve fuel should not be touched," he said. "It is there for reserve."
"Everybody wants to tell the captain what to do, but if something goes wrong, it will be the captain who will lose his or her license," said Westbrooks, a retired Air Force and airline pilot who is an associate professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
He disagreed with American's assessment regarding reserve fuel. "Reserve fuel should not be touched," he said. "It is there for reserve."
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In the sun
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a retired controller I am maybe not up to date wih terminology, so this may be a daft question.
An earlier poster says NY has 200 flights a day arriving from over the pond on min fuel, but, if a pilot says he is on "min fuel" what does he/she mean?
In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.
If flights are arrving at JFK and declaring min fuel then they either have more fuel than they are indicating, so are not really in an emergency situation, or should have diverted earlier. Sometimes one just gets a feeling pilots are declaring min fuel just so they can get to the gate earlier.
It might be useful if everyone was talking about the same thing when talking about min fuel so that the appropriate level of urgency can be applied to the situation.
ps I'm not saying all pilots do this, but I am sure a handful do.
An earlier poster says NY has 200 flights a day arriving from over the pond on min fuel, but, if a pilot says he is on "min fuel" what does he/she mean?
In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.
If flights are arrving at JFK and declaring min fuel then they either have more fuel than they are indicating, so are not really in an emergency situation, or should have diverted earlier. Sometimes one just gets a feeling pilots are declaring min fuel just so they can get to the gate earlier.
It might be useful if everyone was talking about the same thing when talking about min fuel so that the appropriate level of urgency can be applied to the situation.
ps I'm not saying all pilots do this, but I am sure a handful do.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.
Those good ol days of carrying 30 minutes extra at destination has gone, like Concorde, never to be seen again.
Fuel is calculated from A to B (no extra) then to Alternate C and 30 minutes. This last thirty minutes is what must be remaining in the tanks upon landing and is not considered to hold for 30 minutes at alternate at all. Landing anywhere with less than this in tanks is an emergency in itself.
There is a 3% contingency between A and B and can be considered used for weather and inefficient levels, so it does not mean you may have it on arrival at B, as much as you try to protect it.
At times, on arrival at an airport with two independent runways, the alternate may be dropped completely and the alternate is now the 2nd runway at destination airport. This allows a little extra time at destination, but certain parameters must prevail with weather, delays and conditions. The theory is, why divert away to a single runway alternate from a massive airport, with many runways, only to be on final approach once again with 30 minutes in the tanks remaining, and a low cost carriers busy airport. It would be better to remain at JFK, LHR, and have a second or third attempt and land with more fuel at times than a diversion flight.
I say again, this requires certain conditions and is not fully reliable until within one hour of destination or top descent, due delays, WIP, weather types of approach in use.... etc... and ATC informed.
Consider this, someone else diverting from La Guardia to JFK and landing with 30 minutes in tanks, is in the same scenario as this B767. Min fuel and wind that now exceeds his limitations even by a knot. No go-around fuel at alternate is planned. This was the plan instigated by this captain, which would make it legal for him to land, within limits of wind and fuel at such short notice.
Last edited by Jetjock330; 1st Jul 2010 at 13:11.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my days it was a requirement to have enough fuel to get to destination, hold for 30 minutes, then fly to a diversion airfield and be able to hold there for 30 minutes there as well.
If flights are arrving at JFK and declaring min fuel then they either have more fuel than they are indicating, so are not really in an emergency situation, or should have diverted earlier.
Sometimes one just gets a feeling pilots are declaring min fuel just so they can get to the gate earlier.
It simply does not happen. Call me naive, but I don't believe it happens.