|
Dangerous landing at JFK Airport | Video | 7online.com
The ac's first transmission after being told the crosswind was too high was "we cannot accept 22 if we do not get 31r we are GOING to declare an emergency" The plan was to bring the ac overhead the airport and vector him for an ils to ry 31r. The time spent bringing the ac overhead was not thought to be an issue because at NO time prior the ac's declaration of need for 31r was there any mention of fuel issues. The above link is the local news story of the event. Please remember that atco's in NY DO NOT make rwy selection decisions!! All runway selection decisions in NY are made by FAA management in very close coordination with the AIRLINES. (The users make every decision about runway selection!!) It is all about capacity. Controllers vector where they are told to vector. |
Seems we dont know all of the story... I agree the pilot sounds stressed but just what was going on in the cockpit? If he had screwd up on his fuel calcs then that is bad and he deserves disciplinary action, if he had an emergency which has not been made public then perhaps that mitigates him. However if it was just a case of he spat his dummy (pacifier) out of the pram because he could not have his choice of runway for a routine landing he deserves sacking and not employing again.
Seems like very poor communication from the pilot to ATC... why did he (the pilot) not tell them the nature of his emergency? Surely that helps an appropriate response or is the ATC supposed to be gazing at a crystal ball along with watching the aircrafts progress on the radar screen |
From FAR AIM Chap 6 - That's an American regulation by the way!
Section 3. Distress and Urgency Procedures 6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above. b. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications. c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition. d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions. |
You can bandy about ICAO regs and RT standards and poor shows all round, however, what is the point of even posting this?
All I've read is drivel about "how great I am when I fly into JFK...", "this is not how it should be done...." and the gut-wrenching comment from protectthehornet about pilots showing ATCOs who is boss..... (sir, you may have a well respected career as a pilot but get over yourself) [I will wait with baited breath for your sidekick P51guy to show up] Apart from a very short mp3 and some website that shows "live" traffic, no one has a notion about what really happened here. Give it a rest! |
Too many times I have seen pilots bought up in airlines unwilling to state their case with sufficient force to ATC to achieve a safe solution. This Captain did the right thing - when it gets to the point where you have to direct the course of action, then you do so - and simply tell ATC what you are doing (not following or waiting for vectors.).
This flight DIDN'T end up the same way as Avianca Flight 52 - and that, at least, is something to be applauded.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
On January 25, 1990, Avianca Flight 52 had been in a holding pattern over New York for over one hour due to fog limiting arrivals and departures into John F. Kennedy International Airport. During this hold, the aircraft was exhausting its reserve fuel supply, which would have allowed it to divert to its alternate, Boston, in case of an emergency or situation such as this one.
Seventy-seven minutes after entering the hold, New York Air Traffic Control asked the crew how long they could continue to hold, to which the first officer replied “...about five minutes.” The First Officer then stated that their alternate was Boston, but since they had been holding for so long they would not be able to make it anymore; the controller then cleared the aircraft for an approach to runway 22L. As Flight 52 flew the ILS approach, they encountered wind shear at an altitude of less than 500 feet (150 m) and the plane descended below the glideslope, almost crashing into the ground short of the runway. As a result, a missed approach was initiated. Air traffic controllers had informed the flight of wind shear at 1,500 feet (460 m). At this point, the plane did not have enough fuel for another approach. The crew alerted the controller that they were low on fuel and in a subsequent transmission stated “We’re running out of fuel, sir.” The controller asked the crew to climb to which the first officer replied “No, sir, we’re running out of fuel.” Moments later, the number four engine flamed out, shortly followed by the other three. With the aircraft's main source of electrical power, its generators, now gone and with only battery power remaining, automatic load shedding would have caused many non-essential electrical systems to lose power and the cabin would have been plunged into darkness. Within seconds, the aircraft had lost thrust from its 4 engines, causing it to plunge into the small village of Cove Neck on northern Long Island, in Oyster Bay; 15 miles (24 km) from the airport. |
This flight DIDN'T end up the same way as Avianca Flight 52 - and that, at least, is something to be applauded. Long nigth, ****ty weather and they kept requesting "Priority" due to low fuel. Then after holding for a very long time they got cleared for the approach on the fumes, got off the localizer/glide slope as they had no flight director or autopilot, then had to execute a go-around and flamed out and crashed on downwind. We were the last aircraft to land that evening, the airport closed when we touched down. |
JFK ATC
Jfk atc need to get over them selves.
Inbound JFK after 14hrs. "enter the hold". "For how long I ask". Twenty minutes is the reply. " No problem" I say. I have ten minutes holding fuel then I am off to La Guardia.. "HOLD" . Ok, I got it the first time, just letting you know where I stand. Eight minutes and inbound....... Just checking, any improvement??? Loudly: HOLD. " Ok, Diverting to La Guardia." Errrrr... Ummmmm... #@$#@ You are cleared for the app, fly heading 250, etc. And the Speed bird behind me had the same thing. Either they can accept you, or they cant, why play games?? I did not declare low fuel or anything else. All of a sudden, they can accept me?? Please, they need to plan better. And dont get me started on Ramp Control. See you all tomorrow, Sir O |
atc took way too long and sometimes you have to remind atc who the boss is. It's hard to judge without seeing and hearing the entire communication between the controller and AA crew, but as other posts have alluded to the AA crew's actions were less than professional. Stating that they're turning contrary to the controller's instructions is very dangerous. In my opinion they should have given the controller chance to vector them for 31R. |
By definition ATC are in charge. The buck stops with P1. |
Only until the commander decides to use his authority to override them. The buck stops with P1. |
I agree that responsibility for the safety of the aircraft rests with the Captain, but if s/he disregards ATC, then they have to answer and justify their actions to the authorities. |
Could you put up with a question from an SLF member:
Is the 767 in any way unusual in terms of the maximum crosswind component that is considered safe...or was there a whole queue of planes with a similar problem and this was just the first crew to make a fuss? Bob |
By definition ATC are in charge. It's Air Traffic CONTROL ATC is certainly doing an important job, but they are not managing the jet, only keeping hard objects out of the way.. |
Is the 767 in any way unusual in terms of the maximum crosswind component that is considered safe... |
Nice analysis with a shoutout to PPRuNe today on Paul Bertorelli's AVweb blog:
After the emergency was declared, the controller evidently thought it was a “gentleman’s” emergency in which he would be allowed to vector the airplane back around for 31R in a more less orderly fashion. The Captain, on the other hand, clearly understood that under emergency authority, he could do what he needed to and seemed to inform the surprised sounding controller of his maneuvering plan. He told ATC—he didn’t ask, he told ATC—to clear the runway. American Flight 2 was landing on it. This is about as compelling an example of execution of command authority as you are likely to hear. Any of the AA Skygods:) know what crosswind limits are in your manuals for a B-762? |
A T Control
Heard once after a request for a deviation (in either direction) for thunderstorm avoidance had been denied.
"Say XXXXXX Centre, tell me, Am I up here 'cos you're down there-or are you down there because I'm........" The response was a deviation approval. S |
From FAR AIM Chap 6 - That's an American regulation by the way! This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications. |
Is the 767 in any way unusual in terms of the maximum crosswind component that is considered safe...or was there a whole queue of planes with a similar problem and this was just the first crew to make a fuss? In addition, eye balling a visual without G/S on 22L (from the tape) or possibly without PAPI lights, an extra couple of feet high over threshold adds a lot of extra meters at the very end which might not be there if they screw up the visual with strong crosswind and tail wind component. The landing was safe in the end, good for the commander if he deemed this was required. But now he is on the ground, he is paid well for providing the answers to his actions as the captain/commander. |
The focus on the unsuitability of runway 22L is on the crosswind for obvious reasons, but could the tail wind component have been a factor in the decision? Perhaps an aircraft problem that made that runway with that wind limiting (u/s antiskid, spoilers, something else?)
|
Think the pilot needs to learn to count too....
''I've told you 3 times I'm declaring an emergency''.........from what I heard he told the controller ONCE that he would have to declare an emergency IF he didn't get 31 and then he did declare when told to fly a heading......So he only declared once even though he was NEVER told he wouldn't get 31. Unprofessional, dangerous and with complete disregard for the safety of others in the vicinity...should have the book thrown at him...... I understand the pilots responsibily for his craft and all on board but I can't believe any professional pilot could condone the manner in which he reacted without even giving atc the chance to give himwhat he wanted.... |
It's not just the controllers at JFK. Overall US Air Traffic Controllers are some of the best in the world* in my humble opinion, but, there is the occasional exceptions.
In the US, has others have pointed out here, pilots tend not to use the word 'Mayday', why I've not a clue. Instead we say "I/We are declaring an emergency." Ninety nine percent of the time that will suffice, however, there is on occasion a controller that when hearing the words "Declaring an Emergency." just does not register the seriousness of the situation. Once I had a rapid decompression in a 727 while at cruise at FL350. I was in the left seat, PF, when the duct blew out. The first indication was the immediate pressure change that you feel in the your ears. The co-pilot and FE handled the checklist while I flew the aircraft and handled the radio. When it almost immediately became evident that we could not control the cabin I 'declared an emergency' and informed ATC that we had lost pressurization and that we were descending to 10,000 feet. The controller came right back and said, "Standby and maintain FL350." I didn't respond but just kept descending, I figured he would see the altitude readout start changing and realize that I was not going to "Maintain FL350." I don't know if he ever did figure this out, but the supervisor did and took over. That was the last time I used the term 'Declaring an emergency.', from then on I used 'Mayday', that always worked much better. * London has some really fine controllers as well, I really enjoy working with London Controllers after a few months flying in Asia and the Middle East. |
Alwaysmovin
I'm not taking sides here, but the tape is edited and we don't know what we didn't hear. He may or may not have declared three times. |
What a moronic attitude to take. By definition ATC are in charge. It's Air Traffic CONTROL, not Air Traffic Do-what-you-like-and-we'll-just-watch-you.
ATC is a service. There is only one person "In Charge," and that is the Captain. "Mayday (x3,) I'm doing a visual and landing on the Taxiway" If that is what it takes to get the Aircraft safely on the ground. |
Any of the AA Skygods know what crosswind limits are in your manuals for a B-762? (The Skygod sub-title on my moniker is not AA induced, but rather from some moron I argued with 10 years ago over the Gulf Air A-320 crash. I said if they had not learned to fly basic instruments after 2000 hours, they should find something else to do for a living. The moron came back and asked if I thought I was SkyGod or what...? Name stuck, he was right..:cool: ) |
One thing is clear; the huge gap between what the respective roles are!
Yes, the captain is responsible for getting his a/c on the ground safely. ATC are responsible for getting all the a/c on the ground safely. If the captain was having real fuel issues, and really did need to get on the ground immediately, how did he communicate that so that ATC could assist him in that endeavor (instead of taking over separation/sequencing responsibilities from the controller)? It just sounds like a dummy spit, pure and simple. As I said, the buck stops with P1 - both in terms of authority and accountability. ps. how would you feel if you were one of the commanders of the other a/c buggered around (and there would've been more than the 3 mentioned) to facilitate this "emergency"? You would really hope the guy was on vapour and just hadn't told anyone, right? |
Seems like there might have been a bit of frustration level by the AA crew, would "RWY 31 is required for operational necessity" be a better way to go? The captain got the job accomplished, but may be in for tea and biscuits.
Cheers, DL |
Cpt is always the one who decides, but in this case most probably ATC will have filed a report and both have to come with a good explanation. In about a year we'll know more (if not forgotten).
|
"Mayday (x3,) I'm doing a visual and landing on the Taxiway" If that is what it takes to get the Aircraft safely on the ground. The FARs state that "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency." Note: to the extent required to meet that emergency. That forces the conclusion that the executed option was indeed required, and that forces the question: how the hell did the crew get themselves into that corner (where that's your only out) in the first place? The above regulation is not a free-for-all-do-as-you-please simply by using the word "emergency". The way I see it, it is needed to protect the crew from litigation when doing "the right thing". |
What and Why this happened
In order to understand what happened in the jfk incident, I offer this:
In 1978, the airline industry was deregulated...people said , "HOORAY" the price will come down. And they did. But additional runways were not built. And then in 1982(I think), ATC went on strike. Yes, strike. And President Reagan fired the controllers. (you in the 727 decompression, I wonder what year that was). And ATC hasn't been the same since...it has never caught up with this decision. I remember being cleared for a route through a restricted area...all legal...and halfway into the restricted area I was told that I shouldn't be there. I reminded them that they were the controlling authority and THEY HAD CLEARED me for what I was doing. Silence. Now, what does deregulation, and the controller's strike have to do with the JFK incident? With deregulation, scheduling of flights at airports went NUTS...over do it to the max. Cost controls became imperitive...and what can we do about that...carry less fuel...it saves money. Divert if you have to. So, why didn't American Divert? LGA, EWR, all nearby...but it takes half an hour of low altitude vectoring to go from JFK to EWR...though the straight line distance is about 30 miles or less. So, there is our American pilot. He has fuel, but he knows how screwed up things really are. He declared the emergency ( and please you brits, don't get me started about MAYDAY) and told THEM what he was going to do. Fine. He now has to explain...fine...he knew he would have to do that. ATC factors include this: It use to be ( or is it USED to be) that controllers had pilot licenses too...but they don't anymore (not that it was a requirement, but it just showed that you knew something about airplanes). So, the controllers, which still aren't as good as the ones prior to the strike didn't know what THEIR job was...it was to get everyone else out of the way while American did what they wanted to. And that's the name of that tune. |
FARRELL
Keep pushing buttons and watch the machine do your job for you. |
Ahh, protectthehornet, you are assuming the pilot was out of fuel and out of options.
At what point, exactly, was this made apparent to the controller? The pilot tells the controller that he needs 31 due to the crosswind. It sounds like he knows how things work, and that someone has to force a runway change (did you read earlier in the thread where the controllers have nothing whatsoever to do with runway configurations- that's between the management and the airlines :rolleyes: ). Forcing the runway change is one thing, but forcing his way onto being number 1 in the sequence is entirely different. Like I said, you really hope he is that low on fuel, but just didn't tell anyone. And if he got to that point- why? |
@final 3 greens...
Fair point and actually I did want to say it was based on what we heard... I hope there is more and it is indeed cut..... otherwise it scares me that someone like that is allowed to have that sort of responsibility |
A while back, I got worried about the fuel state while over water, flying at 11,000 as was my custom. Centre noticed, gently reminded me I was off track, did I have a problem? Well yes, I replied, I'm wondering if I have enough fuel.....
In an eager tone, the controller came right back - "Would you like to declare an emergency, Ma'am?" (This was in the USA Deep South, they had time for the niceities). "Not at this time," I replied. "Well, Ma'am, would you like to divert to the nearest airport?" I agreed that might be a good idea. "Roger that, Cessna 24539, suggest I vector you to Tallahassee. Descend to 3,500 feet." "Negative, Sir" I came back. "If I'm going to become a glider, I'd like to stay as high as possible as long as possible!" "Yes Ma'am. We have cleared your track from eleven thousand feet down to the ground. Please advise when you have the airfield in sight!" And they held my hand all the way down to the ground, and emergency vehicles met me and escorted the Cessna to the fuel pumps, and after filling the tanks I realised that the gauges had been lying all along. In 20 years of filing and flying the plan in the US, ATC has always been there for me....thanks, guys. |
yeah the "extent required" part of 91.3 can bite you
that's why it's there :} |
ferris
I thought I read in this forum that he had six thousand five hundred pounds on landing. I can imagine that he was watching the wind and runway business prior to contacting approach control and had advised people all the way along that he needed a certain runway...but someone had dropped the ball (as is want to happen) along the way. |
All runway selection decisions in NY are made by FAA management in very close coordination with the AIRLINES. (The users make every decision about runway selection!!) It is all about capacity. Controllers vector where they are told to vector. I have seen this happen so many times flying to the US, especially ORD. You get told to use one RWY, you object, ask for something different. Then ATC threatens you with 30 min holding. You agree to hold in the interest of safety, and after flying a vector for 5 min you get what you wanted! Just voice it aloud on the airwaves, so it is on the tape. There will be no excuses. And someone further up the thread mentioned ground control. Be it JFK or ORD, but how can one create so much unnecessary stress for everyone around? Nic |
Admiral 346
You are quite right regarding the way to get what you want. IF all pilots would do what you suggest, we would all be better off. ORD is especially bad as it impacts Midway airport, and Midway is a marginal airport as is. I applaud your post and what you did. |
Perhaps this needs to be made perfectly clear for you, protectthehronet, and would explain why you will never progress beyond the flight deck). How much the captain had in the tanks when he landed is irrelevant. Is that perfectly clear? IRRELEVANT. If the pilot had made perfectly clear what he wanted, in the case of the landing aircraft who was told to maintain 2000 and break off the approach, what that pilot wanted was to continue the approach and land. In the case of the departing a/c, it was to line up and depart (instead of follow a complex set of taxi instructions and drive around the airport for a later departure clearance). Instead, all these a/c had to be mucked around because the guy in the air wanted to be number 1.
Is this, at all, becoming clear to you? You can, at any time, declare an emergency and moved up the priority list, but all that means is you are moving EVERYONE else down. Is that at all sinking in? All this "the commander is responsible for the safety blah blah" is all just BS in this case. This guy, in this situation, just moved himself up the landing order because he was frustrated. You can keep peddling the "commander is in charge" bull**** all you want. But it is clear, this was nothing of the sort of a fuel emergency. Due process will occur. And so be it. |
Perhaps this needs to be made perfectly clear for you, protectthehronet, and would explain why you will never progress beyond the flight deck Shades of Basil Fawlty. "You're through! You'll never waitress in Torquay again!" |
bueler, bueler, bueler...FERRIS?????
such phrasing...commander in charge? I've never heard of that one.
Earlier, I mentioned that he (the captain of the american flight) would have to explain his actions. And that is the way it should be. But I truly doubt that he declared his emergency because he wanted to make someone taxi around the airport a bit more. There is a philosophy, described in our regulations about right of way. An airplane landing has the right of way over a plane taking off (assuming an uncontrolled airport). It is always advisible to get someone down safely and wait for someone to takeoff. And in this case, declaring an emergency assures right of way over everyone else...even a glider...even a hot air balloon. And why would I want to go beyond the flight deck? Would I want to be an airline manager? maybe for the money, but not the fun. Let me also add that this whole thing isn't about the emergency, it is about the problems JFK controllers have with the construction. It would have been better to build a new runway! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.