Ferris, please tell us you have never progressed to the flight deck. Please!:ugh:

They usually do - doesn't matter what aircraft- dip(drip) sticks and fuel totalisators and a handy calculator ( or Flt. Engnr. ! ) works best.

The only time to believe the fuel gauges is when they show Empty !

Give us a break ferris.

To quote someone else (post #70)
How the hell did the crew were put into that corner :=

And that just goes to show how little you know about me, sir. :)

Just from listening to the script, the event sounds awful. I hate to say it but the voice of panic emminated form the cockpit with clear the circuit stuff we are breaking left for a visual onto 31R, in a big international airport but a detailed traffic pattern. We may not have the full access to the rt conversation but normally with a cross wind touching out of limits, a normal conversation with ATC re requirements for another rwy not just throwing all the toys out of the cot in an instant. As another poster pointed out the next wind read out was 22kts cross wind but AA may have not wanted to go the whole hog in shooting a 22L approach down to the deck re fuel and a full go around scenario. Just from the ATC transcript, the whole event sounds uncomfortable.

check the facts
 

With my over 20 years of experience, as an area/approach/tower controller both in the militairy and civil side, I still consider ATC to be a part of ATS. So in my opinion still a service, but with extensive responsibilities. It is not without a reason that the required standards for controllers, as for pilots, are very high (at least in The Netherlands).

There are two things that I notice when following the discussion. First, and I am not the first one to recognize this, not all the facts of this incident are known. So this makes it very difficult to built an opinion, and especially to judge := the people involved.

Secondly, and many incidents and arguments in all kinds of variety start by this, a lack of communication. The pilot omits to state the nature of his emergency and the controller omits to ask. Now again, not all the facts are known, so it could be that the crew is too busy or stressed to state the nature of the emergency and the controller is too busy (according to the RT and probably additional coordination) organizing all the the other flights that are affected by the emergency of the AA flight.

Nevertheless it is a fact that the controller does not know the nature of the emergency and is thereby unable to provide optimal assistance. The lesson I learned (again) from this incident, keep communicating :ok:.

I hope someone can help me out, I've listened to this a couple of times and this is what I've come up with. Is this basically a correct sequence of events?

1. American is not on an emergency/mayday at the start of the tape when he makes contact with tower.

2. He's cleared to land 22L.

3. He's told the wind.

4. He can't accept the wind and declares an emergency.

5. He lands on another runway.

He cannot accept the wind limits on 22L. It's only a short tape and we can't know too much but it doesn't sound like he's operating with a stack of failures on board - it's simply out of a/c limits. Correct?

So then I presume he now will go below bingo fuel if he doesn't break off immediately for the other runway - hence an emergency, because of his fuel state. It will become an emergency if he can't route there directly, but it isn't at this point right now.

My question is therefore, if he's just gotten to that stage of fuel - disregarding any warnings he's given along the route - surely it's a bit drastic to start carving up the skies when you're at a major airfield and got (I presume) half an hour or so of fuel left?

Am I missing something important here?

Caudillo

If he is airborne and only has 30 minutes of fuel left, then that is an emergency.

Of course it is. How very convenient of you to neglect to mention the other a/c inconvenienced. As I said- how would you feel if YOU were the captain of the a/c on final that had to break off the approach? Do you really believe that "getting everyone out of the way" at JFK involves only one or two a/c? The delays that would ensue? All the other captains now looking at their fuel and wondering how long it will take to clean up and get an approach?
Some of the attitudes on display here really do perpetuate certain stereotypes. Disregard totally any inconvenience to ATC. It is irrelevant, and part of the job to deal with emergencies (part of providing service). Based on the info available (the tape, which is all that can be discussed here), how did it go from "we can't take the crosswind" to "get everyone out of the way, we are landing now"? Read the title of the thread. Maybe 'the guy with balls' is one who carries enough fuel, or diverts when he doesn't have enough (for whatever reason). Lets face it- that's the real issue here. Commercial pressure.

OK, speaking as elderly SLF (with just a couple of flying lessons which gives me just a glimmer of understanding about aviation issues), plus a lifelong interest in aviation and a LOT of reading in forums like this:
A lot of discussion has gone on about mayday/emergency/pan and the way that things are stated differently in NYK as opposed to anywhere else. Just watching the Air Crash Investigation programs on the Discovery Channel shows that often accidents happen due to lack/misunderstanding of communications. This event concluded happily apart from a few ruffled feathers but, if it ended badly and, in the subsequent investigation, someone said “He didn’t call MAYDAY but just said he would declare an emergency,” then all hell would break loose about communications yet again. I just find it difficult to believe (given all I read here about correct procedures etc.) that a discrepancy like this is allowed to happen in this modern age. I have spent lots of time on flight decks (when we were allowed) and listened to many exchanges between air crew and ATC and have always been filled with confidence of my safety when listening to these professionals going about what is (to them) their daily job. I am not just nit-picking here. The amount of words on this issue shows that it is something worth discussing and it is JUST POSSIBLE that it could lead to a misunderstanding with tragic consequences. Lesser things have....

I flew a SAR helo at a fighter base for several years and whenever the fighter guys had a 'problem' they were very reluctant to declare an emergency using the standard phrases of MAYDAY or PAN but generally just said they were declaring an elergency.

They few times over the years I've had a problem myself and needed assistance I've declared the appropriate phase and the required help was forthcoming very quickly.

I think there is a reluctance to use the standard emergency phrases as they are used very infrequently and are unfamiliar to most pilots, a similar thing happens when a standard phraseology is changed for whatever reason until the players on both sides of the microphone get used to it and it becomes commonplace.

Regards,
BH.

The people responsible for this debacle are sat flying their accountants desk miles from the action, coining in on their min fuel bonus whilst congratulating themselves on their corporate management.

When the inevitable happens and i am amazed it has not already, i only hope the audit trail shoots them up their guilty arse as they flee blubbing out Part A "but the Captain has the final say"

Examples need to be made of these people to get some change, but just like the recent financial mess nothing ultimately will happen to the folks responsible.

I don't suppose the previous communication is available ?
Seems that passage comes in a bit late.
Pete

@JWP1938
Just because you are posting in "this day and age" does not necessarily mean that all things are much better than they used to be.
A heck of a lot is better, as attested by the safety record; there is a heck of a lot that isn't. And it seems, in some ways, we are destined to not learn from the mistakes made in the past.
In the corporate environment that this undertaking seems to have become, there is always some trendy manager with a degree in something-or-other that feels the pressing and urgent need to reinvent the wheel, and a lot of past learning can be forgotten in that reinvention. Folk that resist some of these apparently arbitrary changes are labeled as dinosaurs, or similar.:rolleyes:

Sounds a bit like our local council. On a particular dual carriageway junction here there have been many accidents (with injuries) and many, many more near accidents. On being asked for a roundabout the council said that the criteria for a roundabout have not been met. On being pressed further it transpired that there had to be a fatal accident before the possibility was even discussed. Injuries only (or the strong possibility of a fatality eventually) didn’t count.

This one had me in stitches!

Lecturing someone on "complicated" JFK aircraft movement logistics...and admonishing them they'll never "progress past the flight deck" because they supposedly don't understand the ramifications......

That's a bit like lecturing an Afghani who grew up in the middle of minefields and unexploded ordinance on the "danger" of playing with a firecracker...

"Listen kid, it could go off in your hand and perhaps blow your fingernail off. Is that becoming clear to you? It could even put your eye out. Is it sinking in?"

Attention all Naval Aviators! You may never have guessed this operating on and off your boat, but what you do and how you operate can have an effect on others. Yes indeed. You may get away with selfishly thinking only of yourself on the USS ....... with it's uncomplicated aircraft logistics and prevelance of fuel-fat, recovering aircraft and forgiving environment where screw-ups only result in death or dismemberment for yourself and others....but in the civilian world such selfishness might cause another aircraft to....taxi to another runway. Or even be vectored to a new heading. Im not kidding!

Let us not forget the unfortunate crew and pax of a south american DC-8? into JFK a few years ago who were held and held due to wx who did NOT communicate sufficiently their fuel state emergency and crashed !!!!.

Maybe the AA Capt. was just having a bad day, or the nth. in a row bad day.

If you look at the Flightaware track (ref. in an earlier post) he had already done 2 circuits in a hold.

Until the full picture is revealed everything else posted here is speculation.

January 25, 1990, Avianca 707:

DCA90MA019

They were not critizied for not stating "Mayday" three times, they were critized for not clearly declaring an emergency.

General comment: "Mayday" three times serves a useful purpose in a non-radar ATC enviornment, especially when relay of communications is taking place through ARINC or such. But, in a busy radar environment it serves no purpose other than to tie up the frequency. AAL 52 could not have made their declaration any clearer.

Too much speculation without all the facts... especially from the DCVR. That should probably shead a great deal of light on what drove the crew to declare an emergency so late in the game. Hopefully the transcripts from the voice recorder will be made available even if the NTSB does not hold hearings on this incident.

The good news here is that no injuries or fatalities occured.

After how many have puckered up at the approached TOD after a long journey with unexpected ground delays at the departure airport, stronger than forecast head winds, longer than usual sequence vectoring??? oh and better yet, the winds on the active runway are beyond the limits stated in the FCOM?

Let's wait and see before judgement is passed on either the crew or the controllers.

Thanks for your contribution, AMF. Perhaps if you keep up with the discussion, it wasn't about how complicated (or not) the logistics are at JFK. It was about the appropriate (or not) decision to begin disregarding ATC instructions and declare an emergency. And yes, it certainly appears from posts like protectthehornets, that some cannot see any problem with that.

Lets call a spade a spade. This is how it looks to me: The guy was close to landing, getting low on fuel after already accepting some delay, and thought that by sticking his neck out and demanding the other runway he was going to get "penalty box" type vectors and a delay he wouldn't be able to take. How am I doing so far?
The problem with this arises when he didn't give ATC the chance to accommodate him or not, or even see what was going to happen. Playing the emergency card too early, so to speak. All supposition of course, but all the purile stuff about "who's the boss" does make you wonder.

suninmyeyes, sure, I'm aware of that - my point was that if you're at the stage of 30 mins fuel remaining, it's an emergency but you've still got time to play with. Given that he presumably had half an hour left I don't see why he did what he did.

Yep that's the only time they must be correct!

Avianca is a bit different as the never declared an emergency



91.3 is absolute and was one of the first provisions in the Avigation Act of 1926 before then the post office told you when to fly ...and you flew or you were out, but with 91.3 came 91.13:\...I, for the sake of learning, hope we'll get some more details

:)

From what i heard on the tape, the captain lost it and engaged in a one man show trying to prove to atc and probably to his fo that he is the boss.
I wouldnt be surprised if the pilot on the radio was also flying the aircraft.
Poor Rt if not totally inexistent, showed his childish behavior by saying to atc he wanted no one in front of him just because...rather than making sure he had priority..
Atc well done eventhough he failed to confirm the type of emergency, ibelieve it became a cock fight rather than a well managed cooperation in a difficult situation.
Declaring an emergency should be clear and started by 3xmayday, followed by nature of emergency,actions and specific requests.

In reading the many comments regarding the respective authority and responsibilities of ATC and a captain and recognizing the concurrency of requirements of traffic flow and managing an emergency due either to fuel or weather limitations, it may be worth re-reading the NTSB Report on Eastern Airlines 66, available here.

In the report, there is support, if that's what one wishes to call it, for both arguments - captain's final authority when the ship is threatened and ATC's responsibility to maintain traffic flow, knowing that a runway change may solve one crew's problem but will create dozens more who may be close to the same situation.

The key of course is, how severe was the emergency and as someone has already pointed out, that will become apparent in the days to come. Both weather limitations, (crosswind) and fuel were the reasons given and it is reasonable to expect that either or both will be examined as the basis for the request, along with the airline's fuel policy and the captain's weather briefing at departure, etc, etc, etc.

It is abundantly clear to all professionals here that declaring an emergency to jump the queue is unacceptable so the burden of proof, after the request is granted and the airplane is on the ground, remains with the captain - this has already been stated many times: the captain has the authority to do what he-she wants but must be able to answer for such decisions. So too, must ATC, when denying or delaying the necessary assistance to a flight declaring an emergency. It is not ATC's right or requirement to outguess a flight crew.

There are parts of the NTSB Report on Eastern 66 which are relevant to this issue, again for both views.

We were four back behind Eastern 66 when he went in and along with others went around and held at Southgate before getting a clearance to divert. As we turned south at Hancock for the Empire intersection, (now the Ellis intersection if I recall), we began to see how huge the thunderstorm was; it was the largest I had ever seen up to that point, with huge contouring. The ride in the descent was through heavy rain and turbulence, the noise on the windshield over which we had to shout to be heard by one another. Our approach to 22L had the same conditions yet even after several aircraft went around and some said a change of runways was required, the approaches did not change.

I fully realize the many differences between that accident/circumstances and this incident and am not comparing the two with a view to justifying either of the arguments being presented here. But there are sufficient similarities to be instructive, for both sides.

PJ2

" you know this is asinine"

That was the EAL flight's first indication trouble ...it is a little different PJ2 but that report does show that clearly the difference between clearance issuance and clearance acceptance and who is ultimately responsible

When the AA captain declared an emergence, why did he not keep the controller abreast of the situation or request assistance? why was he so hostile over the vectoring?

already posted in the atc forum but duplicated here for those that don't visit it:

Notwithstanding the fact that a (supposedly) highly qualified pilot is unable to spell the word "doughnut" the above goes a long way in explaining the mindset of the posters (none of whom, I am sure, have ever bothered their ar$es visiting a busy ATC unit to see the chaos they cause).

As long as "sky gods" such as these take to the air in the misplaced belief that they have carte blanche to do as they wish and to hell with everyone else, such incidents will continue unabated. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have news for you guys - YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY AIRCRAFT IN THE SKY!!!!

When will that ever sink in?

Yes, we all know that you are ultimately responsible for YOUR aircraft - what you fail to understand is that WE are responsible for ALL OF THEM - AND WILL BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR IT!! If you have any doubt of that, get off of your sheepskin lined pedestal and have a look around these forums for examples....try starting with a few recent Italian cases.

Every controller that I have ever met will, without exception, do all in their power to aid and assist each and every aircraft under their control - whether it be in normal circumstances or in an emergency. Clearly, any aircraft having declared an emergency WILL have priority.

We are not, however, either mind readers or magicians. If you have not previously indicated a problem and/or actually declared an emergency (hopefully, using the unambiguous phraseology developed for the purpose), it is highly unlikely that the fact will be known outside of your immediate vicinity. (for the septics amongst you, think fart range). As an aviator friend would say -" I may have a pair of balls but neither of them is crystal"!

By all means aviate, navigate, communicate - that's what we would expect - do not, however, assume that all surrounding aircraft can be magically made to disappear with a sweep of the radar to accommodate your whims. Same goes for unilaterally deciding to help yourself to an out-of-use runway. It may or may not be in useable condition, full of vehicles, etc.

For the reasonable amongst you, please do not take this as an out-and-out attack on the piloting community - my wish is to highlight the idiocy of the few, not to alienate those professionals who still understand the meaning of the term "airmanship".

Rant mode off, enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Guy.

ferris asks how I would feel if I had been the plane following and had to go around.

I would be proud to get out of the way of someone who had declared an emergency. and I am ready to do so at any time, unless of course I am in an emergency myself.

now, if the American Airlines pilot declared an emergency so he could meet a hot date and get a blow job, he will hear from me.

But if he was near his fuel limits, exceeding the crosswind limits and had notified center and approach prior to the business with tower, I am with him a hundred percent.

I make my living flying out of the New York area...granted mainly LGA and EWR but enough JFK to know the score there.

''a scout troops short a child...Kruschev's due at Idylwild"

2 questions for me guys,

Was this guy the only 767-2 arrival at JFK?
Did they change the runway config after the incident?

As far as I see, in an environment like JFK, taking the decision to turn to come back visually just by telling ATC and not giving him the time to move people around with proper separation is criminal!!:D

happy landings

again duplicated from the atc forum for the benefit of all...

West Coast,

Please indicate exactly where on the aforementioned tape you noticed any reference to "an emergency that dire". I may only have heard an abridged version - can't be sure - the only problem indicated was a breach of crosswind limits - not, as far as I am aware, a "dire emergency".

I repeat, each and every controller that I have worked with for the last 20 years would do all they possibly could to help in those situations. I see no indication of such a situation in the tapes provided.

S.H.G.

I agree wholeheartedly - however, we cannot provide assistance until a) we know there is a problem and b) we have some indication of what is required. It is in YOUR best interests to let us know ASAP. A lot can be done, but only if/when we know it is necessary.

For the record, most ATC manuals also have a clause stating that controllers can/should do whatever may be deemed necessary in unforeseen circumstances. We can and will do everything possible to help however, I repeat, I have two balls but neither of them are crystal!!!!!

Now, I don't know all the background information (assuming the runway they eventually landed on was closed) but the way I have always been taught to operate is thus...

During pre-fight...
Read Weather
Read NOTAMs

If the forecasted weather indicates that landing on the only available runways (as dictated by the NOTAMs) may not be possible, plan an alternate that will allow landing.

If on arrival said conditions exist, divert to this prepared alternate.

Dont bully the controllers because you can't get into your scheduled destination.

Gethomeitis?

Does it really matter who had the most responsibility or the most dire need or the most urgent social date or the biggest genitalia and ego or the least fuel? The ultimate resolution (which by definition will become a standard) will depend on who has the most money to spend on lawyers for the next twenty years. Whoever finally stops paying the lawyers will lose. Lawyers will spend years (and charge accordingly) on determining the best course of action that should have been taken in the few minutes of an anomalous situation. The lawyers always win and will make a lot more money than you ever will. They will take years to make a case and charge you for it and then can claim that their failure to convince a judge or jury wasn't their fault. Try using that disclaimer of responsibility in any other profession such as being an air traffic controller or a pilot flying.

Surely once an emergency has been declared, one needn't feel excluded from landing maybe slightly outside the crosswind limits if it is the safest course of action?

Therefore, if he was indeed in a very low fuel state, going for a jolly round a visual circuit is the last thing that I'd be doing. On fumes - I'd be landing straight in on 22, and deal with the crosswind.

This sounds like a very misplaced hissy fit to me.

You're right. Give an inch now and the scalawags like the skipper of AA2 will do what they want all over the globe.

Who knows what this brigand may do next. His ilk would probably scream right in for an emergency landing due to a fire, typical Sky God act, while the more reasonable airman would delay such a hasty action in order to ask permission for something like, for instance, to dump fuel.

There are rules for dumping fuel, of course, thank God there exist airman (or used to exist) that don't think they have carte blanche to ignore them.

Not sure you can have it both ways mates. Our actions today are the result of those who paid the price in the past.

sharpclassic, sir

Was "pre-fight" literal or ironic? :ok:

Either way, I like the imagery.

CW

Nice to know the conflict with ATC is fully prepared ! :D

haha! Well, fail to prepare, prepare to fail!

I have a feeling the crosswind and gust components got changed after the emergency rwy change. Notice the gusts over max xwind were not announced after the emergency? Did the winds really die down or were they reported diferently or not reported at all? I have played this game in the past so know they can be different.
The captain will have to explain what he did so let us wait for the final report. I still am waiting for the investigation to be completed before stating any opinion. At this point I don't have one.

I just re-listened to the US1549 tape. Some posters above will note with disapproval, no doubt, that Capt. Sullenberger said neither "declare an emergency", "PAN PAN" or "MAYDAY".

In the US declaring an emergency does the same thing. I did it and you get what ever you want. Why ask for more? Filling in the squares for international operations is the only reason. Service will be the same.

1549 after saying both engines were out really didn't have to declare an emergency. Maybe when they said we are going to be in the Hudson would have also precluded declaring an emergency. Sometimes it is so obvious you don't have to do it. Just my opinion.