AA crew fed up with JFK ATC - declares emergency.
 

Apparently the crosswind component on the cleared Rwy exceeded the allowable limit. I wonder who will get the **** for this.

Construction And Crosswind Leads To JFK "Emergency" (With Audio)

I hope the runway wasn't covered with diggers/trucks or associated staff. Heaven knows what could be on it if is officially closed. :ooh:

Eastern Wiseguy,

He landed on 31R which wasn't closed. 31L was closed according to the article.
I guess he must have been quite low on fuel as well for declaring an emergency so promptly.

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

D'OH........read the article too quickly.....:ok:

JESUS....I understand the pilot couldn't land as it was over his limits but he didn't even give the controller a chance:ugh:....and then telling atc what he was going to do........eh hello ....you are not the only plane in the sky......In a normal emergency ok you can do what you want....but really just how low on fuel was he???. ....If he was so low on fuel surely he should have said it earlier when he realised the winds were getting near limits and may go over.....

Also "I said 3 times I'm declaring an emergency'"...... I didn't hear anyone say he wasn't getting 31 after this.......didn't this moron even consider the heading was for traffic and then he'd prob get the runway he asked for....

...or am I missing something??

Apparently the NYC controllers have their own way of doing things according to this answer from different forum:

I've listened to the tape 3 times now and not once did I hear any reference to fuel emergency. Maybe the crew declared a fuel emergency before, in which case, no problem. But I hope the crew listen to the tape and take on board the assistance that was trying to be offered and appreciate the increased workload that was handled very professionally by the controller. No doubt the controller was also co-ordinating with colleagues around to facilitate the American pilots safe and expeditious landing, which, unfortunately the tape doesn't record. Whoever the controller was, a job well done, in difficult circumstances.

the plane landed safely...the pilot did his job

atc took way too long and sometimes you have to remind atc who the boss is.

pic is ultimately responsible and has the final authority.

Well said, Sir, Paladin of the USS Hornet. The Monday morning quarterback crew seem to forget that while all Captains have the right to make any decision in the interest of safety and have the authority to act upon that decision, any Captain so doing will be asked some whys and wherefores at a later date. Both AA and the FAA are not shy about giving crews a chance to explain their actions after the fact and this Captain no doubt understands that. He did what he thought best at the time. He made a decision. That is what he is paid to do. Being a Captain is not a popularity contest.

As alluded to in a previous post, JFK, LGA and EWR will hang on to their runway alignments until someone calls a stop to it. All three airports have to change their alignment if one changes.

While it may have been more diplomatically handled, changing runways would make operational/safety sense.....but realigning all three airports has an impact on arrival/departure rates.

For example, JFK will hang onto the Canarsie approach until someone misses or says they won't do it.

The most recent example of an incident/accident I am aware of is hanging on to a 4R approach (with a tailwind). A Gemini MD-11 went off the end (fortunately into an EMAS area) landing in tailwind situation. For those not aware, MD-11's have a very high Vref to begin with. A tailwind adds to the landing energy significantly. If not for EMAS, the damage on the aircraft would have been substantial.

NYC03IA117

I think more background is required I'm not sure what to make of it yet...lots of non-standard coms from the AA FD:hmm:

According to Jepp online, landing beyond threshold is 2638m and beyond G/S is 2295m. Considering to that the wind 320/23 gusting 35 kts is 100 degrees from the right, thus a tail wind component to consider to.

Not sure what heavy type he landed, but from experience of putting the A340-600 down there on a VOR approach, a tailwind in definitely not wanted! Nor 35 kts of gusting crosswind for that matter, however, the hiccup in communication between the crew and ATC is clearly evident.

They held for a while (zoom to see):

FlightAware > American Airlines #2 > 04-May-2010 > KLAX-KJFK

Their original plan was 11.1 yet 6.5 was the actual at the gate on a B767.

Someone should give them an Air Metal for not becoming another AV52.

EMC call
 

Gentlemen, if a pilot say he is going to declare an emergency, it doesnt mean "he is declaring an emergency". If he says "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" that means he is declaring an emergancy and now you have everybodys attention. The missunderstanding is due to non-standard phraseology.

Regds

GixxerK5

Whilst the "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is the phrase of choice when butting into a communication with an emergency, I see not reason to use that phrase when already in active communication with a controller.

In fact I have done just the same in the past.

In my view the declaration of the emergency was pretty clear.

Two choices
 

There are two choices when declaing an emergency. Mayday x 3 or Pan Pan x 3. Thats all! However, the Pan call is not worldwide recognized.
If you want ATCs unambigous attention, these are the phrases to be used, particularly important in a very busy environment. The results speaks for it self.


Regds

Why would you arrive at the circuit - at an airfield with known runway configuration issues - without gas for an 'out'?

Reminds me of an incident in Barbados many years ago. A PanAm Tri-Star doing a 2 engine ferry had a problem with another engine very shortly after liftoff. He announced engine failure, declared an emergency, and his intention to return immediately as well as commencing fuel dump.
When ATC started complicated radar vector instructions, the aircraft announced curtly you don't understand, we are returning NOW, have the equipment standing by!
They did a very tight circuit, dumping fuel almost to touchdown.

So unprofessional by AA2 – on several levels
Emergency = Maydayx3
Where was the emergency here?
Wind out of x-wind limits = Divert (no emergency)

Bully-boy tactics by the pilots = lengthy re-training session in the sim…

No it is not recognized as standard phraseology, but "declaring an emergency" is exactly the same as saying Mayday 3x to ATC in the USA. And just because a crew declares an emergency doesn't absolve ATC of their responsibility to provide traffic separation. The controller was not being difficult when he asked them to maintain runway heading. He did it to give him time to sort the situation out. The runway track is protected for go-arounds, whereas an immediate turn may put the aircraft into someone else's flight path.

Hear, hear!

On approach to an airport we were given 09.
We pointed out that there was a large Cb on approach and we'd prefer 27.
Nope! 09 is the runway!
Following go around on 09, 27 suddenly became available.

No names, no pack drill but you know who you are ;)

While it is ICAO standard RT to use the Mayday x3.

In the US all that is required is to give the flight number and then state that you are "declaring an emergency"

Per FAA RT the pilot of AAL002 declared properly.

As many of you who cross the pond know, they don't always have the same radio standard in the US as they do in other parts of the world. Unless you go, don't assume you know.

-FP

What's the final reserve and holding fuel flow on a 76-200?

P

Final reserve
 

30 min of holding @ 1500 ft will prob be a bit over 2 tons, depending on weight.

So he's got enough fuel to get vectors to his preferred runway, go around, try again, go around and land with final reserve.

And he throws all his toys out of the prams, after being unclear about declaring an emergency, and screws up ATC's plans for colleagues who had possibly less fuel than him.

No but it's about keeping your cool and working with others when faced with a challenging situation. Unless there is more to the story or the fuel figures given here are wrong, his attitude was very poor.

P

:} In that case I'm off to the kitchen to bake humble pie lol

I still think he did not handle the comms situation very well, regardless. If you're not using mayday, declare the emergency clearly ("if you don't let us do what we want, we're declaring an emergency" does not constitute a mayday). And give the controller a chance to handle the emergency. To justify doing your own visual circuit at JFK requires something like being on fire or into final reservers - in my book anyway.

P

"Declaring Emergency"... vs. standard ATC
 

Try saying: "We are Declaring an Emergency" in the UK... you won't get much help.

Why not use either: PAN PAN x3 or MAYDAY x3 ?

Declaring Mayday Mayday Mayday may be the proper phrasology in the UK, However this happened in the US ... The crew advised the controller appropriately and completed a safe landing, can you imagine the outcome had he landed and departed the runway on the cleared runway!!!! who would be held liable? probably a carreer ending event at best.

Job well done,

It seems we all accept too many tail wind, X wind , and departures into severe weather to accomodate controllers/and traffic latelly.

Poor communication. They started by threatening to declare an emergency but nit actually declaring one. They then declared one and then got upset and said they'd declared an emergency three times. No you hadn't, you done it once. I wouldn't have wanted to be on that flight deck, it sounded tense.

Tense because they knew a pack of pompous (and wrong) blowholes would be on them in about 10 hours. No, I guess that wasn't why - maybe it was because they were busy flying a very unplanned visual approach. Something not done, even planned, in your part of the world I suppose. It is "Declare an Emergency" where aviation was invented by the way. Sorry.

Have to agree with Aerocat. The flight crew's comms were crap. First they threaten to declare an emergency if they don't get their way, then they say they have declared when they clearly hadn't. As others have said, the ATCO has a responsibility to ensure separation and I'm sure the runway heading was just to give him time to clear traffic out of the way for the AA flight. He wasn't being difficult, he was being professional in the situation he found himself in.

The pilots, on the other hand, appear to be having a petulant episode.

Why had he already not diverted if fuel was an issue? If he allowed himself to get suckered into holding while eating into his divert fuel, he DOES need a session or two in the sim.

If you manage your flight properly, there is no such thing as a "fuel emergency" (which I'm pretty sure is not recognised outside the US anyway).

As for the exact wording of the call... irrelevant. Once you have used the words "declare" and "emergency" in the US, you have done all that is required. Get over yourselves, British pedants! Right may be on your side (in Europe, anyway),, but this is New York we are talking about...

I would have thought that a runway change was at the discretion of ATC, if they or you are unable then divert. In just about every ATC environment that I have flown in, if you say, "I am declaring an emergency" that is enough, but yes, 'Mayday" when it is your first transmission on that frequency or when previous transmissions have been routine and unrelated.

(I'm a Brit!).

This pilot was going to show the controller who was boss. Understand that he was put in a box, some of it his own doing by arriving with min fuel. But terrible terrible CRM with the controller. Yeah, the emergency was the only way he was going to get what he wanted.....But to threaten an emergency, then say, "I told you three times". That helps the situation. How do you plan to arrive at your destination, especially NY ATC, without extra contingency fuel, knowing what it's like in that enviornment? Two way communication, send out your msg., but ensure the receiver gets it with no ambiguity. This pilot got his aircraft on the ground safely at the destination, bottom line. Doesn't mean that his saga is over. The FAA will be all over this. Don't let get to destinationitis, override a decision to divert. Sure it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but it makes for good discussion....and we all continue to learn.

BTW did you notice that the winds subsided for the DAL to land, I believe 22 knots, no gust.

Since a few years I fly to JFK and the time / fuel wasted there is immense. If you are cornered from the beginning then it ends up in a fuel shortage, you can argue as much as you like: declare / mayday / panpan..... the lower the fuel gauge the higher the tension.

I am glad that in our outfit the fuel is down to the Skipper and not the Desk Driver who tries to tell me that 3 tonns more are inducing a higher total burn. We all know that but a divertion costs more and a relaxed crew operates more safe then a tensioned one. What is cheaper / safer at the end of the day? It lookes good when you hear safety first but for how many that is lipp service only. It starts deeper then some people are able to look into it.

Saving costs by all means can be expensive, we are saving costs regardless of the price? Nevada is good for gambling, flight planning not. How much is enough "juice" aboard is a diffrent level for everybody. It is not a crime to have a extra zip, just in case and who knows when the day with the case is waiting. Statistically low but not not exclusively impossible.

Fly safe and land happy

NG

Why didn't the JFK controller just radio, "State the nature of your emergency"? Then he would have (a) known exactly what the problem was and (b) been able to call the equipment out or respond in an appropriate way. Unless the mp3 is incomplete, it sounds very poor all round. If the pilot was just making a point about being unable to use the designated runway because of crosswind limits, then he needs a dressing down. There are myriad ways of addressing that single issue without needing to declare and emergency.

First of all, how on earth should ATC know what the emer is when the crew don't let any one in on it? Was the go around enough to put them over the edge for Min Fuel it was just poor planning, sad to say. Had they planned it right they would have had enough fuel for their alternate (even though some pilots thinks they are geniouses making the parallel runway, or anopther runway at the airport their alternate. What happens that day the delay is due weather/another emer happens etc and you planned your fuel like Uncle Scrooge). Everyone is flying around with less and less fuel these days after the financial crisis kicked in, and we see this more and more often.

The Controller was very slow to understand and acknowledge the emergency, 3xmayday is preferred, but come on everyone has to understand the way this was said. But when he did he wanted to clear the path and the pilot, who neglected to tell any one what the emer was, chose to do whatever he wanted. Yes he did not get the direct track instantly, but maybe he would have gotten the turn 10 secs later, but chose to act like a complete baby "You know what...." . Insinuating the ATC knew very well that he needed this and this.

Had he kept his cool he would when he realised the x-wind component have said as he said and added "We need 31R due to fuelshortage due to the x-wind component" then the controller could make a statement and maybe still say no as he did, because it jacks up the runway configuration and the flow of the entire airport and delays everyone else. The pilots correct response to this should then have been. "We are declaring an emergency due to min fuel, intention is to make a left hand visual to 31R we would like to start turn now" At least to give the controller a heads up and a chance to react to whatever the pilot was thinking.

Had the controller then neglected to acknowledge, then I might understand the pilot, but in my eyes the pilot didnt give the ATC a chance here.

And please quit the "Show who the boss is" crap, thats just stupid are you 22yo? I bet it makes up for great cooperation with ATC where you fly...

You mean New Zealand do you? :ok:

As a matter of interest does the US recognise the term "REQUIRE" ie I REQUIRE runway XXX. As in "you will give it to me"/you have no choice. So you don't need to declare an emergency.


** (i believe it is an international/ICAO term- but happy to be corrected)


Usually ATC will then confirm you "REQUIRE" it - sometimes they will ask - in which case unless you feel like explaining the reason in detail "operational reasons" is usually sufficient.

By listening to just the avaliable tape itself, the situation comes across as poorly handled by the crew. Now, we (I) don't know what communications have taken place beforehand, and I haven't heard anything about fuel. More light on that could change my opinion:

--It's definately good that the crew is taking control over their own situation when the clerances given by ATC is inappropriate or unsafe.

--If the crew did indeed see this situation coming up, sorting it out earlier would have been preferable.
--If the crew did indeed see the situation coming up, having an alternate plan (as opposed to visually maneuvering and screwing up the flow for ATC, a maneuver which in itself could be dangerous, also to others), would have been better for all involved.
--If the situation could not reasonably have been predicted beforehand, or an alternate plan of action would not be possible, then:
----To me it seems like standard RT speak such as "Negative Unable" and "Mayday" could have contributed to raising the controllers awareness faster (if indeed the situation became apparent to the crew at that time).

I have flown in both the US and Europe, and while I agree there's a different vocabulary, tone and style of the RT, a Mayday call is universally recognised and respected. "We might be/will be/are declaring" sounds to me like it's adding to the confusion in this situation, and I don't blame the controller one bit (again note that I've only heard the tape and know nothing of previous exchanges). It seems to me that the threshold for calling Mayday in the US is a lot higher than in Europe. It's seems like "you don't want to alarm anyone", while that is in fact exactly what you want to do. Let's not forget that nonstandard RT have been indentified as a casual factor in many incidents/accidents.

What I found surprising was that they seemed to go from relatively normal operations to a life threatening situation requiring an immediate landing in the space of a few seconds. I can think of three reasons why it panned out that way. 1, there was more said on the radio and they'd already informed ATC they were low on fuel; 2, they were low on fuel or had some other aircraft problem and had been reluctant to actually tell anyone about it until it became apparent they weren't going to be landing as soon as they hoped; or 3, they didn't really have an emergency and just used the words to get what they wanted.

I'm all for taking matters into your own hands and doing whatever's required to get down safely when it's appropriate, I just hope this was an appropriate time for these guys to do it.

Incidentally, the pilot on the radio sounds stressed right from the start when he tells ATC that the localizer isn't up.