airtraffic

Author Topic: Weird JFK Emergency Yesterday around 5:10 PM "give me 31R or I'll declare"  (Read 139502 times)

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Lax-Jfk...We do not know how much fuel they burnt on the way..head wind may of been a bitch! landing on 22 with a 35knt xwind=risk missed approach then vectored out for a hold with low fuel... Errors on both ends of the spectrum... Lets get over it :mrgreen:

B

If I recall correctly, federal regulations require the flight to require a certain amount of minimum reserve fuel, regardless of the length of the flight.  I understand that he may have experienced a hold before the final approach and that might have burned some unexpected but...

Again, if I remember it correctly, pilots should make sure they have enough fuel for the approach and go-around if need be.  If they didn't, then they should have diverted.  But perhaps I'm wrong?

Offline jaythepilot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2


If I recall correctly, federal regulations require the flight to require a certain amount of minimum reserve fuel, regardless of the length of the flight.  I understand that he may have experienced a hold before the final approach and that might have burned some unexpected but...

Again, if I remember it correctly, pilots should make sure they have enough fuel for the approach and go-around if need be.  If they didn't, then they should have diverted.  But perhaps I'm wrong?

That's correct, enough fuel to reach the destination, then fly to your filed alternate, and then fly for 45 minutes after that.  However, winds aloft forecasting is an imperfect science, especially when you cross a continent, and you don't always end up with as much fuel as planned.  We still do not know what circumstances led up to that point.

However, it does seem that a number of people are quick to condemn the pilot for not volunteering the nature of the emergency.  In fact, somebody suggested that since the public listens to this frequency, there definitely should have been some advisory exchange.  That seems a bit ridiculous.

From the first time you step in airplane, the priority order is 1)Aviate, 2)Navigate, and lastly, 3)Communicate.  Too many people have died trying to talk on the radio when they should have been flying the airplane.  Once you declare, you're under no obligation to even respond further on the radio if you believe it jeopardizes the safety of the flight.  And there are a lot of situations in an airplane when you just don't have the time or brain cycles left to talk on the radio.

Offline sykocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
From the first time you step in airplane, the priority order is 1)Aviate, 2)Navigate, and lastly, 3)Communicate.

However the pilot (rather rudely) demanded that the controller "clear the area", but w/o communicating what area was the controller supposed to clear? All planes within 10 miles of the airport? This is JFK we're talking about. Manners aside if you aren't going to communicate you can't expect ATC to be able to help you.

Also while that axiom is a good one for pilots (especially new ones) to remember their priorities it shouldn't be an excuse. In this situation AAL2 was being flown 2 experienced, professional pilots. At least I assume you need a lot of hours to be sitting in the cockpit of a H/B762.

3 minutes 54 seconds pass from the time AAL2 says he can't accept the approach to 22 until he's given taxi instructions (presumably on landing roll). I can imagine the pilots' workload is above average at this point and their time is valuable. So the 5 things either pilot has time to say the controller are: "declare emergency", "clear the area", "i told you 3 times...", "turning left...move every body from our way", and reading back the landing clearance? Obviously the first and the last are necessary, but the other 3 could easily been used to say something infinitely more useful then what was said.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 10:40:00 PM by sykocus »

Offline w0x0f

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
Because the controller's union can spin this as an incident only demonstrating that safety at airports, specifically at JFK, is in danger with minimal staff in the Tower and congested airspace with an old ATC system.  Unions are the ultimate spin doctor.

Talk about spin, you win the prize, Isaac.  The NATCA representative made no reference to ATC staffing at all.  He said nothing about congested airspace.  He talked about reduced runway capacity due to construction but airspace was never mentioned.  He did not discuss an antiquated ATC system at all.  Equipment was never mentioned.

What he did say was that the plan that has been devised by the FAA to work around the runway construction has shortfalls.  One of the shortfalls was that in order to use multiple runways to maximize capacity at JFK during strong west winds requires aircraft to land with a crosswind.  Landing all aircraft into the wind on 31R would be safer but drastically reduces airport capacity.  So his point was that safety was taking a back seat to capacity in this instance. 

w0x0f         

Offline jaythepilot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
The pilot "rather rudely" told the controller to clear the area because the controller, after several attempts, was not picking up on the declaration of the emergency.  The pilot warned he would declare an emergency, then declared an emergency, and when it was clear the controller wasn't picking up on it, he got more pointed in conveying that information.  If I had to say "declaring an emergency" three times before a controller started acting, I'd be pretty upset as well.  I'd say the transmissions were still pretty useful in that the controller had still not acknowledged their declaration.

Those priorities don't change as you acquire hours.  Perfectly good airliners have been flown right into the ground because the pilots weren't "flying the airplane."

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Because the controller's union can spin this as an incident only demonstrating that safety at airports, specifically at JFK, is in danger with minimal staff in the Tower and congested airspace with an old ATC system.  Unions are the ultimate spin doctor.

Talk about spin, you win the prize, Isaac.  The NATCA representative made no reference to ATC staffing at all.  He said nothing about congested airspace.  He talked about reduced runway capacity due to construction but airspace was never mentioned.  He did not discuss an antiquated ATC system at all.  Equipment was never mentioned.

What he did say was that the plan that has been devised by the FAA to work around the runway construction has shortfalls.  One of the shortfalls was that in order to use multiple runways to maximize capacity at JFK during strong west winds requires aircraft to land with a crosswind.  Landing all aircraft into the wind on 31R would be safer but drastically reduces airport capacity.  So his point was that safety was taking a back seat to capacity in this instance. 

w0x0f         

If you know unions, you know what I'm talking about.  Unions are notorious for spinning things in complete opposite directions to draw public support and that is all I was saying.  I wasn't being literal in that they would spin it that way, but that they can use it to draw attention to their cause.  And lately, those have been hot button issues with the unions.  That is all.  No spinning here.

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79


If I recall correctly, federal regulations require the flight to require a certain amount of minimum reserve fuel, regardless of the length of the flight.  I understand that he may have experienced a hold before the final approach and that might have burned some unexpected but...

Again, if I remember it correctly, pilots should make sure they have enough fuel for the approach and go-around if need be.  If they didn't, then they should have diverted.  But perhaps I'm wrong?

That's correct, enough fuel to reach the destination, then fly to your filed alternate, and then fly for 45 minutes after that.  However, winds aloft forecasting is an imperfect science, especially when you cross a continent, and you don't always end up with as much fuel as planned.  We still do not know what circumstances led up to that point.

However, it does seem that a number of people are quick to condemn the pilot for not volunteering the nature of the emergency.  In fact, somebody suggested that since the public listens to this frequency, there definitely should have been some advisory exchange.  That seems a bit ridiculous.

From the first time you step in airplane, the priority order is 1)Aviate, 2)Navigate, and lastly, 3)Communicate.  Too many people have died trying to talk on the radio when they should have been flying the airplane.  Once you declare, you're under no obligation to even respond further on the radio if you believe it jeopardizes the safety of the flight.  And there are a lot of situations in an airplane when you just don't have the time or brain cycles left to talk on the radio.

Agreed.  Communication is not the number 1 priority and it never should be.  I was just arguing the point that fuel shouldn't have been an issue as that is something they should be monitoring and making sure calculations are still in check as the flight progresses, since as you said, winds aloft forecasts are never perfect.

Offline kack911

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Everyone seems to be beating around the bush (sts) without addressing a few common sense issues.

Yes, all domestic flights are dispatched with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly an instrument approach (and if required by conditions at the time of release, enough fuel to go missed and fly to the most distant alternate) and thereafter fly for an additional 45 minutes. That's fact.

It can be reasonably assumed that they had an alternate based on the forecast winds alone (I have no idea what the ceiling or vis was at the time), as every company I've been with requires that an alternate be listed if the max crosswind component is forecast to be above limits at the ETA.

It can be further assumed that they were carrying additional hold fuel or contingency fuel because 1) It's a New York Metro airport, 2) the anticipated traffic volume, 3) the airspace complexity, 4) the forecast winds, 5) the closed runway, 6) high likelyhood of airborne holding, ATC tactical reroutes, and/or extensive vectoring as a result of 1-5.

So, all that being said, yes, sometimes factors pile up and you end up in a situation where you anticipate landing with less than reserve fuel. BUT, when that happens, the first thing that pilots do is declare "Minimum Fuel". This gets everyone's attention, and while it doesn't necessarily make you priority #1, most controllers will do whatever they can to ensure that you don't take any unnecessary delays.

Does anyone have him on tape saying those words?

If the situation deteriorates any further, the next words he will say are "Emergency Fuel". At that moment, he becomes an emergency aircraft with all of the priorities and assistance that is afforded to such aircraft. The most likely outcome would be a quick diversion to a closer airport, there are plenty of them that can accomodate a diversion without delay.

But I didn't hear him say those words either.

So, no, the idea that he was low on fuel and was in imminent danger of fuel exhaustion is pure baloney. If he actually believed that his fuel situation was critical, he made no attempt to share that information with ATC.

With the fuel situation nonsense out of the way, we can focus on what he actually DID say, which was something along the lines of "If you don't give me 31R, I'll declare an emergency". Again, that's a fact.

Anyone who is even remotely aware of how this business works can see right through the BS and knows exactly what was going on here. It's not rocket science...The PIC probably has lots of experience flying into JFK, and this is obviously not the first time that he's been expected to land on a runway that is more operationally advantageous for the airport, as opposed to the runway most convenient (or even safest, if you prefer) for the pilot.

All he had to do was tell the controller that he was unable to accept the runway assignment. They would have vectored him out and resequenced him for 31R as requested, no big deal.

Instead, he decided he was going to "show" them by busting out his Emergency Authority, and making a spectacle in order to prove his point. In so doing, he deviated from an ATC clearance which does, in fact, require a report to the administrator. He also completely unnecessarily disrupted other traffic, unnecessarily increased the controller's workload, and unnecessarily decreased safety margins.

He is a tool of epic proportions, and I would certainly hope that the meeting he undoubtedly had with the Chief Pilot resulted in significant discipline. Unless there was something going on that isn't reflected on the tapes, there was no justification for his behavior whatsoever. This was a blatant and willful misuse of his Emergency Authority.

Offline w0x0f

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
Because the controller's union can spin this as an incident only demonstrating that safety at airports, specifically at JFK, is in danger with minimal staff in the Tower and congested airspace with an old ATC system.  Unions are the ultimate spin doctor.

Talk about spin, you win the prize, Isaac.  The NATCA representative made no reference to ATC staffing at all.  He said nothing about congested airspace.  He talked about reduced runway capacity due to construction but airspace was never mentioned.  He did not discuss an antiquated ATC system at all.  Equipment was never mentioned.

What he did say was that the plan that has been devised by the FAA to work around the runway construction has shortfalls.  One of the shortfalls was that in order to use multiple runways to maximize capacity at JFK during strong west winds requires aircraft to land with a crosswind.  Landing all aircraft into the wind on 31R would be safer but drastically reduces airport capacity.  So his point was that safety was taking a back seat to capacity in this instance. 

w0x0f         

If you know unions, you know what I'm talking about.  Unions are notorious for spinning things in complete opposite directions to draw public support and that is all I was saying.  I wasn't being literal in that they would spin it that way, but that they can use it to draw attention to their cause.  And lately, those have been hot button issues with the unions.  That is all.  No spinning here.

Did you even listen to the interview?  There was nothing of the sort.  Whether you like unions or not, your view of unions has nothing to do with what was said by the union representative.  You really need to stay on subject.  There has been enough speculation and conjecture within this thread.  We don't need someone putting their words in others mouths.

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/out-of-line-postings-and-wild-conjecture/

w0x0f


Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Because the controller's union can spin this as an incident only demonstrating that safety at airports, specifically at JFK, is in danger with minimal staff in the Tower and congested airspace with an old ATC system.  Unions are the ultimate spin doctor.

Talk about spin, you win the prize, Isaac.  The NATCA representative made no reference to ATC staffing at all.  He said nothing about congested airspace.  He talked about reduced runway capacity due to construction but airspace was never mentioned.  He did not discuss an antiquated ATC system at all.  Equipment was never mentioned.

What he did say was that the plan that has been devised by the FAA to work around the runway construction has shortfalls.  One of the shortfalls was that in order to use multiple runways to maximize capacity at JFK during strong west winds requires aircraft to land with a crosswind.  Landing all aircraft into the wind on 31R would be safer but drastically reduces airport capacity.  So his point was that safety was taking a back seat to capacity in this instance. 

w0x0f         

If you know unions, you know what I'm talking about.  Unions are notorious for spinning things in complete opposite directions to draw public support and that is all I was saying.  I wasn't being literal in that they would spin it that way, but that they can use it to draw attention to their cause.  And lately, those have been hot button issues with the unions.  That is all.  No spinning here.

Did you even listen to the interview?  There was nothing of the sort.  Whether you like unions or not, your view of unions has nothing to do with what was said by the union representative.  You really need to stay on subject.  There has been enough speculation and conjecture within this thread.  We don't need someone putting their words in others mouths.

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/out-of-line-postings-and-wild-conjecture/

w0x0f



This isn't wild conjecture and this isn't harming anyone or attacking anyone.  Under that post, this entire thread might as well be deleted now for some people attacking the pilot (or is the rule ATC-friendly only :-P).  Stop being a rule stickler on a simple little post that in all honesty, meant nothing, until you posted your bit.

For the record, I read the article posted and it did seem as if the union was using this as a way to bring about public support for their agenda, rightly or wrongly so (I actually believe rightly so, despite what you may think).  Again, my only point in what I said was that unions can take something and spin it to rally the public behind them.  I happened to choose two of the most discussed issues that people are trying to get support for.

The poster I quoted was commenting on how it was odd for the union to defend the pilot in the case.  I gave a general explanation which I later explained, for clarification, wasn't necessarily literal to this case with the examples I used.

EDIT: If you'd really like to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to PM me.  Otherwise, I'm done discussing this as I think we have now strayed too far away from the thread's point and purpose and I'd like to not deviate more.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 12:25:19 AM by SirIsaac726 »

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Everyone seems to be beating around the bush (sts) without addressing a few common sense issues.

Yes, all domestic flights are dispatched with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly an instrument approach (and if required by conditions at the time of release, enough fuel to go missed and fly to the most distant alternate) and thereafter fly for an additional 45 minutes. That's fact.

It can be reasonably assumed that they had an alternate based on the forecast winds alone (I have no idea what the ceiling or vis was at the time), as every company I've been with requires that an alternate be listed if the max crosswind component is forecast to be above limits at the ETA.

It can be further assumed that they were carrying additional hold fuel or contingency fuel because 1) It's a New York Metro airport, 2) the anticipated traffic volume, 3) the airspace complexity, 4) the forecast winds, 5) the closed runway, 6) high likelyhood of airborne holding, ATC tactical reroutes, and/or extensive vectoring as a result of 1-5.

So, all that being said, yes, sometimes factors pile up and you end up in a situation where you anticipate landing with less than reserve fuel. BUT, when that happens, the first thing that pilots do is declare "Minimum Fuel". This gets everyone's attention, and while it doesn't necessarily make you priority #1, most controllers will do whatever they can to ensure that you don't take any unnecessary delays.

Does anyone have him on tape saying those words?

If the situation deteriorates any further, the next words he will say are "Emergency Fuel". At that moment, he becomes an emergency aircraft with all of the priorities and assistance that is afforded to such aircraft. The most likely outcome would be a quick diversion to a closer airport, there are plenty of them that can accomodate a diversion without delay.

But I didn't hear him say those words either.

So, no, the idea that he was low on fuel and was in imminent danger of fuel exhaustion is pure baloney. If he actually believed that his fuel situation was critical, he made no attempt to share that information with ATC.

With the fuel situation nonsense out of the way, we can focus on what he actually DID say, which was something along the lines of "If you don't give me 31R, I'll declare an emergency". Again, that's a fact.

Anyone who is even remotely aware of how this business works can see right through the BS and knows exactly what was going on here. It's not rocket science...The PIC probably has lots of experience flying into JFK, and this is obviously not the first time that he's been expected to land on a runway that is more operationally advantageous for the airport, as opposed to the runway most convenient (or even safest, if you prefer) for the pilot.

All he had to do was tell the controller that he was unable to accept the runway assignment. They would have vectored him out and resequenced him for 31R as requested, no big deal.

Instead, he decided he was going to "show" them by busting out his Emergency Authority, and making a spectacle in order to prove his point. In so doing, he deviated from an ATC clearance which does, in fact, require a report to the administrator. He also completely unnecessarily disrupted other traffic, unnecessarily increased the controller's workload, and unnecessarily decreased safety margins.

He is a tool of epic proportions, and I would certainly hope that the meeting he undoubtedly had with the Chief Pilot resulted in significant discipline. Unless there was something going on that isn't reflected on the tapes, there was no justification for his behavior whatsoever. This was a blatant and willful misuse of his Emergency Authority.

I think you may have dramatized a bit here or there but overall I agree.....based on what we know so far.  I am one of those that are criticizing the pilot here, but my criticism is conditional.  It is a possibility that something we don't know happened and the situation was more immediate than was relayed on the radio and in fact, the pilot had trouble communicating while he was aviating, his first priority.  But I'm sticking to it that until something that details that is released, I have to believe that this emergency declaration wasn't warranted and the pilot mishandled the situation.

Offline davalos08

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Isaac, of course the first priority is aviate, but that is why CRM exists, one pilot flies the other communicates, works on checklists, etc, etc.

Maybe this flight lacked CRM as well as it lacked ATC professionalism in not asking the flight what was the nature of the emergency.

Offline allfive

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Quote
However, I was on AWE12 sitting on the left side of the aircraft. It was pretty weird to watch a 767 make an arching turn directly into our flight path. Obviously by that point we'd been held at 2000 with approach clearance cancelled, but as a passenger, it was certainly a bit unnerving. The captain came on just after we climbed to 3000 and explained that AA2 had declared emergency and thus we had to go around, but you could tell he wasn't sure why.

I'm responding to the passenger who saw "an arching turn directly into our flight path." I'm just a passenger who can't help but be caught up in the thread of this event. I couldn't quite make out the scenario from what was said. If you were sitting on the left, what did you see? Did it look like the plane was coming at you?

I guess it's all interesting because underneath the exchanges there was a mix of fear, brinkmanship and fast and lucky thinking.

Offline Flipr1Arrival

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
First question for all you airline fuel reserve experts:

Were they dispatched with alternate fuel?

I was hoping for an improvement in knowledge since my post on page 5, expect for a few glimmers of sunshine, nothing much has improved.

I guess the 'expert" Chief Pilots from the "virtual airlines" will continue the thread.

Later

B727/B737/B757/B767/B777 ect

Offline kack911

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
First question for all you airline fuel reserve experts:

Were they dispatched with alternate fuel?

I was hoping for an improvement in knowledge since my post on page 5, expect for a few glimmers of sunshine, nothing much has improved.

I guess the 'expert" Chief Pilots from the "virtual airlines" will continue the thread.

Later

B727/B737/B757/B767/B777 ect

Not sure who that's directed at, but I'm betting you know full well it's almost impossible to tell after the fact without direct knowledge. Does AA use Exemption 8653/4/5/6/7/8/9? Did they use it on that particular flight? Without knowing the answer to that, and without the TAF used at the time of dispatch, you can't say for sure.

But I CAN say for sure that I've never worked for a company that allowed me to dispatch an airplane to an airport where the winds exceeded the crosswind/taliwind limits without listing a solid alternate. And even if it wasn't required, you only have to get burned once with an unnecessary diversion to learn when and alternate is needed even when it's not "required".

Besides, the Captain signed the release, so he was apparently ok with the amount of fuel he was dispatched with (or he asked for more , and got it), as well as the presence or absence of an alternate. But what does that have to do with anything? If he was worried about fuel, he would have said so on the radio.

If he was worried about fuel and DIDN'T say something on the radio, then he needs to go back to CRM/DRM.

Offline SirIsaac787

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Isaac, of course the first priority is aviate, but that is why CRM exists, one pilot flies the other communicates, works on checklists, etc, etc.

Maybe this flight lacked CRM as well as it lacked ATC professionalism in not asking the flight what was the nature of the emergency.

Maybe you misunderstood my post but I agree.  I was just presenting the idea that there always seems to be a little more a story to these types of things than most suspect.  Who knows...maybe something completely unexpected happened and both pilots had their undivided attention on getting the airplane down safely?  If they did, then perhaps a communication breakdown might be slightly understandable (no one's perfect and getting a plane down safely in an emergency is priority number 1).  But unless that is out in the public and is knowledge to me, then I have to agree with you.

Offline sykocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
The pilot "rather rudely" told the controller to clear the area because the controller, after several attempts, was not picking up on the declaration of the emergency.  The pilot warned he would declare an emergency, then declared an emergency, and when it was clear the controller wasn't picking up on it, he got more pointed in conveying that information.  If I had to say "declaring an emergency" three times before a controller started acting, I'd be pretty upset as well.  I'd say the transmissions were still pretty useful in that the controller had still not acknowledged their declaration.

Those priorities don't change as you acquire hours.  Perfectly good airliners have been flown right into the ground because the pilots weren't "flying the airplane."

Listen to the clip again. The pilot doesn't declare an emergency 3 times.  He says "if you don't get us to 31R we will declare...". The controller say's he'll pass it along. The pilot didn't say he needs to be immediately cleared for an approach to 31 or he'll declare he just says if can't get it he will. There are other aircraft in the in the sky and on the ground using 31 and the controller needs to coordinate. Then the pilot say's he is declaring. That's the first time he's actually saying he's an emergency. Even then he still doesn't say needs an immediate approach clearance. When an aircraft goes missed approach most of them don't want to immediately circle to the a runway 90 degess offset to the one they were just lined up on. They get climbout instructions and get resequenced, but evidently that's not what AAL2 wanted but somehow the controller was supposed to know this w/o AAL2 telling him because when he tried to give him further instructions he's told the by a unidentified voice "clear the area", but I think all most of us agree it's probably AAL2. Remember the pilot has still only said he was an emergency once at this point. The controller verifies he's an emergency and the pilot claims to have "told [him] 3 times...", yet he only declared an emergency once, and still has not said he needs an immediate approach clearance to 31r. Up to this point the pilot only said the word emergency 3 total times. Once was when he said he "will declare" if he doesn't get 31, and another he when he's claiming to have already told the controller 3 times. That's not the same has having told the controller 3 times they are an emergency.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 04:56:23 AM by sykocus »

Offline davolijj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
  • MMAC ARSR OKC
Good points sykocus.

I got the impression that the 22L localizer being unreliable or OTS compounded the pilot's decision to declare.  That would explain why the whole exchange didn't happen with approach when they cleared him for the visual.  Without localizer guidance they would have had to hand-fly the approach with a nasty crosswind and may not have felt they could perform a stabilized approach under those conditions.

Offline VampyreGTX

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
    • The Aspiring Pilot
First question for all you airline fuel reserve experts:

Were they dispatched with alternate fuel?

I was hoping for an improvement in knowledge since my post on page 5, expect for a few glimmers of sunshine, nothing much has improved.

I guess the 'expert" Chief Pilots from the "virtual airlines" will continue the thread.

Later

B727/B737/B757/B767/B777 ect

Yes, Flipr, cause you have added so much, with all that experience in almost every Boeing jet flying according to your last line there, why don't you provide your infinite wisdom?  A lot of people on here are actual controllers and pilots, yet there are others as well that are not, but I forgot that no one can discuss something in a public forum unless they are considered an expert witness on it  :roll:  Yup, lets not share opinions, ideas, or make a comment, that even if wrong, can lead to a correction and the poster learning something. 

Offline VampyreGTX

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
    • The Aspiring Pilot
In fact, somebody suggested that since the public listens to this frequency, there definitely should have been some advisory exchange.  That seems a bit ridiculous.

Read my post again, that is not at all what I said.  My reference to being on a radio frequency that is knowingly monitored by many aviaition enthusiasts as well as possibly passengers on other planes, was meant toward the professionalism of the exchange.  The ego's being involved was beyond how any pilot should act.  Go ahead and bitch and moan about the idiot controllers amongst yourselves in the cockpit (and vice-versa), but be professional in your interaction with everyone you deal with when representing your company and profession.  A pilot had one additional powerful word in their arsenal in addition to 'emergency', and that is unable.  IF (and this IS conjecture) the issue was truly simply the crosswind component problem, all the pilot would need to say is UNABLE.  Quick, concise responses/communications without trying to one-up each other would have kept this thread to less than half a dozen posts. 

In the end, I can guarantee this wasn't the first, and won't be the last, exchange between the pilot and ATC that will be this way.

Also, I highly recommend reading skyocus' post. 

Now, let me get back to my virtual airline....  :roll: LOL.  Whatever....


Cap747

  • Guest
I too live by the knolledge this is a public discussion and therefore I don't have to type as a lawyer or news agency, but if Flipr wants Internet to be the place only for "official reports" then he better find his own planet  8-)

Now to the topic again: in a earlier post I had to listen in slowmotion to the take over of that radio call.... saying you don't under(stand) this does indicate a immediate change of situation they were in to.

I have heard many situations where pilots went out of traffic and got themselves into a holding pattern and after a minute or so stating the nature of it.... he could have said we need to land immediately here for whatever reason and I remember that Avianca there fore...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 01:36:51 PM by Cap747 »

Offline knicksinny

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
today at 13:26 Z a quick exchange at jfk between a jetblue pilot and controller where the pilot ask if he can land on 4L and the tower says no unless you are declaring an emergency. 

Cap747

  • Guest
Re: Weird JFK Emergency _nah_unless you declare"
« Reply #97 on: May 07, 2010, 03:15:08 PM »
Yeah that was sarcasm  :-D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 03:17:08 PM by Cap747 »

Offline thetinman_n90

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
the faa and the airlines got together and planned this runway closure together (31L) ....the airlines told the faa they would land in winds similar to what existed at the time of this event....there are many pilots that are pissed off about being put in these situations...there was NOT a fuel issue....pilots want to land into the wind - and that's exactly what this captain did after he disregarded ATC instructions and failed to tell ATC the nature of his emergency

Offline jpwilde

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Hey Vampyre and others who are laying some blame with the controller, care to elaborate your thoughts on that?  (And I mean that with no sarcasm or pointedness--I'm really curious.)

The way I hear it, the controller was just too busy to ask for info on the nature of the emergency, souls aboard, etc.  He had two planes that conflicted with what AA2 was going to do and he needed the frequency and/or brain cycles to deal with that.  If that's the case I would kind of hope that he wouldn't waste time getting the details instead of getting planes out of the way.

As soon as he was clear that they were an emergency, the controller gave them a vector.  Maybe not the vector they wanted, but it's not as though he can vector them into an unsafe situation just because they're an emergency.  I imagine it would have gone something like "fly runway heading ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ok, make a left turn you're cleared to land"  Plus, as soon as it became clear what AA2 was doing, he went by the book and cleared them to land anyway.

Also, to my ear, the controllers hostility didn't come out until they were on the ground.  That's unfortunate, but understandable.