No he won't this is standard stuff, people get into fuel situations all the time especially after holding and at busy airports like for these guys in this case. He was most likely min fuel(not a violation). Everyone knows that "unofficially" a go around is not an option with min fuel. Add in the 30knot xwind was not legal to land on 22L resulting in a go around, he kind of forced it on the controller but that's nothing to suspend a pilot over, he didn't' violate anything. ATC won't be dead, you will along with your pax if you don't make the right decisions. And yes it was fuel, a pilot won't declare an emergency because of xwind.
Tense exchange between ATC and pilot at JFK
- Thread starter Bigscrb15
- Start date
No he won't this is standard stuff, people get into fuel situations all the time especially after holding and at busy airports like for these guys in this case. He was most likely min fuel(not a violation). Everyone knows that "unofficially" a go around is not an option with min fuel. Add in the 30knot xwind was not legal to land on 22L resulting in a go around, he kind of forced it on the controller but that's nothing to suspend a pilot over, he didn't' violate anything. ATC won't be dead, you will along with your pax if you don't make the right decisions. And yes it was fuel, a pilot won't declare an emergency because of xwind.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
I had enough time out there. I can almost envision the discourse. Don't miss it a bit.
"Can we turn Left?"
No
"Can we turn right?"
No
"Can we get lower?"
No
"Can I get a what, what?"
Not just because of a crosswind normally...but if the crosswind forces you into a fuel situation then, sure! The crosswind is still the cause and the effect is the low fuel so the result is the E.
I don't have any problem with this. The PIC made the decision he needed to. No bent metal, no body bags......nothing worse than some paperwork and maybe (doubtful) some training. I'd gladly take the paperwork over the alternative (and I have).
-mini
Regarding the bolded text, you hit the nail on the head - in my (a controller's) opinion. That however, is what I feel caused the confusion. Saying, "If I don't get runway X, I'm going to declare," is not making a decision, it's the start of a "negotiation" process - for lack of a better phrase. That means you, as the pilot, gave me, the controller options. It's an if/then statement.
"Tower AAL2 H, we're declaring an emergency. We're breaking off the approach and turning for 31." <-- THAT is a decision. Done. There is nothing to question there. There is no confusion, nothing to question.
It may not seem like a big difference, but in an extremely busy terminal environment with airplanes EVERYWHERE - it is. "If I don't get this, I'm going to declare" vs "I'm declaring an emergency and going here" is apples and string beans.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
You were controlling PSA182?
Anyway, kind of did remind me of the Avianca 707 accident. Who knows if that was about to happen or not, we don't know enough. I can sort of see how ATC would think for a second "Wait...he's going to declare an emergency IF I do this?". So I understand the controller confirming the emergency. I also understand that while the pilot's comment may have seemed rude, they were obviously really stressed/busy at the time and having to negotiate with ATC after already having declared an emergency and stating their intentions multiple times would obvious piss anyone off. But if the pilot felt a go-around was not an option, then good on him for expressing that. I'm very interested to find out what happened.
An interesting tidbit I heard on the ATC freqs that caught my attention years ago was an IFE in progress. In that instance, an aircraft declared an emergency in Class B airspace. The weather was broken CB with rain, enough-so that IFR aircraft were being vectored to instrument final, with no visual approaches being issued. The aircraft with the IFE (rough-running engine on a Cessna 421) couldn't understand why he wasn't getting immediate vectors to final to land, and why he was told to "stand-by" by ATC. He raised hell a few times about it to ATC. But there seemed to be, from my perspective, a few things he failed to understand about ATC and how they work. Now, I fully understand that anytime someone declares an IFE, they expect, and should receive, priority handling to the maximum extent possible. Keep in mind the last part of that sentence: "to the maximum extent possible." When someone has an IFE, their only worry is (rightfully) their aircraft and themselves, but they've got to understand why some things may happen that may not initially go their way. When an IFE gets declared to ATC, the controller's entire scope doesn't come to a grinding halt. He still has those (possibly) 10, 20, or more MTI "blips" to sequence and separate. Once someone declares an IFE, chances are, they've now thrown a monkey wrench into the controllers sequence/separation plan; they're a pain-in-the-ass now for all intents and purposes. He still has his other traffic to work while he works to prioritize the IFE, and may very well have to have the IFE "stand by" while he coordinates with other sectors/tower for the IFE, etc; this workload being possibly multiplied ten-fold if the WX is actual IFR due to sequencing needs and the lack of visual approaches/separation available. Often times, an IFE may just have to recover within the flow that's already in place. It's a crap-sandwich, I know, but you play the cards you're dealt, and they're rarely going to be four-of-a-kind Aces.
I can remember being in Korea and having a hydraulic malfunction/failure. Returning to base following declaring my IFE with the Korean ATC, and figuring I'd be able to recover quickly, I'm instead sent to holding with an EAC time, as I find out I'm IFE #7 in line........1 with an engine shutdown, 3 with min fuel, one with electrical problems being led in for a landing, one NORDO and inbound and will likely just be hitting the IAF for the HI-TACAN and immediately commencing the penetration track, and then me........the least priority emergency of the 7 of us who are declared emergencies; along with the other recovering fighters who, if given delays, will themselves become emergencies. All while the winds had forced ATC to turn the PAR dish around, and that took time to accomplish and setup. I was also held since when i was asked "fuel and souls onboard", it was determined I had ample fuel to hold in comparison to the other fighters that carried little and burned it too fast.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
I really hope there's more to this story.
If the pilot declared an emergency simply because of the crosswind, then that's unprofessional, and foolish... ignoring missed approach instructions for the same reason is also unacceptable.
You can't just declare an emergency because you didn't get what you want, and if you do you WILL answer for it with enforcement.
THAT BEING SAID, if the pilot had a real fuel issue which we may not have info on, then that's a different story, but the crew also could have been more descriptive.
"Tower, we need 31R now, we are declaring an emergency, min fuel"
Those last two words would have ended this whole debate, however, my thoughts on the pilots demeanor, and the nature of the emergency, AND hearing the earlier approach tapes, it looks like this crew just got pissy about having to land in an unacceptable crosswind, and instead of dealing with it professionally decided to ruin everyones day for their own benefit.
There's no doubt here that the crosswinds were high, and it's 100% the pilots responsibility to keep his aircraft safe, but crosswinds is not a valid reason to declare an emergency.
If the pilot declared an emergency simply because of the crosswind, then that's unprofessional, and foolish... ignoring missed approach instructions for the same reason is also unacceptable.
You can't just declare an emergency because you didn't get what you want, and if you do you WILL answer for it with enforcement.
THAT BEING SAID, if the pilot had a real fuel issue which we may not have info on, then that's a different story, but the crew also could have been more descriptive.
"Tower, we need 31R now, we are declaring an emergency, min fuel"
Those last two words would have ended this whole debate, however, my thoughts on the pilots demeanor, and the nature of the emergency, AND hearing the earlier approach tapes, it looks like this crew just got pissy about having to land in an unacceptable crosswind, and instead of dealing with it professionally decided to ruin everyones day for their own benefit.
There's no doubt here that the crosswinds were high, and it's 100% the pilots responsibility to keep his aircraft safe, but crosswinds is not a valid reason to declare an emergency.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
I hate to say it, but sometimes "jerk" is the only language JFK ATC understands. They're rude to the pilots and it's funny. A pilot is stern with them and they're called "unprofessional". Huge double standard.
AM011309
Well-Known Member
:clap: yes exactly. thank you. Again, if it wasn't falling out of the sky, (well I guess even if it was) the pilot just potentially put a lot of other people in danger. NY Terminal airspace is not somewhere I'd want to just break off and do what I want.
AirmetTango
Well-Known Member
+1 on both accounts. Sure, no one was injured and no metal was bent, and I won't question the AAL crew's decision to declare the emergency, especially since we don't know all the facts. I think the real lesson to be learned in this case, is that the emergency declaration, whether one agrees it was necessary or not, was not handled properly by the crew.
Regardless of any other circumstances, the communications from the AAL flight, in the limited sound bite that we have to go by, come off as leveraging...as TripSix said, the "if/then" phrasing by the crew sounds like a negotiation, not a concrete statement made by a PIC who has made a decision. Whether it turns out that the crew "declared an emergency" for the right or wrong reasons, the poor communications created a circus, when a simple "AAL2 Heavy, we're an emergency, breaking off the approach and turning for 31L" eliminates the entire controversy that this incident seems to be causing.
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
Actually the FAR's state you must plan for minimum fuel reserves given weather. So as long as he can prove that, there are always situations that will get you minimum fuel without breaking a FAR. Weather changes, ATC vectors etc etc.
ian
Well-Known Member
Haha, you make that sound like it was 'back in the 'Nam'. Wasn't that like 6-9 months ago?
OF COURSE IT ISNT NAM.....THERE ARE RULES
more like 4-5 :rotfl:
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Just for clarification... declaring "Minimum Fuel" is not an emergency declaration either, and does not grant you anything special, just no "Un-Due" Delay...
element94
Well-Known Member
So, we're berating a pilot because he can't play nice with ATC?
Last time I checked, safety of flight took priority over what ATC thinks of my personality.
What a load of crap. While I certainly can't speculate, I've never heard of a pilot declaring because he was pissed off. Kudos to the captain for exercising 91.3. I'm sure everyone would be singing a different tune if we had another Avianca accident.
Last time I checked, safety of flight took priority over what ATC thinks of my personality.
What a load of crap. While I certainly can't speculate, I've never heard of a pilot declaring because he was pissed off. Kudos to the captain for exercising 91.3. I'm sure everyone would be singing a different tune if we had another Avianca accident.
Callador
New Member
Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't.