Tense exchange between ATC and pilot at JFK

[Vref]

Although I don't fly a 76, I do fly it's bigger brother. A concern I always have when landing on 22L at JFK (along with dozens of others), is landing performance of a widebody jet flying a VOR approach to an 8400 ft runway after a 15-16 hour flt.

On a normal day there isn't much runway left using standard SOP's. It's comfortable, but landing long isn't really and option. It could possibly be that the excessive x-wind, a bit of a tailwind component, close to MLW, and crew performance after a transcon flight could have added to his decision. These components alone can make the PIC think twice about how much margin of error there really is. In a 777, the above scenario alone would require a thorough review of landing performance including a point on the runway at which we must be on the ground or a go-around will be initiated. Add the possibility of being low on fuel, sometimes it just doesn't make sense to push the boundaries when another option may exist.

As I said earlier, I don't really know the performance of a 76. I do know that when I heard the transcript it felt all too familiar. In MY opinion, the PIC saw the risk/reward ratio wasn't in his corner and he used his authority to get a runway that increased the margin of safety for HIS operation. Well done in my view!

 

[mrivc211]

That's what you call captains authority.

 

[fholbert]

That's what you call captains authority.

Only on TV.

He does have the authority to not land in that crosswind. He does not have the authority to ignore missed approach instructions because of a crosswind.

I've sent emergency aircraft (landing gear) to an high altitude holding pattern so the runway wasn't shut down until we were ready. The runway was NOTAM to be closed at XX:XX and we worked to get everyone we could in before that.

 

[jhugz]

Only on TV.

He does have the authority to not land in that crosswind. He does not have the authority to ignore missed approach instructions because of a crosswind.

I've sent emergency aircraft (landing gear) to an high altitude holding pattern so the runway wasn't shut down until we were ready. The runway was NOTAM to be closed at XX:XX and we worked to get everyone we could in before that.

Once he declares the emergency he can do whatever the hell he wants to.

 

[fholbert]

Once he declares the emergency he can do whatever the hell he wants to.

No, not always. A lot of emergencies do not effect the safety of the aircraft while in flight. Landing gear emergencies would be a good example.

 

[jhugz]

Landing gear emergencies would be a good example.

Running out of fuel would not be.

 

[mooneyguy]

Only on TV.

He does have the authority to not land in that crosswind. He does not have the authority to ignore missed approach instructions because of a crosswind.

I've sent emergency aircraft (landing gear) to an high altitude holding pattern so the runway wasn't shut down until we were ready. The runway was NOTAM to be closed at XX:XX and we worked to get everyone we could in before that.

yeah, actually he does!

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.




(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

it's NOT your decision to determine the nature or severity of the emergency!

 

[fholbert]

Running out of fuel would not be.

I don't think you listened to the tape. Nothing was said about being low on fuel. However, if he was that low on fuel he violated other FAR's.

Either way, he may be facing a suspension.

 

[ctab5060X]

I don't think you listened to the tape. Nothing was said about being low on fuel. However, if he was that low on fuel he violated other FAR's.

Either way, he may be facing a suspension.

Or it could be a case of miscommunication.

They might have declared "min fuel", but not continued to re-state "min fuel" with every controller change.

 

[msmspilot]

yeah, actually he does!

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.




(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

it's NOT your decision to determine the nature or severity of the emergency!

You missed maybe the most important part of that regulation from an enforcement standpoint. That's the "to the extent required to meet that emergency" part. Once you declare, you can do whatever the hell you want as long as it is tied to safely handling the emergency.

 

[beasly]

Low fuel...beyond crosswind limitation of the airplane...controller who just wasn't getting the hint...

Should there be more? :dunno:

Flowers are nice.

<ducks>

 

[Alchemy]

I don't see the problem. Without knowing all the facts its impossible to say whether or not the AA pilot was out of line. Just going off the recording, there is no evidence of wrong doing other than rudeness when he said "3 times we've told you". I'm sure all pilots are willing to accommodate ATC if conditions permit. Sometimes conditions don't allow that to happen.

 

[Rosstafari]

You missed maybe the most important part of that regulation from an enforcement standpoint. That's the "to the extent required to meet that emergency" part. Once you declare, you can do whatever the hell you want as long as it is tied to safely handling the emergency.

I think that's the thing in question here. Speculations on low fuel are just that -- speculations. No fuel advisory was made.

While every pilot should get the benefit of the doubt when declaring an emergency, something's not right here. If there was a fuel issue, why wasn't it mentioned? For that matter, given the extent of conversation that did take place, why wasn't the nature of the emergency mentioned at all? The pilot had time to berate the controller, but not inform him of what to expect so he could prepare an appropriate response?

Lines like "If you don't get us to runway 31R we're going to declare an emergency" and "I've told you three times already" don't sound right to me. There's something here that's beyond what's been reported so far, either on the controller's part, the pilot's part, or both.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

I listened to the recording again, the pilots ego is going to cost him. He even ignored missed approach instructions and turned the other way.

If he really was that low on fuel. He could have just made this whole thing alot easier by saying that they were really low on fuel and needed to land on 31R instead of pretty much barking orders. Im not a pilot... yet. But it just seems to me that he would have been alot more calm about it. There wouldn't need to be an FAA investigation.

Only on TV.

He does have the authority to not land in that crosswind. He does not have the authority to ignore missed approach instructions because of a crosswind.

I've sent emergency aircraft (landing gear) to an high altitude holding pattern so the runway wasn't shut down until we were ready. The runway was NOTAM to be closed at XX:XX and we worked to get everyone we could in before that.

The question here is why was the emergency declared and he went immediately for that runway. We don't know what was going on with or in the plane. There just are not enough facts. If the winds weren't favorable and they couldn't land 22 then why not go to the alternate? What was the need for 31R in a hurry? Time will tell. What were the previous conversations with Center and Approach?

 

[ahsmatt7]

This thing of not telling the controller that their aircraft was low on fuel sounds a lot like what happened when an Avianca airliner crashed at JFK.

 

[Okie_Pilot]

Forgive the ignorance guys, for I know not much about flying airliners or how ATC REALLY works. But from the video he was cleared to land 22L, winds 320/23G35. Thats 100 degrees of crosswind, which would actually give him a slight tailwind... Why weren't they using the other end of the runway, which would be 04, and would have gave them an 80 degree crosswind INTO the wind instead of a tailwind? Better yet, with that kind of wind, why weren't they using 31R?

 

[fholbert]

it's NOT your decision to determine the nature or severity of the emergency!

Are you sure?

It's after dark, a PARO at 9000 and and an Aztec at 7000, both enroute v14. Same time same place both declair an emergency due to ice. Real panic in their voices. We had freezing temps to the ground. Who do you make #1? I choose the guy at 9000, everyone lived.

Another time a C-141 declared and emergency 45 minutes ago with center because he had to shut down 1 of 4 engines. He's on a RADAR base when a one engine fighter without warning flames out. It was my job to determine the nature or severity of the emergency. Call me stupid but I choose to make the Lead Sled #1 and vector the C-141 across final. All lived, the C-141 got to fly another day. The Thud pilot got to ride the last couple of miles in a helicopter. I tried!

 

[ctab5060X]

This thing of not telling the controller that their aircraft was low on fuel sounds a lot like what happened when an Avianca airliner crashed at JFK.

Yeah it does...

 

[ian]

if there was not a fuel problem, x-winds are no reason to declare an emergency...

back in my t-1 days, we had many times where we couldnt land due to x-winds on a wet runway, we shot the approach 3 times hoping the gust would fall out and it didnt, so we went to our alternate...all without declaring an emergency......

now if fuel was an issue, then good on him for declaring

 

[ian]

Are you sure?

It's after dark, a PARO at 9000 and and an Aztec at 7000, both enroute v14. Same time same place both declair an emergency due to ice. Real panic in their voices. We had freezing temps to the ground. Who do you make #1? I choose the guy at 9000, everyone lived.

Another time a C-141 declared and emergency 45 minutes ago with center because he had to shut down 1 of 4 engines. He's on a RADAR base when a one engine fighter without warning flames out. It was my job to determine the nature or severity of the emergency. Call me stupid but I choose to make the Lead Sled #1 and vector the C-141 across final. All lived, the C-141 got to fly another day. The Thud pilot got to ride the last couple of miles in a helicopter. I tried!

situation 1: depends on the severity of the icing at each altitude, whichever is more severe gets the priority

situation 2: of course you did, why would you even remotely consider putting an aircraft flying on 3 engines in front of an aircraft on 0 engines.....that's just common sense