Tense exchange between ATC and pilot at JFK

canadian_atc said:
Just for clarification... declaring "Minimum Fuel" is not an emergency declaration either, and does not grant you anything special, just no "Un-Due" Delay...
Click to expand...


And to add to that... it should be restated after the call sign with every controller change to ensure that everyone is on the same page.
 
[7500]
For the ATC folks:

Often, we're booked for trips down south (SUA, PBI, MIA) out of the NY area (TEB, HPN, ISP) and while I can load the required fuel (per the regs and consistent with safety and captain pucker factor), when I get started down out of FL450 250 miles from my destination it really cuts into what I have.

While it has never come down to calling minimum fuel, it has been close a few times. So, is there something I can do to help with this "issue" or...........am I just going to get stuck doing on of three things:

1) Bargaining with center to stay high,
2) Diverting if it becomes an issue, or
3) Making a planned fuel stop

?

Thanks for any input.

[/7500]

-mini
 
I think some are making too big a deal. I really doubt the captain of a heavy American jet would declare just for the hell of it. Unless of course it was the last flight of his career and was itching to get started on retirement :D

I wouldn't even say it was a tense exchange... Just a bit of furstration not to mention it being the n.east
 
This is total b.s. The Capt did what he needed to do. He DID declare an emergency, you can hear it on the tape, and the controller did not pick up on it. Not the first time, but the second for sure. It is a non-issue. BTDT.
 
You know, I love controllers they have saved my butt more than once. But for several months I have had runway problems at LVK with ATC. Today happened twice on the same flight and reminded me of this thread.

While I get that me giving dual in a 172 isnt as important as a Lear on the ILS, that hasnt always been the reason they have switched runways on me. I will be on 25R, an RV-4 will be 2 miles behind me, and I am on a 4 mile strait in. They want to switch me and a brand new student doing landings onto 25L which is the narrow short runway. I say unable, they ask why, I say student training, so they say ok Cessna 324SP fly runway heading, climb to 2,000 make a right 270 over the field cross overhead, make left traffic for 25R behind the experimental... Really!!!!????? WTF!!!!!!! All that guff because making my student land on the small runway is not only unsafe but would probably make him have a heart attack at this stage of the game. It makes me real mad how the controllers want to play god in the tower and think they have the final authority. If I have to declare an emergency to make my point that they are there to aid us than I would, we are the final authority and thats written in stone.

Another example is flying the Pitts. Nobody that has never flown a Pitts would understand but landing that plane on a narrow runway sucks, and when I have to convince tower to please let me land on the big runway so I dont ball an expensive plane up because there is a nasty x-wind it really makes me mad.
 
Inverted said:
They want to switch me and a brand new student doing landings onto 25L which is the narrow short runway. I say unable, they ask why, I say student training, so they say ok Cessna 324SP fly runway heading, climb to 2,000 make a right 270 over the field cross overhead, make left traffic for 25R behind the experimental... Really!!!!????? WTF!!!!!!! All that guff because making my student land on the small runway is not only unsafe but would probably make him have a heart attack at this stage of the game.
Click to expand...

After reading this, I'm not quite sure how I'm still alive after my CFI gig at an airport with only a 2270' x 45' runway.
 
Inverted said:
No but when your student is trying a landing for the first time you would like to have a buffer right?
Click to expand...
I did most of my instructing at an airport with a 9000x150 runway. Once I got some experience instructing, I learned not to let them learn to land there. We'd go over to the 2500'x75 (I think 75) airport and do touch and gos. If they learn on that, landing on a 9000' runway is easy.

...and if they're off the centerline, fast and high, floating or just not feeling right about it, they get to practice their go-around! Win-win-win.

-mini
 
There are so many unknowns here it is hard to make any judgement on the controller or the pilot.

few things I notice is in the LiveATC clip is on AAL's callup tower says "there is traffic on final for 31R".

The AAL never stated the reason for the emergency beyond stating if he didn't get 31R he was going to declare an emergency, that is nebulous at best.

When AAL got "fly runway heading" there had to be a reason maybe that other aircraft on final was traffic and any turn by AAL would put him in conflict. I understand pilot is solely responsible for the safety of the flight but ATC has a part in that too. In this case it worked out but whose to say that left turn and command to "move everyone out of our way" wouldn't have gotten AAL a windshield full of B747. Just because the pilot told ATC to move everyone out of the way doesn't mean ATC can snap their fingers and make everyone else disappear.

All I am saying is AAL as the PIC had every right to to do what he did but be careful applauding/emulating this because when you do something like that you take control of the consequences of disregarding ATC instruction. Had AAL caused another aircraft to take severe evasive action and an incident occured it would have been on the AAL pilot and the pilot alone.


That said the root cause of this is a double edged sword, no way should an SOP require landing in a 23G35kt crosswind with an alternative available, delays be damned.
 
23G35 really isn't that bad of a crosswind. There had to be more going on, conversations with whoever handed him off. I say kudos to the captain, I'm sure he had a good reason to do what he did and everyone on that plane just might be alive because he showed authority.
 
It's soooooooo simple to sit here and second guess. All's well that ends well. That being said, my feeling is that the crew did the right thing, with one technical error. Declaring an emergency is not a negotiating ploy. Either there is an emergency or there isn't. "We are declaring an emergency intending on an immediate landing 31R." would be an appropriately assertive response. ATC seemed rather slow on the uptake. Seems to be a favorable resolution: none dead, none injured, all equipment is reusable and an apparent problem was brought to light.

minitour said:
...and if they're off the centerline, fast and high, floating or just not feeling right about it, they get to practice their go-around! Win-win-win.

-mini
Click to expand...

I agree with minitour. How much runway is really needed? Just the distance between the outside of the tires. Anything else is just for pilot (and especially instructor) comfort. :D
 
Rudabega said:
23G35 really isn't that bad of a crosswind. There had to be more going on, conversations with whoever handed him off. I say kudos to the captain, I'm sure he had a good reason to do what he did and everyone on that plane just might be alive because he showed authority.
Click to expand...

Based on what? What is the demonstrated crosswind on that aircraft? What is the landing performance with some tail wind? Did the winds change so they had a component they did not already consider?

Contrary to what you have written, a gusting 35 kt crosswind/quartering tailwind, is a serious consideration.

I also disagree that there was any problem with the statement saying that if they didn't give them the other runway, that they'd have to declare an emergency. The capt was just trying to avoid the hassle for everyone if they declare. If they could just be reassigned without that, then no problem. However, they also may not have had the gas to do much. That is NOTHING illegal about ending up tight on fuel. Legal dispatch fuel is NOT the same as what is required to land. We burn into the reserve and alternate fuel not infrequently to land at the destination. It is a Capt decision. Happens much less often at my company than the pax carriers, because we carry a lot of extra fuel for dispatch reliability, but it still happens.
 
Okie_Pilot said:
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?
Click to expand...

ATC assigns what runways will suit them the best for operations. Small tailwinds are allowed and most aircraft can handle up to a 10 kt tailwind depending on runways and weight. It is a pain in the rear to switch an airport configuration and causes delays.

If they started using 31 as a primary runway it would cut capacity and cause long delays.

ATC will always use the configuration that benefits them the majority of the time unless weather forces their hand.

seagull said:
Based on what? What is the demonstrated crosswind on that aircraft? What is the landing performance with some tail wind? Did the winds change so they had a component they did not already consider?

Contrary to what you have written, a gusting 35 kt crosswind/quartering tailwind, is a serious consideration.

I also disagree that there was any problem with the statement saying that if they didn't give them the other runway, that they'd have to declare an emergency. The capt was just trying to avoid the hassle for everyone if they declare. If they could just be reassigned without that, then no problem. However, they also may not have had the gas to do much. That is NOTHING illegal about ending up tight on fuel. Legal dispatch fuel is NOT the same as what is required to land. We burn into the reserve and alternate fuel not infrequently to land at the destination. It is a Capt decision. Happens much less often at my company than the pax carriers, because we carry a lot of extra fuel for dispatch reliability, but it still happens.
Click to expand...


Demonstrated crosswind is just what a test pilot did during testing. It is not a limit in most aircraft however companies usually make it a limit or set somthing lower as a limit. For the 727 it is 29 knots with any gust higher operationally unacceptable.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Demonstrated crosswind is just what a test pilot did during testing. It is not a limit in most aircraft however companies usually make it a limit or set somthing lower as a limit. For the 727 it is 29 knots with any gust higher operationally unacceptable.
Click to expand...


That's a big point of contention on a lot of properties. The CRJ has a max DEMONSTRATED crosswind of 27 knots. That's a hard number for us, but plenty of other operators use it simply as the max demonstrated and allow their pilots to go over it.

Also for us, the 27 number doesn't take into account the gusts. It's completely legal for us to land with a 90* crosswind that is 26G45. Not smart, but legal.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Demonstrated crosswind is just what a test pilot did during testing. It is not a limit in most aircraft however companies usually make it a limit or set somthing lower as a limit. For the 727 it is 29 knots with any gust higher operationally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I am personally very well acquainted with the procedure to obtain the demonstrated crosswind, as well as the meaning in the regulation. However, there are two issues here:

1. Many companies (mine included) treat it as a hard limit;

2. Those that don't rely on the PIC to make a determination. While there is pressure to push it, there are often times when an even lower number is the maximum acceptable. If you do exceed it and end up in the weeds, legal or not, you can expect it to be uncomfortable defending that decision sitting at the end of that long table with a glass of water in front of you.
 
seagull said:
This is total b.s. The Capt did what he needed to do. He DID declare an emergency, you can hear it on the tape, and the controller did not pick up on it. Not the first time, but the second for sure. It is a non-issue. BTDT.
Click to expand...

It is an issue because the captain made it one. He could have said: I am declaring an emergency the first time, rather than threatening to declare, then declaring.
 
BobDDuck said:
That's a big point of contention on a lot of properties. The CRJ has a max DEMONSTRATED crosswind of 27 knots. That's a hard number for us, but plenty of other operators use it simply as the max demonstrated and allow their pilots to go over it.

Also for us, the 27 number doesn't take into account the gusts. It's completely legal for us to land with a 90* crosswind that is 26G45. Not smart, but legal.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that are legal by reg but just aren't safe and the fed will hang you on "careless and reckeless" you have to take into a lot of factors when landing with large crosswinds. I wonder if these airlines show theri PIC's high crosswinds in the SIM? I've seen a couple of RJ's smack wing tips on xwinds. I've seen a demo of high xwinds in the sim for the 727 at higher numbers it gets really ugly on the roll out.

mojo6911 said:
It is an issue because the captain made it one. He could have said: I am declaring an emergency the first time, rather than threatening to declare, then declaring.
Click to expand...

It is what it is right now until all the reports come out. We definately don't have all the facts here to make an accurate opinion. I've seen min fuel declared and ATC disregard it by the pilot declare a low fuel emergency only to have ATC tell the pilot a vector to the airport. The PIC then was forced to turn the airplane direct to the field an state his intentions to land on x runway. ATC again tried to turn the pilot away from the field....ATC some times doesn't even understand the words "xzy is declaring an emergency for low fuel"
 
"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!"
__________________

I heard this story about 15 YEARS ago except it was a B-52 and the F-16 guy said, "Oh yeah, the dreaded 7-engine approach." The planes keep changing and the outcome gets better but THE STORY IS THE SAME.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wasn't you. Oh wait, yes I am..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top