AA pilot argues with Tower

They should have realized earlier, that there was a good chance to become fuel critical.
A diversion to a nearby airport ( Newark, La Guardia etc…..) would have been the better option, better than declaring an emergency, forcing all other traffic to move aside.

La Guardia? Take a look at the airport diagram and take a guess why that wasn’t an option.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/LGA_airport_map.gif

EWR? Winds were reported at 310/24g34. And what runway would you plan on them landing there? 22L or 4R? What would the crosswind component be on those runways?

What other airport has the capability to handle a 767? HPN? TEB? ISP? Yeah, a lot of airports around but none are helpful.

Sometimes last hour changes can make you fuel critical. How close to his planned fuel burn was he enroute? Were the winds stronger than forecast? Did changes in airport operations or routing changes increase the amount of fuel required?

I’ve been less than 30 minutes into a 4 hour flight, been given a reroute and been forced to declare “min fuel” because the routing around weather increased our burn significantly. We had enough for the flight but couldn’t accept any further delays. I’ve also been within 1 hour of the airport, been given delaying vectors because ATC had to slow the arrivals because of high winds, change in runways, weather, etc. that meant we when from having significant reserves upon landing to cutting it close. Weather was forecast to be fine so no alternate airport was planned yet plans changed.

We don’t know what his alternate(s) were and what weather they were experiencing. I’m sure a lot can change in a forecast from departure to arrival. It’s very possible EWR was his alternate but the crosswinds ended up being just as stiff if not worse there. Sure he could have used more of his reserves to go there and fight those winds but why should he if JFK has a perfectly usable runway that would make for an easier approach. Sometimes ATC gets tunnel vision and keep throwing aircraft after aircraft at a runway even with increasing tailwinds, inbound weather, etc. I’ve heard “well the last aircraft did it” more than a few times on arrival if you request vectors around weather rather than go through it. Not to mention sighs of disappointment if you deny a runway because the tailwinds are too high. Airports all have runway configurations that are ideal for arriving and departing aircraft, JFK is no different. As soon as operations require them to abandon that arrangement arrival and departure rates can decrease significantly and now create a whole other list of issues for them. “If all the airplanes would just accept runway X things would go a lot smoother…”

I would venture a guess this Captain isn’t new to JFK and quite verse in their ability to keep aircraft on a particular arrival despite unfavorable winds. “Well, the last aircraft did it…” It only takes 1 guy to stick up before others join in and start denying ATC assignments.

In IAH the preferred runways to use are those landing to the West. ATC will jam as many aircraft down that way until someone stops accepting it. I like to call it the “Houston Headwind”, 10 knots off the tail. That’s a pretty standard max tailwind component for aircraft and means 1 knot of increased winds makes landings impossible but they’ll push it until it becomes a problem.

Indeed Bazy, saying “We are declaring an emergency” will be accepted without prejudice to the crew.

One of the good things about english is that it is a very flexible language,R/T talk is not always as formal as people think it might be 🙂

Well spelling mistakes aside…..

You have a beautiful way with words, Slipperysam. Simply beautiful. 🙂

He used incorrected phasreology

He is not alone in doing that LOL 😉

Ok, it seems that two people have told me what the PAN call is for now?
Sorry but I already knew and no one has answered my question or actually responded to what I have said.

The Pilot used the term “I am declaring an Emergency” apparently because he was so low on fuel he was commited to land and could not go-around.

If this is true then he should be stood down.
He used incorrected phasreology, did not declare a fuel emergency until it was too late, endangered the lives of his passengers, broke the rules about minimun fuel, did not divert enroute to a refuelling point.

This comes out of CAP 413:

1 Distress and Urgency Communication Procedures
1.1 Introduction
This Chapter describes the characteristics of the VHF International Aeronautical
Emergency Service and equivalent services provided in the UK by Distress and
Diversion (D&D) sections on UHF. It also describes the RTF procedures which should
be used by civil pilots under the Aeronautical Mobile Service during an emergency in
the UK. Additional information is published in the UK AIP (GEN) section and AICs.
1.2 States of Emergency
1.2.1 The states of emergency are classified as follows:
a) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
b) Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance.
1.2.2 The pilot should start the emergency call with the appropriate international RTF prefix
as follows:
a) Distress ‘MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY’
b) Urgency ‘PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN’

On a related note, I do love that Boeing crosswind video 😀

Pan Pan is actually used for situations of urgency, where immediate assistance is not required and where the aircraft and its occupants are not in immediate danger.

And a low fuel situation in which it is alleged that he couldnt even do a go-around is not worthy of a Pan call?

Michael, I know you fly but is it really reasonable to make those kind of assumptions based on that article alone?

Perhaps to eliminate blame on the flight crew was wrong of me, especially considering that somebody, somewhere, messed up on the fuel calculations (possibly them). But fuel aside, this situation could not have been handled any differently.

With insufficient fuel for a second approach, the flight crew had to get it right first time, and with a direct crosswind of that strength, landing on the runway assigned by the control tower was not a possibility. With the wind out of 310 and a runway 31 available at the airport, common sense surely tells anybody – whether they fly or not – that this is the runway that should be in use.

Pan Pan Pan is the correct terminology when declaring an emergency is it not?!

Pan Pan is actually used for situations of urgency, where immediate assistance is not required and where the aircraft and its occupants are not in immediate danger.

Mayday is used when the problem is much more severe and where the safety of the those on board cannot be guaranteed due to some sort of imminent danger. Immediate assistance is expected in this situation.

If the captain declared an emergency then he will be obliged to provide an explanation.

Technically no he didnt.
Its been argued and discussed a 1000 times over.
Pan Pan Pan is the correct terminology when declaring an emergency is it not?

Saying over the radio “Im declaring an emergency” technically isnt right.. or has the terminology changed?

Also why “according to the article” was he so low on fuel he couldnt perform a go-around?!?!?!?!?

If this was the case was the pilot trying to land on mininal fuel and cover it up, but got caught out when he was assigned a runway with too much crosswind?

You dont wait until finals to declare an emergency because your running low on fuel!

If he was low on fuel because of another reason, then he did the right thing as well, and should be commended.

Commended for what? Waiting until the last minute?

One thing is sure, by declaring an emergency, the Captain would have known that a full explanation was on the cards. If his fuel was that low due to fuel mismanagement then it was an honorable thing to do. (Remember, Many years ago a 707 ran out of fuel and crashed short of the runway, possibly in New York). If he was low on fuel because of another reason, then he did the right thing as well, and should be commended.

He should carry enough fuel for the trip, plus a contingency allowance, plus approach and missed approach, diversion to an airfield with weather forecast above minimums, another approach and missed approach plus 30 minutes.

Thanks 27. Well, depending on what the truth of the matter is in this case (No mention of the aircraft having already done missed approaches and tried diversion airports) IF it really was fuel emergency, i could only see the captain take the blame (or the fuelers giving false/wrong information)

If the crew listen to ATIS in KJFk prior landing ( 128.725), the should have realised, that the crosswinds were close to the max CWC of the B767….
And that time , it was well known, that the closure of RWY 13R/31L caused many delays in the past.
So in this case, the situation wasn´t asessed properly.

They should have realized earlier, that there was a good chance to become fuel critical.
A diversion to a nearby airport ( Newark, La Guardia etc…..) would have been the better option, better than declaring an emergency, forcing all other traffic to move aside.

Well the atc recording sounds to me like:

I want to land on this airfield, and if you say no, I declare an emergency……...
And around 95% of all cases, in which the fuel supply was down to a critical minimum, are crew related, if there weren´t any mechanical failures…….

I understand that, I just think opinions should be formed on a little more info than we have available here.

He should carry enough fuel for the trip, plus a contingency allowance, plus approach and missed approach, diversion to an airfield with weather forecast above minimums, another approach and missed approach plus 30 minutes.

As a mere outside observer, this looks very dicey. Am i wrong in thinking that aircraft generally carry way more fuel than required for a leg?,What would have happened had their been bad weather to force a go-around or diversion? if, as claimed in the article the aircraft was so low on fuel it could not go around, it’s options would be to attempt to land in adverse weather or crash!!(God Forbid) Someones head must roll if the aircraft really was so low on fuel it HAD to land first attempt.

If the captain declared an emergency then he will be obliged to provide an explanation.

Well the atc recording sounds to me like:

I want to land on this airfield, and if you say no, I declare an emergency……...
And around 95% of all cases, in which the fuel supply was down to a critical minimum, are crew related, if there weren´t any mechanical failures…….