AA JFK crosswind emergency...

ImbracableCrunk

Unregistered Un-User
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
1,481
Total Time
6AM
Closed and not in use are two different things. If the runways is closed for maintenance etc. it is not part of the air tranport system.
I agree. That's why I hypothetically asked:

What would you do if the runway you needed was simply closed and fuel was not an issue?
You'd divert and it wouldn't be an emergency, right?

Another hypothetical: What if AA was on final ILS 22 and instead of winds going above their crosswind, they had to go missed approach because of fog.

Should they declare an emergency and demand to be #1 for the ILS 31R?

If fuel was an issue, sure. Go ahead. If it wasn't and issue, you might divert or you might ask for vectors to 31R.
 

snow-back

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
329
Total Time
13000
A few years back (probably similar today) at DAL, min fuel on the 767 was 7100 and emerg fuel was 5200. Among other things, we were required to declare min fuel any time the arrival fuel was estimated to be below the min fuel value. Min fuel was certainly not an emergency situation, but could easily lead to an emergency if not managed properly. I'm curious to know if the crew ever declared min or emergency fuel anywhere along the line...I'd like to hope they did and that it just wasn't a case of a pi$$ing match gone awry.
 

airpedro

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Posts
10
Total Time
8000+
61 replies but no mention of what the big, scary crosswind actually was.

I guess they were the only 767 that flew into JFK that day, because all of the others would have crashed.

Stop the PIC chest beating. How about manning up and flying the aircraft.
 

Joblu

Serrano keep bat warm.
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Posts
195
Total Time
16K+
who cares...if that crew declared an emergency...that's it. They get what ever they want!! Pic decision....end of discussion! Everyone who seconds guesses them shut up and learn what is means to be a pic! Nice job aa crew.
exactly! Nice job aa2 heavy!
 

aewanabe

Somewhat Exasperated User
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
556
Total Time
8200
61 replies but no mention of what the big, scary crosswind actually was.

I guess they were the only 767 that flew into JFK that day, because all of the others would have crashed.

Stop the PIC chest beating. How about manning up and flying the aircraft.
How about when you've actually flown a jet with under-wing engines you come back and comment? For some jets or airlines' FOMs the x-wind number is a limitation, not a "demonstrated". Supposedly the gust was to 39 knots, which would exceed my crosswind limits as well.
 

nwaf16dude

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Posts
305
Total Time
7000+
A few years back (probably similar today) at DAL, min fuel on the 767 was 7100 and emerg fuel was 5200. Among other things, we were required to declare min fuel any time the arrival fuel was estimated to be below the min fuel value. Min fuel was certainly not an emergency situation, but could easily lead to an emergency if not managed properly. I'm curious to know if the crew ever declared min or emergency fuel anywhere along the line...I'd like to hope they did and that it just wasn't a case of a pi$$ing match gone awry.
it's 7300 & 5300 now at DAL (in the middle of TOE here)
 

BoilerUP

Citation style...
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
5,311
Total Time
1500+
61 replies but no mention of what the big, scary crosswind actually was.

I guess they were the only 767 that flew into JFK that day, because all of the others would have crashed.

Stop the PIC chest beating. How about manning up and flying the aircraft.
Winds were reportedly 320@23G35, and I've read somewhere that the max crosswind (demonstrated) @ AA in the 767 is 29kts.

How's that quote about using one's superior judgment to prevent a demonstration of superior airmanship go again?
 

BILL LUMBERG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
2,074
Total Time
9 to 5
If there wasn't a fuel issue these pilots deserve to have their tickets pulled......

He initially disregarded the commands of ATC. He's demanding ATC to clear the airspace for this supposed "EMERGENCY". I think the Feds should take a long look at this and consider all the chaos in the traffic flow these guys caused because they felt they had an issue with ATC
 

satpak77

Marriott Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2003
Posts
3,015
Total Time
5000+
In order to keep the discussion going, I am going to DISAGREE with the AA crew, however this does not mean I am claiming ATC was not out of line either. However, simply from the AA crew, my observations:

Sec. 91.3

Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(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.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
If they had low fuel due to unforecast headwinds, etc etc, or similar situation, ok, but I do not understand declaring an emergency because they could not get the runway needed. This is where ATC must be held accountable, but delcaring an emergency by the crew?

In training and in real life I associate the word itself, and the use of the word on the radio for "Life, Death, Serious Injury/Harm depends on my declaring this (as an emergency)."

This would be (amongst others)

- Low Fuel
- Heart Attack on board
- Baby birth on board/possible complications
- Equipment/Mechanical/etc malfunction, failure, etc
- Crew member incapacitation, etc
- Etc Issues

I personally would not consider a my-d1ck-is-bigger-than-yours war of words with ATC to justify declaring an emergency. I would pick up my toys and go to the alternate, and document the incident for follow up action.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0601.html#6-1-1

6-1-1. Pilot Responsibility and Authority

a. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot-in-command may deviate from any rule in 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart A, General, and Subpart B, Flight Rules, to the extent required to meet that emergency.

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.3(b).

b. If the emergency authority of 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) is used to deviate from the provisions of an ATC clearance, the pilot-in-command must notify ATC as soon as possible and obtain an amended clearance.

c. Unless deviation is necessary under the emergency authority of 14 CFR Section 91.3, pilots of IFR flights experiencing two-way radio communications failure are expected to adhere to the procedures prescribed under "IFR operations, two-way radio communications failure."

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.185.

6-1-2. Emergency Condition- Request Assistance Immediately

a. An emergency can be either a distress or urgency condition as defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Pilots do not hesitate to declare an emergency when they are faced with distress conditions such as fire, mechanical failure, or structural damage. However, some are reluctant to report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may not be immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic. An aircraft is in at least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes doubtful about position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that could adversely affect flight safety. This is the time to ask for help, not after the situation has developed into a distress condition.

b. Pilots who become apprehensive for their safety for any reason should request assistance immediately. Ready and willing help is available in the form of radio, radar, direction finding stations and other aircraft. Delay has caused accidents and cost lives. Safety is not a luxury! Take action!
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/PCG/D.HTM

DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/PCG/U.HTM

URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
Unless someone can convince me otherwise (and I am open to it...), I don't see the justification to claim the emergency flag on this ATC exchange.

AGAIN: I am making no validations of ATC, they were wrong too. But the AA crew wasn't right either, not that I can see.

"PIC AUTHORITY" is not an automatic pass to "do what you want". It means the PIC as a professional has the authority to make decisions as appropriate, safe, and legal, per industry and professional standards. PIC AUTHORITY does not green light you to say "Fire" in a dark movie theater.

Further note that at no point am I claiming that the crew are "jerks" or "morons" or similar language. I am sure they are good guys and very capable pilots.

I am simply saying that based on my (little) knowledge (NOTE: self admitted little knowledge !) of the situation, my OPINION is the use of the emergency word was not appropriate.
 
Last edited:

CoolSidePillow

RealEyesRealizeRealLies
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Posts
504
Total Time
6000+
It sounds like weather was fine but windy since they declared emergency and then said they were on a visual. Impossible to know if they did any holding for flow into JFK prior to landing clearence. Does AA dispatch airplanes that show up at destination on emergency fuel? Doubtful. He didnt declare minimum fuel or it happened at a time frame prior to released audio. At first it sounded like he accepted landing clearence on 22 then came back and said he couldnt take it. So why accept it in the first place? It sounded like he said that he WOULD declare emergency if NOT allowed a runway change. Did they determine what runway they needed when they retrieved ATIS info? If so, did they relay that info to approach controller so that he could coordinate? Did he request it with tower when he made initial contact? It sounded like a last minute decision by the sky nazis and then they got pissy when controller was trying to verify intentions and communication. Telling him to fly RH allows him to keep the 767 from trading paint with all the other aircraft that just might be around some of the busiest airspace in the country. How dare he. Just because he declared an emergency doesnt mean he should fly off willy nilly in congested airspace unless the airworthiness of the aircraft is very questionable. If he had a fuel issue then that is something that should have been monitored and dealt with long before he was on final approach to a runway he knew he couldnt accept. From the tapes the controller didnt do anything wrong. He confirmed what the pilot wanted and then let him have it. He didnt argue with the guy. He was just trying to make sure that he flew a direction that would keep all planes safe. He has a better idea of what is around than the pilot. There is a lot more to this story and it would be nice to hear it all but from what is heard it sounds more like the pilots got behind and then had to deal with it from a bad position. PIC authorization to declare emergency and get carte blanche exists because the PIC knows better than anyone on ground his ability to keep aircraft flying, however, it doesnt mean it is a VIP membership cause your panties are twisted. Coming from the west he had a dozen airports to land a 767 on if his plane was in danger before getting to JFK. I usually get ATIS of ACARS no less than 100 miles out unless it is about to change and I want new info. Those winds didnt just happen they were blowing all day. I live in NY. It has been windy for a week. Windy right now. Actually, I dont give a sh** what happened. I just like rambling at times.
 

WayBack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Posts
1,153
Total Time
2.4
According to Flightaware, they held some....maybe 30 minutes worth.
Regardless, if it was a fuel issue, they should have known this in the hold and passed the word to center so they could inform approach and tower.

Instead, they had to play "My d*ck is bigger than yours"
 

pilot error

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Posts
189
Total Time
>7000
According to Flightaware, they held some....maybe 30 minutes worth.
Regardless, if it was a fuel issue, they should have known this in the hold and passed the word to center so they could inform approach and tower.

Instead, they had to play "My d*ck is bigger than yours"
link to center and approach recordings?
 

bubbers44

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Posts
468
Total Time
23000
If you fly long enough you will get in a situation where you are holding and know fuel to the alternate is the same as to destination. I have been in it a few times and knew the problems to alternate were the same as to destination so if I knew my line up and the wx to destination was ok I would burn into alternate fuel because it was safer than diverting at that point. They knew it was VFR and were in the lineup so continued to JFK. On short final they were told the wind was now beyond their crosswind limits so they must have felt their fuel situation would cause an emergency situation being sequenced back for another landing. Notice the gust info was not transmitted after their incident? I would like to see a wind readout with gusts before and after the incidents from the monitoring equipment, not from transmitted wind from tower.
 

WayBack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Posts
1,153
Total Time
2.4
link to center and approach recordings?
Keyword: IF

What I'm appalled by is this AA never once asked for WIND CHECK.....Tower had to give it to them unasked. How did they plan on landing with out the auto throttles?
 

Frank Lorenzo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Posts
295
61 replies but no mention of what the big, scary crosswind actually was.

I guess they were the only 767 that flew into JFK that day, because all of the others would have crashed.

Stop the PIC chest beating. How about manning up and flying the aircraft.
They had a crew "man up and fly the aircraft" down in Kingston.

That worked out really well for them, didn't it?
 

UALRATT

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Posts
214
Total Time
4000+
61 replies but no mention of what the big, scary crosswind actually was.

I guess they were the only 767 that flew into JFK that day, because all of the others would have crashed.

Stop the PIC chest beating. How about manning up and flying the aircraft.
The original poster included this link in the first post (1/61) of this thread. I guess you were too busy counting. In the future take a little extra time before unleashing Spontaneity, passing wind included. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...s_clearance_crosswind_emergency_202510-1.html
 

ultrarunner

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,324
Total Time
10000
Did the crew ever state the nature of the emergency, once they actually declared? Or was it just ' get outta the way, we're coming in'???
 

aa73

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Posts
2,075
Total Time
10K
"If you want 31 you are going to have to declare an emergency."

"Ok we are declaring an emergency."

Pretty obvious what the nature of the emergency was.

Some of you need to grow a pair and stop letting ATC run your cockpit.
 

ImbracableCrunk

Unregistered Un-User
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
1,481
Total Time
6AM
"If you want 31 you are going to have to declare an emergency."

"Ok we are declaring an emergency."

Pretty obvious what the nature of the emergency was.

Some of you need to grow a pair and stop letting ATC run your cockpit.
Pretty clear? Yeah.

Tower: "AA, if you want to deviate from an ATC clearance, you'd better be having an emergency."

AA: "Fine, maybe we didn't say anything up to this point about any problems, but now we're an emergency aircraft. All your airspace are belong to us."
 
Top