AA JFK crosswind emergency...

[Say Again Over]

Grow a pair? Funny, sorry, but I have over 18,000 safe flight hours AA73, what it takes is a brain, and at least a basic understanding of the big picture.

If they would have properly declared an emergency, ATC would then request "what is the nature of your emergency?"

 

[ultrarunner]

What is even more pathetic about this is the FAA has essentially mandated that we, as a PIC, must declare an emergency to use the safest, most appropriate runway for a particular operation. Have I got that right?

 

[jonjuan]

What is even more pathetic about this is the FAA has essentially mandated that we, as a PIC, must declare an emergency to use the safest, most appropriate runway for a particular operation. Have I got that right?

Pathetic that you would even ask such a stupid question. Are you for real?

 

[BoilerUP]

The FAA would have eviscerated the crew if they had attempted a crosswind landing, beyond their company limitations, and had struck a pylon/tip when a perfectly good piece of concrete pointing into the wind was right there.

I guarantee in the post-incident investigation, the local controllers would have said "31R would have been available had you just asked for it".

 

[ultrarunner]

The FAA would have eviscerated the crew if they had attempted a crosswind landing, beyond their company limitations, and had struck a pylon/tip when a perfectly good piece of concrete pointing into the wind was right there.

I guarantee in the post-incident investigation, the local controllers would have said "31R would have been available had you just asked for it".

That wouldn't appear to be the case here. I think it's pretty clear ATC indicated an emergency needed to be declared.

And before Jaun gets his panties in a wad, are you reading something different. JFK should have been using 31 for landing ops. Shouldn't take an emergency to get the runway you want! geez.

BUT, we don't even know what the emergency was, or if there even WAS an emergency.

Think about it. ATC said if you want 31 you need to declare. OK, so they declared....

Allright, whats the nature....Uhhh...well, we don't have an emergency...but you told us we had to declare to use the runway of our choice...

OK, so if THAT is really what is going on, then the comments by the flight crew and their actions of 'we're bringing her in folks, get out of the way, sure seems a bit odd, wouldn't you agree?

Why wouldn't you simply follow ATC instructions, take the hand-off and get in line for that runway, right?

What are we missing here? Can't believe we haven't had an AA'er chime in with some more scoop.

 

[Vne]

"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.

There ya go an AA'er...
I cant believe some of the crap pilots are saying about another pilot USING his AUTHORITY to DECLARE an Emergency.

READ THE FRIGIN FAR.

If anybody is PUSHING YOUR "TIN" YOU LET THEM

At least in the "good old days" pilots HAD a set of BALLS ..

 

[C-150ETOPS]

More than a few clowns here remind me of the SwissAir MD11 Captain delaying his emergency descent and landing while asking Moncton ATC if it was OK to dump fuel. He probably reconsidered his delay after the plastic ceiling panels started dripping on his forehead.

JFK Tower knew damn well what the problem was, which is exactly why he didn't ask and properly prioritized his tasks to handle the other traffic.

He also acted like a little "beetch" with his attitude while directing the guy to ground control. He knew he been had and there was nothing he could do about it.

Face it fellas' . ATC is a great bunch, but in the last 10 years, there has been more smart ass prick attitudes slowly creeping into daily ops. It's still miniscule in the big picture, but starting to show up.

 

[aa73]

I guarantee in the post-incident investigation, the local controllers would have said "31R would have been available had you just asked for it".

THEY DID ask for it, after the controller told them "to get 31R you will have to declare an emergency."

 

[BoilerUP]

THEY DID ask for it, after the controller told them "to get 31R you will have to declare an emergency."

...yes, I know - I'm supporting your colleagues' decision.

My point was if they hadn't asked, and had an incident while attempting to land beyond their crosswind limitations, I'm sure the local controllers would claim in the investigation that it would have been available if only they had asked for it.

 

[waveflyer]

THEY DID ask for it, after the controller told them "to get 31R you will have to declare an emergency."

Have more details been released yet? More tape? I hadn't heard tape where the controller said they had to declare an emergency to get 31... You'd think by now that more tape and details would be out

 

[OurMoney1]

WELL DONE...

Its about growing balls when it matters most.

 

[rajflyboy]

You can't just go off on your own in the busiest airspace in the world with over 200 people sitting on your plane. That is basically insane.

Take runway heading and get vectored to runway 31 and stay safe from other traffic. If you are fuel critical you should have mentioned this long before you were cleared to land on a runway you don't like.

Sorry but I'm posting facts here.

 

[agonyairfo]

It sort of sounds like the AA crew member speaking to ATC is having a melt down. Unless it turns out this guy is on fire or this was an Avianca style 3rd missed approach and they only had a coffee cup of jet A left, then I don't know what was going through his head. I am all for the firmness with ATC, but it just seems like he went nuclear option on them.

I can imagine the other guy sitting in the cockpit thinking, "here we go. Man the Captain is wound tight....and then positive rate-gear up...uh hmm..gear up" while shaky voice gabs with ATC and he just reaches over and puts the gear up himself then the flaps. He really Schruted it.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

WELL DONE...

Its about growing balls when it matters most.

Emphasis on when it matters.

Anyone remember that NWA 744 Captain who decided to delay the flight so he could go get some lobster at a local restaurant? I guess he didn't like the crew meal they loaded for him. That took balls, too. Unemployed balls now, I believe.

 

[rajflyboy]

It sort of sounds like the AA crew member speaking to ATC is having a melt down. Unless it turns out this guy is on fire or this was an Avianca style 3rd missed approach and they only had a coffee cup of jet A left, then I don't know what was going through his head. I am all for the firmness with ATC, but it just seems like he went nuclear option on them.

I can imagine the other guy sitting in the cockpit thinking, "here we go. Man the Captain is wound tight....and then positive rate-gear up...uh hmm..gear up" while shaky voice gabs with ATC and he just reaches over and puts the gear up himself then the flaps. He really Schruted it.

Good Post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ultrarunner]

I hadn't heard tape where the controller said they had to declare an emergency to get 31...

Listen more carefully to the tape. It's there toward the end just before the crew said "....We're bringing her in, CLEAR THE WAY...." or something like that ;-)

 

[densoo]

Best line: "This is about as compelling an example of execution of command authority as you are likely to hear."

Next best: "Right or wrong, he made a clear, unambiguous decision and acted upon it. It sometimes takes that kind of decisiveness to cut through the fence between pilot/crew/passenger priorities and air traffic control priorities. The two are sometimes at cross purposes. When they are, someone has to say as much. This Captain did and that's what defines command.

Oh, the good ol' days when captain's authority really meant something. Guess is still does. It's just a rare and dying breed. At some airlines, it's pulling teeth just to get a writeup put in the logbook. "No, we can't do that! It'll delay the flight and hurt the company."

Trumped-Up JFK Emergency?

Email this blog |

Print this blog​

By Paul Bertorelli

Last week's emergency landing at New York's JFK offers yet another example of how a group of pilots—when presented with the same scenario and risk factors—may make diametrically different decisions. The distilled summary: An American Airlines 767 enroute into JFK from Los Angeles arrived to be assigned runway 22L as the landing runway. The wind was out of 310 at 22 knots, gusting to 34 knots—a direct crosswind that might have had a slight tailwind component.

The Captain refused the landing runway and, when ATC declined to assign 31R, he declared an emergency and landed on it anyway. Here's a condensed clip on the incident.
It's illuminating for several of reasons. It's an example of what most pilots and controllers have seen before: a "sort of" or "paper" emergency. Second, regardless of who you think was right or wrong, the incident shows that the person sitting in the left seat is sometimes confronted with judgment calls for which there is no easy answer, even though the Captain is vested with the ultimate final authority on how the flight is conducted. It may be good to be King, but it's not always easy. Worth noting is that there's more going on here than most of us know and, as the Gunny likes to say, there will be consequences. Last, this incident starkly reveals how our air transport system is a tug of war between efficiency and safety.

Since March, JFK has had 31L closed for upgrades and this bollixes up the airport's acceptance rate. The airlines were asked to scale their operations accordingly. I don't know if they have done that or if this was in factor in the May 4 incident. (See above: consequences.) Either way, ATC will configure the airport to suit its concerns, which usually relate to throughput and noise restrictions. Pilot concerns about crosswind limits? Not so much. So it becomes a little bit of a blood sport in a situation like this. If crews keep gutting out landing in a crosswind to the limits of man and machine, controllers will happily let them do it until someone says—enough.

The Captain of American Flight 2 decided he wasn't going to accept a 34-knot crosswind. According to what data I could find, Boeing says 40 knots is the max recommended crosswind component for a 767 on a dry runway. If someone else can dispute that, let me hear from you. Also, American's op specs may call for something lower and those are hard limits. Either way, the Captain decided it wasn't safe and informed the tower he would declare an emergency if he wasn't given 31R. The controller seemed to note this as if he'd take it under advisement and the situation blossomed from there. Remember, the controller is thinking about separation and his flow plan, the pilot is worried about cramming that thing on the runway in a gusty crosswind.

After the emergency was declared, the controller evidently thought it was a "gentleman's" emergency in which he would be allowed to vector the airplane back around for 31R in a more less orderly fashion. The Captain, on the other hand, clearly understood that under emergency authority, he could do what he needed to and seemed to inform the surprised sounding controller of his maneuvering plan. He told ATC—he didn't ask, he told ATC—to clear the runway. American Flight 2 was landing on it. This is about as compelling an example of execution of command authority as you are likely to hear.

Listen to the tape to the end and you can clearly hear the controller's response when the flight clears the runway and asks for taxi instruction. He sounds irritated to me. So let the second guessing begin.

Over on PPRuNe opinions are divided. Some think the Captain should have slipped into the flow and let the controller work out an approach for 31R that would minimize chaos for everyone else. If the flight was so low on fuel as to require unconditional maneuvering, why didn't the crew declare this sooner? And if the crew couldn't handle a 34-knot crosswind as just a day at the office, what are they doing flying into Kennedy? Others cheered the Captain, believing he determined that an unsafe condition existed and acted to correct it. End of story.

I don't have enough experience in this realm to offer an opinion on the righteousness of the Captain's call. Even if I did, I'm not sure I would, because I wasn't in the seat. Nonetheless, I offer a tip of the hat to any skipper who pulls the plug in a situation where system-think has forced go-along-get-along behavior to a point beyond safe limits. Right or wrong, he made a clear, unambiguous decision and acted upon it. It sometimes takes that kind of decisiveness to cut through the fence between pilot/crew/passenger priorities and air traffic control priorities. The two are sometimes at cross purposes.

When they are, someone has to say as much. This Captain did and that's what defines command.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsider_EmergencyAtJFK_202513-1.html

 

[C-150ETOPS]

You can't just go off on your own in the busiest airspace in the world with over 200 people sitting on your plane. That is basically insane.

Take runway heading and get vectored to runway 31 and stay safe from other traffic. If you are fuel critical you should have mentioned this long before you were cleared to land on a runway you don't like.

Sorry but I'm posting facts here.

You don't have all the facts and judging the crews performance based on incomplete/missing tower transmissions and unknown approach control transmissions says more about your limited capabilities than any contribution to the subject.

Perhaps you can return to more simple activities like spiked or shaping gel, Ipod inflight mix changes, and Northface or Columbia for your backpack.

 

[FO 4 Life]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilGGP9BDZs&feature=related

Here's the real reason they had to land.

 

[rajflyboy]

You don't have all the facts and judging the crews performance based on incomplete/missing tower transmissions and unknown approach control transmissions says more about your limited capabilities than any contribution to the subject.

Perhaps you can return to more simple activities like spiked or shaping gel, Ipod inflight mix changes, and Northface or Columbia for your backpack.

If your dumb enough to fly off on your own in NY airspace with over 200 people in the back of your plane then I seriously have to ask if you can actual pass the FAA flight physical ??