AA JFK crosswind emergency...

[waveflyer]

It was a visual. I wouldn't make that too dramatic yet.

 

[SLUF4]

I believe it was perfect VMC when that mid air took place over the hudson..or 85 % of all mid air collisions for that matter.

 

[waveflyer]

When you declare an emergency, you get to go where you want. It's a 767- RA TCAS, like I said- let's not get dramatic. Some of you might need to hop in a cessna and learn how to scan for traffic OUT the window again.

 

[ackattacker]

I once knew a pilot who declared an emergency for takeoff in order to cut in line. This is a 100% true story.

He worked for AA, now retired.

Coincidence?

 

[ackattacker]

When you declare an emergency, you get to go where you want. It's a 767- RA TCAS, like I said- let's not get dramatic. Some of you might need to hop in a cessna and learn how to scan for traffic OUT the window again.

When you have an emergency you get to deviate from rules and regulations to the extent required to meet the nature of the emergency. No more. FAR 91.3. So the question is did AA flight 2 have an emergency which required them to ignore controller assigned headings and land immediately? Unclear from this exchange.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Personally, I won't divert to an alternate airport because ATC does not want to turn the airport around. Though I suspect that fuel was becoming an issue it really does not matter.

What would you do if the runway you needed was simply closed and fuel was not an issue?

Everything that flies, birds and helicopters included, was designed to take off and land into the wind. If it takes declaring an emergency to make this happen, so be it.

So what would you do for a take off with a tailwind? Declare an emergency take off on the opposite runway? No, you'd tell ATC that you need runway XX for performance and that you can't accept another runway. (I'm betting the AA crew did just that before the recording started.)

I know that take offs are optional and landings are mandatory.

I believe most on the boards who are jumping on the American crew are the same guys who ask ATC permission three times to turn and avoid WX.

I for one am not "jumping on the American crew." I think that to avoid endangering the safety of the flight, pilots should do and ask for "permission" later. That's our job.

The question some people have is: was the crew avoiding endangering the flight or avoiding inconveniencing the flight. They are not the same thing.

Though I don't remember declairing an emergency I have refused a fair number of clearances. Also stop asking for headings - tell ATC you are turning or give them a choice of heading but be clear about who gets to make the final call.

Well said. Also stop taking off with less fuel than you need.

 

[ableone]

What would you do if the runway you needed was simply closed and fuel was not an issue?

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.

However, if the runway is not closed but is simply not in use (31R for example) then I can and will insist on its use if I feel it is necessary.

The question some people have is: was the crew avoiding endangering the flight or avoiding inconveniencing the flight. They are not the same thing.



Well said. Also stop taking off with less fuel than you need.

It's a little early to speculate so let's wait and see what happens. I suspect that there was a fuel issue in play as well.

With respect to taking off with enough fuel. For the past several years my company has loaded us with more fuel than I could concievably need.

That said, the unexpected does sometimes happen. Though I have not had an issue lately a few of my compatriots have. The last guy who ran into a problem could not land due to severe turbulance and windshear.

The weather was "clear" and as such he carried no alternate fuel. He ended up having to tell ATC what his clearance route was going to be.

Every once in a while, even if you don't use the E word, you just have to tell ATC "This is not a request - this is what we are doing - deal with it as best you can."

Keep in mind the American flight that had a possible fuel leak going into DFW about a year ago. He actually declared an emergency but then let ATC tell him he could not land on the runway of his choice. The controller did get some re-training but I am sure that AMR instituted some training of their own. This incident may have some bearing on the JFK landing.

 

[8vATE]

Closed runway vs a not in use runway

The previous poster made an excellent point.

My suggestion would be...

ATC: We are landing 22L ... 31R not available.

Flight Crew: We require 31R for operational necessity. Are you stating that 31R is closed?

ATC: 31R is not closed but current traffic is using 22L

Flight Crew: We require 31R for operational necessity. Declaring minimum fuel.

Or something to that effect.

 

[aewanabe]

Heard through the grapevine the issue was fuel. Supposedly landed with 6.5; I've never flown a 76 but a couple furloughees here whom have say that's an eye-raising number. Any current heavy drivers want to comment?

 

[Mookie]

6.5 must be tight for a 76. most guys in the 37 want at least 5.

loved the recording and loved the captain saying "for the 3rd time, I've declared an emergency, get everyone out of the way..." finally someone w some cajones.

mookie