Serious battle between ATC and pilot, pilot declares emergency to get another runway.

[tigisfat]

http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php (http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php)

I don't usually post links to sites that you must register at to view, but this is worth it. I'll let the chips and opinions fall; I don't think the original post should state an opinion. The debate is raging at many sites over this. There are more pilots and other types of aeronautical knowledge here than many places, so I want to see what the consensus is.

Essentially, the localizer was out on RWY 22L, and the winds were 20something gusting 35 near RWY heading for 31's L and R. The pilot threatened to declare an emergency if he didn't get 31L, and then promptly did, while ATC still tried to issue him instructions. I believe American 22 Heavy was a 767.

Trust me, this is totally worth the registration. This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard over ATC.

[MaddogK]

No need to register, pilot did the right thing IMHO.

[Bone]

I heard about this. The crosswind component on the rwy that ATC wanted them to land on exceeded the the crosswind limitation the pilots had to comply with for the plane. Sometimes airlines impose crosswind limits that are lower than the demonstrated crosswind components from the factory. This could be due to a number of issues, or mandated by the FAA Principle Operating Inspecter (121 Air Carrier ops). Once it's in the ops manual, the FAA has signed off on it and it now becomes a binding limitation. The pilot most likely did what he had to do.

[Clarke123]

It was wrong the way he did it. Just barging his way in. There was no need for him to land right that minute, he should have waited to make sure traffic was clear rather than telling the controller to get everyone out of his way now. He could of caused a collision cowboying in like that.

[Skittles]

Pathetic display from the pilot.

First he says that if he can't be given 31 he's going to declare an emergency.

The controller says to hold heading, presumably to sort out the mess in traffic the pilot has just caused before he can issue an approach vectors.

Pilot declares an emergency (he hasn't been rejected 31 at all)

He then gets upset because he says he's stated an emergency 3 times. No you haven't genius. One and two come before three.

[tigisfat]

Pathetic display from the pilot.He doesn't have to be nice, it's not a counseling line. His tone wasn't innapropriate, either.


First he says that if he can't be given 31 he's going to declare an emergency..That was the fastest way he could let the controller know what was going on. There are no points lost for being blunt, only points gained for fast, clear and effective communication. The pilot knew that if he wasn't given another runway, their only option would've been a risky and illegal landing.


The controller says to hold heading, presumably to sort out the mess in traffic the pilot has just caused before he can issue an approach vectors.That's too bad, the controller played his cards wrong.


Pilot declares an emergency (he hasn't been rejected 31 at all)Getting rejected didn't matter. He said that if he didn't get it, he would declare. They didn't respond with a landing clearance, so he declared.


He then gets upset because he says he's stated an emergency 3 times. No you haven't genius. One and two come before three.I don't think he got upset, it was just time to wake this moron controller up again.


We don't build ATC towers just to build them and then staff the sky so the towers have something to do; the towers are there because of the aircraft. I can't stand rude or bully controllers.

[Ken Stallings]

The PIC is the only one in command of that aircraft. He decides the runway to land on, not ATC. That is guaranteed in FAA regulations. The controller was out of line and plain wrong. The fact that the winds favored that runway the pilot should not have even had to declare an emergency. The FAR's backed up his decision to land with the prevailing winds.

The controller should be put on administrative leave.

Ken

[tigisfat]

Apparently it's still being debated down at JFK, this pilt and controller thought it was funny.

Re: Weird JFK Emergency _nah_unless you declare" (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7580.0;attach=3747 )

[Skittles]

He doesn't have to be nice, it's not a counseling line. His tone wasn't innapropriate, either.

"It's the THIRD time I've declared an emergency." No it's not. You've declared it once. ATC is confirming as per usual.

That was the fastest way he could let the controller know what was going on. There are no points lost for being blunt, only points gained for fast, clear and effective communication. The pilot knew that if he wasn't given another runway, their only option would've been a risky and illegal landing.

How was his communication clear and effective? What emergency?

That's too bad, the controller played his cards wrong.

What did the controller do wrong?

Getting rejected didn't matter. He said that if he didn't get it, he would declare. They didn't respond with a landing clearance, so he declared.

And he didn't not get it. Good luck landing an aircraft with something else on the runway.

I don't think he got upset, it was just time to wake this moron controller up again.

We don't build ATC towers just to build them and then staff the sky so the towers have something to do; the towers are there because of the aircraft. I can't stand rude or bully controllers.

Rude and bully controllers? Moron controller?

Care to mention what the controller has actually done wrong?

He:

1) Gives a runway for landing
2) Acknowledges that the runway is unsuitable, tells the pilot to maintain heading. What exactly was he supposed to do? "All other planes in the vicinity of JFK, there's a plane coming in, have a look out of your window and avoid him please."

[Bone]

Bedside manner goes along way in pilot/controller communications 9.9 times out of ten. I operate into JFK and LGA quite often, and while the controllers are pretty darn good, they do have a rough edge, and at times can try to bully you like a Bronx Street Tuff. I haven't listened to the exchange Tig posted, only heard about it, but maybe the Pilot just decided he wasn't going to put up with any New York controller BS and made a preemptive strike.

[Skittles]

The PIC is the only one in command of that aircraft. He decides the runway to land on, not ATC. That is guaranteed in FAA regulations. The controller was out of line and plain wrong. The fact that the winds favored that runway the pilot should not have even had to declare an emergency. The FAR's backed up his decision to land with the prevailing winds.

The controller should be put on administrative leave.

Ken

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

[tigisfat]

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

Everyone knows they are being recorded when talking on ATC, so they realize mistakes and cover them fast. The most common 'I said something dumb' cover up is the age old "what do you need" or similar.

Regardless, this controller didn't acknowledge the emergency and still issued a heading. If 31L was even a possibility, it should've been open already under those conditions, especially with an inoperative localizer. If runway 31L was UNAVAILABLE unavailable, such as there were work trucks all over it, it wouldn't have even been available in an emergency in a timely fashion, even if the trucks could've been removed due to FOD considerations. 31L was given after he declared an emergency.

An ILS can be turned into a localizer approach if the glideslope is lost (that's why we set timers for even precision approaches), but an ILS or localizer approach cannot be turned into a glideslope only approach.

[Bone]

When you have an FMS/FMC and you know you are going to make a visual approach to a runway with an out of service electronic approach, the procedure is simple. You select the FMS/FMC visual approach, and it gives you course guidance and glide slope. We do that all of the time.

[tigisfat]

When you have an FMS/FMC and you know you are going to make a visual approach to a runway with an out of service electronic approach, the procedure is simple. You select the FMS/FMC visual approach, and it gives you course guidance and glide slope. We do that all of the time.


Here's the question from someone who's never flown RW with a serious FMC: IF you're cleared for an ILS approach in IMC, (and you're backing it up with onboard stuff like an FMC) and all external radio nav aids fail, are you allowed to continue the approach off of your FMC's vertical and lateral guidance?

[Ken Stallings]

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

Put their personal convenience ahead of passenger safety!

ATC knows the winds and the runway should have been changed well before the winds reached a 20 knot crosswind. The reason it wasn't changed is because ATC knew it would require them to do some extra work. So, they continued to use the same runway. Finally, they ran into a pilot who wasn't going to be directed to land on a runway that clearly was outside reasonable limits. And further, while he would be flying in circles, his fuel reserve would be getting drained to nothing when he needed that fuel in case the IMC conditions required him to go around and attempt another approach to land. That reserve isn't there because a couple of controllers put their convenience ahead of clear safety decisions.

I've had the same kind of problem. The tower controller wanted me to land with a tailwind out of limits in my Dash-1. I explained to the controller I was unable to do that and he jerked me around because he had to do some extra work to vector me for the approach.

The controller is there for one reason and one reason only, to promote aviation safety. And being too lazy to vector traffic as required to land on the best runway for weather conditions is a clear violation of their only public mandate. Frankly, the pilot had every reason to be pissed simply because the crosswinds made the active runway so poor a choice that it was obvious the controllers were being derelect in their duties and frankly endangering the public as a result.

It is just that most of the public have no idea their are being endangered under these circumstances simply because a couple of controllers forgot why they have a job in the first place!

Ken

[Skittles]

Put their personal convenience ahead of passenger safety!

In what way?

ATC knows the winds and the runway should have been changed well before the winds reached a 20 knot crosswind. The reason it wasn't changed is because ATC knew it would require them to do some extra work. So, they continued to use the same runway. Finally, they ran into a pilot who wasn't going to be directed to land on a runway that clearly was outside reasonable limits.

That's all completely speculative. There isn't a single drop of fact in there whatsoever.

I've had the same kind of problem. The tower controller wanted me to land with a tailwind out of limits in my Dash-1. I explained to the controller I was unable to do that and he jerked me around.

The controller is there for one reason and one reason only, to promote aviation safety. And being too lazy to vector traffic as required to land on the best runway for weather conditions is a clear violation of their only public mandate. Frankly, the pilot had every reason to be pissed simply because the crosswinds made the active runway so poor a choice that it was obvious the controllers were being derelect in their duties and frankly endangering the public as a result.

More speculation, no fact whatsoever. Controllers aren't responsible for knowing intimate details of an aircraft's functioning. That is the sole responsibility of the pilot.

It is just that most of the public have no idea their are being endangered under these circumstances simply because a couple of controllers forgot why they have a job in the first place!

Ken

The pilot acknowledges the problem and goes to solve it.

What different could he have done?

[Ken Stallings]

The pilot acknowledges the problem and goes to solve it.

What different could he have done?

I gave you the answer already and you called it "speculation."

I won't answer the same question twice!

And there is no speculation, the crosswind is factual and easy to calculate as the conditions and runways were published. And when there is a runway aligned with a wind over 30 knots it is common sense it should be selected and used vice a runway in IMC with a crosswind.

Ken

[Skittles]

I gave you the answer already and you called it "speculation."

I won't answer the same question twice!

And there is no speculation, the crosswind is factual and easy to calculate as the conditions and runways were published. And when there is a runway aligned with a wind over 30 knots it is common sense it should be selected and used vice a runway in IMC with a crosswind.

Ken

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

[tigisfat]

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

Skittles, are you a pilot?

[Ken Stallings]

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

And for the third time you completely ignore the overarching reality that the controllers have a duty to adjust the active runway to weather conditions, and not wait until a pilot requests another runway. How many times do people have to say the active runway was obviously unsuitable before you understand that?

Ken

[Bone]

Here's the question from someone who's never flown RW with a serious FMC: IF you're cleared for an ILS approach in IMC, (and you're backing it up with onboard stuff like an FMC) and all external radio nav aids fail, are you allowed to continue the approach off of your FMC's vertical and lateral guidance?

It depends on the FMS/FMC's software, and what you are certified to do. Some company's have a certification process where you could continue, and others don't. It's all about what the Feds tell you what you need to do for certification, and the cost/benefit of the software and training. Of course, the FMS/FMC VNAV and LNAV guidance looks just like the guidance you would have for an ILS, and most likely any instrument rated pilot could do it...but the Feds don't see it that way.

[pied]

There are airports in this country where runway in use is governed not by weather conditions but by legal agreements between the FAA and the surrounding communities....

There are examples such as PHX, where the agreement requires pilots to land and depart into the rising and setting sun, and in ABQ where a 10,000 ft air carrier certified runway was initially restricted to useage when the crosswind component on the other runways exceeded 100 knots, and finally was closed to all aircraft over 12,500 lbs due to "disrepair'. This runway was built with US taxpayer monies and closed by the city due to lawsuits brought by neighborhoods effected by noise. I'm certain there are other examples just as stupid.

In the case of ABQ the controllers were not permitted to issue landing clearances to that runway. If a pilot declared an emergency and decided to land on that runway it was at his/her own discretion and risk.

pied

[Ken Stallings]

There are airports in this country where runway in use is governed not by weather conditions but by legal agreements between the FAA and the surrounding communities....

There are examples such as PHX, where the agreement requires pilots to land and depart into the rising and setting sun, and in ABQ where a 10,000 ft air carrier certified runway was initially restricted to useage when the crosswind component on the other runways exceeded 100 knots, and finally was closed to all aircraft over 12,500 lbs due to "disrepair'. This runway was built with US taxpayer monies and closed by the city due to lawsuits brought by neighborhoods effected by noise. I'm certain there are other examples just as stupid.

In the case of ABQ the controllers were not permitted to issue landing clearances to that runway. If a pilot declared an emergency and decided to land on that runway it was at his/her own discretion and risk.

pied

Very interesting facts. With respect to ABQ, I suspect I have landed on that runway in aircraft that weighed much less than 12,500 pounds.

Ken

[azflyboy]

At airports that are either insanely busy or surrounded noise sensitive areas, controllers often have "preferred" runways that they're pretty much forced to use (even if the winds favor another runway) until someone says "enough", and insists on using a different runway or the winds increase past a certain crosswind or tailwind component.

I actually ended up making my first landing as a private pilot (coming back after the checkride) with a direct 10kt tailwind thanks to "preferred runways", but since I had 10,000ft of runway to play with, it wasn't a huge safety issue for me, although I can easily see a larger aircraft refusing the runway in that situation.

In this situation, I don't think the controller on the radio did anything wrong by initially refusing the runway change, since he was just trying to keep traffic flowing smoothly, and since other aircraft didn't seem to think a 30kt crosswind was an issue, he likely didn't initially realize that the pilot was making a safety of flight call.

Given the volume of traffic going into JFK, changing runways there is a pretty arduous task that can take a considerable amount of time to sort out, so I think the pilot exercising his emergency authority was probably a good thing for the controller, since using the word "emergency" allows the controller to toss the "preferred" procedures out the window to help the aircraft in question.

[tigisfat]

update:

American Airlines' company regs give 767 drivers a max crosswind component of 29 knots. The winds were way out of limits.

[bstolle]

Strange why they have such a low x-wind limit. The day before yesterday KIAD closed RWY 01L and R for landings due to a 33kts x-wind component.
The only remaining runway was 30 causing major delays (but at least I could make some nice photos waiting at the threshold)
Most European 767 operators use the Boeing recommended 40kts limit (dry runway)
74997501

[Bone]

Strange why they have such a low x-wind limit. The day before yesterday KIAD closed RWY 01L and R for landings due to a 33kts x-wind component.
The only remaining runway was 30 causing major delays (but at least I could make some nice photos waiting at the threshold)
Most European 767 operators use the Boeing recommended 40kts limit (dry runway)
74997501

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.

[tigisfat]

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.


Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

[Wingnut172N]

This pilot was way out of line for this reason; an emergency is a time-critical situation which requires the clearing of all other traffic in order to safely land the aircraft.

1.) The aircraft was not fuel-state critical at the time the "emergency" was declared. If they WERE, this should have been mentioned to ATC, in which case the controller would have given priority as appropriate.

2.) Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The American aircraft's communciation was horrible. If he was fuel state critical, say so. If the winds are out of his published limits, say so. It would have taken very little radio time, and would have saved much trouble for everyone. This is a great example of the self-righteous, entitled atmosphere of most civilian pilots today. As far as the controller was aware, the aircraft was not on fire, the aircraft was not out of fuel. Declaring an emergency is not a free ticket to do whatever you want to in a busy terminal environment because you feel entitled. Take the missed approach, and get vectors to 31, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

3.) While the pilot's actions may not have been wrong, by the book, I think we can all agree that this isn't a case of a valiant pilot struggling against a damaged aircraft with an unhelpful controller, but more a case of a pilot who felt he was better than the system, and played the rules to get his way.

Before anybody asks, yes I am a pilot.

[srgalahad]

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
25.233 Directional stability and control.

(a) There may be no uncontrollable ground-looping tendency in 90° cross winds, up to a wind velocity of 20 knots or 0.2 V <e t="24">SR</e>₀, whichever is greater, except that the wind velocity need not exceed 25 knots at any speed at which the airplane may be expected to be operated on the ground. This may be shown while establishing the 90° cross component of wind velocity required by §25.237.
(b) Landplanes must be satisfactorily controllable, without exceptional piloting skill or alertness, in power-off landings at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a straight path. This may be shown during power-off landings made in conjunction with other tests.
(1) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, must be established for dry runways and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V_SR0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.

25.237 Wind velocities.

(a) For land planes and amphibians, the following applies:
(1) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, must be established for dry runways and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V_SR0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.

For Part 23 operations it is different:
23.233 Directional stability and control.

(a) A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for taxiing, takeoff, and landing must be established and must be not less than 0.2 V_SO.
(b) The airplane must be satisfactorily controllable in power-off landings at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a straight path until the speed has decreased to at least 50 percent of the speed at touchdown.

It has nothing to do with 'luck of the draw' on test day...

[Bone]

Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

Basicly what I said on the first page, 3rd comment down.

[Ken Stallings]

Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

You are precisely correct.

Part of the process of earning a commercial operators license from the FAA is that you have to submit your safety, operations, training, and maintenance plans to the FAA. The FAA studies your proposed plan and then rules if it is acceptable. Once the FAA issues the operating certificate, all your written limits carry force of law and if you violate them, not only can you have your license revoked, grounding your entire fleet, but you face possible fines and penalties to include possible criminal charges and jaiil time!

So, if the published American Airlines limit was 29 knots of crosswind, then that restriction carries force of federal law behind it.

I am personally of the view that these "preferred runway" clauses have gotten way out of hand and that the FAA has been negligent in not forcing their immediate abolition.

Ken

[Bone]

This pilot was way out of line for this reason; an emergency is a time-critical situation which requires the clearing of all other traffic in order to safely land the aircraft.

.

Well, an emergency is not neccesarily a time critical event. For instance, a no-flap landing in a jet with electrically actuated flaps (like my plane) isn't time critical at all. But, you still declare an emergency because the slowest speed you can go in this situation pushes right up to the max tire speed (yes, we have to know this), the AOA is very high, you'll need the longest runway, and you want the fire trucks standing by just in case. There are quite a few abnormal situations where you declare an emergency to cover yourself, because they have the potential to finish up in a bad way.

[PRB]

First, I didn't register, so I didn't get to hear the exchange, so two questions:

1) Did the pilot declare an emergency, when there wasn't one, in order to get to land on the runway he wanted?

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", don't you get in trouble for "faking" an emergency? You can't just declare an emergency to get the ATC to comply with your wishes, can you? Isn't there a rule against that?

3) If the pilot is in change of what runway he lands on, how do you handle this situation? Surely not be declaring a fake emergency every time you get into an argument with the ATC..? What is the correct way to handle it?

Ok, three questions.

[Major_Spittle]

I would say the Pilot was correct on this because:

A) The controller never asked what the pilot's emergency was which is the first thing you would do as a controller.
B) The controller shut up quickly and complied with the pilot.
C) The pilot's tone is that of a person short on patience(from the start), has been through this before, and has no fear of ass not being covered.
D) The ATC sounded flustered like he was caught in a situation he was embarased by or unsure of.
E) "Give me 31 or I will declare an Emergency", to me sounds like he has already been dealing with the ATC or listening to the Tower screw up for awhile with other traffic but had a card up his sleeve. ie (low enough fuel he wasn't going to be sent around by ATC like everyone else that refused to use 22L during wind gusts while 31L/R was sitting unused)

But this is just a guess. I know I wouldn't want to land in a 35kt gusting crosswind vs pretty much directly into the wind. I bet a few planes already had to go around because of gusts and the ATC was still using 22L/R.

I'm not a pilot or ATC, but this seems pretty straight forward.

[PRB]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

[pilottj]

most controllers I delt with were very accomdating. They will usually try to grant you your request if able, but don't expect them to do it right away, they have to work you in with everyone else. That might be more difficult for airlines who have a schedule to make.

[Major_Spittle]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

Well, I don't think this was anything up to " Debate " with an ATC that isn't flying the aircraft.
"Give me 31 or I will declare an Emergency" is not declaring an emergency but letting the ATC know that 22 won't work and 31 is the only place he can land. The ATC didn't respond with OK, Understand, Turn Right XXX, speed up, 31 is closed or anything. The ATC never answered the question even, just kept the pilot on an approach.

I am sure that if pilot declares an Emergency the FAA becomes involved so you might want to be able to answer what the emergency was if they interview you. This pilot could always say, the ATC only giving me 22 created an emergency due to the unsafe crosswind condition. 31 was requested but never approved. I declared an emergency because I couldn't land with approach I was put on.

Saying, I just wanted to land on 31 but could have landed on 22 as instructed might get your license revoked.

[tigisfat]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...


I wouldn't take that lesson at face value as a hard rule. This is going to be different from scenario to scenario.

As a GA pilot, you have 1,000's more options than the captain of an airline flight. I'm struggling to think of a good example for you; I just don't want a 40 hr private guy with a freshly pressed license to use declaring an emergency as their first option. That's not to say you should avoid declaring an emergency......it just takes years and years of learning new rules every day to make as drastic of a decision as the captain in question did and be right.

[Panther_99FS]

I'm thinkin' the "serious battle" here is between SOH members....:d

[tigisfat]

I'm thinkin' the "serious battle" here is between SOH members....:d


Panther, Panther, Panther. The sensationalist headlines are only part of the marketing package. To remain competitive and viable in today's threading environment, it takes a hard driving approach to ensure posters will populate your conversation instead of it going straight to page 2. This philosophy is fast-becoming the strategy of all leading threaders. To stay on top, I've got a small team (ahem, my cat) working on potential marketing outlines for the sumer months. :salute:

[bstolle]

I am personally of the view that these "preferred runway" clauses have gotten way out of hand and that the FAA has been negligent in not forcing their immediate abolition.
Ken

That's also a serious problem in Europe. Amsterdam is a good example. There are quite a few statistics which show that the number of landing accidents an incidents increase very much once the crosswind component exceeds 25kts.
In such a situation the captain of a 757 touched down that hard and yawed in AMS, that the whole nose gear was ripped from the nosewheel well.

[Ken Stallings]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

I wouldn't necessarily draw that lesson. The most important thing to keep in mind is that this controller, and his supervisor most likely, were both dead ass wrong and knew it.

Yes, if you "fake" an emergency, you can get in serious trouble with the FAA. ATC has the authority to require the pilot to fill out a written report when he declares an emergency.

I am thinking the pilot had no concerns filling out a report of this kind because he had every intention of sending a loud and clear message that the controllers were incompetently putting people at risk because they refused to use the runway clearly suitable and kept using one that clearly was not. In short, the controllers hazarded air traffic.

If you are going to declare an emergency, you have to have a situation that requires priority ATC services to avoid mishap. In the pilot's judgment, the active runway was unsafe due to extreme crosswinds and he wasn't going to hazard his passengers and crew simply to comply with a controller who lost his common sense and reason for having a job!

Good for him!

Ken

[PRB]

This is interesting.

I ran this story past the two pilots who work in same office I work in. Well, they used to be pilots, now they're simulator instructors. Anyhow, they're ex-navy EA-6B pilots, with many years experience. They hadn't heard of the incident, so we went online and found it, and listened to it.

They both agreed, with no hesitation whatever, with Ken and Tigs. Then I tried with them what I tried with you people here: “But surely there is a better way to handle this... You canna go around declaring emergencies every time you don't get your way...” The answer was “you're missing the point. If the runway ATC wants me to land on is out of limits for crosswind, and ATC won't listen to my request for another runway, I'd probably have done the same thing this guy did – there's no time to jerk around with a giant airplane full of passengers – we'll talk about it when we're on the ground.”

Which is what Ken & Co. have been saying.

[Ken Stallings]

This is interesting.

I ran this story past the two pilots who work in same office I work in. Well, they used to be pilots, now they're simulator instructors. Anyhow, they're ex-navy EA-6B pilots, with many years experience. They hadn't heard of the incident, so we went online and found it, and listened to it.

They both agreed, with no hesitation whatever, with Ken and Tigs. Then I tried with them what I tried with you people here: “But surely there is a better way to handle this... You canna go around declaring emergencies every time you don't get your way...” The answer was “you're missing the point. If the runway ATC wants me to land on is out of limits for crosswind, and ATC won't listen to my request for another runway, I'd probably have done the same thing this guy did – there's no time to jerk around with a giant airplane full of passengers – we'll talk about it when we're on the ground.”

Which is what Ken & Co. have been saying.

Yep, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a professional pilot who would think any differently.

It really isn't even a close call.

Every person in that airplane is counting on the pilot to put their safety first.

I have zero tolerance for people who purchase a home near an airport and then bitch about the noise! In every single case, the dang airport was there long before the homes were! Politicians listen to bitching home owners and tell you through their votes regarding "preferred runways" and other such decsions how they feel about your safety as a passenger on an airplane!

The controller, sitting in his air conditioned office, is going to go home whether the pilot is able to land safely or not. The pilot and everyone else on the airplane goes home safe only if the pilot lands safely!

It's the old saw about bacon and eggs on your breakfast platter! The chicken who laid the eggs was "involved." The pig with his bacon was "committed!"

The controller is involved. The pilot and his crew are committed, and as passengers, you are along for the ride regardless how it turns out, equally committed, just essentially powerless!

So, if you want to know why we pilots are passionate about this, think about the differences between the pilots and the controllers -- committment and involvement.

My definition of a good air traffic controller? It is simple -- a controller who understands the difference between involvement and commitment, and strives to do whatever is needed to keep the people in that airplane safe. This controller failed. And if I had my way, he'd be put on administrative leave, and only if I determined he was under significant pressure to keep that runway active "or else," would I let him keep his job. If he was being put under pressure to not change the runway despite the weather conditions, then I would put him back in the seat on probation, and fire everyone who put him under that pressure!

Lives count more than noise, more than homeowners pissed off because they bought a house near an airport! Lives are more important than controller convenience. And a crosswind out of limits remains a crosswind out of limits, period, dot.

Cheers,

Ken

[Skittles]

This is interesting.

I ran this story past the two pilots who work in same office I work in. Well, they used to be pilots, now they're simulator instructors. Anyhow, they're ex-navy EA-6B pilots, with many years experience. They hadn't heard of the incident, so we went online and found it, and listened to it.

They both agreed, with no hesitation whatever, with Ken and Tigs. Then I tried with them what I tried with you people here: “But surely there is a better way to handle this... You canna go around declaring emergencies every time you don't get your way...” The answer was “you're missing the point. If the runway ATC wants me to land on is out of limits for crosswind, and ATC won't listen to my request for another runway, I'd probably have done the same thing this guy did – there's no time to jerk around with a giant airplane full of passengers – we'll talk about it when we're on the ground.”

Which is what Ken & Co. have been saying.

And where exactly does the controller not listen to the request for another runway?

No time to jerk around with passengers on board?

What, you mean vector for another approach, as the aircraft has been doing all flight?

I'd love someone to tell me where the safety of the passengers have been compromised.

In fact no. First, someone can describe to me what the emergency is.

[Ken Stallings]

And where exactly does the controller not listen to the request for another runway?

No time to jerk around with passengers on board?

What, you mean vector for another approach, as the aircraft has been doing all flight?

I'd love someone to tell me where the safety of the passengers have been compromised.

In fact no. First, someone can describe to me what the emergency is.

We have, again, and again, and again.

[tigisfat]

And where exactly does the controller not listen to the request for another runway?

No time to jerk around with passengers on board?

What, you mean vector for another approach, as the aircraft has been doing all flight?

I'd love someone to tell me where the safety of the passengers have been compromised.

In fact no. First, someone can describe to me what the emergency is.

To be honest, I don't want to anymore.
http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/snlno.gif

[Ken Stallings]

To be honest, I don't want to anymore.
http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/forum%20commentary%20pictures/snlno.gif

Nor frankly I!

In fact, I think the last thing I can contribute to this thread is this final observation:

You can always get another job. You can never get another life!

Ken

[Henry]

one would think that the pilot or captain
is the one responsible for the people on board
therefore would be the deciding person
from a layman who cannot fly
i would rather lose my licence than passengers
at least thats the way i see it
H

[Skittles]

We have, again, and again, and again.

No you havn't. I want you to describe where the safety of the passengers was compromised and the nature of the emergency. You havn't stated this once.

Even if ATC have failed to initially provide an adequate runway, then where has safety been compromised?

[AckAck]

Even if ATC have failed to initially provide an adequate runway, then where has safety been compromised?

Because ATC failed to provide an adequate runway, safety was compromised...

[PRB]

This is what I took from the two pilots I talked to yesterday. That when ATC insisted that they land on a runway they deemed unsafe, due to crosswind issues, that, essentially, constitutes an emergency. Ok, I understand what they are saying. What surprised me the most was not that they agreed with Ken (:d), but that they were not even surprised at this story. We're all going nuts over this story like it's a big deal, but they were just nodding their heads, listening, then acted like it was a total no-brainer that the pilot was right. They looked at me like I had two heads when I tried to make a case that this wasn't they way to handle the situation.

Then they made an analogy, to try to get me to understand how “the system” works. Military jets fly off the carrier to the beach in big packs. You don't want to get into a situation where you're critically low on fuel, but it can happen when you're all strung out in a long line, and you're number 15 to land. If you call the tower and say you are “fuel limited”, which is what you're supposed to do, they will acknowledge you and then ignore you. Because fuel limited is not fuel critical, as such does not constitute an emergency, on their part. So, what to do? You're pretty sure you will be fuel critical by the time it's your turn to land, but you don't want to get into that situation. So you call a fuel critical emergency, and ATC puts you at the head of the line. Simple. It's done all the time. The “game”, evidently, is called “how to get ATC to do what you want them to do”, and it's played out every day, with decisions like this made by pilots.

Like I said, I'm surprised to learn this, but then again, maybe not so much...

[Skittles]

Because ATC failed to provide an adequate runway, safety was compromised...

Why?

Are pilots scared of flying these days?

[MaddogK]

This is interesting.

I ran this story past the two pilots who work in same office I work in. Well, they used to be pilots, now they're simulator instructors. Anyhow, they're ex-navy EA-6B pilots, with many years experience. They hadn't heard of the incident, so we went online and found it, and listened to it.

They both agreed, with no hesitation whatever, with Ken and Tigs. Then I tried with them what I tried with you people here: “But surely there is a better way to handle this... You canna go around declaring emergencies every time you don't get your way...” The answer was “you're missing the point. If the runway ATC wants me to land on is out of limits for crosswind, and ATC won't listen to my request for another runway, I'd probably have done the same thing this guy did – there's no time to jerk around with a giant airplane full of passengers – we'll talk about it when we're on the ground.”

Which is what Ken & Co. have been saying.

This exactly why I didn't need to hear the tapes, SAFETY of the passengers is the PIC's call, whatever the controllers problem was can be worked out on the ground AFTER the passengers are safe.

Skittles: grow up, realize there's some things more important than one guys 'feelings', LIVES were at stake.

[Skittles]

This exactly why I didn't need to hear the tapes, SAFETY of the passengers is the PIC's call, whatever the controllers problem was can be worked out on the ground AFTER the passengers are safe.

Skittles: grow up, realize there's some things more important than one guys 'feelings', LIVES were at stake.

Grow up? Laughable. This from the person that hasn't listened to the tapes. How embarassing.

Why were lives at stake?

Why can no-one answer me this simple question. Why was there an emergency?

[Bone]

Making command decisions doesn't start at or after the point where lives are at stake and planes get bent. Ideally, it starts long before you are in a possible predicament. ATC on a regular basis issues clearances that exceed the limitations of the airplane... believe me it happens all of the time, and in all phases of flight. I've been give climb clearances with a crossing restriction that would have me climbing at 4000fpm up to FL380. "Sorry Mr ATC Guy, can't accept that. I don't care if you have converging traffic all around me and you need me to do a zoom climb so your computer doesn't record a conflict and you get violated...the plane can't effing do it."

You don't accept clearances that you can't comply with, that is an absolute! And, when ATC refuses to accept your refusal, you do what you have to do as the PIC.

[Skittles]

And, when ATC refuses to except your refusal, you do what you have to do as the PIC.

Agreed 100%, but at no point in this video does ATC refuse the request. The aircraft is simply instructed to maintain their heading.

If maintaining a heading is an emergency then remind me never to fly again.

[MaddogK]

Grow up? Laughable. This from the person that hasn't listened to the tapes. How embarassing.

Why were lives at stake?

Why can no-one answer me this simple question. Why was there an emergency?

Perhaps you wouldn't find it so laughable if you were on that flight, and learned the pilot put your life in danger by accepting the controllers runway assignment that put the A/C outside it's acceptable crosswind landing limit. Maybe you'd think it's a better idea to negotiate with the controller instead of putting 100% of your attention to landing your plane in less than acceptable conditions and hope that the controller relents and gives you your ideal runway, and after rejoining the pattern hope that you have the fuel to make it to the new runway assignment. If not- you NOW have an emergency.

[Henry]

Making command decisions doesn't start at or after the point where lives are at stake and planes get bent. Ideally, it starts long before you are in a possible predicament. ATC on a regular basis issues clearances that exceed the limitations of the airplane... believe me it happens all of the time, and in all phases of flight. I've been give climb clearances with a crossing restriction that would have me climbing at 4000fpm up to FL380. "Sorry Mr ATC Guy, can't except that. I don't care if you have converging traffic all around me and you need me to do a zoom climb so your computer doesn't record a conflict and you get violated...the plane can't effing do it."

You don't except clearances that you can't comply with, that is an absolute! And, when ATC refuses to except your refusal, you do what you have to do as the PIC.
just like msfs aint it:salute:
LOL
H

[Wingnut172N]

You guys are ridiculous.

The controller clearly stated "Maintain Runway Heading" meaning, maintain your current heading, break off the approach, and I'll get you vectors to another approach AS SOON AS I CAN GET OTHER TRAFFIC OUT OF THE WAY. Here are the facts.

1.) Declaring an emergency for winds, (while justifiable) does not give you a blank check to go flying willy-nilly wherever you want in a crowded terminal environment and blow up the traffic pattern.

2.) Who THREATENS to declare an emergency???? Either you have an emergency and declare, or you don't have one and you don't. If you threaten to declare an emergency, it means one thing; there isn't an emergency, and you're a douche-bag.

3.) Declaring an emergency gives you the right to violate the FAR's TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY to safely land the aircraft. I believe that this pilot violated more FAR's than necessary by blowing up the traffic pattern INSTEAD OF TAKING VECTORS FOR A NEW APPROACH, which the controller was working on giving him.

There is a time and place for everything, and there are jerk controllers, but in this case I believe the pilot was 100% wrong, if the only "emergency" was winds. If he had a fuel state issue, or a mechanical problem with the aircraft he should have stated so, in which case the situation would have changed.

*Note: All of the above is armchair quarterback-ing as none of us were present when the event occured. :)

[Skittles]

Perhaps you wouldn't find it so laughable if you were on that flight, and learned the pilot put your life in danger by accepting the controllers runway assignment that put the A/C outside it's acceptable crosswind landing limit. Maybe you'd think it's a better idea to negotiate with the controller instead of putting 100% of your attention to landing your plane in less than acceptable conditions and hope that the controller relents and gives you your ideal runway, and after rejoining the pattern hope that you have the fuel to make it to the new runway assignment. If not- you NOW have an emergency.

Why on earth would the pilot blindly accept the controllers runway assignment? One of the main reasons that ATC provide airport information is to allow the pilot to make decisions.

Negotiate with the controller? Why would they need to do that? The controller doesn't reject their request in the slightest. He just tells them to maintain heading. Why are you talking about the controller 'relenting?'

After rejoining the patterns hope you have enough fuel? Dear me.

Perhaps you should actually listen to the tapes and then you'll realise that nothing you've said makes the slightest bit if sense.

So now we declare emergencies when there may be opportunity for emergency in the future? Next time I take off I'll bear this in mind.

"G-OE departing the circuit to the North-East. Mayday mayday, G-OE in powered and controlled flight 27 miles north of Manchester"

"Sir, what is the nature of your emergency"

"Well, there is a chance that when I arrive at your airport I will have to hold in the traffic pattern. This potentially could cause a fuel shortage (not that I calculated it before I set off...). Furthermore, there is a chance that halfway through the flight a pidgeon will pay me a visit in the cockpit. I estimate the chances of being shot at by an F-15 as 0.000054%, and the chances of an unexpected heart attack of 0.7%. Now if you'd be so kind as to clear all traffic, and to make all other airport traffic remain in the pattern (GOD HELP THEM - THEY MIGHT ALL NEED TO DECLARE EMERGENCIES?!) whilst I doddle in at my own leisure. Cheerio."

[MaddogK]

You guys are ridiculous.

The controller clearly stated "Maintain Runway Heading" meaning, maintain your current heading, break off the approach, and I'll get you vectors to another approach AS SOON AS I CAN GET OTHER TRAFFIC OUT OF THE WAY.

Ahh, a mindreader. maybe the controller said "Maintain Runway Heading" to buy him time to take a squirt or refill his coffee cup. If he meant ' maintain your current heading, break off the approach, and I'll get you vectors to another approach' he should've said so. All you've done is confirm the controller was incompetent.

[Skittles]

Ahh, a mindreader. maybe the controller said "Maintain Runway Heading" to buy him time to take a squirt or refill his coffee cup. If he meant ' maintain your current heading, break off the approach, and I'll get you vectors to another approach' he should've said so. All you've done is confirm the controller was incompetent.

What difference does that make? The controller could be having a break to scratch his arse and have a good fart. He tells the pilot to maintain heading. What is the emergency here?

[MaddogK]

What difference does that make? The controller could be having a break to scratch his arse and have a good fart. He tells the pilot to maintain heading. What is the emergency here?

Yer right, a 767 is as easy and quick to setup for landing as that cessna you fly. A few minutes of delay wouldn't have mattered either way.

[Haining]

You might like to have a more professional view of this incident at

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/414573-aa-crew-fed-up-jfk-atc-declares-emergency.html

[Skittles]

A few minutes of delay wouldn't have mattered either way.

So you think that the pilot's response is justifiable based on the fact he couldn't be delayed by a couple of minutes, yet you have no problem with the numerous other aircraft that are delayed by significantly more than a couple of minutes in order to make way for the emergency landing?

[Henry]

ok guys keep your hair on
and no personal comments
if it was black and white there would not be all this fuss
would there
fortunately no one was hurt
the poll at the moment is 10-9
H

[MaddogK]

So you think that the pilot's response is justifiable based on the fact he couldn't be delayed by a couple of minutes, yet you have no problem with the numerous other aircraft that are delayed by significantly more than a couple of minutes in order to make way for the emergency landing?

Eh, I was being phecious (sp).

Thanks Haining for the link, this post (#60) has some added info I found interesting:


<!-- message --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Is the 767 in any way unusual in terms of the maximum crosswind component that is considered safe...or was there a whole queue of planes with a similar problem and this was just the first crew to make a fuss? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
In addition to the crosswind, the wind value was given at 100 degrees from the right which has a tailwind component for consideration 320/23 gusting 35, and Runway 22L/04R is the shortest runway at JFK!

In addition, eye balling a visual without G/S on 22L (from the tape) or possibly without PAPI lights, an extra couple of feet high over threshold adds a lot of extra meters at the very end which might not be there if they screw up the visual with strong crosswind and tail wind component.

The landing was safe in the end, good for the commander if he deemed this was required. But now he is on the ground, he is paid well for providing the answers to his actions as the captain/commander.


So, controller doesn't realize his initial runway assignment is marginal until PIC makes a big stink about it.

Hmmmm

[Wingnut172N]

Ahh, a mindreader. maybe the controller said "Maintain Runway Heading" to buy him time to take a squirt or refill his coffee cup. If he meant ' maintain your current heading, break off the approach, and I'll get you vectors to another approach' he should've said so. All you've done is confirm the controller was incompetent.

MaddogK,

1.) Lets quit calling people incompetent, huh? I'd like to see you survive a day as a JFK tower controller. Lets face it, we're all being ready room commando's here, don't make it worse by judging people's abilities. Let's keep to discussing whether the actions in questions were legitimate.

2.) "Maintain Runway Heading" is not standard terminology to continue an approach. I agree that the controller could have done a better job of communicating that he was working on arranging vectors to the 31 visual, (not something that can be done in seconds with as many aircraft in the air as were that day) at the same time, however, the pilot should have done a better job communicating his "emergency". A simple "We can't land on 22 due to wind limitations" would have sufficed. "Min fuel" was not even mentioned by the crew, and as such fuel was not a factor in the controller's mind.

3.) Without knowing more information, I believe the PIC abused his right to violate from the FAR's upon declaring an emergency.

[MaddogK]

Right, without knowing the whole story we're all just speculating. The tape was edited, but I still feel the controller was in error, the pilot was arrogant in the way he demanded a different runway, and the whole incident could've been handled better.


there isn't an emergency, and you're a douche-bag.
Lets quit calling people incompetent

:kilroy:

I still maintain the pilot did what he needed to do to ensure his passengers safety, and have voted accordingly.

[Wingnut172N]

When was the passenger's safety in danger? I agree that the pilot did the right thing in refusing the x-wind runway assigned, but I don't understand why he couldn't have just accepted vectors the visual runway 31 without declaring an emergency?

Touche btw...I'll refrain from judgemental comments myself in the future ;)

[Henry]

Touche btw...I'll refrain from judgemental comments myself in the future ;)
that will apply to all concerned:isadizzy:
thanks
H

[Ken Stallings]

So, controller doesn't realize his initial runway assignment is marginal until PIC makes a big stink about it.

Hmmmm

You hit the nail on the head. The tower controllers are required to keep up with the weather conditions at their airport and make adjustments are needed to preserve safety.

Ken

[tigisfat]

You guys are ridiculous....... If you threaten to declare an emergency, it means one thing; there isn't an emergency, and you're a douche-bag.



http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt32/walkeramerican/seriousdgif.gif

[srgalahad]

OK.. as I happen to wander in here most days and tend to read a variety of things and have controlled airplanes longer than many of the pilots here have been able to read I finally got to the point where I have to toss in more than a couple of cents worth.

(Excerpts from the initial AvWeb report on May 10th http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1627-full.html#202510)
Speaking for the JFK Controller union, Steve Abraham told ABC news the pilot "had no choice. He couldn't land 22L, it would have been illegal for him," due to the crosswind. Wind was 320 at 23 gusting to 35, at the time. JFK's main runway, 31 Left, has been closed for upgrades for about eight weeks, and controllers say that maintaining the flow of traffic at the airport has led to some less than ideal clearances.
(typical media reporting, there is no JFK Controller union per se)
Obviously, the concerns were not unique on that day and it's been well-documented already.

FAA spokesman Arlene Sarlac told AVweb Thursday that the agency studied the situation "for over a year" prior to closing the runway and worked with airlines who "agreed to reduce their schedules during this closure time." The FAA says the situation at JFK is safe.
So, it's not like it was a surprize set of conditions... I would offer an opinion that every JFK-bound airline has numerous NOTAMS and Ops Letters posted in dispatch and sent to crews. The discussions about procedures at JFK during the construction would have been signed-off by the airlines as well as the PNYA and the FAA. While airlines obviously don't like carrying extra fuel and have been shown to 'shave it' on occasion, there must have been (or should have been) conversations between crews and company ops regarding the possibility of extended approaches into JFK, including the extra flight time if a runway change is made. However there is also pressure on pilots from 'company' to keep fuel uploads to the minimum required with no 'extra for the wife and kids' (that's why SIDS and STARS came into existence and are so important now)-and pilots as well as controllers are subject to performance appraisals from management.

JFK's 14,572 foot-long 13R/31L, was closed in March to undergo a four-month-long facelift that includes widening and repaving. The closure is expected to last through June and means that traffic must be diverted to the airport's three remaining runways. Controllers say the American Airlines event shows that maintaining the traffic flow, without incurring delays, has presented challenges. According to the FAA, the situation was studied ahead of time, the airlines are flying on reduced schedules and operations at the airport are safe.
Seems some of the pilots and spectators here and elsewhere can't differentiate between an individual controller and the FAA (two groups that are often at loggerheads - when it doesn't go the public's way it's the fault of a union, but if it's a policy it's a dang bureaucracy). The JFK controllers -as at many other facilities have fought preferential runways and local procedures as hard as the pilots for the same safety reasons, but airlines want the shortest route so are loathe to press the political fight. At the same time, the FAA is dependent on the taxpayer dollar (there are more lawyers than pilots) and has been forced (often in court) to bow to the NIMBYs, while at the same time pressure from the poor, cash-strapped airlines for minimum-distance approaches has ended up with a lot of these 'agreements' that neither the ALPA nor NATCA have had a vote upon. Factor in that the airports are dependant on revenue and don't want to be seen as the cause of some businessman being delayed if a corner can be cut or traffic jammed in. There is another measurement - "Runway Acceptance Rate" (how many can you shove into the bottom of the funnel in an hour - working in exits, distance to the ramp, crossing traffic, taxi flows) and most airports have some combinations that are far better than others.. and with the loss of a parallel runway those get more complicated at the best of times. I think, come push to shove, most pilots would opt for landing on a shorter runway, at light weight with a contrary wind than to try to depart (in this case 22) heavily loaded with a tailwind component. Everyone should be able to imagine what it would be like using ONLY Rwy 31R for arrivals and departures and what those delays would cost in time and money to the airlines. It's easy to just view it from a single viewpoint and think it's simple if you don't look at how the system HAS to work to accommodate ALL the stakeholders (including the paying pax demands for "on-time performance"). This ain't Kansas Toto - it's one of the most complex ATC/airport environments in the world.

After receiving their clearance, the crew of American Flight 2 said, "We can't land on 22," adding, "We're breaking off approach and if you don't give us to Runway 31R, we're going to declare an emergency." The controller responded "alright, I'll pass it along, fly runway heading for now."
For the Tower controller to unilaterally 'just swing one plane around to another runway' -which was being used for only departures- several events have to take place. First, the Tower (local controller) has to ensure that there is no ground traffic in the way (there was.. an aircraft had just been turned onto 31R - and that Ground stops all possible crossing traffic. Then (at the same time) has to hit the hotline to Approach to make space for a crossing-runway landing with what could be a stream of traffic with minimum separation on final for 22L (in fact, an AWE Airbus had to execute a missed approach) and estimate the time required for a circling procedure to sequence that other traffic, and coordinate the circling with Departure as AA2 may have had to widen into the departure or arrival flows in congested airspace, AND pass traffic to the diverging aircraft and any others that may be in comflict. Some of that HAS to be done to reduce or remove the possibility of a nose-to-nose conflict due to the circling 767. (all that in less time than I took to type it and about as long as it takes you to read it.)
With no indication from the pilot of a time-critical situation , the safest, most organized and logical process is to have AA2 continue straight ahead in stable flight while some of the coordination is done (remember AA2 is still likely 6-10 miles on final approach at initial contact with the tower) and even if he's going to do a circling, still could maintain 1000-1500 ft down the runway and circle to a left-hand pattern for 31R.

Note that the wx was not serious - the pilot of AA2 commenced (as stated) a Visual approach for 31R so there were a lot of plan-able options. The pilot was able to commence a turn, circle and line up for 31R while close in to the airport - in fact close enough that pax on the Airbus following on the approach for 22 saw the 767 'turning at them' as they were going around. Not the large, stable approach assumed to be required. What would have happened, in spite of the pilot's considerable skill, if he had misjudged that tight, visual approach and then had to perform a balked landing and another circuit (still in an 'emergency situation')?

For those who advocate ATC immediately and unilaterally changing runways to be most appropriate for the wind, remember that the policy dictated by FAA administration, in agreement with the airlines and the Port of NY Authority probably has agreed-to limitations (as evidenced by the on-going use of "land 22, depart 31R") that had been in process for some time that day.

Also look at a chart of the area. It would not surprise me to find a set of agreements between NYC TRACON and the various towers in the area that the 'active runway' has to be coordinated and similar for all area IFR airports to avoid numerous conflicting traffic flows over the whole NYC area. Therefore, a runway change at one airport (eg. when there is a significant wind shift) takes time (I'll guess from experience, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 minutes for each of the towers to shift ground flows, circle a few (and still negotiate out-of-wind landings and departures for the most immediately involved) AND for TRACON a lead time of at least 20 minutes to vector everyone to the new runway, switch STARS and SIDS and likely detour some aircraft well out of the way to make room for the new flow AND for CENTER to begin reroutes and reissue revised clearances (in the event of communication failure) which starts perhaps 90 miles out and also requires coordination with adjacent Centers. As I look at the chart I can see all sorts of scenarios where a runway change at JFK would effectively shut down operations at, at least, LGA, NWK until it could be accomodated in the whole flow.

Bear in mind that no one has produced any evidence showing whether the crew of AA2 made their situation known at any point prior to contacting JFK tower (approx. 3 minutes from the threshold). While it IS difficult, the "system" (the human part of ATC) can make it work for an individual aircraft if there is a known reason - and with minimal extra fuel required if the plan starts early enough. BTW, ATC does know of general crosswind limitations but, unless provided locally, does not know individual operators' procedures or limits. (I once was required to file against an airline pilot for landing below prescribed wx minima, only to find out the airline had a special approval for lower...). With no apparent indication of ANY 'minimum fuel' issue the question is compounded as to what course can be taken.

Also consider things that we may never hear about...

Had the controllers (plural) been subjected to constant complaints all day from pilots who had then gone on to land safely with the crosswind and (without knowing AAL limits) heard another pilot crying "Wolf!" without a timely explanation of the absolute need for 31R?
Were the winds increasing or had the same conditions applied to one or two or three hours of preceding traffic?
Had those winds JUST increased beyond the AAL B767 limits or had the crew discussed options all the way in from Ohio?
Was this the first such concern/complaint that day for the ATC crews on duty?
Were they already in the process of that 20 min. - 1 hour exercise in coordination to change runways?
Was it easier to do a low-level "emergency" circling over New York and explain it to the pax as "ATC's fault" than to explain to them an overshoot and vectors due to a Company limitation and airport policies that they wouldn't have the interest or knowledge to understand - or that may make some question the capabilities of American Airlines when other flights beat them to the gate?
was the crew running short of flight time?
Was the captain due at his kids' soccer game?
Was the Captain pissed at the thought of being number one and then having to be number 6 (or two or 12) - and don't tell me he'd never think that...
Had he had bad experiences at JFK and developed an attitude of "I'll show them who's boss"? (and no sanctimonious cries of "NEVER!").

I have to say I am dismayed that so many people (on all the forums) with so little knowledge and experience hold such inflexible and simplistic opinions. Controllers and the system they make work are not perfect, but neither are pilots and that's partly why there are courses on Crew Resource Management (CRM) and 'cockpit decision making' is trained right from the PPL level. It all minimizes the problems, but cannot ever remove ALL of them. BTW, some airlines include ATC in the CRM process as part of the team that moves pax.

Until the investigation is complete (and with the media attention and this sort of discussion all over the Web there WILL be an investigation to determine: "Was there any factor that required an "immediate landing"?") no one knows the truth.

Until then, remember the old saying about "having walked a mile in his shoes"...

[tigisfat]

Whoa, that's a lot to read. The points were well made though.

I would like to suggest that you can't base the correctness of a single crew's decision on whether or not other crews did or didn't complain. Pilots can be like sheep. I've seen conditions deteriorating in the terminal environment where it seems like noone wants to cause trouble or blow the whistle until one lone ranger makes a decision. Pilots will continue to shoot approaches into conditions they know aren't likely to be good until they hear a single pilot retreating, and then there's a flood of changed minds. Personally, I'll admit to letting the experienced captains of large aircraft influence me. If I'm headed somewhere and I hear a 50 year veteran throw in the towel, I'll make that call without looking myself (as someone knows enough about flying to know that i don't know anything about flying).

[Ken Stallings]

Sirgalahad,

Your points are well crafted and make many logical points. If the conditions were indeed VFR (a point that seems to conflict with other written reports I had read specifying IFR conditions) then a circle to land could have been initiated far enough away to facilitate a relatively easy solution.

However, if that option were available, then the controller should have overtly offered it to the pilot. My understanding is that due to the IFR conditions, it was not a prudent option.

Does anyone disagree that had the controller said, "Copy, unable runway 22, level off at ths time, proceed current heading, expect vectors for ILS runway 31R," that the pilot would have declared the emergency?

I'm convinced the pilot would have not played that card.

You are right in that the controller cannot control the myriad of factors that made him press for runway 22. However, the pilot was even less in control of those factors, but he was ultimately being asked to pay the price for it and bear 100% of the ultimate responsibility for it.

That is why the pilot has the emergency option and why in my view he was right to use it.

Cheers,

Ken

[wombat666]

Jump!
Again ........:173go1:

[tigisfat]

Jump!
Again ........:173go1:

Wombat and a friend cruising in a Piper Warrior at 1,500 feet.

friend: "Hey Wombat, remind me to tell maintenance about this funny ammeter when we get down".

Wombat's friend immediately hears a slam and then the slipstream roaring. He looks up just as Wombat promptly departs the aircraft, ripcord in hand.

:icon_lol::ernae:

[jmig]

OK.. as I happen to wander in here most days and tend to read a variety of things and have controlled airplanes longer than many of the pilots here have been able to read I finally got to the point where I have to toss in more than a couple of cents worth...

Until then, remember the old saying about "having walked a mile in his shoes"...

Excellent post, Sir! :salute:

[browngib]

I haven't flown a "real aircraft" since 1977; I seem to remember that the Pilot in Command can declare an emergency at any time; then later he may have to explain his declaration to the FAA. However, agruing with an ATC Controller is a real waste of time. No one will get it right. I don't play war with those who are not in the fray nor fully armed!

[MudMarine]

Unethical, immoral, unprofessional, dangerous and a pilot without honor or dignity! PERIOD

[Ken Stallings]

Unethical, immoral, unprofessional, dangerous and a pilot without honor or dignity! PERIOD

I hope you understand that what you just posted is contrary to aviation law as administered by the FAA on behalf of the US Congress. It may well be your opinion, but the law does not attribute those qualities to the decision.

I'm equally sure that if you polled the opinions of the people onboard the aircraft, who's lives were entrusted to the pilot, that they would likely disagree.

Ken

[CybrSlydr]

I agree with Ken and company. The pilot was in the right.

[cheezyflier]

maybe a little off topic, but i find it interesting that the guy who created this thread isn't allowed to participate in it.

[Moparmike]

That is because he is no longer a member here.

And on that note...to keep things fair...no one else may participate in it any longer either.