American Pilot Declares Emergency at JFK

[DG]

Actually, by New York standards, the whole exchange sounded pretty civil, where a request for a hotdog can start with an argument and end with a fistfight.

Major Lord

You obviously do not fly in New York Airspace.

The New York controllers are the most professional in the world.

[Major Lord]

You can take your ride with those guys  in the other airplanes, I will stick with the guy who is proven to make good decisions under fire. He may be a jerk, but he is my kind of jerk!

Major Lord

[Major Lord]

Actually, by New York standards, the whole exchange sounded pretty civil, where a request for a hotdog can start with an argument and end with a fistfight.

Major Lord

You obviously do not fly in New York Airspace.

The New York controllers are the most professional in the world.

I am not a pilot, but on the other hand, I have never asked an ATC for a hotdog!

Major Lord

[Rotorhead]

You can take your ride with those guys  in the other airplanes, I will stick with the guy who is proven to make good decisions under fire. He may be a jerk, but he is my kind of jerk!

Major Lord

My point is, those "other guys" --whose aircraft were also full of people--had to deal with your hero's decision to have things his way. Given that you don't get to choose your pilot, you could just as easily have been in one of those other aircraft as your crew dealt with the consequences of his "emergency."

Good decision? Not necessarily.

[Major Lord]

Given the amount of actual information we have, its pretty hard for us to know if we would consider it a "good decision". My point, is that we have some people up there who are not afraid to make a tough decision. He had lives in his hands, and he made a decision that apparently resulted in a happy ending, but we will try not to infer too much from that.  If you think that he should have plunged his aircraft into a corn field to save all those other pilots up there from the horrors of having to execute 360 degree turns for awhile, I think that would have been....imprudent.

Major Lord

[Rotorhead]

Given the amount of actual information we have, its pretty hard for us to know if we would consider it a "good decision". My point, is that we have some people up there who are not afraid to make a tough decision. He had lives in his hands, and he made a decision that apparently resulted in a happy ending, but we will try not to infer too much from that.  If you think that he should have plunged his aircraft into a corn field to save all those other pilots up there from the horrors of having to execute 360 degree turns for awhile, I think that would have been....imprudent.

Major Lord

If you think the only problem involved here was the inconvenience of aircraft having to make turns, or that this pilot's only alternative was to crash into a cornfield, then there's not much that can be said.

[Major Lord]

No, the only real problem is a lack of info. This does not seem to be a problem for the back-seat pilots who want to slam this guy. I will leave the what-if PR issues to the PAO types, and wait for updates on what actually happened. Until then quod erat demonstrandum. The guy in the command seat gets to make the tough calls.

Major Lord

[N Harmon]

The airline is apparently now claiming the nature of the emergency was due to fuel. I'm not a pilot so I may be way off base here....but does it strike anyone else as strange that the pilot would not communicate that earlier on? It seems to me that if you're on an approach, and your fuel level is insufficient to execute a missed approach...that seems like an emergency already, no?

[c172drv]

The airline is apparently now claiming the nature of the emergency was due to fuel. I'm not a pilot so I may be way off base here....but does it strike anyone else as strange that the pilot would not communicate that earlier on? It seems to me that if you're on an approach, and your fuel level is insufficient to execute a missed approach...that seems like an emergency already, no?

While I don't fly heavy jet's as the one in question I do fly a jet daily in and out of the east coast.  Several issues come to mind with this.  I will qualify that since I've been flying the last couple of days I haven't read anything in depth but did listen to the tapes.  The first issue is that a big jet like this will burn a lot of fuel down low.  Considering that these guys were on approach the first time when the tapes started I would figure they were fully or partially configured for landing.  This ups the fuel burn even more.  If they had to go around and wait and get resequenced for landing, they burn a bunch of fuel to climb up, speed up and then be vectored and or hold at low altitude. 
Second, airlines now regularly fly their planes at nearly minimum fuel, especially on long haul routes.  Often they dispatch a flight to say JFK by filing to fly to something like BOS or BGR.  Why, it takes less fuel.  They are required to carry fuel to get to the destination and then I believe 2 hours more or a percentage of the total flight.  I'm sure we have a heavy driver here that knows.  What this whole thing boils down to is that they are running tight on gas from the start.  Add to this that ATC doesn't help us by pulling us out of cruise altitude way before we need to come down and our burn increases.
Dispatchers that plan the flight can't figure out what the delays are going to be, know what the exact winds will be, and generally use the computers profile for the flight. They then add some fuel that they hope will account for the variances.  This is far from an exact science so sometimes it works sometimes now.  Sometimes they don't have the weight available to add the extra gas either because of takeoff weight restrictions or landing weight restrictions.  So this could have played a factor.
Lastly, we also don't know if the crew had previously advised they were "Minimum Fuel" to ATC.  I've used this a few times to let them know that if they didn't let us fly as planned we would have to declare a "Fuel Emergency" and do what we needed.  It is likely that the crew had been discussing the situation for a while and knew what options they had.  The runway utilization at JFK is being driven by trying to get the most planes on and off the ground, not what is functionally best for the aircraft.  For a pilot to deviate from a clearance, they must declare an emergency.  I don't think that we will really be able to do anything but make guesses as to what really was going on.
Regards,
John

[tsrup]

this is a real simple darned if you do darned if you don't.  If he had attempted (and failed) his approach outside of crosswind limits and killed everyone on board, you know his butt would be over a flame and we'd be grabbing the pitchforks saying he should have declared.

If the FAA takes negative action against this pilot, what kind of message do we send?  Do we now err toward the side of convenience rather than safety?  Where do you draw the line on what a real emergency is?  In this instance there was the possibility of people getting seriously hurt or killed. 

In the end the PIC is responsible for the safe conduct of operations of HIS aircraft, and he took command of a potential unsafe situation and got his pax on the ground safely, thats as good as any Captain Sully in my book.

[a2capt]

Well, I can't say it was because of wind, but I can say that once, going into John Wayne (Santa Ana) in a 172, I kept getting bumped for landing and after 45 minutes of holding, it was going nowhere. This being after a round about flight that started 2 hours earlier and included 2 stops, picking up two others to attend a wing conference.

So after now 2.7 in the air and I left with 3/4 fuel for the weight after the first pickup, after being sent nearly 10 miles out I made a comment to ATC that "if this keeps up much longer, I am going to be dipping into my reserves". Wouldn't you know it, amended instructions, make a 180 from current position, cross over the airport at 1,000 ft over pattern altitude and enter on the down wind for 19R. 

Which the ATIS didn't mention, but there was apparently something on and off about 19L (the much narrower, shorter, commonly used for GA, runway) because I was wondering why we didn't just get the usual coming from the direction we were, enter on the 45, left downwind for 19L.

My point is, we don't know (yet) how long that approach had been drawn out, what kind of headwinds that might have been unexpected, were encountered, that could possibly have put the aircraft into it's reserves on fuel and at what point do you need to tell ATC this? When it becomes an issue. If you're on the inbound and everything is going to plan, then just keep going. But if this approach had already been a series of holds and broken off, and now changed, or with the runway change, had been perceived to turn into a bunch of holds, the pilot could have just crossed that barrier of now needing to make note of the impending situation should this go on much longer.

[Thrashed]

 I used to fly the 757/767.  I know for a fact that this small clip of the radio transmissions is not the whole story.  We are getting information out of context.  Since I don't know the whole story, I will not say whether he was right or wrong.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  The captain is in command and can use his "captains emergency authority" when he has to. Do you declare an emergency for a crosswind that is beyond the limits of my plane?  I wouldn't.  You can ask for another runway or divert to another airport if you have to.  Would I declare an emergency for minimum fuel. YES.  Another bit of information is lacking.  ATC/FAA/and the airlines themselves decide on what runways to use.  The winds can put the airport in a configuration that slow traffic down: one runway vs. two, or the runway will conflict with another airports arrivals nearby.  Things are choosen to keep the traffic flowing whether it is safe or not.  We often have to land in high crosswinds or tailwinds for the sake of money.  We are talking big business here and it's always about money.  Pilots should not have to land in 30 knot crosswinds or 10 knot tailwinds when there is another runway available.  In the end is safety vs. money.  It's a managed risk.  CAP pushes safety pretty hard, yet some of you assume the captain is wrong for choosing the safest way to get his aircraft full of souls on the ground.  I wouln't fire him, I'd give him a raise. I'll fly with him any day.  The captains authority has been eroding for decades and I love to hear stories about the captain being in command of his aircraft. He is the sole responsibile person for that flight.

[heliodoc]

There is the voice of reason right there....Thrash

You CAPTalkers payin ATTTENHUT?  This is where us spinner driving pilots had better reserve comment until the real facts come out.

Especially the the 2000 to  5000 hour C172 and C182 type pilots.... CAP might be professional, but unless you are an ATP and above...you KNOW what  I  think

I got a measly Commercial and approx 700 hours to my name and I will not second guess any of those decisions made by others with 20X the hours  I have.  Bout time CAPTalkers get the FACTS before the slew of commentary

Fire him says some CAPTalkers??   That is real BIG talk coming from GA!!!  That is what CAP is ......"professional" GA

[tdepp]

^^^^ :clap:  Not that my opinion matters or counts as a non-pilot, but it sounds like the pilot of this craft did what he thought he needed to do bring everyone home safely.  Let the FAA, the NTSB, and the airline sort it out.  None of us yet know exactly what happened.  But I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the pilot until the evidence shows otherwise.

[Flying Pig]

A 767?  Thats the canvas one with the wooden wings isnt it?

[Rotorhead]

^^^^ :clap:  Not that my opinion matters or counts as a non-pilot, but it sounds like the pilot of this craft did what he thought he needed to do bring everyone home safely.  Let the FAA, the NTSB, and the airline sort it out.  None of us yet know exactly what happened.  But I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the pilot until the evidence shows otherwise.

I don't see how any opinion expressed here keeps the FAA , NTSB, or anyone else from sorting it out.

They'll do just fine.

[Krapenhoeffer]

Yeah, praise the pilot... You forget people:

His tie was askew and his jacket was unbuttoned, and HIS SHOES WERE SCUFFED!!

Throw him to the dogs for his horrible uniform. I bet he needed a haircut too.

[tdepp]

^^^Exactly.  I'm sure the problems were created by improper pilot uniform wear. 

[Rotorhead]

CAP pushes safety pretty hard, yet some of you assume the captain is wrong for choosing the safest way to get his aircraft full of souls on the ground. 

That's because what he did wasn't necessarily the safest way to deal with the situation. Most expedient, certainly.

[PHall]

It's truly amazing to see the difference in opinions between those who have flown/flown in heavy aircraft and those who only have flown in light aircraft.

And like the man said, the FAA and the NTSB will figure out what really happened. Complete tapes are wonderful things.