American Pilot Declares Emergency at JFK

[DG]

So if ATC assigns me something I don't like, no problem, I just declare an emergency.


 


http://www.avweb.com/other/jfkemergencygo.mp3

[1LtNurseOfficer]

So not getting the runway you want and/or having to make a turn to line up for approach is an "emergency?"

[PHall]

With the winds they were calling, the crosswinds may have been out of limits for that aircraft.

So before you slam this guy, what kind of aircraft was it? What was his weight? Was the runway wet or dry?

[NCRblues]

^^
He never said the winds were to much or to much weight..... all he said was if he didn't get the runway he WANTED he was going to declare an IFE.....

Fire this man....fire him now

[cap235629]

here is the whole story

click here

[cap235629]

and some interesting analysis

click here

[JC004]

So what happens if he declares an emergency and he didn't have a real one?  Is its the final call of the pilot after it's all over, or can it be challenged?  Does he get in crap if they determine he declared an emergency because he felt like it?

[heliodoc]

Obviously, some of the commentary in the analysis is in favor of the pilots...

Me being a low time pilot and in CAP...

I will keep mouth shut until an investigation team spells it out.......

Maybe some the CAP "spinner" pilots could the same

A 75 or a 76 requires a liiiiitle more knowledge than flying a C172 or C182 series....lets leave the professionals to answer the real issues of what determines the apparent "emergency."

Otherwise, CAPTalk is, once again, Monday morning quarterbacking someone else's flying....maybe we need MORE airline drivers evaluating US

[PHall]

So what happens if he declares an emergency and he didn't have a real one?  Is its the final call of the pilot after it's all over, or can it be challenged?  Does he get in crap if they determine he declared an emergency because he felt like it?

Yes he can "get in crap" for declaring an emergency when there isn't one. But they usually tend to error on the side of safety and not call the pilot on it unless it's really flagrant.

[Flying Pig]

Theres a couple of heavy pilots on CAPTalk.  Maybe after they get done screwing around in London, Tokyo and Sydney they could give us some commentary.
Flying in my C206 Heavy, I could land on a sidewalk if I needed to.  I've never flown something or had to make decisions with 500 people sitting behind me.

[Major Lord]

If I am riding in the back seat of an aircraft, that is the guy I want as the driver!  He has gonads the size of Alabama, and uses them to dominate a situation which in his judgment, requires a command decision taken for safety's sake. I am sure he knew in advance that he would have to stand tall before the man at some point and take full responsibility, but he acted decisively and with enormous resolution. Since I have not heard about any recent incidents ending in flaming aircraft and scattered bodies, I guess it worked out okay(?) 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

[heliodoc]

I am with on that, Rob

After 2.5 years flying skydivers from 1,500 to 12,000 ft agl with 5 SOB and WATCHING my loads and CG limits, opening the door at 80 kts hanging near stall speed

Returning doing the cautionary range descents followed by some other commercial maneuvers

Then doing again for approx 8 hours a day is a LITTLE different than CAP flying ...you know ..... straight and level ..... ooohh 1000 ft flying

Again CAP needs to wait to find out what exactly the emergency was about.  You are right, Rob, 500 pax on board is QUITE  a bit different than any CAP mission....the only thing related 3 on board vs 200 or whatever on board.  Different than us C182 and C206 drivers

I just worry about those CAPTalkers wanting to "fire him , Fire him now" attitudes...No of us were there

Keep the cheeeeep and cheeeeesy CAP commentary about firings to ones self unless you are ready to assume command of that flight, Mister!!!

[N Harmon]

If I am riding in the back seat of an aircraft, that is the guy I want as the driver!

Maybe. What if you were riding in the back seat of one of the other aircraft in the airspace? Chances are better you would be on one of those rather than *his* plane.

Declarations of emergencies cause a lot of problems for air traffic. It requires aircraft up the stream to be put into holds and diverted. Once over with, you then have to decide which aircraft in the hold is low on fuel and what not because if not then you'll have another emergency on your hands.

The pilot has some explaining to do, that's all. And until he does, we should hold off on judgement. But throwing up our arms and saying "W00P, plane isn't bent, no harm"...that's no good either.

[heliodoc]

Remember Rob

My cheeeep and cheeeesy commentary was NOT directed at you!

An earlier poster!

[Major Lord]

If I am riding in the back seat of an aircraft, that is the guy I want as the driver!

Maybe. What if you were riding in the back seat of one of the other aircraft in the airspace? Chances are better you would be on one of those rather than *his* plane.

Declarations of emergencies cause a lot of problems for air traffic. It requires aircraft up the stream to be put into holds and diverted. Once over with, you then have to decide which aircraft in the hold is low on fuel and what not because if not then you'll have another emergency on your hands.

The pilot has some explaining to do, that's all. And until he does, we should hold off on judgement. But throwing up our arms and saying "W00P, plane isn't bent, no harm"...that's no good either.

Indeed. Emergencies ( even in flight) are very inconvenient........I admit that I am giving this pilot the presumption that he was in a better position to judge the safety of his aircraft, crew, and passengers, then perhaps the guy in the control tower who may tend to view the problem as a convoluted scheduling problem. Both sides could be right or wrong in this to varying degrees, but this guy has the courage of his convictions. He did not have to text the Company to ask for a legal decision, or flip a coin; He as a commander made a strong and fast decision. He is a commander, not a manager.

Major Lord

Major Lord

[tdepp]

I'm guessing the pilot had his sleeve braids an 1/8th of an inch off of where they should have been.  I'm just trying to turn the discussion to where it always ends up: uniforms.

[Major Lord]

Shall we take odds over whether he was a CAP cadet?

Major Lord

[tdepp]

He is a commander, not a manager.

Major Lord

:clap: Here, here.  America used to be full of commanders, now it is full of managers.  Which of course means he's screwed in our corporate America.

[Flying Pig]

Or hes just a jerk.  We havent established that yet.  But seeing as how a lot of managers are jerks, could be a possibility.

[Rotorhead]

If I am riding in the back seat of an aircraft, that is the guy I want as the driver!  He has gonads the size of Alabama, and uses them to dominate a situation which in his judgment, requires a command decision taken for safety's sake.

..except for the potential mid-airs he caused among all the other traffic that had to be moved for him.

[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.

[tdepp]

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.

Doesn't matter what any of us think here, even my brilliant and well reasoned opinion.  The feds will sort it out. 

[simon]

What was the pilot's urgency? That is the key missing information.

Other things that help assess the pilot's call in declaring the emergency are the weather conditions (Although he was on a visual) and the overall stress of the ATC environment at the time.

Without this information however, I will say a couple of the things:

- If he was short on fuel, the controller should have been told sooner. Why he was short on fuel - well, that could get complicated and may come down to the business reality of how the Part 121 guys do the coast to coast. FAA rules vs. how pilots and companies try to wiggle it in.

- If he was tired and stressed, that might play a part. Maybe he overreacted to the inactive localizer?

The big deal was that he made life pretty hard for ATC. Yes, they are trained to deal with this. But I'd really want to know why he felt it neccessary to move everybody out of the way. Not wanting to go around and set up for another runway is NOT a valid reason for declaring an emergency. He just forced EVERYBODY at JFK to reshuffle, including I'd wager some holding by others. He could of flown the runway heading as instructed and gone missed. There is no requirement to land. ATC sounded busy. At least it would have given the controller time to get everybody else sorted.

I'd say it is going to be a thorough interview. Whether we get the truth is another matter. The pilot has the right, but needs to have a good reason.

[Short Field]

The big deal was that he made life pretty hard for ATC.

As a pilot declaring an emergency, I really don't care if I make life hard for ATC and that should be the absolutely least of my concerns.

As in all cases, the FAA will sort it out on the ground - after the plane has landed and everyone is safe.

[mbrown]

let's think this one out, almost everyone here is slamming this pilot for declaring in what was his mind, an emergency. if we set the tone that says you're 'emergency' will be scrutinized to hell to all pilots, we might scare pilots into not declaring an emergency. if this pilot had that mentality, maybe he wouldn't have declared and maybe his plane could have crashed into the runway and killed all on board. Then the whole process starts all over again and I guarantee some of the same people slamming this guy because they think he just wanted 'connivence' would be the 1st ones calling foul and saying this guy should have erred on the side of caution and declared an emergency. 20/20 hindsight is a gift we all have isn't it?

[heliodoc]

Like I said before...

This is excluding the airline drivers and ATP types....

The CAP "spinner" pilots who have tons of hours thinking they were right there throughout the thick and thin of it,,,and KNOW it alll....

LET THE NTSB and FAA sort it out....Anyone here on CAPTalk....PURE CONJECTURE

As I stated before and MR Tdepp also.......see above.  CAP second guessing anyone in the cockpit? That sure is pretty swell folks...again for low and even large hour C172 and C182 pilots in CAP....Pure conjecture...you were not there and I KNOW I wasn't there.......keeeep the CAP trap quiet til the reports come out.

Makes CAP pilots look less and less professional EVERY day

[tdepp]

^^^^Indeed, Helio.  Or to summarize some of the comments: "Ready. Fire. Aim."

[Thrashed]

Everyone says to let the FAA and NTSB handle it.  Handle what?  I've declared a few emergencies in airliners and I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it. I'm sure a record is made of it, but who cares? This is such a non-issue.

[heliodoc]

You are right, Thrash....

Should be a non issue to most of the GA type pilots here anyway....

[N Harmon]

Everyone says to let the FAA and NTSB handle it.  Handle what?  I've declared a few emergencies in airliners and I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it. I'm sure a record is made of it, but who cares? This is such a non-issue.

You never filed a devation report, or incident report or had to sign anything?

[a2capt]

I've declared twice- and was present when someone was flying my leased back aircraft inbound while holding the windshield together with one hand, and declared an emergency, and squawked 7600 because he said it was so loud he couldn't hear anything anyway. Equipment followed him to the tie down spot and no paperwork was ever filled out.

[Thrashed]

Everyone says to let the FAA and NTSB handle it.  Handle what?  I've declared a few emergencies in airliners and I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it. I'm sure a record is made of it, but who cares? This is such a non-issue.

You never filed a devation report, or incident report or had to sign anything?

I file a company report.  Some are forwarded to the Feds.  Like I said, "I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it."  Nor was there any electronic or written communication.  No one cares. It's not a big deal.  One emergency was smoke in the cockpit, another two were flight control issues, and one was hydraulic system.

[N Harmon]

I file a company report.  Some are forwarded to the Feds.  Like I said, "I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it."  Nor was there any electronic or written communication.  No one cares. It's not a big deal.  One emergency was smoke in the cockpit, another two were flight control issues, and one was hydraulic system.

Were any into major national airports and involved heated conversations with ATC where you gave them ultimatums before declaring your emergency? I think in cases where the nature of the emergency is doubted, or the actions of the pilots appeared not to be very safe, the FAA and/or NTSB should get involved.

I think this particular incident involving the American Airlines pilot, even if the pilot was in the right, should be treated like a big deal.

[tdepp]

Everyone says to let the FAA and NTSB handle it.  Handle what?  I've declared a few emergencies in airliners and I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it. I'm sure a record is made of it, but who cares? This is such a non-issue.

You never filed a devation report, or incident report or had to sign anything?

I file a company report.  Some are forwarded to the Feds.  Like I said, "I've never talked to the FAA or NTSB about it."  Nor was there any electronic or written communication.  No one cares. It's not a big deal.  One emergency was smoke in the cockpit, another two were flight control issues, and one was hydraulic system.

Yikes! Thrash, what would your company consider a "big deal"?  To a lay person like me, they sound like big deals.  Is there a reporting standard to the FAA or NTSB?  In other words, what triggers a report to the feds and what doesn't?

[Short Field]

Yikes! Thrash, what would your company consider a "big deal"?  To a lay person like me, they sound like big deals.  Is there a reporting standard to the FAA or NTSB?  In other words, what triggers a report to the feds and what doesn't?

The radio call that includes the instructions to "Call this number after you land".    Or the Federal Aviation Regulations
91.3 (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule
under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request
of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation
to the Administrator.

121.557 (c) Whenever a pilot in command or dispatcher
exercises emergency authority...The person declaring the
emergency shall send a written report of any deviation
through the certificate holder's operations manager, to the
Administrator.   

[simon]

"If the pilot lives, you'll never find out what really happened."

Hopefully we can all agree that there is some explaining to do. Sometimes the ATC vs. pilot tempo gets a little heated, but nothing results from it. I suspect with the coverage that this got in the media that the Feds will have some kind of hearing just to placate everyone. We all know that nobody will get into trouble. The unions will ensure that. So don't hold your breath on the findings, if any.

I still stand by my comment that regardless of no bent metal, if the pilot didn't like the clearance, he should have simply said "Unable" (Like Sully in that model moment) and left it to ATC to vector him instead of coming in guns blazing and blasting everybody out of the way. After all, this was JFK. Everyone know they were short a runway and operating in high winds. Getting everyone in with reduced capacity isn't exactly a cakewalk.

If the pilot had a good reason, so be it. But he sounded like an ass on the radio. If I was the guy sent around, I'd want an explanation.

And to those that say American limits the 767 crosswind component to 29 knots, that's fine, see my previous paragraph. "Unable".

Since rampant speculation IS the job of web forums, my guess is they were low on fuel and didn't fess up. Who'll match me?