"Pilots Pull Rank, Declare Emergency At JFK (With Audio)"

[phrogdriver]

I listened to the audio.

Again, unless something else was going on in the aircraft, I can't see the pilot being justified in acting as he did.

If he had something bad going on in the aircraft then he shouldn't have said,"I'll declare an emergency if..." He should've just declared an emergency then, not threatened to declare.

As pilots we do like to think,"I'm up here with lives on the line and you're down there, little man. I'll do what I want!" As HAL said, that's not a blank check. Unless lives and/or the aircraft are at stake, you don't just get to do whatever you feel like.

 

[jt71582]

Maybe he just knew his limits and wasn't going to risk lives. Just as NATOPS is no replacement for "sound judgement," it seems like this guy did what he thought was right. Had something happened, God forbid, someone on this forum would have said "the dude should have just declared an emergency to get priority and landed into the wind on 31."

OR, maybe I'm just a VERY green primary stud, glad to see a pilot take a stand.

 

[C420sailor]

Maybe he just knew his limits and wasn't going to risk lives. Just as NATOPS is no replacement for "sound judgement," it seems like this guy did what he thought was right. Had something happened, God forbid, someone on this forum would have said "the dude should have just declared an emergency to get priority and landed into the wind on 31."

OR, maybe I'm just a VERY green primary stud, glad to see a pilot take a stand.

That's great, but I don't see why the e-word needed to get dropped. A simple "unable", while it probably would have sent him back into the stack before being cleared for 31R, would have sufficed.

But who knows what else was going on...

 

[nittany03]

Maybe he just knew his limits and wasn't going to risk lives. Just as NATOPS is no replacement for "sound judgement," it seems like this guy did what he thought was right. Had something happened, God forbid, someone on this forum would have said "the dude should have just declared an emergency to get priority and landed into the wind on 31."

That's what we don't know. If something else was going on, be it fuel or other reasons why he couldn't accept holding or resequencing, then he was eminently correct in declaring an emergency and getting on deck. If he was simply out of crosswind limits for his airframe or SOP, and he declared simply to avoid penalty holding or a vector to East Jesus, then it was an idiotic and selfish move. But as we've said before, we don't know, and so it's not appropriate to be a ready-room commando.

Yes, you should stick up for yourself. It's YOUR aircraft and YOU are responsible for putting it safely on deck. You have the right to deviate from any regulation in any book if necessary to maintain safety of flight. NATOPS is not a suicide pact. There are times when it stands for Not Applicable To Our Present Situation. But if you disregard "the book," you'd better have a damned good reason, or you're going to get your nuts hammered flat. "What you think is right" is going to be analyzed in excruciating detail if you choose to step outside the regs. Understand this and you will be a better SNA for it.

 

[A4sForever]

Maybe he just knew his limits and wasn't going to risk lives.... it seems like this guy did what he thought was right. Had something happened, God forbid, someone on this forum would have said "the dude should have just declared an emergency to get priority and landed into the wind on 31."

OR, maybe I'm just a VERY green primary stud, glad to see a pilot take a stand.

This is not a Clint Eastwood movie where you 'know your limitations' ...

You are a VERY green primary STUD ... but that's not necessarily a criticism of you per se as many of us have been there and we recovered. Hopefully, so will you ...

'Taking a stand' and pulling an 'emergency' out of your ass when the stars are not in alignment for YOU is NOT the way it works in the airlines. Airline pilots are not programmed or trained to defend a perimeter against 'bad guys in the wire' or "go Downtown" ... so while there's always room for skill & cunning based on experience, airline-drivers don't 'rock & roll', stand up an' BE SOMEBODY, and they don't situationally make it up as they go along.

Airline pilots don't make 'off the wall' judgments or go blowing through a busy pattern like JFK unless there's a reason -- a compelling reason. That's not bred into the skill-set nor the mind-set. Airline pilots ARE professionals in the truest sense of the word. And while we may be civilians in a military styled uniform, we train and work as a team and that includes interfacing as much as possible w/ the guys on the ground -- including ATC.

Airmanship & judgment are ALWAYS at a premium, no matter where you fly --- but: airline-drivers are tasked w/ the safe & sane delivery of 1000's of passengers & cargo on a monthly basis -- they 'do it' all the time. As a result, the airlines are more controlled ... more programmed ... more doctrinaire ... and probably more SOP-oriented than most of their military counterparts, as there is not the 'variable' of 'operational necessity' nor combat nor the USS BOAT thrown into the mix. Although, I can think of a few examples where the difference gets a little fuzzy -- I even got a couple of ribbons from the Air Force for Desert Storm flying. Go figure ...

I think I can say w/ a clear conscience the most airline pilots are more 'professional' than most military pilots -- especially those military-jocks who 'do it' for a few years and then move on -- or even those who 'do it' for @ 2/3rds of their military service. Look at the difference in the totals in the logbooks for a quick & dirty comparison. I understand that revelation might freak some of you out, but this is not a 'measuring' contest, so bear with me ...

... the 'average' airline-driver, especially those driving jets and sitting in the right seat or left seat, tend to be older and more mature (always a relative term) than their average military counterpart ... and hopefully they will posses more 'judgment skills' based on their accumulated experience. I flew in a NAVY cockpit for 18+ years out of 20, so that observation is based on time in the saddle on both sides of the street. Airline pilots 'do it' 1/2 of every month -- every month -- every year -- for 25-30+ years ... if anything, I was probably a more proficient (better?) pilot after my first 5-10 years in the airlines than I ever was yankin' & bankin' for UNCLE for 20 years ... that's just the way it works, boys.

Soooooo ... having gone on an' on about 'professionalism' ... and without knowing anything about this AA crew or the specific approach in the audio (except for having accumulated @ 25,000 hours in the air) ... I think a 'quick & dirty' appraisal sez: the AA cockpit appears to have pulled the trigger w/out a compelling reason. Given what we have -- it's doesn't sound like 'taking a stand' or being 'the man'. It does sound like as soon as he didn't 'get what he wanted' ... he said the magic E-word. I've listened to the audio tape several times ... and with the understanding that it's just a window in time, there's nothing that jumps right out and screams "justification" for declaring an emergency, in my considered opinion. Declaring an emergency is not indicated just 'cause you don't like the runway or the winds ... or because the crew meal was lousy.

But then ... at the risk of being repetitious ... I'm going to go w/ the assumption than there's more to this story. I wouldn't want someone second-guessing me, without having all the facts. Again, we weren't there, were 'we' ...

Still ... this is an interesting discussion amongst fellow Aviators and pilots and it's 'interesting' (a Chinese curse, BTW) to see where you-all come down on this stuff ...

 

[Ducky]

That's great, but I don't see why the e-word needed to get dropped. A simple "unable", while it probably would have sent him back into the stack before being cleared for 31R, would have sufficed.

But who knows what else was going on...

The problem I have with this situation is the way the pilot declared the emergency. He first threatened(sounding like a douchebag) that if his request wasnt met he would declare an emergency. If you actually have an emergency worth declaring you just do it. You don't beat around the bush crying wolf because you didn't get the clearance you wanted.

If I had 200 lives or the 70 million dollar Rhino under my control, I would declare an emergency in a heartbeat in an area like that where a long spin while waiting for the requested clearance could put me in a low/emergency fuel state. "Unable" is a nice term if the controller actually decides to hear the "unable" part of your radio call. I look forward to the rest of the story.

 

[Slammer2]

Dumb question - if you tell them that you cant land under those wind conditions, do they typically say something like ok I'll pass that along like this controller did, or will they just send you on your way to a new runway right away? I know that he told them to fly runway heading while they sort things out, but I guess my question is more so did the controller need permission from a higher up to reroute him, or was it to sort things out with other controllers, or does the man talking have the authority to just say ok and put them somewhere else?

 

[ryan1234]

Call me stupid but I think that at JFK the FAA actually advises the active runway(s) to ATC there.

Just curious... does anyone know the pod clearance for the 76?

 

[eas7888]

The controller doesn't need permission to reroute him, however, if you listen to the radio traffic, he has to reroute other aircraft in the air, and on the ground in order to accommodate the pilots who declared the emergency.

If the pilots would have maintained runway heading, the controller could have sequenced them (without having to divert other traffic already on the visual) for a landing on his desired runway. The pilot may have had to wait another 10-15 minutes (or longer) to land, but that's an expected delay when you want to land against the traffic flow into an airport like JFK.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Just curious... does anyone know the pod clearance for the 76?

Who cares?...and I fly the things. We land wings level or within a degree or two. If you're thinking wing down/opposite rudder for a crosswind landing, it's not going to happen. We crab it all the way down and kick it out in the flare.

 

[eas7888]

Who cares?...and I fly the things. We land wings level or within a degree or two. If you're thinking wing down/opposite rudder for a crosswind landing, it's not going to happen. We crab it all the way down and kick it out in the flare.

Kind of getting away from the main topic here. . .but when dealing with crosswind landings, I always love to think about the B-52. Quite possibly my favorite aircraft to watch perform a crosswind landing.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the B-52's landing gear, check out this video: B-52 Taxi Fast forward to the 28 second mark.

</off topic>

 

[A4sForever]

And then we have guys who 'go both ways' ... a combo of 'crab' & WDTR ... i.e., when landing the B747 "Whale" in significant X-wind conditions, if anyone cares----but someday you might.

For me, it usually depends on the actual wind/WX conditions--how strong is the X-wind, am I IFR(?), is it dark (?), did I just cross the Pacific, how tired am I, etc. ... no one-size-fits-all.

The airplane is certified to land @ full X-wind limits in a crab. In practice, you don't do that on the line.

BUT: wing down/top rudder (WDTR)---that's usually my friend as I've always found it more of a 'feel-finesse' proposition ... until @ 50' - 100' AGL when you make your transition to wings-level landing flare. After touchdown you'll probably need to put the aileron back in to keep the upwind wing from rising. You also have to steer with the rudders/nose wheel steering which goes without saying. In some X-wind limits situations, I could really not keep center line on the landing roll-out even with both working furiously -- you just minimize your drift. You also must be very judicious with your ailerons to not skag #1 or #4 engine pod on the ground -- whether it be roll-out or landing as HAL said (obviously) --- but some unfortunate souls who didn't play it 'right' have 'skagged' an outboard, much to their dismay.

Some guys--myself included--favor a slight, repeat: SLIGHT upwind lineup orientation if we are going to "crab" all the way down glide-slope. It certainly makes the workload a little 'easier' on approach for most guys as many in my experience aren't very good @ WDTR.

But there's always a 'downside' when things get 'easier' -- and that's the primary reason I don't like a 'crab' for technique. We are on the end of a long "moment arm" way out there in the B747 cockpit. If you visually put the cockpit on centerline in a crab---you will be offset on the downwind side when you take the crab out to line up in close. OOOps ... now you're already lined up on the 'wrong side' of centerline for landing. Otherwise, you've got to be artificially lined up 'upwind' of centerline for the approach -- guesswork. Bottom line: you will frequently find yourself doing a wing-wag wifferdill in close and low to correct to centerline -- not desirable, in my book.

Actually, a typical 747 Whale high X-wind approach & landing might resemble:

Crab for the approach (if you're tired, or lazy) .. OR WDTR all the way ..
to a WDTR in-close for alignment ..
to finesse the CL and flare ..
to wings level touchdown ..
to immediate aileron into the wind, perhaps a little asymmetric reverse thrust, & steer with rudder/NWS..
to go to the hotel.........

to ... "I'll buy the first round ... you get some lumpia or popcorn ... " ???

Image by A4sForever

 

[HAL Pilot]

If you tried WDTR in the 717 with its wings, you'd thump like a ton of bricks. No engines to scrape along the runway, just no lift.....

We are specifically taught told not to fly the 767 WDTR to landing at Hawaiian and our training guys got that from Boeing. If we do fly WDTR on the approach, we have to transition to a crab down low, kick it out in the flare and once on the ground roll the aileron back in to keep the upwind wing down. I've searched my manuals and can not find a bank angle limitation for landing but the gouge is no more than 2-3 degrees. I kind of/sort of remember being told during my initial sim training by a Boeing guy that 5 degrees scrapes an engine.

Most of us use a crab for the approach because the pax don't like WDTR. The motion of the plane feels weird to them, those at the windows get nervous and the FAs get complaints. Even if the pax don't complain, the FAs can always tell and we get them asking "what was up with that approach?" Plus if there is a localizer it sets up your crab nicely anyway. Keep the loc centered all the way down and kick it out at the end. In fact, I can only think of one Captain I've flown with at Hawaiian that has ever used WDTR and that was on the DC-10 years ago.

But every plane is different. I have a friend that flies 747s and she says many of her Captains fly the Whale WDTR just as A4s discribes.

 

[eas7888]

When a flight attendant questions your approach, are you ever tempted to say something along the lines of "I don't tell you how to make the coffee, don't tell me how to fly an approach?" I met a few guys like that at Delta. The look on the flight attendant's face when a Captain says that . . .it really makes me laugh.

 

[FlyBoyd]

I kind of/sort of remember being told during my initial sim training by a Boeing guy that 5 degrees scrapes an engine.

For the E-6 (B707-320) it is >5 degrees scrapes an inboard engine. That doesn't take the runway crown into account so it could be much less if you are off centerline and have the wrong wing down. No WDTR...crab it in and kick it out as you described. The E-6 can land in a full crab at max demonstrated crosswind but it is ugly.