Pilot/controller argue over which runway to land on at JFK

**USAF Pilot 07** · 05-06-2010, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

In the first transmission the pilot sounds drunk, distressed, or like he has to make a doody. Just sayin'.

All of the above perhaps? Maybe he had a really hot date...

**USAF Pilot 07** · 05-06-2010, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by NLovis

My take on this if you listen in at 8:24 on it sounded like he thretened ATC with that emergency call. As soon as ATc said he will pass it on he declared emergency. To me it seems like he wanted that runway and he didnt care what anybody else had to say. Seems to me like this pilot needs to get stripped.

Keep in mind in the air the pilot is the final authority and can just about do whatever he wants once he declares that emergency - regardless of why he declared it. Granted, once he lands he'll have some questions to answer and some explaining to do, and if it is concluded that his actions of declaring an emergency were unwarranted and "careless" he'll have some big repercussions to face.

**NIKV69** · 05-06-2010, 07:44 PM

I'm allowed to say my thoughts. Just cause you might not like what I say doesnt mean I cant speak.

Your absolutely right but once again your words were ill conceived and a little premature. Please also remember that this isn't merely a clubhouse where a couple of locals hang out. This is a website that many lurk before they decide if they want to praticipate. Many of these are industry types with a ton more knowledge and than us that I think Phil would like to see stick around but may not if they see constant irresponsible thoughts posted. Your free to say whatever you feel but that isn't an open invitation to say some of the things you have. I think what you should take from the reactoin to your posts here is that you should just take a little time and think about what you are about to post. On the surface I am also very critical of this pilots actions. Just taking into account the way he handled the radio transmissions and his attitude there was a lack of professionalism and I do hope there was more than just a reluctance to land in a 30 knot crosswind into his declaring an emergency. With this said I think we need to get all the facts before we say his license to fly commercial aircraft should be stripped. Don't you think?

NLovis · 05-07-2010, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by NIKV69

I'm allowed to say my thoughts. Just cause you might not like what I say doesnt mean I cant speak.

Your absolutely right but once again your words were ill conceived and a little premature. Please also remember that this isn't merely a clubhouse where a couple of locals hang out. This is a website that many lurk before they decide if they want to praticipate. Many of these are industry types with a ton more knowledge and than us that I think Phil would like to see stick around but may not if they see constant irresponsible thoughts posted. Your free to say whatever you feel but that isn't an open invitation to say some of the things you have. I think what you should take from the reactoin to your posts here is that you should just take a little time and think about what you are about to post. On the surface I am also very critical of this pilots actions. Just taking into account the way he handled the radio transmissions and his attitude there was a lack of professionalism and I do hope there was more than just a reluctance to land in a 30 knot crosswind into his declaring an emergency. With this said I think we need to get all the facts before we say his license to fly commercial aircraft should be stripped. Don't you think?

True we need more facts but I personally feel it needs to be stripped or at the very least suspended for awhile. If he didnt want to land in a crosswind he could have requested to land on 31R not automatically choose to go to 31R and if you refuse to allow me i'll declare an emergency so you are forced to let me land 31R. Again right away he said i'm breaking off and going for 31R if you wont let me i'm declaring emergency. Yes the pilot has complete authority in the air but to demand a different runway and threatin to call emergency if he doesnt get his way is uncalled for. Thats something a little kid does. This guy is in trouble there is no doubt about that.

**NIKV69** · 05-07-2010, 02:15 AM

True we need more facts but I personally feel it needs to be stripped or at the very least suspended for awhile. If he didnt want to land in a crosswind he could have requested to land on 31R not automatically choose to go to 31R and if you refuse to allow me i'll declare an emergency so you are forced to let me land 31R. Again right away he said i'm breaking off and going for 31R if you wont let me i'm declaring emergency. Yes the pilot has complete authority in the air but to demand a different runway and threatin to call emergency if he doesnt get his way is uncalled for. Thats something a little kid does. This guy is in trouble there is no doubt about that.

There are reports and lots of talk that he may have been low on fuel as well. If you check the flightware he did fly from LA and had to circle a few times. Since I don't think this 767 was an ER fuel may have been an issue and through this and his frustration with a config may have led to this. JFK can't use one runway and it's wearing on everyone. I doubt this pilot will see a suspension but I am sure the FAA will take all the facts into consideration.

**hiss srq** · 05-07-2010, 08:58 AM

Nik has the nail on the head. Talked to a few friends on the block.... Block being freinds that are NY based pilots with AA... Word under hat as a few others have said is they were fuel mins and were going to decalre an emergency if they went missed anyway. It was compounded by the crosswind component though. It exceeded the 76's limits in the gusts. Apparently around the shop at AA there is a great deal of emphasis being put on landing procedures, crosswind component, tailwind component and not exceeding because of the string of landing incidents in the last year with 3 in the span of one month alone at AA last year. The FAA is allegedly watching them and looking at their procedures so the crew probably did the right thing.
Lovis, your assumption was WAAAAAAAY off base. Don't make stupid assessments like that without the knowladge to do so. You cannot use not being experinced as an excuse either because if you are a 747 load master now you have apparently garnered the experince to hold the knowladge that a goverment company like Evergreen would put you into that position.
This crew covered their ass in my opinion and did it right all the way down the line. Maybe they needed to declare fuel mins during their holding though. Other than that I cannot imagine faulting them after listening to the recording a few times and than asking some people with more intimate information I.E. the crew room at the JFK base for AA.

**Nassau Flyers** · 05-07-2010, 09:34 AM

Not sure if anyone said this yet but there is construction going on at JFK. Due to the location of the construction FAA is pressuring control tower opps to land aircraft away from 31R at all times. The pressure on controllers to follow this must be extreme for the controller to not give in when the pilot insisted on it let alone declared the emergency.

**threeholerglory** · 05-07-2010, 05:07 PM

I agree with Ryan and Tom, these frivolous responses are uncalled for and are without any understanding. If I wanted to hear those types of responses I could go talk to any of my exes. That said, what Ryan said sounds to be very accurate and with sound basis. Although I cannot claim to know the facts, given what might have happened, the pilot may have had several options at his disposal. First being the request to land on 31R and see if he could get it. The second and more important being to provide a "minimum fuel advisory" to the control tower. This does NOT declare an emergency, rather it informs the controller that the aircraft cannot accept any undue delays to landing beyond the flight time needed to get to the intended destination. Complications considered by this advisory are the fact that the aircraft may not be able to accept a missed approach or a go-around at the risk of running out of fuel.

Though I think there MIGHT have been better ways to handle this situation, I would be forced to think that a crew with the experience to be flying 767s for a legacy carrier would have the knowledge of the system to make sound judgment calls. I know that any time I am flying, safety is the most critical factor. I do what ever I need to do to maintain the safety of flight. If safety is to be compromised by an instruction given to me from a controller, I will have no problem with deviating, even if it means declaring an emergency.

**ISP Pilot** · 05-07-2010, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by NIKV69

There are reports and lots of talk that he may have been low on fuel as well. If you check the flightware he did fly from LA and had to circle a few times. Since I don't think this 767 was an ER fuel may have been an issue and through this and his frustration with a config may have led to this. JFK can't use one runway and it's wearing on everyone. I doubt this pilot will see a suspension but I am sure the FAA will take all the facts into consideration.

All 15 of AA's 767-200s used for the SFO and LAX transcons as well as some MIA flights are the ER version. The non-ER versions are sitting in the desert. Even though the jet was capable of carrying excess fuel, we really don't know at this point for sure if they reached a fuel emergency situation. If they did have excess fuel, the plane could have experienced a fuel leak. We don't know all the facts as none of us were in the cockpit so calling for suspension or stripping of his license without an investigation is unwarranted. If a pilot declares an emergency, the ATC facility can request that the pilot fill out a report explaining the emergency. It is not necessary to give a full explanation of the nature of the emergency while you are in that situation.

Remember Avianca 052? Had those pilots been more assertive in declaring a fuel emergency, many lives could have been saved.

**Speedbird1** · 05-08-2010, 05:48 AM

This brings to memory back in the 80's when I was listening to the JFK Control Tower. A Swissair B744 over Deer Park was told to arrive via the Canarsie Approach. He requested the VOR/DME 22L Approach but was told it was closed due to noise abatement. He then replied that he has a fuel emergency so his request was granted. After landing, emergency trucks were sent but the pilot replied there was no emergency. I felt there was no emergency, he just wanted to save about 5-7 minutes by using 22L for arrival.