Sink r8

Thanks for the reply. I agree with what you wrote, but I wasn't talking about how fuel load are planned. I was talking about how much they actually blocked in with that day. If it's not near some min-fuel number, i.e some number that triggers low-fuel light, or some number that the airline publishes, or at least some number you can explain made it imperative to land, the crew might have a hard time.

I'm not going to pre-jusdge it one way or another. If they had an actual fuel emergency, they did a great job. If they had a wind problem, and they feared it would lead to a fuel emergency, then I am afraid they might come to regret the way in which they pulled the trigger.

Either way, they will most likely win. Either they already have, or it will take them... some period of time. It's all in the fuel record for that aircraft for that day.

shfo

Our company has planned us to arrive with the fuel gauges in the amber. That should make any pilot feel a little uneasy but the company says it is perfectly fine since they have determined that we still have 45 minutes of fuel remaining, but it is 45 minutes at cruise speed and burn at 370 not go around thrust at sea level.

FlyerJosh

All it takes is one or two crews to divert to an enroute alternate due to insufficient fuel for the company to rethink their strategy. If the company is dispatching with the bare minimum for perfect conditions, it means that crews SHOULD be diverting the instant that the flight gets delayed or the plan changes in a way that requires more fuel.

Or alternatively, if EVERY flight crew that felt the company was pressuring for unsafe fuel loads filed an ASAP/NASA report.

At the end of the day, the PIC has ultimate authority. There's no point in arguing fuel loads... if you're the captain, you've already won. Set the brake, get the fuel you need (within reason), and don't allow yourself to get pressured. Get 100% of the pilots to get onboard with the basic premise and things will change.

Like I said before, if you're waiting until the last minute to declare an emergency that requires immediate action, you've already painted yourself into a corner.

FliFast

Totally agree Flyer Josh,

LAX to JFK, 4 1/2 to 5 hour flight.

They knew the forecast and current conditions via voice and data communications.

All but threatened the tower, "If you don't give us 31R to land we'll declare an emergency". The controller never denied the aircraft 31R. So if ATC was given a chance to sequence AA 2 is it fair to say that no emergency existed..using the crew's words that was the case.

No mention of aircraft equipment degradation (rudder ratio) or runway contamination.

How many airports did they overfly that were more aligned with the wind ?

PIT, BWI, MDT, ABE, BDL and even 29 at EWR (given the winds).

I don't agree with landing above max demonstrated crosswind limits, because even the slightest abnormality will be blamed on error in judgement. However, why on Earth would you allow yourself to be led down a path with only a few options.

All's well that ends well, but it reminds me of a saying I saw, "Poor planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on my part".

FF
Light Four Engine Driver

Skyone

Of course this is Monday morning quaterbacking by all, and the captain got the jet on the ground at the destination, without bending metal or hurting anyone. But just a couple of inquiries of the crew might be forthcoming.

How did the captain allow himself to be put into such a low fuel state to begin with?

If the winds had been acceptable, what would his actions have been had he do a go-around because of......?

From the controllers perspective, the tape available says something to the effect, if......then....we will declare an emergency. What is the controller to do with that information? Is he to move everyone out of the way because someone "might" declare an emergency. And once he did, from the tape, it didn't sound too definitive. No ambiguity....Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Pan Pan, AAL 2 Hvy or even Mayday, Mayday, Mayday.....any ambiguity there? Gets everyone's attention. It sounded like the controller didn't quite understand that the emergency has been declared. We all know the msg has to be sent and received (understood).

What was his block in fuel? When the reports go in, best to be showing less or very close than a final reserve or whatever AA calls it.

And finally, the captain used his emergency authority...fine, no arguement there. Gusting to 35 is certainly within the capabilities of the 767, even if the limitation was exceeded. Could he have not landed the aircraft using his "emergency" authority with the crosswind? If I recall the aircraft can land in a crab or with just a slight cross control with the crab. So in which case did he put his aircraft in greater jeopardy? Landing outside of the limits by a few knots or continuing to fly in an "emergency" situation where he was quite close to running out of fuel?

This is all for discussion and probably some questions the crew will have to answer. The "box" was there for the crew to crawl into or not, and it appears they just might have. Tough call by the captain and he did get the plane safely on the ground. But it will be interesting what is taking place behind the scenes now.

forgot to bid

I thought it was AA, post LIT, that was the one who coined plan for the go-around unless everything looks good- then we'll land?

I say that because if there is any doubt, we go-around. And if there is any doubt you'll be low on fuel, you DIVERT. We're paid by the minute, block or better, for a myirad of reasons one of which is to not force something to save time.

I don't pick the fuel totals I fly with, so if I do as I am told and it won't work out then I go elsewhere. We have FMS', you know how much fuel you'll have on landing from the time you suck the gear up. If you know you're headed to an airport and will not have enough fuel to make an approach, go-around and come back around then stop while you do have the fuel. Its a simple concept especially with dual FMS' on board.

A divert is not a reflection upon the pilot if they run low on fuel because they didn't plan the fuel. If anything it is a reflection in the positive. Trying to force it in for the personal satisifcation of completing the job, or for making a commute or for ego reasons is asinine. Low on fuel, suck it up and divert.

jayray2

I'm not making any judgments here on this this incident, just something this got me thinking about. Aren't the wind limitations on most planes based on the max sustained winds? As opposed to the gust factor?

Great Cornholio

For us we take the gust into account as its the highest "wind" at the time. I do remember reading a few months ago that (Pinnacle maybe) got a memo saying to ignore the gust and only use the steady state wind.

Sink r8

"Just ignore the gust". Simple, elegant. Definitely has a ring to it.

Great Cornholio

I'll start off by saying good job for not killing a lot of people and will also actively state that I for one think that "monday morning quarterbacking" can be a good thing as it will get a good discussion going and may prevent a similar situation in the future. The following are thoughts that I have and I am throwing them out for discussion not bashing.

1. Where they really in a situation that a go around was not an option fuel wise? If so how did they get into that situation?? If it was that bad then then why not declare min fuel with app...then if ignored declare emergency and tell them you are proceeding direct to the runway. Then if you get down there and winds dictate a different runway you still have enough fuel to do a go around and let ATC get traffic out of the way.

2. If they had enough fuel to do a go around then why not let ATC have a few mins to sequence you. If you let them know you have to be on the ground within say 4 mins..that way they have time to throw out a few vectors and make sure you dont hit anyone. You're not gonna run outta gas in 4 mins, but you may get in a midair in 47 secs...

3. I fly a plane with tail mounted engines. 30 kts is our max crosswind, but I know (well can guess due to the fact that nothing is close to the ground at 30 kts) that the plane would be able to land in 35 kts and not scrape anything. The question here is can a 757/767 take on 35 kts crosswind and be ok or will you guys scrape an engine?

4. Going rouge in a busy terminal environment seems dangerous to me. I have never touched foot on JFK so I don't know exactly how JFK works, but I have spent thousands of hours dealing with ORD and I know that at ORD planes come in every few seconds from every direction. If someone did that at ORD there would be a pretty good chance of hitting someone.

5. If the 757 can land in 35 kts (not break the plane) then wouldn't it have been overall safer to still declare the emergency so you're now "legal" and land with the extra crosswind compared to going rouge and possibly turning into a another plane/helicopter. I know a lot of guys are gonna say "well what if you blew a tire, ran off the end/side..etc" well what if they would have hit a low level helicopter in the turn, or turned into another guy on approach? Chances are more survivors would be found at the side of the runway compared to after a mid-air.

Also it seems like the crew caused a lot of confusion by doing this. What if tower had someone in position and hold (and forgot about them) or crossing 31 L/R whatever it was or had issued taxi instructions and timing would have worked out so that they would have met on the runway with the landing aircraft (once again no idea how JFK is laid out). Anyways after some thinking it seems like although these guys got the plane on the ground without killing people it seems like they definately opened up some "fatal windows" that luckily didn't get them.