Serious battle between ATC and pilot, pilot declares emergency to get another runway.

[tigisfat]

Serious battle between ATC and pilot, pilot declares emergency to get another runway.

http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php

I don't usually post links to sites that you must register at to view, but this is worth it. I'll let the chips and opinions fall; I don't think the original post should state an opinion. The debate is raging at many sites over this. There are more pilots and other types of aeronautical knowledge here than many places, so I want to see what the consensus is.

Essentially, the localizer was out on RWY 22L, and the winds were 20something gusting 35 near RWY heading for 31's L and R. The pilot threatened to declare an emergency if he didn't get 31L, and then promptly did, while ATC still tried to issue him instructions. I believe American 22 Heavy was a 767.

Trust me, this is totally worth the registration. This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard over ATC.

 

[MaddogK]

No need to register, pilot did the right thing IMHO.

 

[Bone]

I heard about this. The crosswind component on the rwy that ATC wanted them to land on exceeded the the crosswind limitation the pilots had to comply with for the plane. Sometimes airlines impose crosswind limits that are lower than the demonstrated crosswind components from the factory. This could be due to a number of issues, or mandated by the FAA Principle Operating Inspecter (121 Air Carrier ops). Once it's in the ops manual, the FAA has signed off on it and it now becomes a binding limitation. The pilot most likely did what he had to do.

 

[Clarke123]

It was wrong the way he did it. Just barging his way in. There was no need for him to land right that minute, he should have waited to make sure traffic was clear rather than telling the controller to get everyone out of his way now. He could of caused a collision cowboying in like that.

 

[Skittles]

Pathetic display from the pilot.

First he says that if he can't be given 31 he's going to declare an emergency.

The controller says to hold heading, presumably to sort out the mess in traffic the pilot has just caused before he can issue an approach vectors.

Pilot declares an emergency (he hasn't been rejected 31 at all)

He then gets upset because he says he's stated an emergency 3 times. No you haven't genius. One and two come before three.

 

[tigisfat]

Pathetic display from the pilot.

He doesn't have to be nice, it's not a counseling line. His tone wasn't innapropriate, either.

First he says that if he can't be given 31 he's going to declare an emergency..

That was the fastest way he could let the controller know what was going on. There are no points lost for being blunt, only points gained for fast, clear and effective communication. The pilot knew that if he wasn't given another runway, their only option would've been a risky and illegal landing.

The controller says to hold heading, presumably to sort out the mess in traffic the pilot has just caused before he can issue an approach vectors.

That's too bad, the controller played his cards wrong.

Pilot declares an emergency (he hasn't been rejected 31 at all)

Getting rejected didn't matter. He said that if he didn't get it, he would declare. They didn't respond with a landing clearance, so he declared.

He then gets upset because he says he's stated an emergency 3 times. No you haven't genius. One and two come before three.

I don't think he got upset, it was just time to wake this moron controller up again.


We don't build ATC towers just to build them and then staff the sky so the towers have something to do; the towers are there because of the aircraft. I can't stand rude or bully controllers.

 

[Ken Stallings]

The PIC is the only one in command of that aircraft. He decides the runway to land on, not ATC. That is guaranteed in FAA regulations. The controller was out of line and plain wrong. The fact that the winds favored that runway the pilot should not have even had to declare an emergency. The FAR's backed up his decision to land with the prevailing winds.

The controller should be put on administrative leave.

Ken

 

[tigisfat]

Apparently it's still being debated down at JFK, this pilt and controller thought it was funny.

Re: Weird JFK Emergency _nah_unless you declare"

 

[Skittles]

He doesn't have to be nice, it's not a counseling line. His tone wasn't innapropriate, either.

"It's the THIRD time I've declared an emergency." No it's not. You've declared it once. ATC is confirming as per usual.

That was the fastest way he could let the controller know what was going on. There are no points lost for being blunt, only points gained for fast, clear and effective communication. The pilot knew that if he wasn't given another runway, their only option would've been a risky and illegal landing.

How was his communication clear and effective? What emergency?

That's too bad, the controller played his cards wrong.

What did the controller do wrong?

Getting rejected didn't matter. He said that if he didn't get it, he would declare. They didn't respond with a landing clearance, so he declared.

And he didn't not get it. Good luck landing an aircraft with something else on the runway.

I don't think he got upset, it was just time to wake this moron controller up again.

We don't build ATC towers just to build them and then staff the sky so the towers have something to do; the towers are there because of the aircraft. I can't stand rude or bully controllers.

Rude and bully controllers? Moron controller?

Care to mention what the controller has actually done wrong?

He:

1) Gives a runway for landing
2) Acknowledges that the runway is unsuitable, tells the pilot to maintain heading. What exactly was he supposed to do? "All other planes in the vicinity of JFK, there's a plane coming in, have a look out of your window and avoid him please."

 

[Bone]

Bedside manner goes along way in pilot/controller communications 9.9 times out of ten. I operate into JFK and LGA quite often, and while the controllers are pretty darn good, they do have a rough edge, and at times can try to bully you like a Bronx Street Tuff. I haven't listened to the exchange Tig posted, only heard about it, but maybe the Pilot just decided he wasn't going to put up with any New York controller BS and made a preemptive strike.

 

[Skittles]

The PIC is the only one in command of that aircraft. He decides the runway to land on, not ATC. That is guaranteed in FAA regulations. The controller was out of line and plain wrong. The fact that the winds favored that runway the pilot should not have even had to declare an emergency. The FAR's backed up his decision to land with the prevailing winds.

The controller should be put on administrative leave.

Ken

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

 

[tigisfat]

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

Everyone knows they are being recorded when talking on ATC, so they realize mistakes and cover them fast. The most common 'I said something dumb' cover up is the age old "what do you need" or similar.

Regardless, this controller didn't acknowledge the emergency and still issued a heading. If 31L was even a possibility, it should've been open already under those conditions, especially with an inoperative localizer. If runway 31L was UNAVAILABLE unavailable, such as there were work trucks all over it, it wouldn't have even been available in an emergency in a timely fashion, even if the trucks could've been removed due to FOD considerations. 31L was given after he declared an emergency.

An ILS can be turned into a localizer approach if the glideslope is lost (that's why we set timers for even precision approaches), but an ILS or localizer approach cannot be turned into a glideslope only approach.

 

[Bone]

When you have an FMS/FMC and you know you are going to make a visual approach to a runway with an out of service electronic approach, the procedure is simple. You select the FMS/FMC visual approach, and it gives you course guidance and glide slope. We do that all of the time.

 

[tigisfat]

When you have an FMS/FMC and you know you are going to make a visual approach to a runway with an out of service electronic approach, the procedure is simple. You select the FMS/FMC visual approach, and it gives you course guidance and glide slope. We do that all of the time.

Here's the question from someone who's never flown RW with a serious FMC: IF you're cleared for an ILS approach in IMC, (and you're backing it up with onboard stuff like an FMC) and all external radio nav aids fail, are you allowed to continue the approach off of your FMC's vertical and lateral guidance?

 

[Ken Stallings]

Why was he out of line? What did he do?

Put their personal convenience ahead of passenger safety!

ATC knows the winds and the runway should have been changed well before the winds reached a 20 knot crosswind. The reason it wasn't changed is because ATC knew it would require them to do some extra work. So, they continued to use the same runway. Finally, they ran into a pilot who wasn't going to be directed to land on a runway that clearly was outside reasonable limits. And further, while he would be flying in circles, his fuel reserve would be getting drained to nothing when he needed that fuel in case the IMC conditions required him to go around and attempt another approach to land. That reserve isn't there because a couple of controllers put their convenience ahead of clear safety decisions.

I've had the same kind of problem. The tower controller wanted me to land with a tailwind out of limits in my Dash-1. I explained to the controller I was unable to do that and he jerked me around because he had to do some extra work to vector me for the approach.

The controller is there for one reason and one reason only, to promote aviation safety. And being too lazy to vector traffic as required to land on the best runway for weather conditions is a clear violation of their only public mandate. Frankly, the pilot had every reason to be pissed simply because the crosswinds made the active runway so poor a choice that it was obvious the controllers were being derelect in their duties and frankly endangering the public as a result.

It is just that most of the public have no idea their are being endangered under these circumstances simply because a couple of controllers forgot why they have a job in the first place!

Ken

 

[Skittles]

Put their personal convenience ahead of passenger safety!

In what way?

ATC knows the winds and the runway should have been changed well before the winds reached a 20 knot crosswind. The reason it wasn't changed is because ATC knew it would require them to do some extra work. So, they continued to use the same runway. Finally, they ran into a pilot who wasn't going to be directed to land on a runway that clearly was outside reasonable limits.

That's all completely speculative. There isn't a single drop of fact in there whatsoever.

I've had the same kind of problem. The tower controller wanted me to land with a tailwind out of limits in my Dash-1. I explained to the controller I was unable to do that and he jerked me around.

The controller is there for one reason and one reason only, to promote aviation safety. And being too lazy to vector traffic as required to land on the best runway for weather conditions is a clear violation of their only public mandate. Frankly, the pilot had every reason to be pissed simply because the crosswinds made the active runway so poor a choice that it was obvious the controllers were being derelect in their duties and frankly endangering the public as a result.

More speculation, no fact whatsoever. Controllers aren't responsible for knowing intimate details of an aircraft's functioning. That is the sole responsibility of the pilot.

It is just that most of the public have no idea their are being endangered under these circumstances simply because a couple of controllers forgot why they have a job in the first place!

Ken

The pilot acknowledges the problem and goes to solve it.

What different could he have done?

 

[Ken Stallings]

The pilot acknowledges the problem and goes to solve it.

What different could he have done?

I gave you the answer already and you called it "speculation."

I won't answer the same question twice!

And there is no speculation, the crosswind is factual and easy to calculate as the conditions and runways were published. And when there is a runway aligned with a wind over 30 knots it is common sense it should be selected and used vice a runway in IMC with a crosswind.

Ken

 

[Skittles]

I gave you the answer already and you called it "speculation."

I won't answer the same question twice!

And there is no speculation, the crosswind is factual and easy to calculate as the conditions and runways were published. And when there is a runway aligned with a wind over 30 knots it is common sense it should be selected and used vice a runway in IMC with a crosswind.

Ken

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

 

[tigisfat]

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

Skittles, are you a pilot?

 

[Ken Stallings]

Of course it's speculation. You accuse the controller of incompetence.

The controller tells the pilot the runway in use and the wind conditions. The pilot says that is not suitable, as is his perogative and responsibility. The controller tells the aircraft to maintain heading whilst he remedies the problem.

This is exactly why the controller provides the aircraft with airport information.

And for the third time you completely ignore the overarching reality that the controllers have a duty to adjust the active runway to weather conditions, and not wait until a pilot requests another runway. How many times do people have to say the active runway was obviously unsuitable before you understand that?

Ken