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

[Bone]

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?

It depends on the FMS/FMC's software, and what you are certified to do. Some company's have a certification process where you could continue, and others don't. It's all about what the Feds tell you what you need to do for certification, and the cost/benefit of the software and training. Of course, the FMS/FMC VNAV and LNAV guidance looks just like the guidance you would have for an ILS, and most likely any instrument rated pilot could do it...but the Feds don't see it that way.

 

[pied]

There are airports in this country where runway in use is governed not by weather conditions but by legal agreements between the FAA and the surrounding communities....

There are examples such as PHX, where the agreement requires pilots to land and depart into the rising and setting sun, and in ABQ where a 10,000 ft air carrier certified runway was initially restricted to useage when the crosswind component on the other runways exceeded 100 knots, and finally was closed to all aircraft over 12,500 lbs due to "disrepair'. This runway was built with US taxpayer monies and closed by the city due to lawsuits brought by neighborhoods effected by noise. I'm certain there are other examples just as stupid.

In the case of ABQ the controllers were not permitted to issue landing clearances to that runway. If a pilot declared an emergency and decided to land on that runway it was at his/her own discretion and risk.

pied

 

[Ken Stallings]

There are airports in this country where runway in use is governed not by weather conditions but by legal agreements between the FAA and the surrounding communities....

There are examples such as PHX, where the agreement requires pilots to land and depart into the rising and setting sun, and in ABQ where a 10,000 ft air carrier certified runway was initially restricted to useage when the crosswind component on the other runways exceeded 100 knots, and finally was closed to all aircraft over 12,500 lbs due to "disrepair'. This runway was built with US taxpayer monies and closed by the city due to lawsuits brought by neighborhoods effected by noise. I'm certain there are other examples just as stupid.

In the case of ABQ the controllers were not permitted to issue landing clearances to that runway. If a pilot declared an emergency and decided to land on that runway it was at his/her own discretion and risk.

pied

Very interesting facts. With respect to ABQ, I suspect I have landed on that runway in aircraft that weighed much less than 12,500 pounds.

Ken

 

[azflyboy]

At airports that are either insanely busy or surrounded noise sensitive areas, controllers often have "preferred" runways that they're pretty much forced to use (even if the winds favor another runway) until someone says "enough", and insists on using a different runway or the winds increase past a certain crosswind or tailwind component.

I actually ended up making my first landing as a private pilot (coming back after the checkride) with a direct 10kt tailwind thanks to "preferred runways", but since I had 10,000ft of runway to play with, it wasn't a huge safety issue for me, although I can easily see a larger aircraft refusing the runway in that situation.

In this situation, I don't think the controller on the radio did anything wrong by initially refusing the runway change, since he was just trying to keep traffic flowing smoothly, and since other aircraft didn't seem to think a 30kt crosswind was an issue, he likely didn't initially realize that the pilot was making a safety of flight call.

Given the volume of traffic going into JFK, changing runways there is a pretty arduous task that can take a considerable amount of time to sort out, so I think the pilot exercising his emergency authority was probably a good thing for the controller, since using the word "emergency" allows the controller to toss the "preferred" procedures out the window to help the aircraft in question.

 

[tigisfat]

update:

American Airlines' company regs give 767 drivers a max crosswind component of 29 knots. The winds were way out of limits.

 

[bstolle]

Strange why they have such a low x-wind limit. The day before yesterday KIAD closed RWY 01L and R for landings due to a 33kts x-wind component.
The only remaining runway was 30 causing major delays (but at least I could make some nice photos waiting at the threshold)
Most European 767 operators use the Boeing recommended 40kts limit (dry runway)
View attachment 7499View attachment 7501

 

[Bone]

Strange why they have such a low x-wind limit. The day before yesterday KIAD closed RWY 01L and R for landings due to a 33kts x-wind component.
The only remaining runway was 30 causing major delays (but at least I could make some nice photos waiting at the threshold)
Most European 767 operators use the Boeing recommended 40kts limit (dry runway)
View attachment 7499View attachment 7501

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.

 

[tigisfat]

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.

Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

 

[Wingnut172N]

This pilot was way out of line for this reason; an emergency is a time-critical situation which requires the clearing of all other traffic in order to safely land the aircraft.

1.) The aircraft was not fuel-state critical at the time the "emergency" was declared. If they WERE, this should have been mentioned to ATC, in which case the controller would have given priority as appropriate.

2.) Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The American aircraft's communciation was horrible. If he was fuel state critical, say so. If the winds are out of his published limits, say so. It would have taken very little radio time, and would have saved much trouble for everyone. This is a great example of the self-righteous, entitled atmosphere of most civilian pilots today. As far as the controller was aware, the aircraft was not on fire, the aircraft was not out of fuel. Declaring an emergency is not a free ticket to do whatever you want to in a busy terminal environment because you feel entitled. Take the missed approach, and get vectors to 31, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

3.) While the pilot's actions may not have been wrong, by the book, I think we can all agree that this isn't a case of a valiant pilot struggling against a damaged aircraft with an unhelpful controller, but more a case of a pilot who felt he was better than the system, and played the rules to get his way.

Before anybody asks, yes I am a pilot.

 

[srgalahad]

A demonstrated crosswind component isn't a factory recomended crosswind component. It's the max crosswind the test pilots had during the testing process on a given day. If the winds were howling at 70 kts of crosswind during the test and eval process, then the demonstrated crossind would be 70 kts...but that wouldn't make it a good idea or safe practice with a full load of passengers in air carrier ops.

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
25.233 Directional stability and control.

(a) There may be no uncontrollable ground-looping tendency in 90° cross winds, up to a wind velocity of 20 knots or 0.2 V <e t="24">SR</e>₀, whichever is greater, except that the wind velocity need not exceed 25 knots at any speed at which the airplane may be expected to be operated on the ground. This may be shown while establishing the 90° cross component of wind velocity required by §25.237.
(b) Landplanes must be satisfactorily controllable, without exceptional piloting skill or alertness, in power-off landings at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a straight path. This may be shown during power-off landings made in conjunction with other tests.
(1) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, must be established for dry runways and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V_SR0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.

25.237 Wind velocities.

(a) For land planes and amphibians, the following applies:
(1) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, must be established for dry runways and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V_SR0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.

For Part 23 operations it is different:
23.233 Directional stability and control.

(a) A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for taxiing, takeoff, and landing must be established and must be not less than 0.2 V_SO.
(b) The airplane must be satisfactorily controllable in power-off landings at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a straight path until the speed has decreased to at least 50 percent of the speed at touchdown.

It has nothing to do with 'luck of the draw' on test day...

 

[Bone]

Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

Basicly what I said on the first page, 3rd comment down.

 

[Ken Stallings]

Yes, but if I understand it correctly, the Boeing limit at 40 is the maximum demonstrated crosswind component, but the AA 29 knot limit is a company regulation. That is to say that you can overfly the 40 knot demonstration but the 29 knot limit is a hard reg that cannot be exceeded.

You are precisely correct.

Part of the process of earning a commercial operators license from the FAA is that you have to submit your safety, operations, training, and maintenance plans to the FAA. The FAA studies your proposed plan and then rules if it is acceptable. Once the FAA issues the operating certificate, all your written limits carry force of law and if you violate them, not only can you have your license revoked, grounding your entire fleet, but you face possible fines and penalties to include possible criminal charges and jaiil time!

So, if the published American Airlines limit was 29 knots of crosswind, then that restriction carries force of federal law behind it.

I am personally of the view that these "preferred runway" clauses have gotten way out of hand and that the FAA has been negligent in not forcing their immediate abolition.

Ken

 

[Bone]

This pilot was way out of line for this reason; an emergency is a time-critical situation which requires the clearing of all other traffic in order to safely land the aircraft.

.

Well, an emergency is not neccesarily a time critical event. For instance, a no-flap landing in a jet with electrically actuated flaps (like my plane) isn't time critical at all. But, you still declare an emergency because the slowest speed you can go in this situation pushes right up to the max tire speed (yes, we have to know this), the AOA is very high, you'll need the longest runway, and you want the fire trucks standing by just in case. There are quite a few abnormal situations where you declare an emergency to cover yourself, because they have the potential to finish up in a bad way.

 

[PRB]

First, I didn't register, so I didn't get to hear the exchange, so two questions:

1) Did the pilot declare an emergency, when there wasn't one, in order to get to land on the runway he wanted?

2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", don't you get in trouble for "faking" an emergency? You can't just declare an emergency to get the ATC to comply with your wishes, can you? Isn't there a rule against that?

3) If the pilot is in change of what runway he lands on, how do you handle this situation? Surely not be declaring a fake emergency every time you get into an argument with the ATC..? What is the correct way to handle it?

Ok, three questions.

 

[Major_Spittle]

I would say the Pilot was correct on this because:

A) The controller never asked what the pilot's emergency was which is the first thing you would do as a controller.
B) The controller shut up quickly and complied with the pilot.
C) The pilot's tone is that of a person short on patience(from the start), has been through this before, and has no fear of ass not being covered.
D) The ATC sounded flustered like he was caught in a situation he was embarased by or unsure of.
E) "Give me 31 or I will declare an Emergency", to me sounds like he has already been dealing with the ATC or listening to the Tower screw up for awhile with other traffic but had a card up his sleeve. ie (low enough fuel he wasn't going to be sent around by ATC like everyone else that refused to use 22L during wind gusts while 31L/R was sitting unused)

But this is just a guess. I know I wouldn't want to land in a 35kt gusting crosswind vs pretty much directly into the wind. I bet a few planes already had to go around because of gusts and the ATC was still using 22L/R.

I'm not a pilot or ATC, but this seems pretty straight forward.

 

[PRB]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

 

[pilottj]

most controllers I delt with were very accomdating. They will usually try to grant you your request if able, but don't expect them to do it right away, they have to work you in with everyone else. That might be more difficult for airlines who have a schedule to make.

 

[Major_Spittle]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

Well, I don't think this was anything up to " Debate " with an ATC that isn't flying the aircraft.
"Give me 31 or I will declare an Emergency" is not declaring an emergency but letting the ATC know that 22 won't work and 31 is the only place he can land. The ATC didn't respond with OK, Understand, Turn Right XXX, speed up, 31 is closed or anything. The ATC never answered the question even, just kept the pilot on an approach.

I am sure that if pilot declares an Emergency the FAA becomes involved so you might want to be able to answer what the emergency was if they interview you. This pilot could always say, the ATC only giving me 22 created an emergency due to the unsafe crosswind condition. 31 was requested but never approved. I declared an emergency because I couldn't land with approach I was put on.

Saying, I just wanted to land on 31 but could have landed on 22 as instructed might get your license revoked.

 

[tigisfat]

So, the lesson to take away from this discussion, as a student pilot, is this: If ATC wants me to land on a runway that is out of limits due to crosswind, all I have to do is declare an emergency. That way they have to let me land on whatever runway I want. Let me write this down, because I may want to get my license some day, and this is good gouge...

I wouldn't take that lesson at face value as a hard rule. This is going to be different from scenario to scenario.

As a GA pilot, you have 1,000's more options than the captain of an airline flight. I'm struggling to think of a good example for you; I just don't want a 40 hr private guy with a freshly pressed license to use declaring an emergency as their first option. That's not to say you should avoid declaring an emergency......it just takes years and years of learning new rules every day to make as drastic of a decision as the captain in question did and be right.

 

[Panther_99FS]

I'm thinkin' the "serious battle" here is between SOH members....:d