Strong x-wind? declare an emergency.

[Jack Klumpus]

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7425662

May 7, 2010 - On Thursday, an American Airlines Boeing 767-200, Flight 2 departed Los Angeles, California at 9:10 AM. It arrived at New York’s JFK airport at 5:01 PM at which time the pilot was instructed to land on runway 22 Left. The pilot refused the landing instructions as the crosswinds were at 35 MPH.

The American Airlines pilot instructed the air traffic controller he was declaring an emergency as he was unwilling to land on 22 left due to a reported 35 MPH crosswind which was dangerously close to the manufacturer's maximum crosswind of 40 MPH.

When landing, the more direct the headwind, the greater or increase in aircraft performance in landing. In the case of American Airlines Flight 2, the wind was not a headwind but rather the wind was blowing somewhere around 90 degrees off the nose of the aircraft , this decreased aircraft performance.

The closer you get to the manufacturer's maximum crosswind speed the lower aircraft performance becomes. This is why airports have many runways at different angles, thus allowing pilots to fly their aircraft as close to a headwind as possible.



New York’s JFK airport has many runways that can offer pilots and controllers the best runway for the given wind direction. However, on March 1, 2010, JFK closed their main runway 13 right and 31 left until June 30, 2010. The closure of this runway has caused delays and forced pilots to land on other runways when the wind favors these runways.

ATC, “American 2 heavy 22 left cleared to land.”

Pilot, “Ah we can’t land 22 ah we going to break out the approach and if you don’t give us runway 31 left we are going to declare an emergency.”

ATC, “Are you saying you’re going to declare an emergency at this time?"

Pilot, “Three times I’ve told you that, three times were declaring an emergency.”

Pilot, “American 2 heavy we are turning around to the left here and landing on 31 move everyone somewhere away we have declared an emergency” (listen to the actual audio)

"It's an issue of capacity versus safety. If we are on a single runway configuration, landing on runway 31R, which was the runway most in line with the wind, we have major capacity issues, we will run extensive delays," said Steve Abraham, of the JFK Controller union.

[UKPilot]

How dare he disturb traffic flow and operate within his own comfort limits!! I say any pilot who can't operate to the aircraft legal limits should be making the tea!

Good on them though for taking what was best for them and not ATC.

[paddy]

This is not an emergency...If they didnt like the winds at JFK, get a clearance to their alternate.

[AuxBatOn]

This is not an emergency...If they didnt like the winds at JFK, get a clearance to their alternate.

Why go to the alternate when there is an into-wind runway at JFK?

[Edi]

This is not an emergency...If they didnt like the winds at JFK, get a clearance to their alternate.

Why go to the alternate when there is an into-wind runway at JFK?

Yeah, and why didn't they land on Intersate 287?! A closed runway is a closed runway, you don't like it... go to your alternate or request LGA or EWR.
I wonder how many pilots declared emergency that day in JFK?

[AuxBatOn]

31R (8000') was opened as far as I can read (from the story) and from the NOTAMs. 31L is closed for construction. They were using the 22s to save delays caused by a single runway ops (31R).

[paddy]

My point was not wether the other runway should/should not have been made available, rather the pilot made a poor choice in declaring an emergency.

[AuxBatOn]

My point was not wether the other runway should/should not have been made available, rather the pilot made a poor choice in declaring an emergency.

If you read the entire article, it also says that the wind velocity increased beyong the aircraft's limitations. Plus, if a runway is available to use that is more into wind (for strong crosswind), why the hell would you want to land with a stron x-wind? Because it may delay people? F*** that shit. I'll take the into wind runway.

[paddy]

My point was not wether the other runway should/should not have been made available, rather the pilot made a poor choice in declaring an emergency.

If you read the entire article, it also says that the wind velocity increased beyong the aircraft's limitations. Plus, if a runway is available to use that is more into wind (for strong crosswind), why the hell would you want to land with a stron x-wind? Because it may delay people? F*** that shit. I'll take the into wind runway.

Again I am not debating the choice not to land on the active runway, if it was a ten knot crosswind and the pilot felt unsafe the best choice is to not accept the landing clearance and work on a new plan. I am simply saying that not wanting to land on a particular runway is not reason enough to declare an emergency.

[CD]

Here is another point of view from over on AvWeb:

May 8, 2010

Trumped Up JFK Emergency?
By Paul Bertorelli

Last week’s emergency landing at New York’s JFK offers yet another example of how a group of pilots—when presented with the same scenario and risk factors—may make diametrically different decisions. The distilled summary: An American Airlines 767 enroute into JFK from Los Angeles arrived to be assigned runway 22L as the landing runway. The wind was out of 310 at 22 knots, gusting to 34 knots—a direct crosswind that might have had a slight tailwind component.

The Captain refused the landing runway and, when ATC declined to assign 31R, he declared an emergency and landed on it anyway. Here’s a condensed clip audio clip on the incident.

It’s illuminating for several of reasons. It’s an example of what most pilots and controllers have seen before: a “sort of” or “paper” emergency. Second, regardless of who you think was right or wrong, the incident shows that the person sitting in the left seat is sometimes confronted with judgment calls for which there is no easy answer, even though the Captain is vested with the ultimate final authority on how the flight is conducted. It may be good to be King, but it’s not always easy. Worth noting is that there’s more going on here than most of us know and, as the Gunny likes to say, there will be consequences. Last, this incident starkly reveals how our air transport system is a tug of war between efficiency and safety.

Since March, JFK has had 31L closed for upgrades and this bollixes up the airport’s acceptance rate. The airlines were asked to scale their operations accordingly. I don’t know if they have done that or if this was in factor in the May 4 incident. (See above: consequences.) Either way, ATC will configure the airport to suit its concerns, which usually relate to throughput and noise restrictions. Pilot concerns about crosswind limits? Not so much. So it becomes a little bit of a blood sport in a situation like this. If crews keep gutting out landing in a crosswind to the limits of man and machine, controllers will happily let them do it until someone says—enough.

The Captain of American Flight 2 decided he wasn’t going to accept a 34-knot crosswind. According to what data I could find, Boeing says 40 knots is the max recommended crosswind component for a 767 on a dry runway. If someone else can dispute that, let me hear from you. Also, American’s op specs may call for something lower and those are hard limits. Either way, the Captain decided it wasn’t safe and informed the tower he would declare an emergency if he wasn’t given 31R. The controller seemed to note this as if he’d take it under advisement and the situation blossomed from there. Remember, the controller is thinking about separation and his flow plan, the pilot is worried about cramming that thing on the runway in a gusty crosswind.

After the emergency was declared, the controller evidently thought it was a “gentleman’s” emergency in which he would be allowed to vector the airplane back around for 31R in a more less orderly fashion. The Captain, on the other hand, clearly understood that under emergency authority, he could do what he needed to and seemed to inform the surprised sounding controller of his maneuvering plan. He told ATC—he didn’t ask, he told ATC—to clear the runway. American Flight 2 was landing on it. This is about as compelling an example of execution of command authority as you are likely to hear.

Listen to the tape to the end and you can clearly hear the controller’s response when the flight clears the runway and asks for taxi instruction. He sounds irritated to me. So let the second guessing begin.

Over on PPRuNe opinions are divided. Some think the Captain should have slipped into the flow and let the controller work out an approach for 31R that would minimize chaos for everyone else. If the flight was so low on fuel as to require unconditional maneuvering, why didn’t the crew declare this sooner? And if the crew couldn’t handle a 34-knot crosswind as just a day at the office, what are they doing flying into Kennedy? Others cheered the Captain, believing he determined that an unsafe condition existed and acted to correct it. End of story.

I don’t have enough experience in this realm to offer an opinion on the righteousness of the Captain’s call. Even if I did, I’m not sure I would, because I wasn’t in the seat. Nonetheless, I offer a tip of the hat to any skipper who pulls the plug in a situation where system-think has forced go-along-get-along behavior to a point beyond safe limits. Right or wrong, he made a clear, unambiguous decision and acted upon it. It sometimes takes that kind of decisiveness to cut through the fence between pilot/crew/passenger priorities and air traffic control priorities. The two are sometimes at cross purposes.

When they are, someone has to say as much. This Captain did and that’s what defines command.

AvWeb Insider

[scopiton]

I am simply saying that not wanting to land on a particular runway is not reason enough to declare an emergency.

in itself no, but may be the pilot did it for legal purposes and to obtain full comand of his flight and intentions.

oups just read previous post and summarizes my thoughts.

[Expat]

Any captain worth his salt should be able to land at x winds within the max design for the aircraft.
I certainly would not want to fly with such a w**mp...
A lot of the airports I have flown in and out of, have only one, or two parallel runways.
I learned to fly on a 09-27 runway, and the winds were always from the north or south...

[AuxBatOn]

Any captain worth his salt should be able to land at x winds within the max design for the aircraft.
I certainly would not want to fly with such a w**mp...
A lot of the airports I have flown in and out of, have only one, or two parallel runways.
I learned to fly on a 09-27 runway, and the winds were always from the north or south...

So, if you have the option of taking an into wind runway vice a cross wind runway, you will take the cross wind, just because you "don't want to look like a whimp"? I can land with a 35 kts x-wind (aircraft limitation) but if I have the choice, I'll take the into wind runway.

[UKPilot]

After declaring the emergency he should have requested 13 with the 35 knot tail wind just to show everyone just how much of a man he was!

[Lurch]

Just listened to the tapes

I think he was right in refusing the rwy, but I cannot agree with how he handled the situation after that.

In the past I have requested a different rwy for safety reason but never forced ATC to accommodate me now. He should have flown rwy heading and let ATC do their job.

Lurch

[Expat]

Any captain worth his salt should be able to land at x winds within the max design for the aircraft.
I certainly would not want to fly with such a w**mp...
A lot of the airports I have flown in and out of, have only one, or two parallel runways.
I learned to fly on a 09-27 runway, and the winds were always from the north or south...

So, if you have the option of taking an into wind runway vice a cross wind runway, you will take the cross wind, just because you "don't want to look like a whimp"? I can land with a 35 kts x-wind (aircraft limitation) but if I have the choice, I'll take the into wind runway.

And I will take the taxiway, but only if I cannot manage the x-wind.
I landed in 35 knots x-winds, even a Cessna 150. So what is tha big fuss??

[righthandman]

-The PIC is the final authority as to the safety of the flight.
-ATC is a service provided to pilots (not vice versa).
-Once an emergency is declared the PIC can do anything and everything he deems necessary in the interest of safety.

Of course he might have some explaining to do to justify his actions once he is safely on the ground. Before that, pretty much no one can question his decisions while exercising this emergency authority.

Had he broken the plane we'd all be questioning why on earth did he go along with the clearance to land with "those x-winds".

[frog]

Landing a light single in a 30 knots crosswind and a transport jet is VERY different in term of difficulty.
To compare you need to know !

[Doc]

Any captain worth his salt should be able to land at x winds within the max design for the aircraft.
I certainly would not want to fly with such a w**mp...
A lot of the airports I have flown in and out of, have only one, or two parallel runways.
I learned to fly on a 09-27 runway, and the winds were always from the north or south...

Don't you find it kind of dark, with your head so far up your ass?

Pilot is correct. A man's got to know his limitations. He knew his. Nobody got hurt......any of you "armchair" quarterbacks think you could do better...have at it! It is the CAPTAIN'S decision. IMHO he made the correct one.

[Randleman]

awww crap! My brothers in the bathroom and I need to pee NOW so I am going to call 911!

All jokes aside, the pilot made the right call to not take the runway if he wasn't comfortable. Personally, I don't see why you wouldn't be comfortable flying below the specifications for the aircraft...in this case 6 kts below. But, that's the pilot's call, and he can do that if he wants.

What I don't get, is why in the SWEET tar of this world would you declare an emergency because you don't get your way? Just tell ATC you need 31R, and wait for him to give you vectors-you don't get to go before everyone else just because what everyone else is doing doesn't suit you. It just seems very unnecessary, and causes a major headache for ATC and every other pilot-it's not always about you, unless your aircraft is in danger.

Am I wrong here?

[Doc]

Am I wrong here?

Yes

[Lurch]

What I don't get, is why in the SWEET tar of this world would you declare an emergency because you don't get your way? Just tell ATC you need 31R, and wait for him to give you vectors-you don't get to go before everyone else just because what everyone else is doing doesn't suit you. It just seems very unnecessary, and causes a major headache for ATC and every other pilot-it's not always about you, unless your aircraft is in danger.

Am I wrong here?

YES

Because he was told he would only get 31R if he declared an emergency.

Lurch

[iflyforpie]

Am I wrong here?

YES

Because he was told he would only get 31R if he declared an emergency.

Lurch

+1

There was nothing wrong with the plane landing on 31R other than the fact that the Port Authority of New York decided that it was only for departures in an effort to preserve their rate of movements. The pilot probably asked and was denied 31R because of the above decisions.

You are going to lose movements if you are under IFR or Cat II or III operations; so suck it up buttercup and close the crosswind runways when the winds aren't safe.

Bravo to the Captain for not being a lemming and standing up for safe airline operations over convenient airport operations.

[Doc]

Oh, I pretty much told YYZ to get stuffed one morning. They wanted me to take a 30 knot crosswind in the F27 due to noise abatement. I told them I was landing into wind...."see you at the tribunal..." They blinked first. Wonder how many accidents have been caused by pilots not taking a stand? I'd be willing to bet....more than one or two...

[AuxBatOn]

While we are on the subject...

4.1.3 Preferential Runway Assignments

At controlled airports, when selecting preferential runways for noise abatement or for other reasons, air traffic controllers consider the runway condition, the effective crosswind component and the effective tailwind component.

The maximum effective crosswind component considered in determining runway selection is 25 kt for arrivals and departures on DRY runways, and 15 kt on WET runways. The maximum effective tailwind component is 5 kt.

During consultation between NAV CANADA, aviation stakeholders and Transport Canada, it was decided that operations on the preferential runway should be allowed to continue when more than 25 percent of the runway is covered with a TRACE contaminant, provided:

1.the airport operator has issued an Aircraft Movement Surface Condition Report (AMSCR) with a reported CRFI value in all segments of the runway greater than .40 or, if no AMSCR is received, an aircraft reports the braking action as being “good”; and
2.the maximum crosswind component, including gusts, is 15 kt or less.
In conditions where more than 25 percent of the preferential runway is covered with a TRACE contaminant, the runway most nearly aligned into the wind must be selected if:

1.the reported CRFI value in any segment of the runway is .40 or lower;
2.the crosswind component rises above 15 kt; or
3.a less than “good” braking action report is received from a pilot.
Although air traffic controllers may select a preferential runway in accordance with the foregoing criteria, pilots are not obligated to accept the runway for taking off or landing. It remains the pilot’s responsibility to decide if the assigned runway is operationally acceptable.