Fuel emergency. Minimum fuel amount | JetBlue Airways Airbus A320 | Newark, ATC
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
07, 08-APR-2022. A JetBlue Airways Airbus A320 (A320), registration N615JB, performing flight JBU468 / B6468 from Montego Bay Sangster International Airport (Jamaica) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (USA) after go around at Kennedy Airport decided to divert to Philadelphia. Later the crew declared an emergency for minimum fuel and decided to go to Newark Liberty International Airport, NJ (USA).
Join me on Patreon: / you_can_see_atc
PART OF TEXT VERSION OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT I'M ABLE TO INCLUDE HERE. Do you want more? Write in comments and I'll give you remaining part of text communications (Read if subtitles in video were fast):
COMMENTS: JetBlue 468 is approaching final. In a moment the crew will contact controller.
JBU468: Kennedy Tower, JetBlue 468, crossing CAXUN, ILS 13L.
TOWER: JetBlue 468, Kennedy Tower, good evening, company just went around, everybody's going around for wind shear. So just advise if… what your intentions are, JetBlue 468. Wind 140 at 25 gusts 32, RW 13L cleared to land.
JBU468: Going to Philly if we're going around, for JetBlue 468.
TOWER: I’ll keep it in mind, JetBlue 468. Still cleared to land RW 13L.
JBU468: Cleared to land 13L.
TOWER: JetBlue 468, I heard your alarm, so I’m assuming you’re going around here. Fly present heading climb and maintain 4000, JetBlue 468.
JBU468: Yeah, we’re going around, present heading, up to 4000, JetBlue 468.
JBU468: Hey, Tower, JetBlue 468, we need vectors to Philly.
TOWER: JetBlue 468, are you able to maintain present heading?
JBU468: For now, yeah, JetBlue 468.
TOWER: JetBlue 468, fly present heading, maintain 4000, contact New York Approach 135.9.
JBU468: 35.9, present heading, 4000, JetBlue 468.
JBU468: Approach, JetBlue 468, is present… runway heading, 4000.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, New York Departure, you are radar contact, the altimeter is 2949. Say intentions.
JBU468: We need immediate vectors to Philly, for JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, roger that, sir, climb and maintain 5000, fly heading of 110.
JBU468: 5000, 110, JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, were you requesting Philadelphia as well?
JBU468: Affirm, JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: Roger.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, turn right heading 220, climb and maintain 6000.
JBU468: 220, up to 6000, JetBlue 468.
JBU468: Approach, JetBlue 468, we’re getting real close to a fuel situation here. If we could get going in that direction.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, yes, sir, I’m vectoring you towards diverting here. You just fly heading 270. I’ll get you in trail of the others going to Philly.
JBU468: 270, JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, climb and maintain 7000.
JBU468: 7000, JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, turn left heading 230, when able proceed direct to DIXIE.
JBU468: 230, when able direct DIXIE, JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: JetBlue 468, are declaring min fuel or you’re okay?
JBU468: Stand-by.
JBU468: We’re good for now, for JetBlue 468.
APPROACH: Thank you.
JBU468: And for JetBlue 468, which routing after DIXIE.
------ This is maximum I can write here. Do you want more? Write in comments and I'll give you remaining part of text communications ------
THE VALUE OF THIS VIDEO:
THE MAIN VALUE IS EDUCATION. This reconstruction will be useful for actual or future air traffic controllers and pilots, people who plan to connect life with aviation, who like aviation. With help of this video reconstruction you’ll learn how to use radiotelephony rules, Aviation English language and general English language (for people whose native language is not English) in situation in flight, which was shown. THE MAIN REASON I DO THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERY EMERGENCY SITUATION, EVERY WORD AND EVERY MOVE OF AIRCRAFT.
SOURCES OF MATERIAL, LICENSES AND PERMISSIONS:
Source of communications - www.liveatc.net/ (I have a permission (Letter) for commercial use of radio communications from LiveATC.net).
Map, aerial pictures (License (ODbL) ©OpenStreetMap -www.openstreet...) Permission for commercial use, royalty-free use.
Radar screen (In new versions of videos) - Made by author.
Text version of communication - Made by Author.
Video editing - Made by author.
HOW I DO VIDEOS:
1) I monitor media, airspace, looking for any non-standard, emergency and interesting situation.
2) I find communications of ATC unit for the period of time I need.
3) I take only phrases between air traffic controller and selected flight.
4) I find a flight path of selected aircraft.
5) I make an animation (early couple of videos don’t have animation) of flight path and aircraft, where the aircraft goes on his route.
6) When I edit video I put phrases of communications to specific points in video (in tandem with animation).
7) Together with my comments (voice and text) I edit and make a reconstruction of emergency, non-standard and interesting situation in flight.
![[REAL ATC] American B757 has COMPLETE RADIO FAILURE out of Kennedy!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wcq6KipBOro/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] American B757 has COMPLETE RADIO FAILURE out of Kennedy!](/img/tr.png)
I see a lot of comments on the pilots.
Can we just pause one sec and appreciate the amazing work by those various ATC to understand and adjust in a blink of an eye to the needs of that emergency...
The area has dozens of planes, on a dozen of frequencies with several airports nearby. In just a few seconds those guys in the background coordinated themselves in order to give priority for that plane, found them a way out of trouble and kept their calm & precision intact.
Great job to everyone involved!
Before hammering the planning or pilots etc, remember a few points: (1) Fuel minimum and fuel critical are two very different situations. When a plane is on fuel minimum, they have enough fuel to divert - including typical hold patterns, vector changes and altitude changes. Once they are at fuel critical, they must have priority for landing. (2) There is a ton of conversation, cock-pit activity not on this video (as stated clearly in the video). This would fill in a lot of gaps. (3) This flight involved a significant amount of revectoring, altitude changes, holding patterns that would diminish a safe fuel level, down to minimum fuel fairly easily. Aircraft turning and changing altitude at slow speeds and low altitudes consume fuel at a much faster rate than when at altitude and optimum airspeed.
Yep think they did pretty well given the changing siuation.
@@tomriley5790 Fuel minimums and fuel critical are below the standards of proper flight planning, for such a short flight there are questions of multitudes about earlier decision making in the cockpit. This is also an international flight which brings up a lot of other fuel safety considerations. pay attention to what is happening in the cockpit, this is not a fun job as i used to hear people say. Don't be distracted while operating a flight plan sometimes early consequential decisions prevent having to make later critical ones.
Pilot: We're getting low on fuel.
ATC: Ok, let me send you out to sea for 30mins.
My compliments to both Pilots and the ATC. Well done.
Surprisingly NO one spoke or asked the FOB at the time Fuel emergency was declared.
I just want to wish you both good luck; we’re all counting on you.
😂
Surely you can't be .......
I am and don't call me Shirley
Roger, Roger. What’s our Vector, Victor?
@@johncline7518 do we have clearance, Clarence?????
It's easy to arm-chair quarterback this situation, but in the heat of the moment, there is alot going on in that cockpit after a windshear go-around..... they likely had PHL as their flight paperwork alternate and had the fuel "in the planning".... but real world doesn't work out that way... they made the right call dropping into EWR.... no fuel turns into plenty of fuel really quick with a decision like that.... im sure the crew debriefed themselves after and said "what could we have done different?".... declaring min-fuel for PHL immediately after the Go-around would have possibly helped with a better routing..... in the end, they landed safely and that's what matters.....
100% this ^
That is correct.
Better to have a further Alternate with the fuel to get there and have the ability to change it to a closer alternate.
Fight DX for more gas. Or take the easy path and just tell the fueler to bring it up an extra thou
@@AccelHeight Not always an option. What if you're already at Max Weight?
It's easier to arm-chair, that is always true.
But they were headed to Philly as requested when they realized they couldn't make it and finally declared the emergency.
I guess it has to do with paperwork and explanations that has to be given afterwards that are not necessary when you declare minimum fuel. And that can not be a decision factor.
Rather than speculate let's look at what really happened. They left Montego Bay Jamaica with a routing that should have taken them fairly directly to a landfall in the US just east of Wilmington DE, from there they would have turned slightly right and direct to JFK. What happened was they took off 32 minutes late, no idea if that extra time was spent at the gate or burning fuel waiting on the ground. When they got near to the south east coast of the Bahamas they were routed over to Boca Raton (approximately) then up the coast to North Carolina where they were allowed to proceed on course again. Around Atlantic city they had to complete two circuits of the holding pattern. When they got on the ground in Newark they were75 minutes late, 43 minutes later than they departed. So the diversion and hold burned their 30 minutes hold fuel, and 13 minutes of their diversion fuel. Not their fault, not their dispatcher's fault, not ATC's fault. A mix of routing and bad weather. Typically they vary between slightly faster than scheduled and a few minutes slower. So losing 43 minutes was significantly unusual.
Thankyou for that information. Please note: according to your rough calculations they burned an extra 43 minutes of kero but this is compared to a scheduled flight time to destination. From this you would need to subtract the Alternate Fuel - which happens to be in the order of 45 minutes from JFK to PHL - in order to get an approximate comparison between actual flight time and required fuel. I am very aware that the scheduled flight time is more than the en route flight time, and also that we do not know how much fuel they had upon landing. If we assume they had final reserve upon landing at EWR then it speaks of a barely legal departure. OTOH, if they landed with, say, Bingo +30, then it speaks of remarkably efficient fuel planning. Either way, I think the choice to try JFK, then PHL and then divert to EWR were all perfectly reasonable.
@@XPLAlN Hmm, bingo is a military term. But yes, and that was the point. There's more to it but not many people who, like you, understand that it's not that simple. If they had to hold low then they burned more fuel, I didn't check their speed and altitude in the hold. If they increased cruise to try to catch up time then that cost them more fuel. We don't have enough details. But there isn't enough to say they did something wrong.
I don't envy these guys. I've had some flights where fuel started to become the major focus point driving decisions, but never quite to that degree. Good on them for staying flexible and making sure they got what they needed. Sure, they'll have a lot of paperwork and talking to do, but they got everyone down and it appears they did everything right. Sometimes, the cards just aren't in your favor.
I don't know why they ended up with low fuel, but they did a great job admitting to the situation and working on it professionally. Nicely done (at least for that part).
They got routed differently, weather changed things again and they were on hold on the ground.
Phew, heavy workload on the cockpit there by the sounds of it
Better words,, We are fuel Critical. Need preferencal handling. Also another good advise.. When given holding instructions. Decline them. Request to hold on a position closest to your alternate. Then you're #1 for that alternate instead of number 15. Also if you are sitting fat on gas and hear a fellow airmen declare min fuel.. Offer your slot if it helps expedite the min fuel guy.. I did this once and you can't imagine the gratitude on the radio frequency
0:46 nice catch by atc
Didn’t notice it at first! Thank you sir/ma’am !
@@devtekve1396 you're welcome
I’m not a pilot nor do I want to be but damn there are some people in these comments that truely believe they know better…
I only work on aircraft and even on the ground, when things go pear shaped. We only have few options that are with full safety in mind. I’d hate to think what decisions pilots have to make in a split moment.
They done a great job in my eyes. Everyone is safe.
5:30 🙂
Pilot:Can you give me direct vectors to the runway
Tower: Which runway? And by the way, which airport?
At that point everyone (except that one controller) knew they were attempting to fly to Philadelphia.
Great controller. With that rethorical question he immediately convinced the crew to divert to Newark
@@coriscotupi I'm pretty sure he knew they were going for Philly. However, ATC also knew Newark had better weather and that there were closer alternatives (especially with all the traffic diverting to Philly). The question was kind of a wakeup call for the crew not to tunnel (getthereitis) and take a look at their options.
Wind shear on the ground likely indicates strong winds in the air. Maybe there was more headwind than expected, which brought the aircraft down to the airport with too little fuel. You can hear from the very first transmission that they were already very tensed up. In the end, they landed safely, and in the heat of the moment, it is not right to nitpick the little decisions like trying for PHL first.
I was listening to atc at PHL a couple months ago on a particularly gusty evening. As I turned it on, a UPS freighter was on approach, and went around for wind shear. They were vectored around, got on the ILS, and went around again. Surprisingly, they made another circuit for a third approach at PHL, and managed to get down that time, which only indicates that they had extra fuel to circuit several times before they would have to divert. Not everyone has spare fuel all the time, and just has to get down somewhere.
Another nice and clear reconstruction. Thanks.
Well, the unaware passengers were probably happier with Newark than Philly.
Great job! Crew managed to think out of the box and divert to a closer airport!
Good one Vasa.
Those two cats were in the red, for sure. I was starting to sweat🫠
Minimum Fuel is NOT a fuel emergency. It simply means that an aircraft can not accept delays.
Fuel critical is an emergency situation, usually 30 minutes or less.
The requirement for an alternate airport and fuel to get there is based on the forecast ceiling and visibility at the destination.
The possibility of not being able to land at the destination due to wind shear, unplanned runway closures or even VIP arrivals is not necessarily in the fuel planning.
No, minimum fuel is no delay but you still have final reserve. MAYDAY fuel is nothing left after you get there. To quote someone who knows the rules much better than me: "According to the Aeronautical Information Manual, declaring "minimum fuel" does not imply a need for traffic priority only that you cannot accept any undue delay upon reaching your destination. In actual practice, it is a way of conveying your discomfort to ATC, nothing more. AIM goes on to say that if you need traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, you should declare an emergency due to low fuel."
@@cageordie No, Mayday fuel is when you believe you will have less than 30 minutes of fuel after any landing.
@@Trevor_Austin Do some research instead of telling me that I am wrong according to what you think. I always check my facts first. What you think is not what the FAA says, to quote them "Emergency Fuel. Although not defined in the AIM or FAA regulations, the industry-wide connotation typically associated with the term “Fuel Emergency” is: “The point at which, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it is necessary to proceed directly to the airport of intended landing due to low fuel." There's no "and still have 30 minutes" in that. There is a 30 minutes in IATA regs, but it is for fuel remaining, so you can declare an emergency any time you have less than 30 minutes fuel remaining. But this was in the US, so IATA doesn't apply.
They don't budget enough fuel to not be able to land as planned and divert elsewhere? Pretty sure that is not correct.
@@ntdscherer This flight had been rerouted from their fairly direct plan, which added a few hundred miles to the trip, then they were held near Atlantic City. They lost 43 minutes enroute, so that's pretty much burned through the 30 minute hold and contingency fuel in the plan. So arriving at JFK in bad weather they were already in a hole.
That rerouting sounded like hell.
LOL...lot of Flight sim pilots chiming in...
Ideal title: "Flight from Jamaica to Jamaica diverts to Newark due to low fuel."
:)
Yep….typical clickbait title.
On UA-cam is a video of an AA321 doing a missed approach and go around due to aircraft on runway not expediting takeoff at LAX. On approach after go around pilot told tower he had minimum fuel.
I heard second hand from someone who was on this flight. Awful passenger experience. They were already late and tried twice to land at JFK due to bad weather. People were throwing up and scared etc. The flight crew told the passengers they would divert to Philly, but then ended up in Newark due to low fuel. Once on the ground there was no gate. They finally got to the gate passengers were not allowed to get off the flight to use ground transportation. Keep in mind people had thrown up etc. After a few hours on the ground in Newark they sent the plane back up into to bad weather to get everyone back to JFK. Everyone made it safely, but Jet Blue has been awful to passengers lately!
Oh man, what a nightmare! That probably would have been the time I finally swore off flying.
That was another flight that was proceedings behind this emergency aircraft.
Unfortunately, the issue at EWR was due to being an international flight. You can blame Customs and Boarder Patrol for that.
There’s a video on here somewhere with angry passengers after few hours on the ground waiting for the shortest flight of their life
@@Bartmanfly I heard that but don't understand why. EWR is an Int'l airport and has full U.S. customs & immigration services.
Avianca 52 vibes ...
When changing controllers it's important to repeat the Mayday. There is at least one crash on record that arose because the new controller was not aware of the emergency.
That’s just shocking…WTF do they say to each other in the turnover? An emergency aircraft is kind of an important piece of information…
As a controller for 30 years,Not one instance of that happening. Once an emergency is declared, believe me everybody’s aware.
Yes, that's the right process. They never once said MAYDAY. It's even in the "how to declare an emergency" guidance issued by the FAA. But they are Americans, so it almost never happens, and if it does then the "was that really an emergency" crowd start complaining. It's hard enough to get US pilots to mention that something might be wrong. Controllers need to then use their intuition and a crystal ball to decide whether the shy little flower on the other end actually has a serious problem. Not declaring and communicating emergencies properly has got a bunch of people killed. One of my favorites was a single engine aircraft with engine failure, who was within gliding distance of an airport was given a 270 degree turn away from the airport to allow a commercial jet to land ahead of him. State your emergency, tell ATC what you need to stay alive. Sometimes even that doesn't work though, Las Vegas tried to send a B-25 with engine failure somewhere else instead of letting him land. Fortunately he was up against an experienced pilot who just said "Unable" and continued his approach. And for anyone who has never heard it done properly, try the Thompson Mayday which my commercial captain friend says he was shown in training as an example of everyone doing the right thing. ua-cam.com/video/9KhZwsYtNDE/v-deo.html
They never even pan panned, so.................
You're not going to fly in that area of the world without everyone knowing what's going on.
The guys working tower between Philly, NY, and NJ are amazing.
@@moisesperez4659 There was no Mayday, Sylvia is chatting.
ILS 13L into JFK... Doesn't happen often
why were they min fuel immediately after a single go around? Had they been trying to land for a while before this clip started? Shouldnt they have had at least enough fuel to try their destination 2 or 3 times, then fly to PHL, and still have 30 minutes left?
They got a large re-Route while in the air which burned up around 20min of fuel + 40min in a holding pattern for jfk , so they where already eating into their alternate fuel by the time the went around
"Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that the fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, the pilot cannot accept any undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur."
"Minimum fuel" is not a emergency.
"Emergency fuel" is when the flight will arrive with less than final reserve, and the aircraft is given priority handling.
@@oscarb9139 sure but they declared a fuel emergency only a few minutes later, so effectively same in this case.
@@wouldntyouliketoknow9891 No. When they got the reroute (to PHL), it became obvious to them that it would put them into a critical fuel state. So declare an emergency and get direct to anywhere they want to go. They are different. Are you a pilot?
Min fuel gives no priority handling. Emergency fuel gets priority.
@@oscarb9139 all true. But In practice min fuel IS going to get you priority handling.
That controller that said "What runway and what airport" needs firing, No help just putting the crew under pressure. What an arrogant shinny ass! All the others did a great job, but that one prick was obviously too important to do a good job.
Winner. The most ridiculous comment so far. When you declare an emergency, you are the king. You get to tell them what you want, and they get to give it to you.
If you need info like closest airport name, direction, and distance, they will provide it. The controller went from being a controller before the emergency declaration, to the tell me where you want to go and I will get you rolling there right now.
@@oscarb9139 the obvious arrogance and annoyance in that controllers voice was palpable.
@@stevejh69 Are you a pilot? I ask because you dont seem to understand the controller responsibilties and you are completely wrong.
I just listened to the conversation again. Controller voice doesnt changs from prior to the emergency. He is simply asking the pilots exactly where they want to go so he can get them going there.
@@oscarb9139 BS, he was being condescending at a time the pilots didn't need any more stress. Remember controllers are there because of pilots - not the other way around.
@@winstonchurchill3597 Dont be a fool. He was doing what controllers do. Are you a pilot? I deal with ATC all the time. The controllers response was precisely what i want to hear. Its all about me from that point on. Been doing this for....39 years. You?
What stress did he add? He asked which airport they wanted, as well as which runway, so he can coordinate with approach and tower to make it seamless.
I wonder how many people complain actually fly commercial planes? They’re probably complains about how everyone from the dog walker to the neurosurgeon and a teacher to an astronaut do their jobs. They know how to do everything better than anyone else. They’re true k ow it alls. That means we can all retire and they can do all the jobs!
Sometimes I'm just amazed that there aren't more serious air emergencies with really bad outcomes.
there was a flight in Colombiarecently with a soccer team that crash due to lack of fuel. So this happens. And these type of situation should be treated with maximum attention from all parties involved, such as atc, pilots, airlines
If your a captain of a commercial aircraft, it would be pretty sad if you diverted to another airport with no fuel and then crashed because you never declared an emergency. All those lives that could've been saved gone forever.
Why are you amazed? CRM is much better. Training is better. More real time info is better, and aircraft are more reliable. It should not be a surprise that air safety is a lot better.
Just wait. Until the “must hires” who are GIVEN pilot jobs EXCLUSIVELY due to their pigmentation and inboard gear take the controls in number and without experienced adult supervision.
Or don’t, as we already saw it in the cargo plane in an 85 degree dive.
@@oscarb9139 We had a Colgan Air crew lose track of airspeed on short final, stall the plane and go inverted killing everyone on board. So I'm guessing there is still a lot of room for improvement!
Declare “minimum fuel” when, in ur best judgment, any additional delay will cause you to burn into your reserve fuel.
Declare a" fuel emergency " at the point at which, in ur judgment, it is necessary for u to proceed directly to the airport at which u intend to land.
Fly Safe 🤷♂️
Typically that means that you have only about 75 minutes left or so. Final reserves are with 45 minutes. Had they attempted to continue to PHL, they would have ended up in a fuel emergency.
No hard deadlines in the AIM but min fuel is about 45 minutes. Emergency fuel is generally 30 minutes per IATA.
In these winds, 30 minutes would have your palms a sweatin’
I always thought that minimum fuel was 75 minutes remaining and fuel emergency was 45 minutes. A few years ago, an Emirates B77W landed with just 8 minutes of fuel remaining, nearly running out while taxiing.
@@AEMoreira81 Fuel emergency isn't a fixed amount, it's when you expect to land with under 30 minutes fuel remaining on the present/cleared route. 45 minutes is from GA flight planning, airline fuel planning is more complicated. I'm not sure where 75 minutes comes from, but that sounds sufficient for diversion to planned alternate, going missed there, and a successful landing without reaching that 30 minutes.
@@chrisschack9716 minimum fuel (in EASA land and I guess ICAO) means you cannot accept any changes to your current clearance otherwise you'll have to declare emergency fuel (mayday fuel), for which you gave the correct definition
1:00 - they should NOT have accepted the heading, taking them away from PHIL, they should have TURNED asap.
ATC goofed and wasn't communicating with the other ATC. Even after they declared an emergency, ATC was still playing traffic routing games.
Wtf are you on? They said they could take the route. Then changed their answer. Then went to EWR. Did we watch different videos?..
A proactive Dispatcher would have been a big help for this flight. Starting with releasing it with more fuel, monitoring the fuel burn enroute and the weather and ATC situation in NYC. Analyzing all of that, a strong recommendation for an enroute landing would have been appropriate.
A proactive dispatcher would have made sure they had the required fuel to reach their planned alternate and hold for the required time (is it 30 or 45 minutes?). They were unable to reach their alternate without declaring the emergency, that should never happen.
@@cageordie planned and reality are two different things. Getting offset a few Lima airways for whatever reason will quickly eat into your contingency and reserve. DX does the best with what they are given.
Many companies pressure both the dispatcher and the pilots to carry the least amount of "legal" fuel. So, just saying "they should have added more fuel" is a bit naive. Additionally, dispatchers today are responsible for more flights per shift than they used to be. Airline management does not like employees. So the more work they can get out of them the better. So they are stretched thinner. Fewer bucks going out and all that. A pilot who expects his dispatcher to have his back for an entire flight is practicing wishful thinking. And at the end of the flight, it's the guy in the left seat who gets to answer all the tough questions. The job is often not as easy as many would have you believe.
@@lbowsk The final authority to the safe operation of the flight rests with the PIC. It’s literally as easy as you care to make it. I can justify tankering fuel all day long.
@@lbowsk Pressure is when 10 flights inbound to JFK all declare minimum fuel. Pressure is when your alternate airport has worse weather than your destination. Pressure is when you’re running out of duty time and realize if you divert you can’t get back to your original destination. Pressure is knowing you have a maintenance item that’s going to ground the airplane wherever it lands. Pressure is holding for your destination and hearing ten other flights announce they are diverting to the same alternate airport that you have, meaning when you get there all the gates will be full and you and your passengers will be struck on the ramp for hours. I could go on and on. The Dispatcher and the Captain are legally responsible for the flight. Company pressure is not a justification for poor flight planning and decision making.
Islip, westchester, McQuire?
Start landing in Canada again like the old days for fuel?
My wife had to fly Avianca for her parents medical condition last minute and all I could think of was that day on the North Shore of Long Island when I was in college.
EWR is much closer to JFK than ISP, HPN..not sure what mcquire is...
McGuire Air Force base in NJ if it a Real emergency.
Don't forget Stewart
Busiest airspace in the world. Newark, Kennedy, Teterboro, and LaGuardia
At least JetBlue gives you a full can of Diet Coke
It's Pepsi products now =(
I remember this I was listening to JFK tower that night
Fuel emergency after only 1 (!!) go around :) Good job @JetBlue. That´s the reason why I would never board any JetBlue plane
This is how Jets run out of fuel
Carrying more fuel on board means burning more fuel (additional weight) and less room for passengers / cargo. Also consider the source of the fuel - is it contract or company, and cost there vs here.
I could care less about the “cost” savings when it is my butt in the seat trying to stay alive. Flew for a cargo company fresh out of college with that mentality that nearly cost me my life. They have since lost two airplanes and crew due to fuel shortage. If you have to cut corners on fuel as an organization then go do something else.
@@stevenshanofski6801 I did not say to cut corners and not carry enough fuel. There is no need to fill half the aircraft with fuel and have only half the space for the passengers. You carry as much fuel as needed (for flight, diversion, reserve, etc) but do not want to carry excessive fuel back and forth.
Short fuel
What happened
Umm what? When ATC first asked if they want to declare min fuel they responded with “no we’re good”. Then a few minutes later they declare min fuel? Then subsequently a fuel emergency short time later???! Why in the hell did they request Philly?? Was the pilot/co-pilot feeling ok? That sounded very bad.
Philly would be their pre programmed alternate as weather in EWR may have been bad too
Any back-story on why so tight on fuel? Were they forced to hold for a long time en route? Feels strange that one missed approach and then emergency fuel and unable to make their preferred alternate.
Yes they were holding and very late!
Considering that several aircraft had already diverted to their alternative because of the weather; It seems to me the smart thing to do, would be to divert to Philly when they still had enough fuel to make it. FAA regulations state that Aircraft should carry "enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing; Fly from that airport to the alternate airport [if one is required]; and Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed". Which I take to mean, when they had enough fuel to make Philly plus 45 Minuets flying time they should have diverted, without ever trying to land at Kennedy when they didn't have enough fuel to reach their alternative.
@@thepoliticalhousethatjackbuilt indeed, usually the pilots would let the controllers know how long they can stay in holding before they have to divert. No idea why the decision to divert was made that late
@@matthiaspatzelt3085 Because the airline, passengers, and crew want to get to the scheduled arrival point safely. Had they NO T gotten the PWS warning, they would have safely landed at their destination in spite of all the other delays they encountered, WITH reserve fuel intact.
I landed at JFK (as a passenger) in a wind shear situation that I swear took a year off my life. It was JetBlue, but that's a hub for them so odds are good it would've been that airline. We rocked back and forth, bounced up and down, making contact with the ground and bouncing back up a few times. I thought FOR SURE he'd have to go around because we were running out of runway. When we finally got the wheels down and stayed there, he threw the reverse thrusters on so hard we all flew in our seats (felt like we flew backward but that can't be, so we must have flown forward). Scariest landing of my life. This was just this past November 2021. I thought for sure we were going to run out of runway and end up in the water, we landed so far down the runway at such high speed I was praying "stop the plane my God stop the plane." Point of this whole story (everyone has one) is I can certainly understand the go around!
@Karamjeet Bedi Sadly, far too many native English speakers these days lack the ability or skill to use or understand the nuances of their primary (or only) language. Saying what they mean, and meaning what they say is a skill they never learned while ditching English class. While it may not indicate lying, it is embarrassing. I won't even get into spelling or grammar.
Sounds like you are describing your last rollercoaster ride at Coney Island.
It's cause they hovered then went super fast so many times
Why not ISP
I just don’t get why Newark wasn’t the divert airport in the first place, as it is closer to Kennedy?!
Yes, that is exactly why it wasn't their alternate airport. You usually plan for an airport far enough away if you can't land due to weather. Newark is right next to JFK, the chance of the weather being as bad as JFK is pretty high.
Atc and pilot combo working in unison
Why would they divert to Philly from JFK? On Google maps it looks far away.
Probably because EWR also has bad weather
I definitely won’t be flying on JetBlue
you can't declare an emergency for min fuel. by definition, min fuel is not an emergency.
You can declare an emergency for any reason. Too many have crashed because they didn’t.
Up to the PIC to determine an emergency.
@@brianb6957 I suppose that's true as long as the person declaring the emergency realizes that _minimum fuel_ stated by itself would not be an emergency.
@@shreddder999 Agreed
@@shreddder999 It's pretty obvious from he video that they understand that.
Pilot sounds like he is in bad shape right from the get go on this tape
Why don’t Americans ever use the word “mayday” in an emergency? Saying “declare an emergency” is not correct phraseology and does not convey the appropriate urgency.
Declaring an emergency is correct phraseology in the US. No, it's no ICAO but correct phraseology between controllers and pilots operating in US airspace. Declaring an emergency and a mayday call are the exact same thing to US controllers. Outside of the US, not so much.
"declaring Min fuel"
"climb! and use up that fuel!!" 😫
Should they be min fuel after going missed on their first approach? Did they not have IFR fuel mins?
Hello, they will have departed with fuel for destination then alternate plus 30 minutes reserve plus an additional contingency reserve that will depend on their company SOP. However, if delayed enroute to destination they may, without any miscalculation on their part, use up the contingency reserve and end up with insufficient fuel to go missed at destination and still land at the pre planned alternate with final reserve of 30 minutes.
@@XPLAlN It actually burn, alternate, and 45 minutes. Nobody goes with that little. Most are planned with burn, alt, and 60 to 90 more minutes depending on the captain, city pair,...
@@oscarb9139 Final reserve is NOT 45 minutes for this type of flight. International 121 turbine ops are 30 minutes final reserve per CFR 121.645. Regulated contingency fuel is sufficient to cruise for 10% of trip time. On this route the contingency fuel would be little more than 20 minutes, and final reserve would be sufficient to hold at 1500 AAL for 30 minutes. Anything else is either at the discretion of the captain, or a special case imposed by the authority.
@@XPLAlN I am sorry. I was referencing 121.639 for domestic ops as that is what I fly.
@@oscarb9139 roj
Pilots should have declared a fuel emergency immediately after the go around. Avianca 52 was a similar situtation. Afraid to declare a fuel emergency and poor service by New York area ATC.
I agree, except that JFK was slammed due the multiple wind shear-caused go-arounds... we only heard the comms between ATC & JetBlue in this clip, which left out important context.
JFK, Newark, and LaGuardia, were all crazy busy handling go-around traffic *in addition to* their normal arrivals and departures. Under the circumstances, JFK and the surrounding TCAs did stellar jobs. 👍
he seemed smart. went to Newark.
Not having looked at the route offered I suspect that it wasn't particularly direct and with the number of aircraft on divert with them at the back of the line that changed the numbers from ok to we have a problem
What you commented is completely incorrect, this and Avianca have nothing in common. The ATC's did nothing wrong in the case of Avianca. Read the report they were cleared. The FAA settled instead of going to court for political reasons. The Avianca crew never checked the weather forecast for JFK or for that the Northeastern US prior to departure. The pilots failed to use proper communication with ATC in regards to their fuel situation. The crew failed to use CRM as the FE never informed the Captain or FO of how serious their fuel situation was, They also chose to hold instead of diverting before fuel went critical. In addition the their auto-pilot and other systems on the aircraft were in-op which lead to a higher work load and distraction.
None of what I wrote above was the case for this JetBlue flight.
Maintain your BarcaLounger at flight level 3 and contact us next week.
Why do aircraft fuel gauges drop disproportionally fast when in the lower ranges...
Who says they do?
IT'S AN EMERGENCY!!! well...not really just fuel low......IT'S AN EMERGENCY!!!! .....really....
why was EWR not the first choice, it is more convenient for the pax
My guess is they could have potentially similar weather situations that's why in KSEA alot of planes have KPDX as a alternate 100 miles away compared to KPAE only 30 away
What makes you think the weather would be that much better in KEWR then at KJFK? They are not that far from each other.
these dudes dont get paid enough for this shit.
Airliners do not carry any more fuel than absolutely necessary. Yet an aware captain will factor in the fuel at missed to see if they can make the designated alternate. I know this guy was recomputing over and over. Finally made the right choice for EWR. I think they did the right thing.
Not true. The flight plan includes the trip fuel, contingency, alternate, and final reserve. You also add APU time fuel, and taxi time fuel. The regulations address the takeoff fuel, which is after you have run the APU and taxied out to the runway. On arrival at your intended destination you should still have enough fuel to fly for 30 minutes at 1500 feet, plus enough fuel to fly to your alternate destination, plus enough fuel to safely land and taxi there. There's no question about whether they are required to have fuel to reach the alternate.
That generalisation is so far from the truth. Especially airliners sometimes carry a lot more fuel if flying to and out of an airport with expensive fuel. Then sometimes even return fuel is carried on the way out.
@@cageordie Sorry, that is very little fuel.
@@georgeconway4360 Do you understand what I said? Take a full A320-200 flight from ORD to JFK the alternate is BOS. The fuel to get there is 10,625 pounds, alternate is 3,623, contingency is 1,484 and final reserve is 2,475. Taxi and APU fuel is 508 pounds. So the fuel load at pushback should be around 18,700 pounds and on arrival at JFK you should have 7,500 pounds. That is enough for 30 minutes hold plus the 34 minutes calculated to reach BOS. And that still leaves 15 minutes fuel after the 30 minute hold and diversion.
@@cageordie I’m curious! How much experience do you have flying airliners in and out of the New York area?
These poor pilots.
Those guys are in the shit, but they did the right thing, rather than try to get away with it.
i love theses sort of video's but i find it hard in this one why did the pilot want to divert to philly ,then changed his mind and asked for newark couldn't he of simply landed at JFK as normal ?his voice i thought he sounded like he was flapping a little but the ATC kept really calm,thoses men and women do a great job as do pilots can peoplewith more experience here shed a little light on this incident please
The weather at JFK was too poor for the aircraft to land safely - note that ATC said that other aircraft were going around for wind shear. That's basically big changes in windspeed (and even direction) as they fly the approach that prevents them from stabilising their approach.
Philadelphia was their pre-planned diversion (the pilots plan an alternate before flying in case their intended airports is closed, etc for an emergency or they can't land for other reasons). However, it's much further than Newark (the point where they started turning back north is about 1/5th of the way to phili). They're at low altitude and flying against the wind, both of which will hurt eat into their fuel economy, so diverting to Newark is both closer and gives them a tailwind to help stretch their fuel out - useful if they need a go around.
@@winterscrescendo thank you winter for yor excellent reply i'm not an airplane geek like i was back end of the 70'searly 80's as a kid so great how you explained
Why the hell did they go Minimum fuel on this flight?
because they were low on fuel?
Could you possibly put a few more ads, there just wasn't enough to ruin the video
Get UA-cam Premium cheap ass
WOW...that plane pretty much flow over my house when inbound to 22L at Newark. Pilots kept their cool but there was no 45 minutes of reserve fuel aboard after their go-around. I wonder what's the 'rest of the story'?
3:50: Correct response: "Screw you we are proceeding direct. Move everyone out of our way."
You don't declare an emergency for "minimum fuel". You declare an emergency for "emergency fuel".
Minimum fuel means you have enough to land but can’t accept any undue delay. Typically minimum fuel means you have about 1 hour of fuel left.
If you listen close, when the FO said it emergency fuel, it was the captain that came on right after and clarified it.
Well, in the end they had to declare emergency fuel so... Maybe the FO was right all along
Been a problem with JetBlue for years... either their flying with the absolute minimum fuel load with no reserve or not listening to ATC. Many of their pilots are just not disciplined to pay attention. Spent way to much of my time tracking down flights and getting them on the right frequency. But, lo and behold, when they hit minimum fuel, they're on it... every day coming into JFK.
Why don't you check the flight log for the flight? Delayed, rerouted, then held, and you think it was them?
How about you focus on fuel planning and not hostile takeovers of Spirit!
What is the normal air speed?
650 MPH
Under 10,000 ft altitude is maximum 250 knots unless ATC authorizes higher.
Jesus, what a cluster F*** in that planes cabin. Reminds me of the Avianca tragedy.
Seems to me from the route 468 flew that the pilot wasted a lot of fuel going all the way south then back again north, building up to a real emergency. Was/will this protracted approach (be) investigated by NTSB/FAA? Sorry if any flying professional takes umbrage, but I'm only commenting on what I see on the screen.
I’d say that they handled it quite well. I also would say you do not have enough info to say the pilot wasted fuel. Sorry if you take umbrage at my comment.
@@Adair9800 He burned fuel unnecessarily by taking such a circuitous route to finally landing. Like a taxi driver at an airport who drives all around the houses to your hotel, insisting it's the quickest route.
@@SuperLittleTyke We don’t need an investigation. Just read comments on a youtube page and one soon has all the info to make their final ill-informed assessment.
@@Adair9800 It is obvious from the route shown in the video that he could have taken a shortcut to the final destination and saved fuel. Indecision was a key factor.
@@SuperLittleTyke I see what you are saying “Indecision was a key factor”, but key factor in what? That they wasted fuel? They landed safely. It is just your firm opinion that there was indecision. Hardly enough to go on, just by looking at the radar track, and the ATC-Pilot communications.
Why didn't he land heading in the north direction if his fuel was that low?
Not sure… maybe that would be flying towards departing traffic, which ATC like to avoid. Or wind directions might be a factor, for example you generally want to land towards the wind (shortest landing distance) as opposed to with the wind (longest landing distance with high ground speed on touch down). The planners probably made the best decision based on a number of factors.
If I understood others comments they interpreted the radio traffic as fuel level below “min-fuel” and not below “emergency-fuel” levels (still several minutes back in the skies), so getting it down safely on the best runway better than hurry it towards a harder or more dangerous situation.
The wind was right down the runway for 13 - landing north wouldn't have helped in this situation.
@@randomgeocacher Runways that aircraft use are dictated to pilots by the control tower for that particular airport. A pilot could request another runway but the one in use is typically the most ideal.
Wind direction is the most important factor for which runway a plane will land on. It is not ideal to land with a tailwind.
Declaring a fuel emergency is not a light thing to do for any pilot, the FAA will want a detailed report on the whole flight and flying conditions. It is not something any cockpit crew wants to do...FAA 45 minute rule is deadly....
They departed 32 minutes late and lost a further 43 minutes by the time they landed, that included being diverted over Florida and the Carolinas instead of taking the direct route to Delaware. They then had to hold around Atlantic City. Maybe ground hold before departure, then reroute and hold burned through their reserves. Add in the bad weather which was causing the problems and they were just SOL.
The FAA will want a report only if they request one, it's not an automatic.
@@brianb6957 Excellent comment.
45 minute rule is deadly? How so?
@@oscarb9139 I agree. 45 minutes of fuel in these situations of busy, weather, other possible issues, 45 min fuel is way to low. I know that the Faa min, it’s just too low. My carrier almost always uses more. But we narrowly escaped this same situation on the northeast in that same situation that day. Diverted before we ever got close to newark, and all our alternate plans fell out due to storms. No more details, but we landed a little better off than these guys. But headed there.
Kann mir bitte irgendjemand genau, verständlich erklären was diese vectors sind, also was genau fordert der pilot wenn er sagt we need immediate vectors.
Can somebody explain exactly and clearly what these vectors are, the pilot requests.
Ein Vector ist nichts weiter als ein Steuerkurs auf dem Kompass. Wenn also der Lotse sagt "fly heading 360" steuert der Pilot das Flugzeug in diese Richtung, also 360° auf dem Kompass. Das bezeichnet man als Vector. Wenn ein Pilot sagt "request vectors" möchte er vom Lotsen gesagt bekommen, wohin er fliegen soll. In diesem Fall also ein Heading/Steuerkurs was grob in Richtung Philadelphia führt.
@@jazzi_0453 Achso okay, dankeschön.
@@nico.204 tell me exactly how to fly, you navigate instead of me to reduce my navigation workload… pilots only need to change the heading on the auto pilot, basically so simple that even us non-pilots might figure out how to do it. gives pilot more time to focus on flying the plane and maybe read a checklist carefully. In a minimum fuel situation, ATC hopefully finds the best short route with the least unnecessary flight level changes etc.
Why are US flight crews so hopeless at their R/T, largely non-standard and confusing for ATC?
Well, New York approach is the worst of the worst with nonstandard, hurried, and unintelligible radio calls. If you as a pilot speak slowly and with standard phraseology in New York’s airspace, they get quite pissed off at you. It’s a hornets nest there on a clear day, much less with poor weather and diversions happening. Pilots are conditioned to speak quickly and shorten radio calls as much as possible in that airspace. Not saying that’s a good thing, but that is reality.
Why are Euro-Brit Trolls so sour? Is it your 1920's residential plumbing?
US flight crews are the best, foreign flight crews are the worst.
Maybe you should fly on a plane run by a Jamaican airline, with Jamaican flight crew. Pass the rum.
Bad call on PHL. There were much closer airports to start with!
Philly is a good 80 miles away in straight line distance. Not too far but not really close, either
Thing about weather issues is that closer diversion airports are most likely to be problematic.
Newark is only about 20 miles away. Somewhat surprising that the weather was acceptable there when it was so bad at JFK.
@@conorlauren exactly I'm sure the dispatcher picked Philey for the potentially better weather and the ability to bring more fuel
This was an international flight which means Customs needed at whichever airport they diverted to. Closest international airport likely to have acceptable weather would be the planned diversion.
@@conorlauren Perhaps to the non-pilot. However, I have personally witnessed many occasions when a marine layer of thick fog has completely obscured JFK airport and yet EWR airport has perfect visibility. EWR airport has been a lifesaver many times in these situations.
@@BruiserFL
As someone who has never flown outside of an introductory flight in a 172 at Chester, Connecticut (my now wife booked it. I love that woman). I will take your word for it.
Note: I’m out on the California coast. Today specifically was a day where there was a marine layer at the coast but I could actually see from the coast where the marine layer ended a half mile inland.
I owe you a beer.
Perhaps they should add an extra 90 minutes of fuel if the are flying into New York area in bad weather. Or, if they are low on fuel in bad weather, do not even try and divert to another airport. You have to waste an enormous amount of fuel before it compares with the loss or damage to the aircraft or to the loss of life.
Perhaps you should have all of the facts behind this situation before you comment. A lot of variables in play that led to this.
They probably have 90 minutes of fuel above burnout when the weather is bad. There is fuel for alternates when required, and contingency fuel for possible delays. Fuel load is driven by FARs and statistical data to have a good chance for success without the additional cost of carrying excessive amounts of fuel. On longer flights, fuel can impact payload.
Get these ATP flight school train pilots out of your cockpit. How obvious is this. Two guys don’t know whether it’s an emergency or not an emergency, what minimum fuel is and how the hell they got there in the first place. Absolutely incredible
Question: Is ATP flight school producing substandard pilots? I have heard that there is a predicted pilot shortage coming soon. That means more low time pilots.
Where did you get your training?
@@oscarb9139 I don't have any. I'm just a fan of aviation.
@@danmartens8855 Why would you comment on ATP? They are also familiar with min and emergency fuel or they wouldnt have changed their status. Its a really bad idea to comment on things you arent familiar with. Ask questions. Learn. There is a very lengthy comment in another thread that breaks it down very well.
Flying a plane is no different than any other activity. Decisions are made from beginning to end. Sometimes a decision is made, then something changes, so the plan changes. Imagine driving down the highway and everything is hunky dory. Then you pass the offramp you were supposed to take. Suddenly, there are quite a few decisions that have to be made. What exit should I take now? How will i get where i want to go from there? How much extra time will it take....
@@oscarb9139 I didn't comment. I did ask a question.
I’m declaring an emergency but I want to go to the furthest airport. Let’s see here… I’m out of fuel. Let’s get to the closest airport so I don’t crash right?
LLWS is no joke. If I’m unable to land at JFK for windshear, chances are LGA and EWR won’t be options to land either. So PHL was their alternate choice.
Ok, so what's wrong with this picture? They are in the JFK area, they declare min fuel and routing to Philly which is about 65 miles away??? Just turn around and go to JFK or EWR and in 5 minutes your on the ground. What kind of goofball pilots are flying JetBlue's planes?
EWR is likely experiencing same weather issue as JFK
That happens when ATC tells them incoming traffic is too busy for the plane. They were told they were not allowed to land at JFK, as has been originally planned. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pilots, they did great given the situation they were put in.
JetBlue created their own Charlie Foxtrot quagmire by not initially declaring an emergency due to suspected min-fuel. Not sure why they hesitated... perhaps they miscalculated their burn rate... or maybe they didn't want to be called into the Principal's Office (aka, the Chef Pilot) for poor fuel planning... who knows.
Regardless, JetBlue unnecessarily caused undue workload for the already task-saturated TCA and Approach controllers for that insane traffic area. Not only was ATC dealing with their normal high-volume departure and arrival traffic, they alao had to manage the multiple wind shear-caused go-arounds that were still in the air for re-sequencing.
Under those circumstances, JetBlue's crew should have executed Kilo India Sierra Sierra and declared a min-fuel emergency when they first suspected min-fuel. It's way better to be wrong here and land ASAP, rather than unintentionally creating a dire situation by waiting too long.
The New York area ATC did an *amazing* job here (as always), and handled JetBlue with professionalism and patience. Regardless, I'm sure some of them were muttering under their breath at JetBlue... 👍😎
They likely suspected a reasonable routing to Philly and then given their clearance that put them over their 45 minute limit while flying through a S show they realized they needed something else.
Mutter all you want. They did what they had to do.
Windshear was horrible that day! I I diverted to LaGuardia from Heathrow with a charter G650 and was sweating a bit even with an additional 45 minutes of extra fuel for compensating for weather
@@sfpup87 That routing added about 30 miles to drop them on a STAR, they couldn't accept the extra distance so they said so.
@@chrisschack9716 like I said… they didn’t do anything wrong.
Every video I've seen on this channel is absolutely riddled with transcription errors. Should a deaf person be doing transcribing???
Thank you for your comment. There may be some mistakes in transcription. English isn't my native language. I'll try get better.
Jet Blue isn’t the same airline it was a few years ago. I fly a lot and currently will not fly on this airline even if they offer direct flights where others do not. Hopefully they can turn things around.
that's sad. due to jet blue flights no longer flying into/out of my local airport, i haven't flown it in a few years. it used to be my favorite along with virgin america, which is also gone now.
Not impressive pilots.
It's painfully obvious the FO is the one on the radio ... boy, he can't handle pressure for shit. Typical young JetBlue political hire. He's probably gay too. Not surprising.
What's being gay got to do with it?
Not impressed with how this was handled by the pilots...
They were so reluctant to declare, and as a result ended up using up valuable time/fuel. Also, so much non-standard terminology in use.
Lol which runway and which airport. The pilot should look for another career
Ummm, that was ATC asking...not the pilot.
The aircraft was given routing to PHL, which means ATC has our routing in front of them.
Terrible Pilot
SO Every time they ASK For Higher Altitudes . They are Burning More Fuel !!! The Pilot Should of Asked For vectors to Newark . First !! Also its always A good thing to TOP OFF Be for The Flight!!
Man, talk about a back seat driver. You have no idea what your talking about
If you had a remote clue of what you are talking about, you’d know that less fuel is burned the higher you are. And thanks to weight and balance, top offs may not be practical.
Don’t disparage pilots when you aren’t one to begin with.
They should have NEVER took off with out the right amount of FUEL !!! First Fuck up!!
@@markmcdowell6878 Extremely unlikely they would depart without their "MIN Takeoff" Fuel requirement. BTW, you just can't put as much fuel that you want on an aircraft. Doing so could make you too heavy for departure or too heavy to land at your destination. Unlikely in this situation, though. I think it was their unexpected enroute holding that ate up fuel.
I can tell you from personal experience, unexpected turn of events occur after you've departed that can cause fuel situations.
ATC re-routes;
Enroute Holding (which this flight had, according to Flight Aware);
Lower than planned cruising altitude given by ATC.
Blah, blah, blah...etc...
What Happened Was The Pilots Fucked Up !! As Captain of that aircraft he or she should have enough fuel to go from point a to point b. have reserve fuel in case they get vectored around . That Pilot Should be Grounded !!!!