Low fuel emergency in DFW

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BDS" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and
> asked
> for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
> emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
> Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
> them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
> questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
> After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
> the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line
> of
> fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
> arrived. Happily I didn't need them.
>

So they still treated is as an emergency even though you declined to declare
it as such when asked. So what's the point in asking if you wanted to
declare?

[BDS]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> So they still treated is as an emergency even though you declined to
declare
> it as such when asked. So what's the point in asking if you wanted to
> declare?

Good question. Since the fire and rescue guys don't get too much action I
think they like to take every opportunity they can get to roll the
equipment. They seem to spend most of their time polishing it and it's
probably nice to actually drive it to the runway once in awhile.

Also, as I got closer to the airport I was cleared to land on any runway, so
you're right - even ATC was treating it as an emergency.

Things could have been different though, and had I needed priority handling
it would have been better to know that both ATC and I were on the same page
with regard to what we expected from each other.

BDS

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote

> Perhaps more difficult would be getting aircraft off the runway, if
> traffic on the ground were sufficiently congested. What happens if a
> Heavy is taxied onto grass?

??Can you sat, "Stuck?"

Sure, you can!

Perhaps FOD, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> If those distances are correct, yes ATC did not do what it
> should have done. But , do all controllers have hot wives
> who screw around?


Oh boy! Talk about confusing reality with simulation! You've hit it right on
the head!


Manix is indeed none other than John Cusack!

Shortly after Pushing Tin with the Thornton-Jolie couple (whose real life was
nearly perfectly simulated on the big screen years earlier), he effectively
simulated Being John Malkovitch, even from a lounge chair in a living room!

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:1lkEh.3797
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my
>> initial
>> reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency"
>> was
>> not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is
>> requesting
>> 17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."
>>
>
> But that would still be an ATC error.

Oh - I absolutely agree. But it makes the error a communication error caused
by a failure of Center to effectively communicate the Emergency to the Tower.
For whatever reason, that seems to be a much more realistic training issue
than an arrogant controller who refused to accomodate a plane involved in an
emergency issue, which is IMHO more of an attitude issue that may not ever be
corrected by training...

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> I had a generator drop off line on an F4-E once. Everything else was
> working perfectly. Unfurtunately, the Air Force had just passed a rule that
> a failed generator was an emergency. I had to declare an emergency for a
> stupid single generator failure on a two engine airplane. Needless to say,
> I didn't need the army of yellow trucks standing by the side of the runway
> when I landed.

Better to be required to declare unnecssarily than to be forbidden to declare
when it's necessary. Better safe than sorry.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Matt Whiting]

Danny Deger wrote:

> "BDS" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
>>>declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
>>>controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency.
>>
>>I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and
>>asked
>>for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
>>emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
>>Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
>>them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
>>questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
>>After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
>>the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line
>>of
>>fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
>>arrived. Happily I didn't need them.
>>
>>I have gotten older and wiser since then (and have had a few more things
>>break on airplanes while I was flying) - if something like that happens to
>>me again I will immediately declare an emergency and I will have the
>>equipment standing by.
>>
>>BDS
>>
>
>
> I had a generator drop off line on an F4-E once. Everything else was
> working perfectly. Unfurtunately, the Air Force had just passed a rule that
> a failed generator was an emergency. I had to declare an emergency for a
> stupid single generator failure on a two engine airplane. Needless to say,
> I didn't need the army of yellow trucks standing by the side of the runway
> when I landed.

Yes, but they need the practice so it isn't a problem!

Matt

[Mike Young]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
>>>> I "refuse" to hop like a frog.
>>>>
>>>> There's a distinct difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bad analogy. Is there a distinct difference between saying you're
>>> "unable" to hop like a frog, and saying you "refuse" to hop like a frog,
>>> when you ARE able to hop like a frog?
>>
>> Yes, I do believe this is at the crux of this thread (rope). The
>> presumption is that the controller stating UNABLE in any way resembles a
>> pilot's use of UNABLE.
>>
>
> Here's the definition from the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
> UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific instruction,
> request, or clearance.
>
> Do you see a resemblance now?

Clearly, that's the working definition of the word for most literate English
speaking adults. That doesn't shed additional light.

>> We're down to just the semantics of the controller's statement that he
>> was
>> *UNABLE* to land the distressed aircraft on the requested runway.
>>
>
> Well, we know that he was able to, the FAA said so.

Then do tell. Point it out, chapter and verse. A simple URL will suffice.
What exactly did the FAA say in regards to the requested runway?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:19:05 -0800, Tony wrote:

> Still, the PIC should have, and I think by the lessons learned, he and
> future pilots in similiar circumstances, will be, mor assertive.

It's a tough call for the pilot. He or she has no way to know that using
17 isn't a serious safety hazard for some reason. At least, that would be
my first thought upon hearing "unable" from the controller in this
circumstance.

Now, I cannot imagine what that would leave *all* runways 17
hazardous, but I expect that it's possible.

Given time, I'd "negotiate" to determine what presented the least hazard:
landing on a runway with a problem or circling and spending more fuel.
That requires asking about the hazards of the runway. Given the distance,
it appears the pilot had the wall time to ask, but - not knowing anything
about landing a Heavy - I don't know how much free time he or she would
have.

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then do tell. Point it out, chapter and verse. A simple URL will suffice.
> What exactly did the FAA say in regards to the requested runway?
>

"This was a situation where there was confusion about the term 'minimal
fuel' and 'fuel emergency,' " FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. "The
controller was confused about the distinction. When the supervisors became
aware of the incident afterward, they used the tapes as an opportunity to
retrain everyone in the facility that if a pilot declares an emergency, he
should be allowed to land on the runway he's requested."

"We know that we did something that we should have done differently," FAA
spokesman Roland Herwig said. "We should have given the aircraft the closest
runway as opposed to routing him in."

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:30:41 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Airport B can be considered to be just as close as airport A.

If it were me, I'd spiral down rather than head to the farther airport.
Given the number of options that I'd no longer have, that just seems the
safer plan.

I'd hate to be gliding to the farther airport only to hit a wind shift or
some other event which changes the farther airport from "in glide range"
to "out of glide range". That would be embarrassing.

Of course, I'm no glider pilot. They forever operate in what we powered
pilots call emergency circumstances, so they'd have a different
perspective <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Mike Young]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
> snip
>
> You are right. It was controller to controller and not a tape of a
> supervisor.
>
>> It's not the last time that low fuel situations, as distinct from
>> emergencies, will arise.
>
> Why bring up all this with low fuel situations "as distinct from
> emergency". This was clearly and emergency fuel situation and was
> apparently not caused by attempting to keep the load light to save on
> opperating expenses.

There are two points being made here.

A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling. How bad was
that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just sufficient, but
maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks (full as in complying with
take off and landing maxima), how much did he carry, and why? Having left
with less than adequate fuel, at what point did it become an emergency? How
was it "apparently not caused by attempting to keep the load light to save
on opperating expenses"?

I draw the distinction between the chronic, verging on empty, self-inflicted
low fuel situations, and real honest by gosh emergencies. It is chronic and
intentional to arrive at the destination with minimum fuel. The forseeable
consequence of operating with narrow margins is that you'll sometimes exceed
those margins. The press paints a picture of an uncooperative ATC. They
present very few facts and, indeed, just stood there thumping on the "bible"
of FARs. We shouldn't expect the general public to know any better. But the
folks in aviation? All I've heard so far, in the news vid and here, is just
so much more harping on a pilot's right to the runway he requested in that
"emergency". It's a fine line. I submit that there is no such right, as
such, except as an extension of his responsibility for flight safety. Did
he, and his airline, act responsibly? Where's the outcry for their part and
their corrective actions? How is it that you can speak of pic rights,
without mentioning pic responsibilities?

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back and
all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we don't
know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems little
point rehashing it without more facts.

[601XL Builder]

Judah wrote:
> 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in news:45E0A989.1090806
> @suddenlinkDOTnet:
>
>> MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
>> probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.
>
> If the aircraft was on fire, the pilot would probably do an emergency
> accelerated descent. However, if he were at low fuel, an accelerated descent
> would probably not be desirable.
>
> If he was truly at 15,000', and at a 4-5 mi/min airspeed, 81 miles would be
> about right...

If it was a fuel leak. This brings up two issues. Where is it leaking
and is the leaking going to continue at the current rate or increase. If
those are two unknowns I'd want to land ASAP.

[Rich Ahrens]

Don Tuite wrote:
> It's probably just because I got a lot of praise during my early
> toilet training, but I get irked because flyers never get as detailed
> training in emergency radio terminology as recreational boaters do.

Who says we don't? The following passage in the AIM was covered
repeatedly in my training and has been revisited occasionally in BFRs:

6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications

a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain
assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency
in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the
nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired.
Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have
decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.

b. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the
following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.

c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with
the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN
should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.

d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other
communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the
frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other
communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other
stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.

e. Normally, the station addressed will be the air traffic facility or
other agency providing air traffic services, on the frequency in use at
the time. If the pilot is not communicating and receiving services, the
station to be called will normally be the air traffic facility or other
agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, on the
appropriate assigned frequency. If the station addressed does not
respond, or if time or the situation dictates, the distress or urgency
message may be broadcast, or a collect call may be used, addressing "Any
Station (Tower)(Radio)(Radar)."

[Jim Macklin]

TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > If the distance was correct, [first I heard or saw that
was
| > this morning], then yes there was time.
| >
|
| So you posted some three dozen messages without even
bothering to review all
| available relevant information?
|
|
| >
| > But if the plane was 20 miles out, there wasn't time.
| >
|
| If the plane was 20 miles out when the emergency occurred
it would have been
| somewhere southeast of DFW and direct to the field for a
straight-in would
| have been with the flow of traffic.
|
|
| >
| > So what are the facts, not rumors reported by a TV
"reporter."
| >
|
| I don't think anybody is relying rumors reported by a TV
"reporter", they're
| relying on the tapes which were played as part of the
report. Tapes are
| pretty reliable. You didn't even bother to review the
tapes, what were you
| relying on?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.
>

Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?

[Morgans[_2_]]

You are so clueless, it is tough to know where to start.
>
> A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling. How bad was
> that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just sufficient, but
> maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks (full as in complying
> with take off and landing maxima), how much did he carry, and why? Having
> left with less than adequate fuel, at what point did it become an
> emergency? How was it "apparently not caused by attempting to keep the
> load light to save on opperating expenses"?

How much more per ticket are you willing to pay, so airliners can go zipping
around with tanks completely full?
None? I didn't think so.

In this case, it would not have mattered if he had fuel running out of the
vents, or if he had topped off at the end of the taxiway, and taken off in
3o seconds. It was a faulty reading causing the concern.

Jets carry enough fuel to divert to an alternative, plus reserves.
Sometimes they even carry more, as to make a quicker layover, or to save on
fuel costs. How much more do you want them to carry, for cripes sakes?

>
> I draw the distinction between the chronic, verging on empty,
> self-inflicted low fuel situations, and real honest by gosh emergencies.
> It is chronic and intentional to arrive at the destination with minimum
> fuel. The forseeable consequence of operating with narrow margins is that
> you'll sometimes exceed those margins. The press paints a picture of an
> uncooperative ATC. They present very few facts and, indeed, just stood
> there thumping on the "bible" of FARs. We shouldn't expect the general
> public to know any better. But the folks in aviation? All I've heard so
> far, in the news vid and here, is just so much more harping on a pilot's
> right to the runway he requested in that "emergency". It's a fine line. I
> submit that there is no such right, as such, except as an extension of his
> responsibility for flight safety. Did he, and his airline, act
> responsibly? Where's the outcry for their part and their corrective
> actions? How is it that you can speak of pic rights, without mentioning
> pic responsibilities?
>
> Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
> safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
> minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
> controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
> and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
> don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
> little point rehashing it without more facts.

Jeopardizing the safety of all those in the air above DFW? Jeezo Pete!
Give me a break! Scatter the whole pattern? How about maybe 5 or 6? That
is much more realistic than the whole pattern.

This should have been a non incident, if ATC had not dropped the ball. They
are human, and blew it. They know they did. No way was anyone's life in
danger. Putting someone in, even in the wrong direction, is a non issue for
ATC, and an exercise that they are well trained to do- Without Risk To
Anyone!

Save the drama for a movie, or a play. It doesn't play well, here.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:59:34 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>Jets carry enough fuel to divert to an alternative, plus reserves.
>Sometimes they even carry more, as to make a quicker layover, or to save on
>fuel costs. How much more do you want them to carry, for cripes sakes?

Some even ferry fuel, where they pump some out at the destination.
I've had unconfirmed reports that AA ferried fuel from DFW to SJO, a
route I used to fly regularily.

Since DFW is AA's home base, it's possible that they have cheap fuel
there. If they do, many of their DFW bound flights might be planned
to not carry much extra, and not purchase fuel elsewhere.

[Mike Young]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.
>>
>
> Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?

Are you satisfied you heard enough of the tapes? That the context of the
utterances were completely and objectively conveyed?

[Jim Macklin]

Are they edited?



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.
| >
|
| Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you satisfied you heard enough of the tapes? That the context of the
> utterances were completely and objectively conveyed?
>

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are they edited?
>

Probably. Do you believe the portions that were played were altered?

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Save the drama for a movie, or a play. It doesn't play well, here.

After reading your example, I must agree.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Probably.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Are they edited?
| >
|
| Probably. Do you believe the portions that were played
were altered?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Probably.
>

Right. It must be a conspiracy.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Feb 22, 9:03 pm, Roy Smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> "Brian" > wrote:
> > > An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
> > > irrelevant from that point.
>
> > Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
> > runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
> > creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
> > 17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.
>
> When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
> with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
> aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?

You missed the point of my fictional scenrio. The point is that it is
possible that if the pilot continued to 17 without consulting or
getting approval from ATC then there might they might not have run out
gas, because they would have collided with conflicting traffic 1st.
Crashing 2 aircraft instead of one.

As I read the excerpt from artical ATC had every right to suggest
alternatives, They are there to help after all. They had already
suggested two alternative runways to the pilot that he had refused.
Why would they think he wouldn't deny the 3rd alternative. All I see
ATC doing is pointing out the pilot that landing 17 would disrupt
traffic flow and if possilbe 35 would be better. The Pilot evidently
agreed or he would have insisted on runway 17.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Rich Ahrens]

Mike Young wrote:
> A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling.

Is that a fact? Boeing says the -200 has a max range of 3900 nm, the
-300 3395 nm, and the freighter version 3150 nm. Which combination of
continent and ocean did you have in mind? LAX to Heathrow is more than
4700 nm by great circle, for instance.

> How bad was that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just
> sufficient, but maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks
> (full as in complying with take off and landing maxima), how much did
> he carry, and why? Having left with less than adequate fuel, at what
> point did it become an emergency? How was it "apparently not caused
> by attempting to keep the load light to save on opperating
> expenses"?

Because, as has been reported in the press and here in this thread, the
root cause was determined to be a malfunctioning fuel valve. Having fuel
on board that you cannot access can lead to an emergency as well.

> Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
> safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
> minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
> controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
> and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
> don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
> little point rehashing it without more facts.

Yet you're willing to toss out all kinds of speculation and
misinformation without bothering to search out readily available facts.
Hmmmm...

[Clark[_2_]]

Here's one thing that can happen when you run out of fuel in an
airliner, Air Transat Flight 236. Look at some pics on the internet,
they melted the rims off of the plane trying to stop it after crossing
the fence at 200 knots in their GLIDER!.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/aug01/lajes829.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/aug01/ed082901h.html&h=199&w=300&sz=12&hl=en&sig2=gflFfBxWL6J71dL8xhXKEg&start=1&tbnid=jZFpp2blzXZNpM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=116&ei=31_kRYuuHaeWiQH7sJTIBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dair%2Btransat%2Blajes%26svnum%3D10%26 hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
You think maybe the AA pilots had this on their mind when turning down
Addison and askng for a long wide runway that they were intimately
familiar with?
One of the scariest emergency calls I ever heard was an AA Airbus out
of New York, they declared an emergency after takeoff and asked for a
return to JFK. When the controllers asked them for their fuel state
and souls on board, they responded with the number of people and said
"we're not sure how much fuel we have remaining". Later they estimated
they had maybe 15-20 minutes at the rate that it was leaving the
airplane. They made it to JFK. We are talking 10,000 gallons plus that
disappeared. How would you like to make that radio transmission?

Pull up the airport diagram for DFW. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/06039AD.PDF
There are a 7 runways there to land on, esp if you hold some
departures for a few minutes on the inboards (17R or 18L). Taxiway L
was even a runway at one point in the early days. I personally
wouldn't mind holding my takeoff for someone who was coming in with a
fuel emergency. Now anyone who has to go around has probably just
become minimum fuel themselves, so spinning them is not the best
option, now you have a daisy chain of low fuel birds. The controllers
I know are hard workers and do a job I would not (probably could not )
do. My gut feeling here is an important communications lesson was
learned here, with a happy ending. Maybe the phone call could have
gone "AA 489 has declared a fuel emergency, they will be landing 17C
(or17R).", not they "are requesting..." Easier to beg forgiveness than
request permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236