Low fuel emergency in DFW

[Tony]

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> or at least jobs lost.
>
> I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
> Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
> As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
> it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>
> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
> details once the event is over, dammit!
>

I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
both heads should roll.

[Tuno]

And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

[Mike Schumann]

The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want the
hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it to get
to DFW.

Mike Schumann

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tony" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
>> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
>> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
>> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
>> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
>> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
>> or at least jobs lost.
>>
>> I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
>> Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
>> As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
>> it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>>
>> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
>> details once the event is over, dammit!
>>
>
> I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
> reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
> requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
> both heads should roll.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[BT]

I once had a tower controller tell me after I had turned base (close in
base) that I was now sequenced #2 behind a Cessna... I did not see the
Cessna and did not know where it was. I told him UNABLE... other people on
the frequency reported hearing other things that I will deny saying. I was
giving a ride in a Blanik L-13 and I was in the back seat. The controller
promptly sent the Cessna on a go around.

He and his supervisor came over and apologized to us about an hour later.
They were not used to controlling traffic at our field. It was a temporary
tower for a fly in and air show. We had briefed the tower controllers
earlier that when a glider calls the down wind, he owns the runway.

We have parallel runways for glider and power operations, and the tower was
using both runways for power.. as they should because of the increased
traffic.

BT


"Tuno" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
> the passengers by not being P*I*C.
>
> I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
> land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
> making that mistake again ...
>
> -ted
> Ventus 2C "2NO"
>

[Dave S]

Tony wrote:

>
> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
> details once the event is over, dammit!
>

All the PIC had to say was "unable" and say he was landing on 17C. Its
up to the controller to deal with it.

91.3 lets you break all the rules, but you have to account for them
later on review.

Dave

[d&tm]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> or at least jobs lost.
>
from reading the tone of your post , I presume you think this is all the
controllers fault?
I suspect the PIC has a damn lot of explaining to do to keep his job..
terry

[Thomas Borchert]

Tony,

> butr damn it, heads should roll,
> or at least jobs lost.
>

If any, then the pilot's. He/She would have needed to be more
assertive. IN an emergency, you don't request a runway, you tell the
controller which one you're landing on. If you find the time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
> really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
> suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
> conclussions.
>
> Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
> declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
> you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
> available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want
> the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it
> to get to DFW.
>

I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
> that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

Once you've declared an emergency, denial is moot. ATC's only responsibility
is to keep other people out of your way.

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

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> from reading the tone of your post , I presume you think this is all the
> controllers fault?
> I suspect the PIC has a damn lot of explaining to do to keep his job..

Maybe, but the controller should be the first one out the door.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> If any, then the pilot's. He/She would have needed to be more
> assertive.

You don't need to be assertive in an emergency. You're already in charge.

> IN an emergency, you don't request a runway, you tell the
> controller which one you're landing on.

Yes. But there are two potential issues here, one being the controller's
behavior, the other being the pilot's behavior.

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

[Jim Macklin]

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Mike Schumann" > wrote
in message
| .. .
| >
| > The controller made an interesting suggestion that if
the aircraft was
| > really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer
airport. I would
| > suggest that it would be wise to get the full info
before jumping to
| > conclussions.
| >
| > Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was
when the pilot
| > declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an
emergency, particularly if
| > you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land
at the closest
| > available field. It is certainly conceivable that the
pilot didn't want
| > the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was
trying to streach it
| > to get to DFW.
| >
|
| I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had
an emergency, and
| that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.
|
|

[Tony]

You're correct about the tone of my post. In my view, if I say
'emergency' that's it. If the controller offers something like this
one did, -- I think he said "Unable 17,C circle to land 31 R", it
might have been reasonable (?) for the pilot to assume there were real
reasons, not convenience, that did not allow him to use 17 L, C, or
R.

Still, the PIC should have, and I think by the lessons learned, he and
future pilots in similiar circumstances, will be, mor assertive. I
also think it will be a long time before another controller makes the
same mistake.

This ATC problem has a happy ending -- no one got hurt, and lessons
were learned.





On Feb 22, 2:44 am, "d&tm" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> > fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> > Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> > I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> > that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> > a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> > had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> > or at least jobs lost.
>
> from reading the tone of your post , I presume you think this is all the
> controllers fault?
> I suspect the PIC has a damn lot of explaining to do to keep his job..
> terry

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-02-22, Jim Macklin <p51mustang> wrote:
> How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
> pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
> an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
> to go away.

I'm sure if this had resulted in (a non-fiery, given the lack of fuel)
crash, this would really have comforted the crew and passengers on that
plane.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Leonard Ellis]

Not to stir the pot too much, but my impression from the media reports here
in Dallas (assuming they are accurate and complete): the airplane was a B757
and ATC offered the flight two adequate runways closer to his/her ground
track to DFW (McKinney [KTKI] and Addison [KADS]). Per the media reports,
the PIC declined both, I imagine for many reasons including inconvenience to
his passengers and heat from his company. From ATC's perspective, because
he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
"EMERGENCY."

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested, in
my opinion the PIC should suffer a serious roasting for declining two
adequate closer runways (especially McKinney), chosing instead to fly his
reportedly critically low-fuel bird over the much more densely populated
areas closer to DFW enroute to either DFW's 17C or 31R. If he truly had
insufficient fuel to make a safe landing anywhere, going down in the
relatively sparsely populated countryside would have likely risked far fewer
lives than trying to put that B757 down on a crowded freeway, a lake or
river, or into someone's neighborhood.

Cheers,
Leonard
"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
> really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
> suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
> conclussions.
>
> Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
> declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
> you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
> available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want
> the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it
> to get to DFW.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Tony" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>>
>>> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
>>> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
>>> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
>>> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
>>> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
>>> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
>>> or at least jobs lost.
>>>
>>> I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
>>> Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
>>> As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
>>> it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>>>
>>> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
>>> details once the event is over, dammit!
>>>
>>
>> I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll.
>> The reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied
>> the requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I
>> think both heads should roll.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Tuno" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
> the passengers by not being P*I*C.
>
> I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
> land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
> making that mistake again ...

"Unable" is a word that should be used, and with emphasis, then do what you
need to do, and sort it out later.

The only reason I could see for a glider not given priority, is another
glider closer than you, or a balloon., right?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Macklin" <> wrote

> How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
> pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
> an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
> to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
> which seems to be the better solution.

It would not have a been a "better solution" if he had run out of fuel
while maneuvering, and killed a few hundred people.

Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
right. He should have given the clearance requested, then later the
situation should be toughly investigated and the pilot reamed, if it was not
a true emergency, or if it was, then perhaps a different kind of reaming.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> Cool. So next time someone declares an emergency, ATC is free to vector
> aircraft into each other, as their "only responsibility is to keep
> other people out of your way."
>
> Next time, engage your brain before you start typing, asshole.

I assumed a basic knowledge of ATC principles among those reading my post.
Obviously my assumption was not entirely correct. Sorry.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
> right. He should have given the clearance requested ...

A pilot in an emergency doesn't need a clearance; he only needs to state his
intentions.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Leonard Ellis writes:

> From ATC's perspective, because
> he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
> "EMERGENCY."

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

> In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested ...

A pilot who has declared an emergency doesn't require that anything be
granted--he simply states his intentions. ATC's responsibility is to work
with and around the emergency.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> That statement makes it pretty clear that you don't understand this thread.

I understand the FARs, which is a lot more important.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
> pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
> an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
> to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
> which seems to be the better solution.
>

Irrelevant. The only acceptable response to any declared emergency is to
give the pilot whatever he wants.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Leonard Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not to stir the pot too much, but my impression from the media reports
> here in Dallas (assuming they are accurate and complete): the airplane was
> a B757 and ATC offered the flight two adequate runways closer to his/her
> ground track to DFW (McKinney [KTKI] and Addison [KADS]). Per the media
> reports, the PIC declined both, I imagine for many reasons including
> inconvenience to his passengers and heat from his company. From ATC's
> perspective, because he/she declined both alternatives airports, the
> "emergency" wasn't really an "EMERGENCY."
>
> In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested,
> in my opinion the PIC should suffer a serious roasting for declining two
> adequate closer runways (especially McKinney), chosing instead to fly his
> reportedly critically low-fuel bird over the much more densely populated
> areas closer to DFW enroute to either DFW's 17C or 31R. If he truly had
> insufficient fuel to make a safe landing anywhere, going down in the
> relatively sparsely populated countryside would have likely risked far
> fewer lives than trying to put that B757 down on a crowded freeway, a lake
> or river, or into someone's neighborhood.
>

The pilot's actions can be judged after the event. During the emergency he
gets whatever he wants.

[Brian[_1_]]

> 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.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

The Pilot had every right to request it.
ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)
ATC has every right to insist as well but would have explain why he
could not use Runway 17. (Example, Departing aircraft runway 17)

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Dave J]

> Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.


I've been lurking and watching the various attempts to silence mxmanic
for the past couple of months and really wondering what it is about
his
postings that get pilots (including me at times) so worked up.

Clearly, he can be a little annoying, but then, so are most of us to a
degree, so I don't really think that's it. He is also obviously quite
interested in aviation, and is knowledge of theory of flight, FARs,
etc,
is probably better than more than a few pilots I know.

So, then, what's the problem? I think it boils down to the fact that
it's hard for a non-pilot to fully understand at a visceral level,
what
piloting is. Of course, it's about knowledge and skill, but I think
anyone who has been flying long enough knows that the true job of a
pilot is to exercise excellent judgment -- in real time, with
incomplete
information, and in a situation where the consequences are totally
real
and completely non-negotiable.

Being PIC is an exercise in what economists might call "bounded
rationality". You often cannot make globally optimal decisions. The
best
you can do is make decisions that are "locally" optimal based on the
information
and time you have. The FARs, interestingly enough, are only one input
among many to this process. They are by no means that ultimate
authority.

Contrarily, though debating on the Internet what would have been the
best
course of action in a given situation is a favorite passtime of
pilots,
I think we all know that such debate does not capture "piloting." At
best
it gives us opportunities to consider possible game plans for
scenarios
in which we might find ourselves one day.

Anyway, this, I think, is what the "mxmanics" of the world don't seem
to
"get." It's not that they're bad people, they're just not pilots.

Now, back to our story. I think it's fair to say that there is no
reason the pilot and controllers cannot both take blame for this
near-disaster. The pilot should have acted in whatever way he believed
was safest. It has nothing to do with FARs or procedures. It has to
do with whose hands are on the yoke. Pilots who don't understand that
from their training are a danger to us all. At the same time, this guy
is going to have to explain how he got into this particular situation
in the first place. And finally, if you ask me, although the
controller
should not have denied the request, he is less at fault in my mind
than
the pilot. The controller, ultimately does not "control" the flight --
both he and the pilot should have both known that.

my $0.02,
-- dave j

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Tony" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
>>Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
>>fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
>>Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>>
>>I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
>>that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
>>a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
>>had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
>>or at least jobs lost.
>>
>>I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
>>Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
>>As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
>>it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>>
>>We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
>>details once the event is over, dammit!
>>
>
>
> I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
> reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
> requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
> both heads should roll.

Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
> pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
> an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
> to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
> which seems to be the better solution.

And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short of 31, do you
still like this better solution?

I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone forge a post?

Matt

[BDS]

"Brian" > wrote

> 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.

From an article referenced by ATC-News:

"(February 21, 2007)--Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport have been retrained after a pilot was denied a runway
request after declaring a low-fuel emergency.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight arriving
at DFW from Tulsa, Okla. The captain declared the emergency and asked to
land against the flow of traffic. But a controller supervisor said that
type of landing would delay other flights. A controller suggested the pilot
land on a different shorter runway or possibly divert to Dallas Love Field.
The pilot accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained DFW controllers to clarify
the controllers understanding and handling of such incidents."

It would appear that the FAA does not agree with how the controllers handled
the situation.

BDS

[Jim Macklin]

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
long sequenced flights.
Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?
If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.

BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as
a
| > pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about
half
| > an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other
airplanes
| > to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the
traffic,
| > which seems to be the better solution.
|
| And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short
of 31, do you
| still like this better solution?
|
| I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone
forge a post?
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as
a
| > pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about
half
| > an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other
airplanes
| > to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the
traffic,
| > which seems to be the better solution.
| >
|
| Irrelevant. The only acceptable response to any declared
emergency is to
| give the pilot whatever he wants.
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
> do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.

It's not up to the controller to make that decision.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
> flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
> the way to turn the airport around.

The other 12-30 airplanes have not declared emergencies.

> Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
> did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
> fuel, did they have a leak?

It's not up to the pilot to justify his emergency, nor is it the controller's
role to second-guess him.

> If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
> easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
> runway.

If there is nobody on the runway, he has a clear shot. If he's out of fuel,
it doesn't really matter, as there may not be any other options.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> 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.

ATC has no right to deny anything; it can only work around an emergency. The
PIC is the final authority when it comes to deciding what is or is not
acceptable or possible in an emergency.

> If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
> that.

With a declared emergency, telling ATC that he will be using runway 17 is all
that's necessary. The pilot is not required to give options to ATC.

> ATC had every right to deny it.

As I've said, ATC cannot deny anything to an aircraft with a declared
emergency.

> The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
> have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
> runway 17)

The pilot doesn't even have to talk to ATC. He can just land if he has to. A
declared emergency relieves ATC of all authority.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
> the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
> controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
> fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

The PIC is the sole judge of what is safe or not on the flight. He has the
option of deciding to do something different if he considers it safe. He even
has the option of following a _suggestion_ from ATC. But he doesn't _have_ to
listen to ATC, and ATC cannot _deny_ him anything, once he has declared an
emergency.

Perhaps he felt that he could safely land a different way; the investigation
will determine this. If he changed his plans solely on the basis of what ATC
told him, however, and this further endangered the flight, then perhaps a
change of career is advisable.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.

Yes, legally they are very important indeed, because they give a pilot in an
emergency full authority to do anything he considers necessary for safety,
which means that ATC has nothing to say in the matter. A pilot who declares
an emergency and ignores ATC is fully covered legally, as long as he was
maintaining the safety of the flight. Indeed, he doesn't even have to declare
an emergency for that, but it's administratively easier if he does.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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.
>

Impossible scenario.


>
> If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
> that.
>

He did.


>
> The Pilot had every right to request it.
>

Correct.

>
> ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
>

Absolutely incorrect. FAAO 7110.65 tells an aircraft with an emergency has
priority over all other aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
> flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
> the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
> smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
> long sequenced flights.
> Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
> did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
> fuel, did they have a leak?
>

They didn't know how the situation developed, they mentioned a leak as a
possibility.


>
> If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
> easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
> runway.
>

No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.


>
> BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
> newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!
>

The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
> do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.
>

Wrong. The emergency aircraft instantly becomes number one for his
requested runway. Any aircraft that might delay it's arrival is moved or
held.

[Roy Smith]

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?

[Jim Macklin]

moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.
It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.

There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
it might not have.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into
the
| > flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out
of
| > the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
| > smaller airports never has a slack time, there are
always
| > long sequenced flights.
| > Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long
flight...why
| > did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart
without
| > fuel, did they have a leak?
| >
|
| They didn't know how the situation developed, they
mentioned a leak as a
| possibility.
|
|
| >
| > If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
| > easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at
the
| > runway.
| >
|
| No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.
|
|
| >
| > BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
| > newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!
| >
|
| The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no
question about it.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
air.
ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
maintain VFR and good luck!"


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Not if that would take longer than what the controller
can
| > do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.
| >
|
| Wrong. The emergency aircraft instantly becomes number
one for his
| requested runway. Any aircraft that might delay it's
arrival is moved or
| held.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.
> It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
> have a place for it to go.
>

It's easier than you think.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
> ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
> air.
> ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
> an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
> maintain VFR and good luck!"
>

You've seen too many bad aviation movies.

[Mike Young]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" <> wrote
>
>> How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
>> pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
>> an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
>> to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
>> which seems to be the better solution.
>
> It would not have a been a "better solution" if he had run out of fuel
> while maneuvering, and killed a few hundred people.
>
> Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
> right. He should have given the clearance requested, then later the
> situation should be toughly investigated and the pilot reamed, if it was
> not a true emergency, or if it was, then perhaps a different kind of
> reaming.

"Might I suggest a closer airport?" seems to sum it up.

If it were strictly a fuel emergency, diverting to take on fuel would solve
the problem completely without upsetting the whole sector. The real issue
was one pilot willing to maintain his route and schedule at the expense of
everyone else in the air, including those onboard his own plane. If there's
justice in this world, bury him in paperwork for the duration of his
administrative leave. After a humbly apologetic ASRS, write 100,000,000
times longhand "I will place the safety of others above my own convenience."
We learn and grow from our mistakes. His was such that he should reach 8 ft.
tall by summer.

Frankly, I'm dismayed and more than a little frightened by the shrill tone
that has become common on news broadcasts in the past few years, and the
unthinking echo emanating from the skulls they seem to penetrate so easily.

[Jim Macklin]

And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you can
clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
emergency in line.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly
become
| > ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in
the
| > air.
| > ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there
is
| > an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
| > maintain VFR and good luck!"
| >
|
| You've seen too many bad aviation movies.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW
area.
| > It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane
and
| > have a place for it to go.
| >
|
| It's easier than you think.
|
|

[d&tm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:
>
> > Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.
>
> Yes, legally they are very important indeed, because they give a pilot in
an
> emergency full authority to do anything he considers necessary for safety,
> which means that ATC has nothing to say in the matter. A pilot who
declares
> an emergency and ignores ATC is fully covered legally, as long as he was
> maintaining the safety of the flight. Indeed, he doesn't even have to
declare
> an emergency for that, but it's administratively easier if he does.
>
> --
>
So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to take
into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they had to
balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to err in
favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a duty of
care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
terry

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
> sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
> all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
> possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you can
> clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
> emergency in line.
>

Is anything possible in less than a certain amount of time? What I said
was correct.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
> the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
> to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?
>

What is easier for ATC is not an issue. When a pilot declares an emergency
you give him whatever he wants.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
> that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
> pilot
> was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to take
> into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they had
> to
> balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to err
> in
> favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a duty
> of
> care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
> terry
>

Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Might I suggest a closer airport?" seems to sum it up.
>
> If it were strictly a fuel emergency, diverting to take on fuel would
> solve the problem completely without upsetting the whole sector. The real
> issue was one pilot willing to maintain his route and schedule at the
> expense of everyone else in the air, including those onboard his own
> plane. If there's justice in this world, bury him in paperwork for the
> duration of his administrative leave. After a humbly apologetic ASRS,
> write 100,000,000 times longhand "I will place the safety of others above
> my own convenience." We learn and grow from our mistakes. His was such
> that he should reach 8 ft. tall by summer.
>
> Frankly, I'm dismayed and more than a little frightened by the shrill tone
> that has become common on news broadcasts in the past few years, and the
> unthinking echo emanating from the skulls they seem to penetrate so
> easily.
>

If ATC does not grant a pilot's request in an emergency and the flight does
not then land uneventfully, who will be held responsible?

[Tony]

This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

,



DFW Air Traffic Controllers Retrained

Last Edited: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST
Created: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST

DFW International Airport FORT WORTH --
Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
have been retrained after a pilot declared a low-fuel emergency but
wasn't allowed to land on the runway he requested.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight
between Tulsa and D-FW, according to a report in Wednesday editions of
The Dallas Morning News. The captain asked to land against the flow of
traffic.

"We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on
the ground right away, please," the pilot says on audiotapes obtained
by a television station.

A controller supervisor is heard saying that type of landing would
delay other flights. A comptroller suggests the pilot land on a
different runway or possibly go to Dallas Love Field. The pilot
accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

"That is not normal," Denny Kelly, a retired Braniff Airways
captain and aviation consultant, said of the air traffic controller's
decision. "That airplane could have run out of fuel, flamed out and
crashed."

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained D-FW controllers
to clarify handling of such incidents.

"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."






On Feb 23, 5:51 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Might I suggest a closer airport?" seems to sum it up.
>
> > If it were strictly a fuel emergency, diverting to take on fuel would
> > solve the problem completely without upsetting the whole sector. The real
> > issue was one pilot willing to maintain his route and schedule at the
> > expense of everyone else in the air, including those onboard his own
> > plane. If there's justice in this world, bury him in paperwork for the
> > duration of his administrative leave. After a humbly apologetic ASRS,
> > write 100,000,000 times longhand "I will place the safety of others above
> > my own convenience." We learn and grow from our mistakes. His was such
> > that he should reach 8 ft. tall by summer.
>
> > Frankly, I'm dismayed and more than a little frightened by the shrill tone
> > that has become common on news broadcasts in the past few years, and the
> > unthinking echo emanating from the skulls they seem to penetrate so
> > easily.
>
> If ATC does not grant a pilot's request in an emergency and the flight does
> not then land uneventfully, who will be held responsible?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[d&tm]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "d&tm" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
> > that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
> > pilot
> > was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to
take
> > into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they
had
> > to
> > balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to
err
> > in
> > favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a
duty
> > of
> > care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
> > terry
> >
>
> Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

Not relevant. Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
anything he wanted and to hell with ATC. I was trying to point out that
this is not logical and used a hypothetical example to make the point.
I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread , of how mxmanic is
continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.
terry

[Thomas Borchert]

Brian,

> > An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
> > irrelevant from that point.
>
> Not at all true.
>

In case you hold a pilot certificate, you seriously need to rethink your
role. The term is "pilot IN COMMAND", emphasis mine. Nowhere in that term
does it say that ATC is really in command of the plane you fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Tony wrote:
> This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
> here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
> screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
> on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
> and blame will be sorted out later.

That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
situation is over.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
> do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.

I would hope most controllers are trained for this and can handle it.
If not, then we need new controllers, but I suspect 98% would handle
this just fine.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
> ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
> air.
> ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
> an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
> maintain VFR and good luck!"

Jim, you are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of how the
ATC system works. Look how fast they cleared the skies after 9/11. And
that was the entire country, not just the 30 miles around DFW.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> If ATC does not grant a pilot's request in an emergency and the flight does
> not then land uneventfully, who will be held responsible?

The PIC. ATC doesn't have to grant requests for an aircraft that has declared
an emergency, as it is already entitled to do whatever it needs to do. A PIC
who doesn't understand this is not properly carrying out his duty.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
> sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
> all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
> possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you can
> clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
> emergency in line.

I certainly don't always agree with Steven, but I'm betting he's a lot
more familiar with moving airplanes out of the way that you are or than
I am.


Matt

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
> ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
> air.

Those other airplanes can easily get out of the way, as they are not involved
in an emergency. It's not as if these aircraft are only twenty feet apart.

> ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
> an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
> maintain VFR and good luck!"

It's not quite as simple as that, but sometimes it's close. It helps that
other pilots will probably hear what is going on and will be prepared to do
whatever is required to assist.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
> flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
> the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
> smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
> long sequenced flights.
> Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
> did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
> fuel, did they have a leak?
> If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
> easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
> runway.

They do this all of the time when a thunderstorm passes over the
airport. There are procedures to interrupt traffic flow for periods of
time such as this.

If the flight had insisted on using 17C, the only time it takes is for
the airplane to get to the runway. There is no extra 30 minutes. Where
do you get that from?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
> the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
> to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?

It is easier than having an airliner run out of fuel and crash.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
> sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
> all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
> possible in less than a certain amount of time ...

That amount of time can be extremely short with good controllers and good
pilots. In no time a path can be cleared for the flight in trouble.

> ... yet you can
> clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
> emergency in line.

You don't do any of that. The plane with the emergency tells you his
intentions, and you work with that. You don't "fit" the airplane anywhere,
you just deal with whatever the airplane needs to do. In practice, this means
getting everyone else out of the way.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.

Simple or not, it has to be done.

> It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
> have a place for it to go.

It takes only a few seconds.

> There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
> investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
> wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
> ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
> safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
> it might not have.

If there is anyone on 17C, you have him clear the runway. If there is anyone
above decision height for landing, you have him go around. If he's below, you
have him land and get out of the way ASAP. Anyone taking off is similarly
vectored out of the way. Problem solved.

Everyone else is far enough away to be immediately moved out of the way. And
they'll be listening and waiting for instructions, which they will execute
instantly, you can be sure of that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
> the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
> to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?

There's plenty of room in the sky. You just clear a path to the runway, which
is easy. It's awkward, but any competent controller should be able to do it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

There's _never_ a fully-laden 747 that can't be moved in time, unless it is
chained to ring bolts in the concrete of the runway. A 747 can be out of the
way in seconds.

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

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
> anything he wanted and to hell with ATC.

Yes. It's in the rules and regulations, for both ATC and pilots. And the
regulations are completely unambiguous about this.

The pilot in command is master and commander of the flight, following the
maritime tradition. He is 100% responsible for the flight, and he has 100%
authority for its safety. It's a time-tested principle and it works well.

> I was trying to point out that this is not logical and used a
> hypothetical example to make the point.

It's completely logical, which is why it has applied for centuries.

> I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread, of how mxmanic is
> continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
> ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
> about ATC than the controllers.

This issue has nothing to do with ATC. Once the pilot declares an emergency,
ATC is out of the loop. The error in the incident under question was that ATC
didn't understand this. A possible secondary error was that the pilot may not
have understood it, either, but that remains to be seen with a fuller
investigation. The error of ATC Is indisputable and grave.

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

[Mxsmanic]

d&tm writes:

> So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
> that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
> was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?

If he felt this was necessary to ensure the safety of his flight, yes.

In practice, of course, fully laden 747s can be moved in a few seconds.

A pilot with an emergency has the right to do whatever is necessary to
maintain safety, no questions asked. ATC has nothing to say in this matter.
They just listen to the pilot's intentions and route other traffic
accordingly.

> ATC have to take into account the safety of all aircraft in their
> control, and if they had to balance the risk of one aircraft versus
> another, surely they have to err in favour of the aircraft who has
> done nothing wrong.

ATC is not a player here. Once the pilot has declared an emergency, ATC has
no authority at all. It still has to try to keep other traffic safe, but the
pilot of the aircraft with the emergency does whatever he wants, irrespective
of anything ATC might think.

> The pilot has a duty of care to other people apart from his own
> aircraft and pax.

His first and overriding duty is to his own flight, because he is the pilot in
command of that flight. The other flights are commanded by other pilots.

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

[Tony]

ATC supervisors have admitted the organization errored in how this
flight was handled and are retraining the DFW controllers.


It is quite incorrect to suggest they are not players -- their
specific responsibility is to make it as safe as possible for the PIC
who has declared an emergency to do what he deems necessary to resolve
the emergency.


On Feb 23, 7:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> d&tm writes:
> > So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
> > that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
> > was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?
>
> If he felt this was necessary to ensure the safety of his flight, yes.
>
> In practice, of course, fully laden 747s can be moved in a few seconds.
>
> A pilot with an emergency has the right to do whatever is necessary to
> maintain safety, no questions asked. ATC has nothing to say in this matter.
> They just listen to the pilot's intentions and route other traffic
> accordingly.
>
> > ATC have to take into account the safety of all aircraft in their
> > control, and if they had to balance the risk of one aircraft versus
> > another, surely they have to err in favour of the aircraft who has
> > done nothing wrong.
>
> ATC is not a player here. Once the pilot has declared an emergency, ATC has
> no authority at all. It still has to try to keep other traffic safe, but the
> pilot of the aircraft with the emergency does whatever he wants, irrespective
> of anything ATC might think.
>
> > The pilot has a duty of care to other people apart from his own
> > aircraft and pax.
>
> His first and overriding duty is to his own flight, because he is the pilot in
> command of that flight. The other flights are commanded by other pilots.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

> > This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
> > here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
> > screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
> > on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
> > and blame will be sorted out later.
>
> That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
> for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
> situation is over.
>
This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this question,
but it is at least amoung the most recent.

I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31, 2006,
which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television news
item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple of
days.

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency" plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I am not concluding, just very curious.
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

D&tm,

> yet how many pilots here think they know more
> about ATC than the controllers.
>

You're answering to a controller, IIRC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
> audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?
>
> My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
> lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
> actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
plus
> one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
> quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I was looking for something like that too, also to see if the crew ever
really declared an emergency using the proper phraseology. I couldn't find
a transcript either, so there is some gray area here.

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.

As an aside, a few years ago a pilot flying a twin lost an engine and was
inbound to the airport for landing. The controllers asked him if he was
declaring an emergency and he said no. As he got closer a conflict
developed and guess what, the twin was told to go around. No emergency
(properly declared) = no priority.

BDS

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
> sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
> all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
> possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you can
> clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
> emergency in line.


I'm no expert, and I wasn't there, but presumably the AA declared the
emergency at some point before reaching short-final for the requested
runway. I suspect it doesn't take all that much time to send P&H traffic
off to taxiways, get landing traffic vectored out of the way and assigned
to holds, or on the ground and off the runways safely ahead of the
emergency aircraft. We're talking about DFW - a Class B with mostly airline
traffic (capable of understanding missed approach procedures and holding
assignments) and multiple parallel or near-parallel, non-crossing runways
(I think they have 5 parallel runways, and two more that don't cross)...
LOTS of options to get this guy on the ground safely without too much
inconvenience. If 35C didn't work for them because they had departing
traffic, they could have sent him to any of 4 other parallel runways!
Instead they had him circle around. That's ludicrous if you ask me.

Quite frankly, I would be more concerned if something like this happened at
a smaller airfield because there are fewer options - crossing runways,
possible VFR traffic that does not know from holds or missed approaches,
fewer control sectors, and much more required coordination with fewer
bodies and frequencies to manage it.

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in news:
:

> It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
> flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
> the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many

You're missing the point. This is not a wind change. No one is suggesting
turning the other planes around. The appropriate action would be to STOP
the flow of traffic until the aircraft with the emergency was safely on the
ground. Presumably, depending on separation requirements, they may still be
able to continue releasing traffic as long as practical until the emergency
aircraft is within some range. And yes, as a result, some delays might be
caused in the DFW schedule that day.

But guess what? Stuff like that happens... What do they do when there are
hurricane-force winds or severe thunderstorms? They deal with the problem,
some planes get delayed, and everybody ultimately gets safely to their
destination.

Same happened here, but had the fuel emergency been more severe the delays
caused by a crashed airliner trying to circle to land would have been much
more significant...


> BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
> newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!

I agree with you 100% here. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most
news stories contain significant innacuracies or ommissions in order to
sensationalize and emotionalize the reader/viewer/listener.

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:06:39 -0800, Brian wrote
(in article om>):

>> 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.
>
> If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
> that.
>
> The Pilot had every right to request it.
> ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)

Nonsense. The pilot declared low fuel. He is in command of the aircraft. ATC
had no right to deny anything, especially for the stated reason that it
"might delay some flights," which comes across as downright frivolous.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mike Schumann]

From what I remember that took a couple of hours before eveyone was on the
ground.

Mike Schumann

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become ghosts, not
>> take any volume or be physically manifest in the air.
>> ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is an emergency
>> in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away, maintain VFR and good luck!"
>
> Jim, you are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of how the ATC
> system works. Look how fast they cleared the skies after 9/11. And that
> was the entire country, not just the 30 miles around DFW.
>
> Matt



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it off
the runway. There's a lot of mass involved. Plus, you may have taxiways
that are clogged with other traffic. 747s don't make good off road
vehicles.

Mike Schumann

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?
>
> There's _never_ a fully-laden 747 that can't be moved in time, unless it
> is
> chained to ring bolts in the concrete of the runway. A 747 can be out of
> the
> way in seconds.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained fuel
shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest airport?
Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks are a
serious fire hazard.

Mike Schumann

"Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> MXMORON WROTE
>
>
>>> Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.
>
>>Yes, legally they are very important indeed
>
> Up there in the top ten stupidest things I've read on usenet.
>
> Thanks for the laugh, ****-stain.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Judah]

"d&tm" > wrote in
:

> So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
> that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
> pilot was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have
> to take into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if
> they had to balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely
> they have to err in favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong.
> The pilot has a duty of care to other people apart from his own aircraft
> and pax. terry

Presumably, landing on a fully laden 747 would not be considered "ensuring
the safety of flight." Certainly that would be the PIC's responsibility,
whether or not ATC advised him...

From a practical standpoint, I believe it would be reasonable (and perhaps
even be Tower's responsibility) for Tower to inform the Pilot that he had
requested a runway that was opposite the current direction of traffic, and
ask the pilot if he would be able to circle to land with the current traffic
flow.

[Mike Schumann]

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:06:39 -0800, Brian wrote
> (in article om>):
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
>> that.
>>
>> The Pilot had every right to request it.
>> ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
>
> Nonsense. The pilot declared low fuel. He is in command of the aircraft.
> ATC
> had no right to deny anything, especially for the stated reason that it
> "might delay some flights," which comes across as downright frivolous.
>
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Allen[_1_]]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained fuel
> shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest
> airport? Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks
> are a serious fire hazard.
>
> Mike Schumann

Which airport would that have been?

Allen

[Allen[_1_]]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
> is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
> closer airport.
>
> Mike Schumann

He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you land?
What were the weather conditions?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Allen wrote:

>
> He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
> 13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you
> land? What were the weather conditions?

KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in his
flight path.

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>> He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
>> 13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you land?
>> What were the weather conditions?

> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in
> his flight path.


If he had an engine on fire or smoke in the cockpit, would he have continued
on to DFW, or chosen KTKI or KADS?


Montblack

[Ross]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Allen wrote:
>
>
>>He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
>>13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you
>>land? What were the weather conditions?
>
>
> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in his
> flight path.
>
>
>

I believe you normally cross Bonham at 11K and near KTKI you are around
6K and going down.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"d&tm" > wrote in message
...
>
> yet how many pilots here think they know more about ATC than the
> controllers.
>

Many are absolutely convinced of it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:j6DDh.16393$z6.4505@bigfe9...
>
> This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this question,
> but it is at least amoung the most recent.
>
> I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31,
> 2006,
> which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television news
> item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple of
> days.
>
> My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
> audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?
>
> My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
> lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
> actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
> plus
> one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
> quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.
>

ABC news played the tapes in their report. The pilot used the word
"emergency" to declare that he had an emergency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
> is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
> closer airport.
>

What closer airport?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it
> off the runway.

So not very long at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Schumann writes:

> Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it off
> the runway. There's a lot of mass involved.

A 747 on the runway will have its engines running. It can be clear of the
runway in a few seconds. And in this case, it would have far more time to get
clear, probably several minutes.

Of course, this is all a hypothesis that has no real basis in reality. In
reality, 747s do not sit on the runway blocking traffic.

> Plus, you may have taxiways that are clogged with other traffic.

No, you don't. The taxiways off the runway are clear. Aircraft may be
taxiing in other areas, but they are not parking on the taxiways directly
adjacent to the runway.

> 747s don't make good off road vehicles.

They don't have to. They can move very quickly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Schumann writes:

> Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained fuel
> shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest airport?

There are many possible reasons. The nearest airport may not have a runway
suitable for your aircraft. The nearest airport may not have a runway that is
accessible to you without a lot of extra maneuvering. You may be low on fuel
but with a very precise idea of how long you can continue to fly, which may
allow you to reach an airport with better facilities than the closest one.

> Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks are a
> serious fire hazard.

A leak that is a serious fire hazard will cause a fire fairly quickly. A leak
that has not done so isn't likely to begin doing so after an extended period.
A leak that loses fuel to the atmosphere isn't much of a hazard at all from a
fire standpoint.

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

[Ross]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
>>is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
>>declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
>>closer airport.
>>
>
>
> What closer airport?
>
>

The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Ross wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token,
>>> it is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination
>>> after he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of
>>> diverting to a closer airport.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What closer airport?
>>
>
> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
> just as quick.
>

OK the word is descent....

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Maybe we have to define "closest".
> If you're over airport A at 30k ft and within gliding range of airport B
> which is 30 nm away.......which airport is "closest".
> I tend to think that from the airplane's perspective, there is virtually
> no difference.

If you can be confident than you have at least x minutes of fuel, then an
airport that is x-y minutes away is just as close as one that is x-z minutes
away. In other words, fuel is not an issue for any airports that are within
your fuel endurance; the choice among those airports can therefore be based on
other factors.

If you are losing fuel at an unknown rate, then you need to take that into
consideration in your choice, but I don't know if that was the case here.

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

[Danny Deger]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> or at least jobs lost.
>
> I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
> Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
> As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
> it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>
> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
> details once the event is over, dammit!
>

Does anyone know the details of how a flight from Tulsa to Dallas ended up
emergency fuel?

Also, on my solo flight of a T-38 at Reese AFB, I had a compressor stall on
climb out. I declared an emergency on and asked for a vector back to base.
I was initially kind of ****ed off because I was told to maintain current
heading. It was VMC, so I was seriously considering saying those magic
words "Cancel IFR" when the controller gave me my vector back to base.

Danny Deger

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
> just as quick.
>

What do you suppose the Dallas news would have said if the flight had
crashed on the way to KTKI or KADS after being denied their choice at KDFW?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> MXMORON WROTE:
>
>>> That statement makes it pretty clear that you don't understand this
>>> thread.
>>
>>I understand the FARs, which is a lot more important.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.
>
>

Rulebooks are paper, the will not cushion the meeting of metal and
stone.

Earnest K. Gann



Al G

[Danny Deger]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
>>> is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after
>>> he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to
>>> a closer airport.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What closer airport?
>
> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
> just as quick.
>

This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
alternative? I would say ATC should immediately provide the straight-in to
DFW if they can not give the pilot a different option, but if a straight-in
to another airport is offered maybe they can deny the straight in to DFW.
Obviously, to the pilot, landing at a non-DFW airport will create quite a
fuss for his carrier. There will cerainly be a lot of ****ed off passengers
that are delayed in getting to DFW.

Obviously the pilot can fly the straight-in to DFW regardless of ATC
clearance, but the pilot will have to answer to the FAA after he lands (this
is hint that a "certain somebody" does not need to repeat for the upteenth
time on this thread that the pilot can do what he needs to do in the event
of an emergency). BTW, I don't see a regulation that requires ATC to do
exactly what the emergency pilot wants at exactly the time the pilot asks
for it in the FARs. There is a reg that says the pilot can deviate, but I
can't find the one that ATC must obey the pilot without question or offering
alternatives.

Danny Deger

> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in
> his flight path.
>

Runway 15 at KADS is 6223', runway 33 is 6431'. I believe someone here said
the airplane was a 777 but I don't think that's been confirmed. Will the
runways at KTKI and KADS support a 777? Were they landing to the south at
those airports?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
> was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
> at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
> decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
> alternative?

No.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in
>> his flight path.
>>
>
> Runway 15 at KADS is 6223', runway 33 is 6431'. I believe someone here
> said the airplane was a 777 but I don't think that's been confirmed. Will
> the runways at KTKI and KADS support a 777? Were they landing to the
> south at those airports?

And do they have crash/rescue to handle an actual crash if it came to that?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ross wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through
>>> about 13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where
>>> would you land? What were the weather conditions?
>>
>>
>> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both
>> were in his flight path.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I believe you normally cross Bonham at 11K and near KTKI you are
> around 6K and going down.
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

Well we aren't talking normal conditions here though are we?

Let's face it. ATC screwed up and so did the pilot. When ATC offered him
vectors to two closer airports (and I have no idea if they were the two I
mentioned above) and he refused them ATC probably decided it wasn't as much
of an emergency as one might think.

We all know he refused them to lessen the impact (bad word to use) on the
airlines schedule for the rest of the day.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>>> He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through
>>> about 13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where
>>> would you land? What were the weather conditions?
>
>> KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both
>> were in his flight path.
>
>
> If he had an engine on fire or smoke in the cockpit, would he have
> continued on to DFW, or chosen KTKI or KADS?
>
>
> Montblack

Exactly!!!!!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
>> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have
>> been just as quick.
>>
>
> What do you suppose the Dallas news would have said if the flight had
> crashed on the way to KTKI or KADS after being denied their choice at
> KDFW?


He PASSED those two on the way to DFW.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Danny Deger wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>
>>>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same
>>>> token, it is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his
>>>> destination after he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and
>>>> hassles of diverting to a closer airport.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What closer airport?
>>
>> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
>> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have
>> been just as quick.
>>
>
> This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the
> south was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in
> to the south at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC
> have the right to decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the
> pilot a reasonable alternative?

No

[Ricky Robbins]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:54:31 +1100, "d&tm"
> wrote:

>So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
>that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
>was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?

Yes, if he still considered it necessary to land on R17, he was within
his rights. Now, granted, once ATC mentions the fully loaded 747 that
can't be moved in time, said pilot might determine it isn't the best
course of action, but the point is that once the emergency is declared
it's the pilot's decision--not ATC's--whether or not to continue to
R17.

Rick

[Jim Macklin]

What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
| > sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to
clear
| > all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
| > possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you
can
| > clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with
the
| > emergency in line.
| >
|
| Is anything possible in less than a certain amount of
time? What I said
| was correct.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Well we aren't talking normal conditions here though are we?
>
> Let's face it. ATC screwed up and so did the pilot. When ATC offered him
> vectors to two closer airports (and I have no idea if they were the two I
> mentioned above) and he refused them ATC probably decided it wasn't as
> much of an emergency as one might think.
>
> We all know he refused them to lessen the impact (bad word to use) on the
> airlines schedule for the rest of the day.

The only error the pilot made was not making it clear to ATC that it had
been decided they would be landing on runway 17C at DFW.

[Jim Macklin]

BS, you get then best and quickest solution.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane
into
| > the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your
mind
| > to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?
| >
|
| What is easier for ATC is not an issue. When a pilot
declares an emergency
| you give him whatever he wants.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly!!!!!

Exactly what?

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:14:10 -0500, "BDS" > wrote:

>
>Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
>after running out of fuel?

A 707, Avianca flight 52.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> He PASSED those two on the way to DFW.

You misunderstood the question.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"BDS" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
> after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
> crew
> never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
> fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.
>

A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> Also, on my solo flight of a T-38 at Reese AFB, I had a compressor stall on
> climb out. I declared an emergency on and asked for a vector back to base.
> I was initially kind of ****ed off because I was told to maintain current
> heading.

You don't have to do that if you've declared an emergency.

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

[Mike Schumann]

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
at an acceptable airport ASAP.

I don't know all of the details. It does appear that ATC was reluctant to
totally screw up their arrival patterns at DFW to handle this aircraft.
That would obviously not be acceptable if DFW was the only option. However,
the pilot also appears to have been focused on getting home more than his
"emergency". Gethomeitis is what kills the most pilots every year.

Mike Schumann

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Danny Deger wrote:
>> "Ross" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same
>>>>> token, it is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his
>>>>> destination after he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and
>>>>> hassles of diverting to a closer airport.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What closer airport?
>>>
>>> The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
>>> choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have
>>> been just as quick.
>>>
>>
>> This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the
>> south was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in
>> to the south at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC
>> have the right to decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the
>> pilot a reasonable alternative?
>
> No
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Schumann]

That's the attitude that led up the NASA loosing two Space Shuttles, and
having a Concorde crash in flames.

Mike Schumann

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann writes:
>
>> Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained
>> fuel
>> shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest
>> airport?
>
> There are many possible reasons. The nearest airport may not have a
> runway
> suitable for your aircraft. The nearest airport may not have a runway
> that is
> accessible to you without a lot of extra maneuvering. You may be low on
> fuel
> but with a very precise idea of how long you can continue to fly, which
> may
> allow you to reach an airport with better facilities than the closest one.
>
>> Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks are a
>> serious fire hazard.
>
> A leak that is a serious fire hazard will cause a fire fairly quickly. A
> leak
> that has not done so isn't likely to begin doing so after an extended
> period.
> A leak that loses fuel to the atmosphere isn't much of a hazard at all
> from a
> fire standpoint.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Rich Ahrens]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.

And for everyone speculating, here's the news report in question:

http://tinyurl.com/24jjaz

(There's a brief ad in front of the report.) The video includes audio
clips of the radio traffic. Interesting coincidence that the station's
call sign is WFAA.

Only egregious error I see in the reporting is the graphic at the
beginning that contains an arrow from Dallas to Tulsa, rather than the
reverse.

[Tony]

ATC has admitted they screwed up.

On Feb 23, 4:57 pm, "Danny Deger" > wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> >>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
> >>> is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after
> >>> he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to
> >>> a closer airport.
>
> >> What closer airport?
>
> > The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
> > choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
> > just as quick.
>
> This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
> was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
> at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
> decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
> alternative? I would say ATC should immediately provide the straight-in to
> DFW if they can not give the pilot a different option, but if a straight-in
> to another airport is offered maybe they can deny the straight in to DFW.
> Obviously, to the pilot, landing at a non-DFW airport will create quite a
> fuss for his carrier. There will cerainly be a lot of ****ed off passengers
> that are delayed in getting to DFW.
>
> Obviously the pilot can fly the straight-in to DFW regardless of ATC
> clearance, but the pilot will have to answer to the FAA after he lands (this
> is hint that a "certain somebody" does not need to repeat for the upteenth
> time on this thread that the pilot can do what he needs to do in the event
> of an emergency). BTW, I don't see a regulation that requires ATC to do
> exactly what the emergency pilot wants at exactly the time the pilot asks
> for it in the FARs. There is a reg that says the pilot can deviate, but I
> can't find the one that ATC must obey the pilot without question or offering
> alternatives.
>
> Danny Deger
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > Regards, Ross
> > C-172F 180HP
> > KSWI- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> He PASSED those two on the way to DFW.

At such a high altitude that he would have had to go halfway to DFW then
turn to go back, just to lose the altitude.
--
Jim in NC

[Tony]

The 707 that crashed on Long Island did tell ATC they were low of
fuel, but never said the magic word "Emergency".

A lawyer for one of the interested parties later sued the FAA saying
they should have known it was an emergency, asking why not saying one
little work make any difference, and the court found an emergency had
to be declared, not implied. The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

In the DFW case ATC got it wrong, they have 'retrained' the folks who
screwed up. It's been repeated time and again here -- if a PIC
declares an emergency he owns the sky, period. Any price to be paid
for a bad call on his part gets to be extracted when he's on the
ground, he does NOT get second guessed while the emergency is in
progress. ATC can offer alternatives and suggestions, but does not
'control' the aircraft. There were minutes of time available for
someone at 'position and hold' to get off.

The airplanes do NOT fly for the convenience of the controllers, the
controllers are their for the safety and convenience of the airplanes.
FAA and ATCC get their pound of flesh, if they are entitled to it, raw
and after the fact, not cooked in a crash. They knew that, and the
controller and supervisor who were dealing the the AA flight know it
now, too. They've been taken to the woodshed (not the unemployment
line).








On Feb 23, 6:01 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "BDS" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
>
>
> > Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
> > after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
> > crew
> > never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
> > fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.
>
> A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
> missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
> approach anywhere.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote

> If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
> another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
> alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
> request.

It has been reported here, that he asked for the emergency 17 straight in,
82 miles away. Plenty of time to vacate the runway and move any other
aircraft in his path.
--
Jim in NC

[Nils Rostedt]

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?
That might cause an emergency all by itself. Just my $0.02.

[B A R R Y]

On 23 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

> The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
>didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
>the FAA to be held at fault.
>
>The court got it right.

The FAA paid 40% of the damages in the Avianca 52 crash.

[Tony]

I thought otherwise -- thanks for the correction.

On Feb 23, 7:21 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:
>
> > The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
> >didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
> >the FAA to be held at fault.
>
> >The court got it right.
>
> The FAA paid 40% of the damages in the Avianca 52 crash.

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this
question,
> > but it is at least amoung the most recent.
> >
> > I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31,
> > 2006,
> > which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television
news
> > item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple
of
> > days.
> >
> > My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
> > audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?
> >
> > My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
> > lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what
was
> > actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
> > plus
> > one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were
specifically
> > quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.
> >
>
> ABC news played the tapes in their report. The pilot used the word
> "emergency" to declare that he had an emergency.
>
>
Thanks for the clarification, I had not been able to link to it.

Peter

[BDS]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> > Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years
ago
> > after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
> > crew
> > never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like
low
> > fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.
> >
>
> A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
> missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
> approach anywhere.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought they had made more than one attempt
at the approach - I do recall something about them having to hold for a long
time at one point enroute.

BDS

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?
>

What's heavier, a ton of feathers, or a ton of sand?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> BS, you get then best and quickest solution.
>

That's simply not the way it works.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
> another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
> alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
> request.

That wasn't the case here.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?

The time required is not necessarily correlated with the number of aircraft to
be moved.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nils Rostedt writes:

> One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
> landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
> on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
> end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
> intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
> climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
> departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
> runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
> the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
> if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?

Yes, if the alternative is hitting a hillside at 200 knots.

If, if, if ... there seems to be some grasping at straws here. The reality is
that the PIC decides in an emergency, and ATC obeys.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Schumann writes:

> That's the attitude that led up the NASA loosing two Space Shuttles, and
> having a Concorde crash in flames.

Hardly. Those incidents had nothing to do with pilot decisions.

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

[Jim Macklin]

The question is , "Feathers or lead?"


or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?
| >
|
| What's heavier, a ton of feathers, or a ton of sand?
|
|

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 10:41 am, Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic >
wrote:

> Cool. So next time someone declares anemergency, ATC is free to vector aircraft into each other,
> as their "only responsibility is to keep other people out of your way."
>
> Next time, engage your brain before you start typing, asshole.

You know, while Mxsmanic might not be my favorite poster, what he's
posting is a lot more interesting, and a lot less hostile, than the
stuff you're spewing lately. Right or wrong, he's contributing to the
discussion, and he's no more off base than many of the other people
posting to this thread.

And lately, you've been engaging in exactly the same kind of rhetoric
that's turned many people off to his posts. Take a look at yourself
before you start accusing other people.

If I had to boot one or the other of you, I'd choose you, since you're
making the group even less pleasant to read than he is. Fortunately,
I don't have to make that choice -- I've killfiled him, and I can do
the same to you. (I only looked at his posts in this thread because
you called attention to them. Oh, the irony!)

*PLONK*

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?

Moving two would take less time, but moving 50 takes less time than
cleaning up one crash.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Schumann wrote:

> From what I remember that took a couple of hours before eveyone was on the
> ground.

Which to me is absolutely amazing.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question is , "Feathers or lead?"
>
>
> or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?
>

It's my question, I decide what it is. I see it's got you stumped.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nils Rostedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
> landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three
> airplanes on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into
> position at the end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into
> position at an intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and
> another for initial climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them
> is typically the departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will
> need to taxi on the runway to the next free exit before vacating the
> runway. That probably takes the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then
> consider the wake turbulence, if it was a heavy taking off - do you really
> want to land into the wake? That might cause an emergency all by itself.
> Just my $0.02.
>

So there'd be no hurry then.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The 707 that crashed on Long Island did tell ATC they were low of
> fuel, but never said the magic word "Emergency".
>

Would saying the E-word have made a difference? They didn't run out of fuel
while waiting in a hold for their turn at an approach. They ran out of fuel
after missing an approach. How any pilot can make the decision to miss an
approach when he knows he hasn't got enough fuel to fly another one is
simply beyond me.

[Jim Macklin]

The aircraft with the declared emergency "owns" the airport
[as many have said] but there are a ton of squatters that
must be moved out of the way, with airspace actually
vacated. To turn the airport around will take more time
than it takes to fly into the current sequenced stream.
Only one or two airplanes need to be turned out to clear a
slot for the distressed aircraft.

The object is to get on the ground ASAP. The plane did land
OK.

Might it have crashed? Sure, but airplanes that have not
declared emergencies crash too.

The fact that the PIC declined other closer airports is
evidence that the emergency was not THAT critical and it
seems to me, that the PIC got the best service possible, in
the least time.

BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
quick as possible.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?
|
| Moving two would take less time, but moving 50 takes less
time than
| cleaning up one crash.
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

I prefer lead, except in cold weather when feathers are
warmer.

It was the controllers airport, he knew all the traffic [and
had probably practices an emergency turning the airport
around in their sim] and he decided what the best course of
action was, since he had the BIG PICTURE and the pilot was
stupid IMHO.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > The question is , "Feathers or lead?"
| >
| >
| > or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?
| >
|
| It's my question, I decide what it is. I see it's got you
stumped.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Nils Rostedt" >
wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be
cleared for a
| > landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to
have three
| > airplanes on the departure runway - one accelerating,
one taxiing into
| > position at the end and another (the next for take-off)
taxiing into
| > position at an intersection. Allow 1 minute for the
take-off run and
| > another for initial climbout. As for the other two
airplanes, behind them
| > is typically the departure queue blocking the quickest
exit, so they will
| > need to taxi on the runway to the next free exit before
vacating the
| > runway. That probably takes the same 2 minutes. So 2
minutes minimum. Then
| > consider the wake turbulence, if it was a heavy taking
off - do you really
| > want to land into the wake? That might cause an
emergency all by itself.
| > Just my $0.02.
| >
|
| So there'd be no hurry then.
|
|
|

[C J Campbell]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article >):

> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
> closer airport.
>
> Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article >):

> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
> closer airport.
>
> Mike Schumann

Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
can just circle over a patch of grass and land.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:07:14 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article >):

> If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
> another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
> alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
> This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
> then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
> at an acceptable airport ASAP.

There were no other aircraft on the runway that could not move in time. The
argument is a red herring. ATC is required to comply with the pilot's
emergency request. The time to settle whether that request was reasonable or
not is on the ground. But ATC must comply.

Rule #1 of aviation: The airplane has a Pilot in Command. The airplane is not
flown by a committee or by an anonymous voice on the ground. It is not a
democracy.

It appears here that ATC wanted to avoid departure delays even if it meant
killing people. The pilot has a responsibility to his passengers, not to
complying with ATC stupidity. The pilot failed in that responsibility, but
managed to live anyway. He might not be so lucky next time.

ATC will kill you given half a chance. It is the pilot's responsibility to
see to it that that does not happen.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Rich Ahrens]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
>> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
>> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
>> closer airport.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
> out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
> preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.

When are people going to get the basic facts right here? He had not just
left DFW. He was headed to DFW from Tulsa.

[Rich Ahrens]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
>> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
>> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
>> closer airport.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
> had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
> dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
> can just circle over a patch of grass and land.

And while the point is still valid, it was a 757, not a 777.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
> have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
> Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
> the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
> get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
> Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
> quick as possible.

Wait until you have a _real_ emergency.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
> the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.

It takes only a few seconds to divert it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Here's what happens when someone confuses MSFS with the real
> world.

I was talking about the real world, not simulation.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Again, you miss the point.
> Try this. Same scenario as above but the tanks are dry and the engines
> dead. Glide ratio is 10:1. No wind.
> Airport B can be considered to be just as close as airport A.

If the tanks are dry, it's not the same scenario as above.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I know.
> That's what makes you so pathetic.

Why does talking about the real world make me pathetic? I thought it was
talking about simulation that irritated people so much. Or perhaps it's
neither?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> I still can't figure out if you're a troll or functionally retarded.

Perhaps because the possibilities are not limited to either/or.

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

[C J Campbell]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:40:25 -0800, Rich Ahrens wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
>>> is
>>> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
>>> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
>>> closer airport.
>>>
>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
>> had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
>> dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
>> can just circle over a patch of grass and land.
>
> And while the point is still valid, it was a 757, not a 777.
>

I thought it actually was an HK-1, and Elvis was the pilot.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Rich Ahrens]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I still can't figure out if you're a troll or functionally retarded.
>
> Perhaps because the possibilities are not limited to either/or.

True - quite likely he's both...

[The Visitor]

C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.

Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

John

[Danny Deger]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
>> is
>> also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
>> declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
>> closer airport.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
> out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
> preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.

This is an excellent point. In this case the pilot would need to tell ATC
"unable" on the other two runways and tell them the straight-in to 17 is
required.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> I know.
>> That's what makes you so pathetic.
>
> Why does talking about the real world make me pathetic? I thought it was
> talking about simulation that irritated people so much. Or perhaps it's
> neither?
>
> --

I think the point is at a busy airport the taxiways are often crowded with
aircraft waiting for takeoff.

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

[Danny Deger]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.
>
> And for everyone speculating, here's the news report in question:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24jjaz
>
> (There's a brief ad in front of the report.) The video includes audio
> clips of the radio traffic. Interesting coincidence that the station's
> call sign is WFAA.
>
> Only egregious error I see in the reporting is the graphic at the
> beginning that contains an arrow from Dallas to Tulsa, rather than the
> reverse.

Thanks for the link. The supervisor should be fired in my opinion.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
> the air within many miles that has to go somewher

They don't have to go far. One minute after a 10 degree heading they would
be out of the way.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Ross wrote:
snip

> Let's face it. ATC screwed up and so did the pilot. When ATC offered him
> vectors to two closer airports (and I have no idea if they were the two I
> mentioned above) and he refused them ATC probably decided it wasn't as
> much of an emergency as one might think.
>
> We all know he refused them to lessen the impact (bad word to use) on the
> airlines schedule for the rest of the day.

The tape clearly indicates the pilot suspected a fuel leak which means fire
hazard. The other airports are MUCH smaller than DFW and don't have as much
emergency support on the ground. I don't blame the pilots for wanting DFW.

Danny Deger
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> The pilot declared low fuel.
>
> Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
> with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.
>

No he didn't.


>
> Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
> fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).
>

This one wasn't shy, this one declared an emergency.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is an excellent point. In this case the pilot would need to tell ATC
> "unable" on the other two runways and tell them the straight-in to 17 is
> required.
>

He did.

[Danny Deger]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Danny Deger writes:
>
>> Also, on my solo flight of a T-38 at Reese AFB, I had a compressor stall
>> on
>> climb out. I declared an emergency on and asked for a vector back to
>> base.
>> I was initially kind of ****ed off because I was told to maintain current
>> heading.
>
> You don't have to do that if you've declared an emergency.

A compressor stall in a two engine airplane was not seviour enough to blow
off IFR separation from other aircraft if I had been IMC. At least that was
the decision I made at the time. If I had been on fire, I would have turned
then told the controller I had turned.

I used to own a Bonanza and if was VMC I would often "Cancel IFR" if I was
being vector all over the place or if VFR and being vectored all over the
place I would "Cancel Radar Service". Those are two very powerful
statements that you don't need an emergency to use.

Danny Deger

[Jim Macklin]

I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
multiple runways.

It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
separation in one minute.


"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic
in
| > the air within many miles that has to go somewher
|
| They don't have to go far. One minute after a 10 degree
heading they would
| be out of the way.
|
| Danny Deger
|
|
|

[Jose]

> neither does a 10° heading change create legal
> separation in one minute.

Legal separation is nice, but in an emergency, I'll settle for anything
that doesn't bend metal.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.



"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| > separation in one minute.
|
| Legal separation is nice, but in an emergency, I'll settle
for anything
| that doesn't bend metal.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.

Yes it it.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Exactly!!!!!
>
> Exactly what?
>
>

MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.
>

Incorrect. See subparagraph c. below:



FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-9.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> The aircraft with the declared emergency "owns" the airport
> [as many have said] but there are a ton of squatters that
> must be moved out of the way, with airspace actually
> vacated. To turn the airport around will take more time
> than it takes to fly into the current sequenced stream.
> Only one or two airplanes need to be turned out to clear a
> slot for the distressed aircraft.
>

I assume by "turn the airport around" you mean to reverse the flow. Land
and depart to the south instead of to the north. What makes you think
that's necessary?


>
> The object is to get on the ground ASAP. The plane did land
> OK.
>

Yes, but it did not get on the ground ASAP.


>
> Might it have crashed? Sure, but airplanes that have not
> declared emergencies crash too.
>

That's comforting.


>
> The fact that the PIC declined other closer airports is
> evidence that the emergency was not THAT critical and it
> seems to me, that the PIC got the best service possible, in
> the least time.
>

Ya think? Did the PIC decline any suitable closer airports?


>
> BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
> have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
> Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
> the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
> get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
> Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
> quick as possible.
>

You don't KNOW that it would take more time, you BELIEVE it would take more
time.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was the controllers airport, he knew all the traffic [and
> had probably practices an emergency turning the airport
> around in their sim] and he decided what the best course of
> action was, since he had the BIG PICTURE and the pilot was
> stupid IMHO.
>

So when a pilot declares an emergency it is up to the controller to decide
on the best course of action? If it's the pilot that was stupid, in your
uninformed opinion, then why is it that it's the controller that was given
remedial training?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
> the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.
>

The traffic ON the runway can depart, probably a good many that have already
taxied for departure can also depart. You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.

[Danny Deger]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.
>
>
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
> |> neither does a 10° heading change create legal
> | > separation in one minute.
> |
> | Legal separation is nice, but in an emergency, I'll settle
> for anything
> | that doesn't bend metal.
> |

Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller was
willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no without
any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been cleared,
but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me what you
think.

Danny Deger

> | Jose
> | --
> | Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
> deep need to
> | follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
> Whosoever fully
> | understands this holds the world in his hands.
> | for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
>
>

[Danny Deger]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> This is an excellent point. In this case the pilot would need to tell
>> ATC "unable" on the other two runways and tell them the straight-in to 17
>> is required.
>>
>
> He did.

You are correct. I listened to the tape after I posted my statement.

Danny Deger

>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> A compressor stall in a two engine airplane was not seviour enough to blow
> off IFR separation from other aircraft if I had been IMC. At least that
> was the decision I made at the time. If I had been on fire, I would have
> turned then told the controller I had turned.
>

What did you say to the controller when you declared the emergency?


>
> I used to own a Bonanza and if was VMC I would often "Cancel IFR" if I was
> being vector all over the place or if VFR and being vectored all over the
> place I would "Cancel Radar Service". Those are two very powerful
> statements that you don't need an emergency to use.
>

Generally, if you're operating VFR in an area where ATC can initiate
vectoring, you're not in an area where you can "cancel radar service".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
> around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
> multiple runways.
>
> It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
> airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
> separation in one minute.
>

You don't understand how ATC works.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
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.
>

Did he? Perhaps you assume too much. Maybe he'd prefer the field with
appropriate crash/fire/rescue capability. I think that'd be DFW.

[Mike Young]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
> was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
> without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
> cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me
> what you think.

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach responding
"unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited approach on the
active.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
> was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
> without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
> cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me
> what you think.
>

Had I been the controller I'd have told the supervisor that if she wanted
the aircraft brought to any runway other than the one requested by the pilot
she'd have to remove me from the position.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Young" > wrote in message
t...
>
> The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
> not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
> responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
> approach on the active.
>

A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:46:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>Had I been the controller I'd have told the supervisor that if she wanted
>the aircraft brought to any runway other than the one requested by the pilot
>she'd have to remove me from the position.
>

The controllers I've met would probably agree.

But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>
> The controllers I've met would probably agree.
>
> But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.
>

I are.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:11:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>You don't have to shut down all
>operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
>traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.


After listening to snow removal operations at the local Class B's &
C's two weeks ago, I was surprised at how long 80 miles would be.

I heard plows on the runway with inbound jets on15 mile final.

80 miles isn't exactly right there, even for a 757. At 250 knots,
(under 10,000 ft) he's still almost 20 minutes out.

20 minutes is a long time!

[C J Campbell]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:07:44 -0800, The Visitor wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> The pilot declared low fuel.
>
> Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
> with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.
>
> Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
> fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

It is a good idea to tell ATC that you have an emergency, but doing so may
not always be practical or even possible. Besides, some things are just
understood to be emergencies, like being so low on fuel that flying a normal
approach and landing might be unsuccessful.

When you are low fuel and need special handling, it is an emergency, whether
you specifically say it is or not. If you were to tell ATC that you were on
fire, they should treat it as an emergency whether you 'declare' one or not.
If you say you have runaway trim, a hijacker, or a large flying octopus that
has covered your entire windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare'
one or not. An unruly passenger grabbing for the controls is an emergency.
Losing all your hydraulic fluid is an emergency. Landing with a flat tire is
an emergency (hint: the checklist is in the "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES" section of
the POH). A passenger that passes out is an emergency.
There are many types of emergencies, with many different probabilities of
someone being hurt or killed, but they are all emergencies. Not all
emergencies have to be reported. Many emergencies are easily dealt with. But
they remain emergencies nonetheless.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mike Schumann]

If your aircraft is on fire, you need to land immediately. Availability of
fire / crash rescue resources is not an issue. Getting off the aircraft as
quickly as possible is the issue. Just look at what happened with the
Swissair flight over the atlantic, who took their sweet time while the were
researching where the smoke was coming from.

Mike Schumann

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
> 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.
>>
>
> Did he? Perhaps you assume too much. Maybe he'd prefer the field with
> appropriate crash/fire/rescue capability. I think that'd be DFW.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:46 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
>an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
>the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
>out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
>you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
>anyone has actually 'declared' it or not.

FWIW, I've had airplane problems where ATC has asked me "would you
like to declare?"

Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
declaring does have some significance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If your aircraft is on fire, you need to land immediately. Availability
> of fire / crash rescue resources is not an issue. Getting off the
> aircraft as quickly as possible is the issue. Just look at what happened
> with the Swissair flight over the atlantic, who took their sweet time
> while the were researching where the smoke was coming from.
>

Then you don't need an airport at all.

[C J Campbell]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:39:15 -0800, B A R R Y wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:46 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>> There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
>> "declaring
>> an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
>> or
>> the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
>> passes
>> out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
>> you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
>> anyone has actually 'declared' it or not.
>
> FWIW, I've had airplane problems where ATC has asked me "would you
> like to declare?"
>
> Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
> declaring does have some significance.
>

That is true, ATC will sometimes ask that. I have not always been able to
reply in the negative. :-( But even if you reply in the negative, if might
still be an emergency. You and ATC just might not know it yet. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:43:30 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>But even if you reply in the negative, if might
>still be an emergency. You and ATC just might not know it yet. :-)


I agree, so I reserve the right to change my mind!

[B A R R Y]

BTW...

Does anyone remember "Emily" complaining about how hard it was to talk
to DFW ATC? <G>

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> If you say you have runaway trim, a
> hijacker, or a large flying octopus that has covered your entire
> windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare' one or not.

If it's a giant squid instead of an octopus would it still be an emergency?
How about a monster in the aft circuitry room?

I've seen those kinds of things on the old TV series "Voyage to the Bottom
of the Sea" and I can't remember if they ever declared an emergency. Of
course their altitude was rather low at the time. As I recal, their vehicle
had canards on the front but rather small stubby wings; here's a picture of
them at takeoff:

http://www.omenaheights.com/voyage_bottom_sea_breach.jpg

(I suppose the kinds of emergencies experienced on that show now explains
why aircraft don't have circuitry rooms and composite hull construction has
never been popular. If you have to dislodge the giant octopus/squid/monster
attached to the hull, there's nothing like running 100,000V through the
hull. But that's not so easy to do if the hull is an electrical insulator.)

[C J Campbell]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:46:15 -0800, B A R R Y wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:43:30 -0800, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
>> But even if you reply in the negative, if might
>> still be an emergency. You and ATC just might not know it yet. :-)
>
>
> I agree, so I reserve the right to change my mind!

Maybe Steve can elucidate what it means when ATC asks you if you would like
to declare an emergency and what happens when you do. I think at least part
of it is calling out the emergency equipment on the ground.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The controllers I've met would probably agree.
>>
>>But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.
>>
>
>
> I are.
>
>
You is? :-)

[C J Campbell]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:06:40 -0800, Jim Logajan wrote
(in article >):

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> If you say you have runaway trim, a
>> hijacker, or a large flying octopus that has covered your entire
>> windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare' one or not.
>
> If it's a giant squid instead of an octopus would it still be an emergency?
> How about a monster in the aft circuitry room?
>

Or even something nasty in the woodshed? ("I saw something nasty in the
woodshed." -- Ada Doom in "Cold Comfort Farm")

> I've seen those kinds of things on the old TV series "Voyage to the Bottom
> of the Sea" and I can't remember if they ever declared an emergency. Of
> course their altitude was rather low at the time. As I recal, their vehicle
> had canards on the front but rather small stubby wings; here's a picture of
> them at takeoff:
>
> http://www.omenaheights.com/voyage_bottom_sea_breach.jpg
>
> (I suppose the kinds of emergencies experienced on that show now explains
> why aircraft don't have circuitry rooms and composite hull construction has
> never been popular. If you have to dislodge the giant octopus/squid/monster
> attached to the hull, there's nothing like running 100,000V through the
> hull. But that's not so easy to do if the hull is an electrical insulator.)

Yeah, those guys had things like that happen to them every single week, too.
They must have spent waaaay to much time in the Bermuda Triangle. Or
something.

Speaking of which, I see National Geographic is reporting on their web site
that an expedition has caught a colossal squid (that is its name -- it is a
species even bigger than a giant squid). That thing might have caused a few
problems in the after circuitry room. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jose]

> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller was
> willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no without
> any rationalization.

I have not listened to the tape - I was responding to the allegation
that in an emergency, legal separation must still be maintained.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Danny Deger]

"Mike Young" > wrote in message
t...
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
>> was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
>> without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
>> cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
>> me what you think.
>
> The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
> not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
> responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
> approach on the active.
>
>

You must have listened to a different tape. Try the following. It has the
supervisor denying the straight-in.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104

Danny Deger

[Jim Macklin]

Which law, rule or regulation allows near mid-air collisions
because one aircraft has a cob up their ass?




"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
|> That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.
|
| Yes it it.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Danny Deger]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:07:44 -0800, The Visitor wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>
>>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>> The pilot declared low fuel.
>>
>> Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
>> with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.
>>
>> Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
>> fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).
>
> There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
> "declaring
> an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
> or
> the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
> passes
> out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
> you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
> anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
> failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
> that requires action to avoid it.
>
> It is a good idea to tell ATC that you have an emergency, but doing so may
> not always be practical or even possible. Besides, some things are just
> understood to be emergencies, like being so low on fuel that flying a
> normal
> approach and landing might be unsuccessful.
>
> When you are low fuel and need special handling, it is an emergency,
> whether
> you specifically say it is or not. If you were to tell ATC that you were
> on
> fire, they should treat it as an emergency whether you 'declare' one or
> not.
> If you say you have runaway trim, a hijacker, or a large flying octopus
> that
> has covered your entire windshield, it is an emergency, whether you
> 'declare'
> one or not. An unruly passenger grabbing for the controls is an emergency.
> Losing all your hydraulic fluid is an emergency. Landing with a flat tire
> is
> an emergency (hint: the checklist is in the "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES" section
> of
> the POH). A passenger that passes out is an emergency.
> There are many types of emergencies, with many different probabilities of
> someone being hurt or killed, but they are all emergencies. Not all
> emergencies have to be reported. Many emergencies are easily dealt with.
> But
> they remain emergencies nonetheless.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

There is a formal call in the world of aviation of "minimum fuel" that is
clearly stated as NOT an emergency. It simply means excessive delays can
not be tolerated.

Danny Deger

[Jim Macklin]

I think I have a pretty good understanding.

I do know that no controller from any facility with traffic
like DFW has responded. So, if there is a DFW or ATL or
ORD, LAX or SFO controller out there, how long would it take
to clear the required airspace v. just fitting the emergency
into the traffic.






"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| > around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
| > multiple runways.
| >
| > It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear
the
| > airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| > separation in one minute.
| >
|
| You don't understand how ATC works.
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
> around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
> multiple runways.

No matter what the complexity, it only takes a few minutes to clear a path.

> It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
> airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
> separation in one minute.

Show me the transcripts and radar traces, so that I can see how long it
actually takes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.

Yes, it is, when an emergency exists.

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

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.

Even the ones who aren't pilots would agree. I'm quite surprised that anyone
in ATC would make a mistake as stupid as this one. One wonders where they
found that supervisor.

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

[Danny Deger]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> A compressor stall in a two engine airplane was not seviour enough to
>> blow
>> off IFR separation from other aircraft if I had been IMC. At least that
>> was the decision I made at the time. If I had been on fire, I would have
>> turned then told the controller I had turned.
>>
>
> What did you say to the controller when you declared the emergency?
>

I think is was something like "I am declaring an emergency for an engine
failure". I definately used the "e" word. I was well trained as an Air
Force pilot to use the "e" word.

>
>>
>> I used to own a Bonanza and if was VMC I would often "Cancel IFR" if I
>> was
>> being vector all over the place or if VFR and being vectored all over the
>> place I would "Cancel Radar Service". Those are two very powerful
>> statements that you don't need an emergency to use.
>>
>
> Generally, if you're operating VFR in an area where ATC can initiate
> vectoring, you're not in an area where you can "cancel radar service".

You are correct. I fly out or a small airport South East of Houston. I can
go due west and barely miss where Class B goes to the surface south of
Houston Hobby. Often I would contact approach control and immediately be
given a vector to the south. After a couple of times following the
recommended vectors I realized the standard was to send me about 20 miles
south before turning me back to the west. I got in the habit of cancelling
radar surface as soon as I got the vector to the south. I would then stay
below the class B space and head west.

Danny Deger
>

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
> declaring does have some significance.

It lets ATC off the hook and allows them to do whatever is required to help
you. It lets them bend all the rules and it lets them say "yes" to any
request you make. I think it benefits ATC more than it does the pilot,
although it can certainly help to have ATC moving other people out of your way
and rolling equipment, if need be.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Danny Deger writes:

> I think the point is at a busy airport the taxiways are often crowded with
> aircraft waiting for takeoff.

There's always a space somewhere for an aircraft to turn to clear the runway.
You don't have aircraft waiting at every intersection.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think I have a pretty good understanding.
>

Yes, but you don't actually have a good understanding.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Which law, rule or regulation allows near mid-air collisions
> because one aircraft has a cob up their ass?

None. But the law allows anything for an aircraft in an emergency.
Near-midair collisions are not a risk, anyway.

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

[Jose]

> Which law, rule or regulation allows near mid-air collisions
> because one aircraft has a cob up their ass?

The one that gives an emergency aircraft priority over all other aircraft.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mike Young]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
> t...
>>
>> The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
>> not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
>> responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
>> approach on the active.
>>
>
> A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.

[BDS]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
"declaring
> an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
or
> the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
passes
> out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
> you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
> anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
> failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
> that requires action to avoid it.

Excerpt from the USDOT FAA Air Traffic Bulletin:

"The Pilot/Controller Glossary describes EMERGENCY as "a distress or an
urgency condition." Aircraft instruments can individually or collectively
conspire to require pilots to consider declaring an emergency. Vacuum pump,
alternator/generator, and pilot/static systems often seem to be the
culprits. Loss of any of these systems should probably cause a prudent pilot
to consider declaring an emergency and to land as soon as practical.
However, pilots often hesitate to declare an emergency fearing the mythical
mountain of paperwork, government interviews, and ramp checks they have read
about in chat rooms and heard about in pilot lounges. Few, if any of us,
have ever met a pilot with firsthand knowledge of this paperwork
catastrophe, but most pilots believe it exists. Fortunately, FAA orders
allow controllers to handle a situation as though it were an emergency even
if the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used."

I think the idea is that if you want a guarantee of priority handling you
should use the proper terminology (note that they use the phrase "delcaring
an emergency"). Sure, ATC *may* give it to you even if you don't, but there
is no guarantee that they will, and there are plenty of real-world examples
of this out there that ended badly or very well could have.

The various recurrency training courses I have taken over the years have
always referred to the need to declare the emergency in order to be assured
of priority handling. In fact, one of the training centers I am familiar
with is run by a retired ATC professional who also designed and teaches a
portion of the course, so if this is all a misconception it seems to be a
widely held one.

BDS

[Mike Young]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
> t...
>> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
>>> was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
>>> without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
>>> cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
>>> me what you think.
>>
>> The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
>> not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
>> responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
>> approach on the active.
>>
>>
>
> You must have listened to a different tape. Try the following. It has
> the supervisor denying the straight-in.
>
> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=122817&catId=104

It's the same one that I commented on. That was a landline handoff from
enroute to approach. There was no supervisor on that tape, although it's
clear that that the reporters wouldn't mind you thinking there was. It's a
purposely inflammatory piece. Specifically, the fall-out and details of the
FAA/ATC discussions 6 months ago are only hinted at, not reported. But go
ahead. Tell me, if you know, what they talked about, what they concluded,
and how DFW approach will handle future similar situations. While you're at
it, what do you know about the suspected fuel leak or mechanical problems?

It's not the last time that low fuel situations, as distinct from
emergencies, will arise. There are very strong economic pressures to fly
with the least possible weight aboard. **** happens; cutting it close with
the fuel means you'll cut it too close some of the time. (If you're not, cut
it closer until you do!) It's in the best interest of the airlines to cut it
close. It's in the best interest for commerce, the FAA's arena, to accept
that it close has consequences. It's also in the public's interest, yours
and mine, to keep the costs low, since we drive the economic pressures. So
who's left out? Can you name two groups that would be happier with full
tanks on take off?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Mike Young" > wrote:

> > A response of "unable" is not a refusal?
>
> I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
> I "refuse" to hop like a frog.
>
> There's a distinct difference.

In the context of Pilot-Controller communication, any distinction is
insignificant.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Young wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>
>> "Mike Young" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>>>
>>> The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You
>>> did not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
>>> responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an
>>> expedited approach on the active.
>>>
>>
>> A response of "unable" is not a refusal?
>
>
> I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
> I "refuse" to hop like a frog.
>
> There's a distinct difference.
>
>

The end result is the same. This is a distinction without a difference.

Matt

[C J Campbell]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:02:47 -0800, BDS wrote
(in article >):

> "C J Campbell" > wrote
>
>> There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
> "declaring
>> an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
> or
>> the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
> passes
>> out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
>> you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
>> anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
>> failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
>> that requires action to avoid it.
>
> Excerpt from the USDOT FAA Air Traffic Bulletin:
>
> "The Pilot/Controller Glossary describes EMERGENCY as "a distress or an
> urgency condition." Aircraft instruments can individually or collectively
> conspire to require pilots to consider declaring an emergency. Vacuum pump,
> alternator/generator, and pilot/static systems often seem to be the
> culprits. Loss of any of these systems should probably cause a prudent pilot
> to consider declaring an emergency and to land as soon as practical.
> However, pilots often hesitate to declare an emergency fearing the mythical
> mountain of paperwork, government interviews, and ramp checks they have read
> about in chat rooms and heard about in pilot lounges. Few, if any of us,
> have ever met a pilot with firsthand knowledge of this paperwork
> catastrophe, but most pilots believe it exists. Fortunately, FAA orders
> allow controllers to handle a situation as though it were an emergency even
> if the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used."
>
> I think the idea is that if you want a guarantee of priority handling you
> should use the proper terminology (note that they use the phrase "delcaring
> an emergency"). Sure, ATC *may* give it to you even if you don't, but there
> is no guarantee that they will, and there are plenty of real-world examples
> of this out there that ended badly or very well could have.
>
> The various recurrency training courses I have taken over the years have
> always referred to the need to declare the emergency in order to be assured
> of priority handling. In fact, one of the training centers I am familiar
> with is run by a retired ATC professional who also designed and teaches a
> portion of the course, so if this is all a misconception it seems to be a
> widely held one.

No, I think you described it pretty much as I understand it. There is no need
to declare it to be an emergency for it to be treated as one. All emergencies
should be treated as such even if they are not declared. And to ensure proper
handling declaring an emergency is good communication practice.
That pretty well sums up your post.

The mountain of paperwork is definitely mythical. The worst emergency I ever
had, in which several people were injured when we flew into a microburst, did
have some paperwork, but all they wanted was a written one-page description
of what happened. And that was in the Air Force, where paperwork is king.
Most emergencies require no paperwork at all, and few would require so much
as a NASA report.

Heck, I had to fill out more paperwork for auto accidents the missionaries
had while i was in the Philippines than I have had for any emergency.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Don Tuite]

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.

Here's what boaters are supposed to pick up from Coast Guard Auxiliary
or Power Squadron classes:

"There are three levels of emergency calls.

"First Level Emergency: The "distress" signal is "MAYDAY". This word
should be said three (3) times: "MAYDAY - MAYDAY - MAYDAY!". This
signal is to be used only when there is grave danger (you’re gonna
die) to your crew or your boat.

"Second Level Emergency: The "urgency" signal is "Pan-Pan" (pronounced
"pon-pon"). This should be stated three (3) times: "PAN-PAN - PAN-PAN
- PAN-PAN!". This signal should be used when you have a serious, but
not life threatening, situation that requires assistance. Some
examples are serious illness or injury to a crewmember, or if the
captain himself becomes incapacitated. Running out of gas is not a
Pan-Pan situation, unless you are in danger of being swept ashore in
high seas.

"Third Level Emergency: The "safety" signal is "Security" (pronounced
as "SAY-CURE-IT-TAY"). This word should also be said three (3) times:
"SECURITY - SECURITY - SECURITY!". This signal should be used to warn
of conditions that may affect boaters in that area. Some examples are
storm warnings, hazards to navigation (such as a huge log or other
objects that could damage a boat) or alerts from large ships when they
are going to be in a narrow channel. ("Security - Security - Security,
this is the car ferry Badger. We will be at the Ludington pier head in
20 minutes.")"

Don

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
> around DFW,
>

Ok, I'll be blunt: I don't think you understand you have been answered
here by controllers who know EXACTLY what that kind of emergency would
mean to operations at DFW. And they have told you repeatedly that it is
a non-issue. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Young]

"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. It may or may not be the case that your usage is in fact a
disingenuous refutation of your responsibilities. It may in fact, or might
not, be the case that the DFW approach controller said "unable" when he
really meant "my lazy ass ain't about to clear a path for your lazy ass." I
submit that *that* would be the death knell of the NAS and civil aviation if
it were truly what transpired.

I can frog hop, but in truth, my pelvis, knees, and ankles are quite
different from a frog's. I have a doctor's note that says so. I am very
definitely unable to hop like a frog.

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. We know
where each of us stands as to its meaning, and there's no need to repeat it
yet again. Maybe we can be done with this at last. The sad part is that
after all the angst, there were no lessons or values to take forward from
this.

[Mike Young]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mike Young" > wrote:
>
>> > A response of "unable" is not a refusal?
>>
>> I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
>> I "refuse" to hop like a frog.
>>
>> There's a distinct difference.
>
> In the context of Pilot-Controller communication, any distinction is
> insignificant.

It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world, and the
reason for the heat in this thread. On the scale of bigness, the only
uncertainty I have is which is larger, the semantics of can't versus won't;
or answering "Affirmative!" to the question "Are you declaring an emergency
at this time?" There's no room for mush-mouth weasel words in that incident.
I don't believe the news broadcast told all that was worth telling.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Mike Young" > wrote:

> >> > A response of "unable" is not a refusal?
> >>
> >> I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
> >> I "refuse" to hop like a frog.
> >>
> >> There's a distinct difference.
> >
> > In the context of Pilot-Controller communication, any distinction is
> > insignificant.
>
> It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world...

"refuse" and "unable" means the same thing from the ATC POV.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

No, it does not, it gives the PIC the legal authority to
deviate from any law, rule or clearance GIVEN by ATC pr the
FAA. It does not allow the PIC to justify causing an
accident.

ATCs job in an emergency is to think straight and get the
PIC priority service and on the ground ASAP within the
bounds of possibilities. Think about the movie Airport,
that had a snow covered runway, a stuck plane on a runway
and noise complaints. Dean Martin as PIC was demanding
clearance to the runway that was blocked. ATC doesn't have
authority to physically clear a runway, that was about the
only accurate part of that movie.


Priority does not mean ATC will build a runway in 30 seconds
so you can land.



"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> Which law, rule or regulation allows near mid-air
collisions
| > because one aircraft has a cob up their ass?
|
| The one that gives an emergency aircraft priority over all
other aircraft.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Because I think they are wrong and they have not said just
how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time than
was available to allow the straight in approach and landing?

The controllers knew the position of each airplane and they
also knew the time for a straight in approach. They knew
that it would be quicker the way it was done, not the way
the PIC wanted in a "panics" state of mind.

The plane did not flame-out, there were no mid-airs, and
nobody died or was injured.

I would bet my lottery winnings from last night [did not
win] that the re-training ATC got was to include statements
of their rationalizations about traffic and flight times "on
the tape."



"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| > I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| > around DFW,
| >
|
| Ok, I'll be blunt: I don't think you understand you have
been answered
| here by controllers who know EXACTLY what that kind of
emergency would
| mean to operations at DFW. And they have told you
repeatedly that it is
| a non-issue. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Judah]

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...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>
> Maybe Steve can elucidate what it means when ATC asks you if you would
> like to declare an emergency and what happens when you do. I think at
> least
> part of it is calling out the emergency equipment on the ground.
>

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. It does say
an emergency can be declared by the controller as well as a pilot. Pilots
are often hesitant to declare an emergency, but I've never known a
controller to be. In situations that have the properties of an emergency
ATC tends to treat it as an emergency without advising the pilot.

[Jim Macklin]

If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number], then
ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was the
airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where was
he when he asked for straight in to 17?



"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| 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...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?


>
> 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.

[Judah]

I don't know - I was quoting someone else who said he was 81 miles out...

Which is why I said "If"...

:)


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number], then
> ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was the
> airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where was
> he when he asked for straight in to 17?

[Jim Macklin]

There really is too much speculation, TV reports are not
reliable and knee-jerk reactions don't clarify the issue.


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
|I don't know - I was quoting someone else who said he was
81 miles out...
|
| Which is why I said "If"...
|
| :)
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in
| :
|
| > If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number],
then
| > ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was
the
| > airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where
was
| > he when he asked for straight in to 17?

[Tony]

Some years ago I was over eastern PA in IMC and had the alternater
fail. I told NY Center I wanted to land at Lancaster because of the
failure, and I was specifically asked if I wanted to declare an
emergency. Of course it wasn't one, and I made no such demand, but
understood that if I said that word they could clear traffic more
aggressively than having to fit me into the approach patterns like a
normal IFR arrivial.

So they do ask, sometimes. Sometimes it's a CYA thing, but I think
much more often it's ATC trying to understand how serious the problem
is.


On Feb 25, 8:49 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in avecable.com...
>
>
>
> > Maybe Steve can elucidate what it means when ATC asks you if you would
> > like to declare an emergency and what happens when you do. I think at
> > least
> > part of it is calling out the emergency equipment on the ground.
>
> 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. It does say
> an emergency can be declared by the controller as well as a pilot. Pilots
> are often hesitant to declare an emergency, but I've never known a
> controller to be. In situations that have the properties of an emergency
> ATC tends to treat it as an emergency without advising the pilot.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:16:59 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

> I certainly don't always agree with Steven, but I'm betting he's a lot
> more familiar with moving airplanes out of the way that you are or than I
> am.

Some people aren't quite thinking the situation through. Unless we're
speaking of airships or helicopters or 152s or such, nobody needed to be
"moved out of the way". Rather, anything moving into conflict with the
pilot's intended route needs to be vectored away from the conflict.

I'm not saying that that's trivial, but it's not the same thing as "moving
something out of the way".

There's also the fact that, no matter the emergency, it takes time for the
plane with the emergency to get to any given point. So it's not as if all
potential conflicts must be instantaneously handled.

I don't know the DFW area. But around the EWR class B, traffic tends to
follow a limited number of paths. Presumably, this helps achieve the
necessary sequencing by the runway threshold.

This organization too would help the vectoring.

Again: I'm not saying that this is trivial. But I've no doubt that it can
be done.

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?

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because I think they are wrong and they have not said just
> how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time than
> was available to allow the straight in approach and landing?
>

So because you have no idea how it can be done you concluded it can't be
done.

It's been stated here the airplane was about 80 miles from DFW, I don't know
if that's correct but nobody has disputed it so we'll assume it is. We know
it was being worked by center so it sounds about right. So figure at least
15 minutes from touchdown, that's a lot of time. Most of the arriving
aircraft already within approach control airspace, perhaps all of them, can
get on the ground before the emergency arrives. Other DFW bound aircraft
will be held at arrival fixes or enroute. A flow control message will be
sent to stop departures to DFW from at least the closer airports. Most of
the departure aircraft that have already taxied will be able to depart
before the emergency arrives, those that haven't taxied will be held on the
ramp. Traffic at satellite fields will be largely unaffected. It certainly
isn't necessary to "turn the airport around" or sterilize the airspace.
What made you think it was?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> There really is too much speculation, TV reports are not
> reliable and knee-jerk reactions don't clarify the issue.
>

The TV report played the tapes and the FAA confirmed ATC was wrong.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If you can be confident than you have at least x minutes of fuel, then
> an airport that is x-y minutes away is just as close as one that is x-z
> minutes away. In other words, fuel is not an issue for any airports
> that are within your fuel endurance; the choice among those airports can
> therefore be based on other factors.

I disagree completely.

The ideal airport is the closest airport that you will reach at a reasonable
descent rate. If you delay your descent until you are out of fuel, you will
be in a position where you MUST make the field, and you will not be able to
Go Around if there is an issue, since you are dry.

OTOH, if you land at an airport that is closer than your remaining fuel, you
may leave yourself with more options if the landing is less than uneventful.

For example, had the AA flight waited to land until he was dry, the request
to Circle to Land or the decision to land upon an active runway in the wrong
direction may have had much more dire consequences. Fortunately, the flight
still had fuel, so the circle to land manuever was possible.

[Judah]

"Al G" > wrote in news:i8JDh.43$1X5.18
@newsfe05.lga:

> Rulebooks are paper, the will not cushion the meeting of metal and
> stone.


I dunno...

There are A LOT of rulebooks in Aviation!

[Judah]

Ricky Robbins > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:54:31 +1100, "d&tm"
> > wrote:
>
>>So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
>>that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
>>pilot was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?
>
> Yes, if he still considered it necessary to land on R17, he was within
> his rights. Now, granted, once ATC mentions the fully loaded 747 that
> can't be moved in time, said pilot might determine it isn't the best
> course of action, but the point is that once the emergency is declared
> it's the pilot's decision--not ATC's--whether or not to continue to
> R17.
>
> Rick

How many of the FIVE - count 'em FIVE - parallel runways had a fully loaded
747 in Position & Hold that couldn't be moved in time?

[Judah]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
> around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
> multiple runways.
>
> It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
> airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
> separation in one minute.

Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?

;)

Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham" that was described
in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the emergency was called
about 70 NM out.

At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is within range. And
presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down to 250 Kts
allowing even more time.

Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the way safely.

[Jim Macklin]

If the distance was correct, [first I heard or saw that was
this morning], then yes there was time. But if the plane
was 20 miles out, there wasn't time. So what are the facts,
not rumors reported by a TV "reporter."


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >
| > Because I think they are wrong and they have not said
just
| > how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time
than
| > was available to allow the straight in approach and
landing?
| >
|
| So because you have no idea how it can be done you
concluded it can't be
| done.
|
| It's been stated here the airplane was about 80 miles from
DFW, I don't know
| if that's correct but nobody has disputed it so we'll
assume it is. We know
| it was being worked by center so it sounds about right.
So figure at least
| 15 minutes from touchdown, that's a lot of time. Most of
the arriving
| aircraft already within approach control airspace, perhaps
all of them, can
| get on the ground before the emergency arrives. Other DFW
bound aircraft
| will be held at arrival fixes or enroute. A flow control
message will be
| sent to stop departures to DFW from at least the closer
airports. Most of
| the departure aircraft that have already taxied will be
able to depart
| before the emergency arrives, those that haven't taxied
will be held on the
| ramp. Traffic at satellite fields will be largely
unaffected. It certainly
| isn't necessary to "turn the airport around" or sterilize
the airspace.
| What made you think it was?
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATCs job in an emergency is to think straight and get the
> PIC priority service and on the ground ASAP within the
> bounds of possibilities.
>

In this case they did neither.


>
> Think about the movie Airport,
> that had a snow covered runway, a stuck plane on a runway
> and noise complaints. Dean Martin as PIC was demanding
> clearance to the runway that was blocked. ATC doesn't have
> authority to physically clear a runway, that was about the
> only accurate part of that movie.
>

No, ATC doesn't. But there are people with that authority and Burt
Lancaster had ordered the snow plows to push the 707 off the runway if
George Kennedy wasn't able to move it by more conventional means before the
emergency aircraft arrived.

Actually, "Airport" was pretty accurate, far better than it's sequels which
went progressively from bad to bizarre.


>
> Priority does not mean ATC will build a runway in 30 seconds
> so you can land.
>

No, it means ATC will give an aircraft in distress the right of way over
all other air traffic. They didn't do that in this case, that's the error.

[Jim Macklin]

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?


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in
| :
|
| > I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| > around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
| > multiple runways.
| >
| > It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear
the
| > airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| > separation in one minute.
|
| Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?
|
| ;)
|
| Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham"
that was described
| in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the
emergency was called
| about 70 NM out.
|
| At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is
within range. And
| presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down
to 250 Kts
| allowing even more time.
|
| Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the
way safely.
|

[Judah]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in
:

> Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
> was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
> without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
> cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
> me what you think.

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."

It's possible that the fact that he had a fuel emergency was discussed
elsewhere in the phone call. But my guess is, that if the request was made that
way, controller #2 was probably justified in his refusal to stop all area
traffix for a pompous pilot wanting to land opposite the rest of the airport.

However, the report indicates (without ever playing tapes of it) that the pilot
reiterated his fuel leak situation and his request for 17C at least one other
time before landing. Presumably, the situation eventually got to the controller
responsible for runway 17C and/or 35R. But from where I sit, it may have been a
classic case of "the Telephone Game"...

[BDS]

"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

[Judah]

I've never seen this documented with respect to Aviation. Unless the rest
of the pilots and controllers on your frequency are also Coast Guard-
approved boaters, all keying "SECURITY-SECURITY-SECURITY" would do is get
me an F-16 escort at best...

I can't imagine what the kind of responses "Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon" would
solicit. I'm guessing several smart remark about cheerleaders, though.
Especially in Dallas.


Don Tuite > wrote in
:

> 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.
>
> Here's what boaters are supposed to pick up from Coast Guard Auxiliary
> or Power Squadron classes:
>
> "There are three levels of emergency calls.
>
> "First Level Emergency: The "distress" signal is "MAYDAY". This word
> should be said three (3) times: "MAYDAY - MAYDAY - MAYDAY!". This
> signal is to be used only when there is grave danger (you’re gonna
> die) to your crew or your boat.
>
> "Second Level Emergency: The "urgency" signal is "Pan-Pan" (pronounced
> "pon-pon"). This should be stated three (3) times: "PAN-PAN - PAN-PAN
> - PAN-PAN!". This signal should be used when you have a serious, but
> not life threatening, situation that requires assistance. Some
> examples are serious illness or injury to a crewmember, or if the
> captain himself becomes incapacitated. Running out of gas is not a
> Pan-Pan situation, unless you are in danger of being swept ashore in
> high seas.
>
> "Third Level Emergency: The "safety" signal is "Security" (pronounced
> as "SAY-CURE-IT-TAY"). This word should also be said three (3) times:
> "SECURITY - SECURITY - SECURITY!". This signal should be used to warn
> of conditions that may affect boaters in that area. Some examples are
> storm warnings, hazards to navigation (such as a huge log or other
> objects that could damage a boat) or alerts from large ships when they
> are going to be in a narrow channel. ("Security - Security - Security,
> this is the car ferry Badger. We will be at the Ludington pier head in
> 20 minutes.")"
>
> Don
>
>

[Danny Deger]

"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.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"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.

Danny Deger

>

[Danny Deger]

"Tony" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> or at least jobs lost.
>
> I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
> Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
> As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
> it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>
> We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
> details once the event is over, dammit!
>

My summary of this massive thread is if the controller was not able to clear
the straight-in runway because there was not enough time the controller did
well. But it the controller did not clear the straight-in runway because it
would mess up his normal traffic, the controller and/or supervisor was at
fault.

Danny Deger

[Tony]

My summary is a little different. AA complained, the FAA said their
controllers screwed up and retrained the folks on the ground so that
they'd treat the next emergency the way the rules say it should be
treated.


On Feb 25, 12:24 pm, "Danny Deger" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
> > fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
> > Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?
>
> > I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
> > that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
> > a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
> > had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
> > or at least jobs lost.
>
> > I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
> > Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
> > As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
> > it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.
>
> > We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
> > details once the event is over, dammit!
>
> My summary of this massive thread is if the controller was not able to clear
> the straight-in runway because there was not enough time the controller did
> well. But it the controller did not clear the straight-in runway because it
> would mess up his normal traffic, the controller and/or supervisor was at
> fault.
>
> Danny Deger- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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]

"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.