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