Low fuel emergency in DFW

"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.

"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?

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.

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!!!!!

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.

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

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

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.
|
|

"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.

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.
|
|