Low fuel emergency in DFW

"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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Andrew

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)

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.

"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

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.

"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

"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".