If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC. Not all the time. These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any interpretation whatsoever: "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic." Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the local FAA expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the flight? The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL came very, very close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion. That event shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well should have. Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration of an emergency is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC or anyone else until after the flight is terminated. After that, the conduct of the PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some cases, sanctions. But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is supposed to be given the priority he requests. If that does not work then the PIC should, if necessary, rephrase it as a demand. There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the PIC would not be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light for every action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable, and will get all possible assistance. The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've wasted too much time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating rumors and TV gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either. Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that is mostly not relevant to the discussion? Matt |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see 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: No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request, demand or wish can, will or should be granted. Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional service" as defined here. This is talking about optional services like VFR advisories, not dealing with an emergency. Matt |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
I copied the whole thing previously. Yes, I have honor and
common sense. I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but 91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any action not needed. If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the limitations exception, not as a total argument. see a dictionary for carte blanche... "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... | | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | ... | | Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see | 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: | | | Right of way is a statutory right granted an airplane to proceed ahead of | another. I see that you deleted subparagraph c. from your copy and paste of | FAAO 7110.65 paragraph 2-1-1. You have no honor. | | | | No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means | ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have | limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way | and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request, | demand or wish can, will or should be granted. | | | What does it mean to you? | | | | We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC. | | | Did ATC do the best they could in this case? | | |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will, shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft [except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them. It is not carte blanche. Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means what is possible. I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking, maybe it will improve service on both sides. All words are subject to interpretation and very few words are absolutely clear. Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer write the laws? "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | | We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC. | | Not all the time. | | These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any interpretation | whatsoever: | | "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic." | | | Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the local FAA | expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the flight? | | The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL came very, very | close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion. That event | shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well should have. | | Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration of an emergency | is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC or anyone else | until after the flight is terminated. After that, the conduct of the | PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some cases, sanctions. | | But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is supposed to be given | the priority he requests. If that does not work then the PIC should, if | necessary, rephrase it as a demand. | | There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the PIC would not | be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
yes
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light for every | action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable, and will get all | possible assistance. | | The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've wasted too much | time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating rumors and TV | gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either. | | Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that is mostly not | relevant to the discussion? | | Matt |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3 does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if necessary. Giving priority handling does not mean or require doing everything the pilots asks. It does mean that ATC won't vector you the normal 20 mile base leg and they will fit you in ASAP. There are priorities... "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see | 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: | | | | No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means | ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have | limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way | and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request, | demand or wish can, will or should be granted. | | Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional service" as | defined here. This is talking about optional services like VFR | advisories, not dealing with an emergency. | | Matt |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news I copied the whole thing previously. Why didn't you read it? Yes, I have honor and common sense. You have neither. I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but 91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any action not needed. If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the limitations exception, not as a total argument. see a dictionary for carte blanche... The request we're discussing could have been granted, and should have. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
All words are subject to interpretation and very few words are absolutely clear. Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer write the laws? Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113 language I previously cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room in that language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out of court. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message ... It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will, shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft [except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them. It is not carte blanche. Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means what is possible. The request was possible but still refused. I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking, maybe it will improve service on both sides. All words are subject to interpretation and very few words are absolutely clear. The words in question are absolutely clear. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW | John | Piloting | 9 | March 14th 07 03:38 AM |
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure | Rick Umali | Piloting | 17 | November 5th 06 03:35 AM |
Angel Flight fuel discounts | John Doe | Piloting | 4 | January 20th 06 01:24 PM |
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | January 11th 04 04:04 PM |
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! | Paul Millner | Owning | 1 | July 7th 03 10:10 PM |