Low fuel emergency in DFW

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.

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.

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.
|
|

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 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

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

"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

"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

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.

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.