ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Mxsmanic wrote:



I thought simulators didn't count.

Why do you think that?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
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.

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only one
runway?

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make the
single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?

Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like the
controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze" reports
excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever, contain all
the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that I'm getting the
whole complete story :-/

KP wrote:




Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only one
runway?

Never happened in my world.

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make the
single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?

First come, first served.


Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.

As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like the
controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze" reports
excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever, contain all
the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that I'm getting the
whole complete story :-/


The tape recording and the fact AAL wrote to the FAA is good enough for me.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
KP wrote:

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
one runway?

Never happened in my world.

And therefore it never has or will? It has happened and when it did someone
other than one of several "pilots in command" of the several emergency
aircraft made the decision on who's first and who got what. When it happens
again, and it will, the decisions will again be made by someone else.
Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that someone is ATC.

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can
wait?

First come, first served.

So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.

Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.

But it is pertinent to the statement "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."

As for the incident that prompted this thread, while it sure looks like
the controller involved stepped on his dick, considering that "nooze"
reports excreted by the "bubble headed bleach blond" seldom, if ever,
contain all the facts (if any facts at all) I don't have much faith that
I'm getting the whole complete story :-/

The tape recording and the fact AAL wrote to the FAA is good enough for
me.

IOW your PT program consists of running off at a keyboard and jumping to
conclusions :-/

It could well be in this instance the controller screwed-up. As I said it
sure looks like it from here. But any real determination will be made by
facility management, QA, and perhaps outside investigators who will all have
access to all the information.

It's just that I've been involved in doing enough incident investigations to
know that tapes don't always tell whole story and a complaint letter from
the aircraft operator doesn't constitute factual evidence.

Not to mention the so-called accuracy of reports on any even semi-technical
subject by today's media would be laughable if it weren't for the number of
sheep who swallow them hook, line, and sinker :-(

KP wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

KP wrote:

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
one runway?


Never happened in my world.


And therefore it never has or will? It has happened and when it did someone
other than one of several "pilots in command" of the several emergency
aircraft made the decision on who's first and who got what. When it happens
again, and it will, the decisions will again be made by someone else.
Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that someone is ATC.

Most air carrier airports have more than one runway. That is why it
never happened in my world.

I also flew a lot of light-twin turboprop into a single runway airport
as you suggest. We always carried fuel for nearby airports because of
the distinct possibility the runway could have a disabled aircraft on it
at our arrival.


-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can
wait?

First come, first served.


So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.

No one can anticipate the future second emergency at the time the first
emergency is declared.

USAF operations are far more volatile than most civil operations.

Doesn't happen very often but it *does* happen. BT-DT.

It is not pertinent to the type of airport that started this thread.


But it is pertinent to the statement "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."

Perhaps it is pertinent but it does not change the fact that the PIC
calls the shots in an emergency, not ATC. Good judgment is a
presumption on my part; thus a pilot with an emergency is not going to
insist on a runway that is closed.~

"KP" nospam@please wrote in message
. ..

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
one runway?

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?


A USAF pilot called for a priority landing because his F-100 was running "a
bit peaked." ATC told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a
B-52 that had an engine out. "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded
seven-engine approach."

KP writes:

So even though the first emergency has plenty of gas but the nature of his
emergency means he'll tie up the airport for longer than the second
emergency can afford to wait it's still "first come - first served?" I
guess you can be glad you weren't "Number Two in the Emergency Pattern" in
an A-7 with a rough running engine waiting while the "first emergency" DC-3
dragged itself down final on one engine. Or in the "second" emergency F-106
at High Key behind the "first" emergency B-52 with one engine shut down.

This isn't the military.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

Perhaps it is pertinent but it does not change the fact that the PIC
calls the shots in an emergency, not ATC. Good judgment is a
presumption on my part; thus a pilot with an emergency is not going to
insist on a runway that is closed.~

I dunno ... Dean Martin did.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sam Spade writes:

Why do you think that?

That's what most people here seem to believe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"KP" nospam@please wrote in message
. ..

Just for the sake of a slightly expanded discussion:
-What happens in your world when there are multiple emergencies but only
one runway?

-What happens if the closest emergency's problem is one that would make
the single runway unusable for longer than the other emergencies can wait?



A USAF pilot called for a priority landing because his F-100 was running "a
bit peaked." ATC told the fighter pilot that he was number two, behind a
B-52 that had an engine out. "Ah," the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded
seven-engine approach."



And then he said "switching to guns."

Matt