ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this thread
so I suspect you already knew that Matt.

I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK pilot
that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued on
past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
questioning.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
t...
If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested
to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to
deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even
after being asked about landing there.

Between Tulsa and DFW, which airports would those be?


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK pilot
that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued on
past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
questioning.

In fact, it was a British Airways 747 that continued on three engines, not
one. Here's an interesting column about that the incident:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/193882-1.html

Jim Carter wrote:
I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this thread
so I suspect you already knew that Matt.

Did you see the plot I posted in a similar thread? DAL and DFW 17C were
the same distance from his position at declaration.

Check the message I left pointing to the graphic, in which I give the
Part 121 perspective.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:


What the F do you know about "real-world" instrument flight?


More than some people, apparently, particularly the tin-can pilots who have
never done it or studied it.



What did you get on the FAA (written) knowledge test? How was your
instrument checkride?

What's that you say? Didn't take either of them? You are living in a
fantasy world. Face it. If everyone/most people you intereact with -
in real life, your fantasy world, or the internet all say you are a
little off or nuts or gcrazy or need to grow up - the problem isn;t with
them. Guess where the problem lies...

Given the little I know of you based on your own comments about phobias
and the like - I would venture to say that you have a significant mental
problem and have problems with reality. Most everyone here seems to
understand that you are not living in the real world.

Again, until you fly for real, keep your smart-ass, arrogant,
simulator-based comments to yourself.

You're right - my mistake.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Barry" wrote in message
. ..
I'm not condoning what ATC did or how they responded, but like the UK
pilot
that continued on single-engine across the pond I wonder why AA continued
on
past a suitable airport once they knew they had a problem. That's all I'm
questioning.

In fact, it was a British Airways 747 that continued on three engines, not
one. Here's an interesting column about that the incident:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/193882-1.html

Just saw it Sam. Nice perspective and probably pretty accurate too. I am no
way advocating that ATC did right, I was just wondering if the actions of
the aircrew might seem inconsistent with their declarations. I'm not sure
that can be answered, but it really shouldn't matter either.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Jim Carter wrote:
I believe the closest would have been Love based on the point at which he
mentioned the fuel problem. This has already been addressed in this
thread so I suspect you already knew that Matt.

Did you see the plot I posted in a similar thread? DAL and DFW 17C were
the same distance from his position at declaration.

Check the message I left pointing to the graphic, in which I give the Part
121 perspective.

I'm going have to go pull mxmaniac out of my kill file - I can only see you
guys arguing with him and the conversation just doesn't keep up.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Tim" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

The fact that I do is one reason why I'm so wary of the answers I
receive.
And the more vehemently a poster insists upon the correctness of his
answers,
the more likely he is to be wrong.


You just described yourself.

Tim writes:

What did you get on the FAA (written) knowledge test? How was your
instrument checkride?

I haven't taken the test, nor have I taken any checkrides.

What's that you say? Didn't take either of them?

Right. Of course, even people who do well on them had not taken them before
they took them.

Again, until you fly for real, keep your smart-ass, arrogant,
simulator-based comments to yourself.

I don't make smart-ass or arrogant comments, so that's not a problem.
However, if I feel like discussing aviation simulation, I will, with or
without your approval.

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

John R. Copeland wrote:
And the DME is purely luxury, you know.
I've taken VOR cross-bearings with a single working VOR receiver.

The DME does make life a lot simpler, doesn't it?

On my checkride, the DE asked me to figure out our location after I came
out from under the hood. I used one VOR and the DME, and showed him our
position on the chart.

He challenged me on how I could do it with one VOR, but I explained about
the DME, and he seemed to accept the explanation. He didn't seem happy about
it, though. (I'm not sure if he had realized there was a DME in the
plane before I used it.)

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

Sam Spade wrote:
You guys are spoiled. My cross-countries for my private where without
any nav equipment.

Did you have a compass?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com