Low fuel emergency in DFW

"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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

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.


Irrelevant. The only acceptable response to any declared emergency is to
give the pilot whatever he wants.

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.

And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short of 31, do you
still like this better solution?

I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone forge a post?

Matt

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

Leonard Ellis writes:

From ATC's perspective, because
he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
"EMERGENCY."

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested ...

A pilot who has declared an emergency doesn't require that anything be
granted--he simply states his intentions. ATC's responsibility is to work
with and around the emergency.

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

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

The Pilot had every right to request it.
ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)
ATC has every right to insist as well but would have explain why he
could not use Runway 17. (Example, Departing aircraft runway 17)

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

"Leonard Ellis" wrote in message
...

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.


The pilot's actions can be judged after the event. During the emergency he
gets whatever he wants.

Steven P. McNicoll 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.

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.

Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:

Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

The PIC is the sole judge of what is safe or not on the flight. He has the
option of deciding to do something different if he considers it safe. He even
has the option of following a _suggestion_ from ATC. But he doesn't _have_ to
listen to ATC, and ATC cannot _deny_ him anything, once he has declared an
emergency.

Perhaps he felt that he could safely land a different way; the investigation
will determine this. If he changed his plans solely on the basis of what ATC
told him, however, and this further endangered the flight, then perhaps a
change of career is advisable.

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

Tony wrote:


We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


All the PIC had to say was "unable" and say he was landing on 17C. Its
up to the controller to deal with it.

91.3 lets you break all the rules, but you have to account for them
later on review.

Dave