moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.
It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.

There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
it might not have.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into
the
| flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out
of
| the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
| smaller airports never has a slack time, there are
always
| long sequenced flights.
| Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long
flight...why
| did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart
without
| fuel, did they have a leak?
|
|
| They didn't know how the situation developed, they
mentioned a leak as a
| possibility.
|
|
|
| If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
| easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at
the
| runway.
|
|
| No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.
|
|
|
| BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
| newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!
|
|
| The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no
question about it.
|
|