This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

,



DFW Air Traffic Controllers Retrained

Last Edited: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST
Created: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST

DFW International Airport FORT WORTH --
Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
have been retrained after a pilot declared a low-fuel emergency but
wasn't allowed to land on the runway he requested.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight
between Tulsa and D-FW, according to a report in Wednesday editions of
The Dallas Morning News. The captain asked to land against the flow of
traffic.

"We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on
the ground right away, please," the pilot says on audiotapes obtained
by a television station.

A controller supervisor is heard saying that type of landing would
delay other flights. A comptroller suggests the pilot land on a
different runway or possibly go to Dallas Love Field. The pilot
accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

"That is not normal," Denny Kelly, a retired Braniff Airways
captain and aviation consultant, said of the air traffic controller's
decision. "That airplane could have run out of fuel, flamed out and
crashed."

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained D-FW controllers
to clarify handling of such incidents.

"This was a situation where there was confusion about the term
'minimal fuel' and 'fuel emergency,' " FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown
said. "The controller was confused about the distinction. When the
supervisors became aware of the incident afterward, they used the
tapes as an opportunity to retrain everyone in the facility that if a
pilot declares an emergency, he should be allowed to land on the
runway he's requested."






On Feb 23, 5:51 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Mike Young" wrote in message

...







"Might I suggest a closer airport?" seems to sum it up.

If it were strictly a fuel emergency, diverting to take on fuel would
solve the problem completely without upsetting the whole sector. The real
issue was one pilot willing to maintain his route and schedule at the
expense of everyone else in the air, including those onboard his own
plane. If there's justice in this world, bury him in paperwork for the
duration of his administrative leave. After a humbly apologetic ASRS,
write 100,000,000 times longhand "I will place the safety of others above
my own convenience." We learn and grow from our mistakes. His was such
that he should reach 8 ft. tall by summer.

Frankly, I'm dismayed and more than a little frightened by the shrill tone
that has become common on news broadcasts in the past few years, and the
unthinking echo emanating from the skulls they seem to penetrate so
easily.

If ATC does not grant a pilot's request in an emergency and the flight does
not then land uneventfully, who will be held responsible?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -