You are so clueless, it is tough to know where to start.

A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling. How bad was
that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just sufficient, but
maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks (full as in complying
with take off and landing maxima), how much did he carry, and why? Having
left with less than adequate fuel, at what point did it become an
emergency? How was it "apparently not caused by attempting to keep the
load light to save on opperating expenses"?

How much more per ticket are you willing to pay, so airliners can go zipping
around with tanks completely full?
None? I didn't think so.

In this case, it would not have mattered if he had fuel running out of the
vents, or if he had topped off at the end of the taxiway, and taken off in
3o seconds. It was a faulty reading causing the concern.

Jets carry enough fuel to divert to an alternative, plus reserves.
Sometimes they even carry more, as to make a quicker layover, or to save on
fuel costs. How much more do you want them to carry, for cripes sakes?


I draw the distinction between the chronic, verging on empty,
self-inflicted low fuel situations, and real honest by gosh emergencies.
It is chronic and intentional to arrive at the destination with minimum
fuel. The forseeable consequence of operating with narrow margins is that
you'll sometimes exceed those margins. The press paints a picture of an
uncooperative ATC. They present very few facts and, indeed, just stood
there thumping on the "bible" of FARs. We shouldn't expect the general
public to know any better. But the folks in aviation? All I've heard so
far, in the news vid and here, is just so much more harping on a pilot's
right to the runway he requested in that "emergency". It's a fine line. I
submit that there is no such right, as such, except as an extension of his
responsibility for flight safety. Did he, and his airline, act
responsibly? Where's the outcry for their part and their corrective
actions? How is it that you can speak of pic rights, without mentioning
pic responsibilities?

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
little point rehashing it without more facts.

Jeopardizing the safety of all those in the air above DFW? Jeezo Pete!
Give me a break! Scatter the whole pattern? How about maybe 5 or 6? That
is much more realistic than the whole pattern.

This should have been a non incident, if ATC had not dropped the ball. They
are human, and blew it. They know they did. No way was anyone's life in
danger. Putting someone in, even in the wrong direction, is a non issue for
ATC, and an exercise that they are well trained to do- Without Risk To
Anyone!

Save the drama for a movie, or a play. It doesn't play well, here.
--
Jim in NC