On Feb 22, 9:03 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,

"Brian" wrote:
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.

When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?

You missed the point of my fictional scenrio. The point is that it is
possible that if the pilot continued to 17 without consulting or
getting approval from ATC then there might they might not have run out
gas, because they would have collided with conflicting traffic 1st.
Crashing 2 aircraft instead of one.

As I read the excerpt from artical ATC had every right to suggest
alternatives, They are there to help after all. They had already
suggested two alternative runways to the pilot that he had refused.
Why would they think he wouldn't deny the 3rd alternative. All I see
ATC doing is pointing out the pilot that landing 17 would disrupt
traffic flow and if possilbe 35 would be better. The Pilot evidently
agreed or he would have insisted on runway 17.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL