It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.

I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
|
| Not all the time.
|
| These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any
interpretation
| whatsoever:
|
| "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic."
|
|
| Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the
local FAA
| expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the
flight?
|
| The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL
came very, very
| close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion.
That event
| shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well
should have.
|
| Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration
of an emergency
| is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC
or anyone else
| until after the flight is terminated. After that, the
conduct of the
| PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some
cases, sanctions.
|
| But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is
supposed to be given
| the priority he requests. If that does not work then the
PIC should, if
| necessary, rephrase it as a demand.
|
| There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the
PIC would not
| be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.