Low fuel emergency in DFW

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to take
into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they had
to
balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to err
in
favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a duty
of
care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
terry


Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

"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?

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 -

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to
take
into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they
had
to
balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to
err
in
favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a
duty
of
care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
terry


Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

Not relevant. Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
anything he wanted and to hell with ATC. I was trying to point out that
this is not logical and used a hypothetical example to make the point.
I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread , of how mxmanic is
continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.
terry

Brian,

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true.


In case you hold a pilot certificate, you seriously need to rethink your
role. The term is "pilot IN COMMAND", emphasis mine. Nowhere in that term
does it say that ATC is really in command of the plane you fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tony wrote:
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.

That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
situation is over.

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.

I would hope most controllers are trained for this and can handle it.
If not, then we need new controllers, but I suspect 98% would handle
this just fine.


Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
air.
ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
maintain VFR and good luck!"

Jim, you are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of how the
ATC system works. Look how fast they cleared the skies after 9/11. And
that was the entire country, not just the 30 miles around DFW.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

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?

The PIC. ATC doesn't have to grant requests for an aircraft that has declared
an emergency, as it is already entitled to do whatever it needs to do. A PIC
who doesn't understand this is not properly carrying out his duty.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Macklin wrote:

And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
possible in less than a certain amount of time, yet you can
clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
emergency in line.

I certainly don't always agree with Steven, but I'm betting he's a lot
more familiar with moving airplanes out of the way that you are or than
I am.


Matt