Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Exactly!!!!!

Exactly what?

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:14:10 -0500, "BDS" wrote:


Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel?

A 707, Avianca flight 52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

He PASSED those two on the way to DFW.

You misunderstood the question.

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.


A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

Danny Deger writes:

Also, on my solo flight of a T-38 at Reese AFB, I had a compressor stall on
climb out. I declared an emergency on and asked for a vector back to base.
I was initially kind of ****ed off because I was told to maintain current
heading.

You don't have to do that if you've declared an emergency.

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

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
at an acceptable airport ASAP.

I don't know all of the details. It does appear that ATC was reluctant to
totally screw up their arrival patterns at DFW to handle this aircraft.
That would obviously not be acceptable if DFW was the only option. However,
the pilot also appears to have been focused on getting home more than his
"emergency". Gethomeitis is what kills the most pilots every year.

Mike Schumann

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Danny Deger wrote:
"Ross" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same
token, it is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his
destination after he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and
hassles of diverting to a closer airport.



What closer airport?

The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have
been just as quick.


This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the
south was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in
to the south at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC
have the right to decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the
pilot a reasonable alternative?

No




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

That's the attitude that led up the NASA loosing two Space Shuttles, and
having a Concorde crash in flames.

Mike Schumann

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mike Schumann writes:

Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained
fuel
shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest
airport?

There are many possible reasons. The nearest airport may not have a
runway
suitable for your aircraft. The nearest airport may not have a runway
that is
accessible to you without a lot of extra maneuvering. You may be low on
fuel
but with a very precise idea of how long you can continue to fly, which
may
allow you to reach an airport with better facilities than the closest one.

Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks are a
serious fire hazard.

A leak that is a serious fire hazard will cause a fire fairly quickly. A
leak
that has not done so isn't likely to begin doing so after an extended
period.
A leak that loses fuel to the atmosphere isn't much of a hazard at all
from a
fire standpoint.

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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.

And for everyone speculating, here's the news report in question:

http://tinyurl.com/24jjaz

(There's a brief ad in front of the report.) The video includes audio
clips of the radio traffic. Interesting coincidence that the station's
call sign is WFAA.

Only egregious error I see in the reporting is the graphic at the
beginning that contains an arrow from Dallas to Tulsa, rather than the
reverse.

ATC has admitted they screwed up.

On Feb 23, 4:57 pm, "Danny Deger" wrote:
"Ross" wrote in message

...





Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
...

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after
he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to
a closer airport.

What closer airport?

The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.

This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
alternative? I would say ATC should immediately provide the straight-in to
DFW if they can not give the pilot a different option, but if a straight-in
to another airport is offered maybe they can deny the straight in to DFW.
Obviously, to the pilot, landing at a non-DFW airport will create quite a
fuss for his carrier. There will cerainly be a lot of ****ed off passengers
that are delayed in getting to DFW.

Obviously the pilot can fly the straight-in to DFW regardless of ATC
clearance, but the pilot will have to answer to the FAA after he lands (this
is hint that a "certain somebody" does not need to repeat for the upteenth
time on this thread that the pilot can do what he needs to do in the event
of an emergency). BTW, I don't see a regulation that requires ATC to do
exactly what the emergency pilot wants at exactly the time the pilot asks
for it in the FARs. There is a reg that says the pilot can deviate, but I
can't find the one that ATC must obey the pilot without question or offering
alternatives.

Danny Deger



--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote

He PASSED those two on the way to DFW.

At such a high altitude that he would have had to go halfway to DFW then
turn to go back, just to lose the altitude.
--
Jim in NC