Low fuel emergency in DFW

Not to stir the pot too much, but my impression from the media reports here
in Dallas (assuming they are accurate and complete): the airplane was a B757
and ATC offered the flight two adequate runways closer to his/her ground
track to DFW (McKinney [KTKI] and Addison [KADS]). Per the media reports,
the PIC declined both, I imagine for many reasons including inconvenience to
his passengers and heat from his company. From ATC's perspective, because
he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
"EMERGENCY."

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested, in
my opinion the PIC should suffer a serious roasting for declining two
adequate closer runways (especially McKinney), chosing instead to fly his
reportedly critically low-fuel bird over the much more densely populated
areas closer to DFW enroute to either DFW's 17C or 31R. If he truly had
insufficient fuel to make a safe landing anywhere, going down in the
relatively sparsely populated countryside would have likely risked far fewer
lives than trying to put that B757 down on a crowded freeway, a lake or
river, or into someone's neighborhood.

Cheers,
Leonard
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .
The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want
the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it
to get to DFW.

Mike Schumann

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

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll.
The reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied
the requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I
think both heads should roll.




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