Low fuel emergency in DFW

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "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.
|
|
| I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had
an emergency, and
| that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.
|
|

On 2007-02-22, Jim Macklin p51mustang wrote:
How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away.

I'm sure if this had resulted in (a non-fiery, given the lack of fuel)
crash, this would really have comforted the crew and passengers on that
plane.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Jim Macklin" wrote

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.

It would not have a been a "better solution" if he had run out of fuel
while maneuvering, and killed a few hundred people.

Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
right. He should have given the clearance requested, then later the
situation should be toughly investigated and the pilot reamed, if it was not
a true emergency, or if it was, then perhaps a different kind of reaming.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans writes:

Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
right. He should have given the clearance requested ...

A pilot in an emergency doesn't need a clearance; he only needs to state his
intentions.

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Jim Macklin" wrote

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.

It would not have a been a "better solution" if he had run out of fuel
while maneuvering, and killed a few hundred people.

Deciding that an emergency is not all that urgent is not the controller's
right. He should have given the clearance requested, then later the
situation should be toughly investigated and the pilot reamed, if it was
not a true emergency, or if it was, then perhaps a different kind of
reaming.

"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.

"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 -

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

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.

This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this question,
but it is at least amoung the most recent.

I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31, 2006,
which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television news
item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple of
days.

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency" plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I am not concluding, just very curious.
Peter

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.