Low fuel emergency in DFW

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:

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.

And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short of 31, do you
still like this better solution?

I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone forge a post?

Matt

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
long sequenced flights.
Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?
If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.

BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!


"Matt Whiting" 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.
|
| And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short
of 31, do you
| still like this better solution?
|
| I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone
forge a post?
|
| Matt

"Jim Macklin" writes:

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around.

The other 12-30 airplanes have not declared emergencies.

Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?

It's not up to the pilot to justify his emergency, nor is it the controller's
role to second-guess him.

If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.

If there is nobody on the runway, he has a clear shot. If he's out of fuel,
it doesn't really matter, as there may not be any other options.

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
long sequenced flights.
Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?


They didn't know how the situation developed, they mentioned a leak as a
possibility.



If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.


No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.



BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!


The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.

moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.
It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.

There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
it might not have.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into
the
| flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out
of
| the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
| smaller airports never has a slack time, there are
always
| long sequenced flights.
| Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long
flight...why
| did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart
without
| fuel, did they have a leak?
|
|
| They didn't know how the situation developed, they
mentioned a leak as a
| possibility.
|
|
|
| If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
| easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at
the
| runway.
|
|
| No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.
|
|
|
| BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
| newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!
|
|
| The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no
question about it.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.
It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.


It's easier than you think.

Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW
area.
| It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane
and
| have a place for it to go.
|
|
| It's easier than you think.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" writes:

moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.

Simple or not, it has to be done.

It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.

It takes only a few seconds.

There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
it might not have.

If there is anyone on 17C, you have him clear the runway. If there is anyone
above decision height for landing, you have him go around. If he's below, you
have him land and get out of the way ASAP. Anyone taking off is similarly
vectored out of the way. Problem solved.

Everyone else is far enough away to be immediately moved out of the way. And
they'll be listening and waiting for instructions, which they will execute
instantly, you can be sure of that.

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

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.