Low fuel emergency in DFW

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?
That might cause an emergency all by itself. Just my $0.02.

Nils Rostedt writes:

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?

Yes, if the alternative is hitting a hillside at 200 knots.

If, if, if ... there seems to be some grasping at straws here. The reality is
that the PIC decides in an emergency, and ATC obeys.

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

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three
airplanes on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into
position at the end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into
position at an intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and
another for initial climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them
is typically the departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will
need to taxi on the runway to the next free exit before vacating the
runway. That probably takes the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then
consider the wake turbulence, if it was a heavy taking off - do you really
want to land into the wake? That might cause an emergency all by itself.
Just my $0.02.


So there'd be no hurry then.

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
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.

Thanks for the link. The supervisor should be fired in my opinion.

Danny Deger

Jim Macklin wrote:

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.

They do this all of the time when a thunderstorm passes over the
airport. There are procedures to interrupt traffic flow for periods of
time such as this.

If the flight had insisted on using 17C, the only time it takes is for
the airplane to get to the runway. There is no extra 30 minutes. Where
do you get that from?


Matt

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:
:

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

You're missing the point. This is not a wind change. No one is suggesting
turning the other planes around. The appropriate action would be to STOP
the flow of traffic until the aircraft with the emergency was safely on the
ground. Presumably, depending on separation requirements, they may still be
able to continue releasing traffic as long as practical until the emergency
aircraft is within some range. And yes, as a result, some delays might be
caused in the DFW schedule that day.

But guess what? Stuff like that happens... What do they do when there are
hurricane-force winds or severe thunderstorms? They deal with the problem,
some planes get delayed, and everybody ultimately gets safely to their
destination.

Same happened here, but had the fuel emergency been more severe the delays
caused by a crashed airliner trying to circle to land would have been much
more significant...


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

I agree with you 100% here. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most
news stories contain significant innacuracies or ommissions in order to
sensationalize and emotionalize the reader/viewer/listener.