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

Leonard Ellis writes:

From ATC's perspective, because
he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
"EMERGENCY."

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested ...

A pilot who has declared an emergency doesn't require that anything be
granted--he simply states his intentions. ATC's responsibility is to work
with and around the emergency.

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

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

The Pilot had every right to request it.
ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)
ATC has every right to insist as well but would have explain why he
could not use Runway 17. (Example, Departing aircraft runway 17)

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

"Brian" wrote

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

From an article referenced by ATC-News:

"(February 21, 2007)--Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport have been retrained after a pilot was denied a runway
request after declaring a low-fuel emergency.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight arriving
at DFW from Tulsa, Okla. The captain declared the emergency and asked to
land against the flow of traffic. But a controller supervisor said that
type of landing would delay other flights. A controller suggested the pilot
land on a different shorter runway or possibly divert to Dallas Love Field.
The pilot accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained DFW controllers to clarify
the controllers understanding and handling of such incidents."

It would appear that the FAA does not agree with how the controllers handled
the situation.

BDS

Brian writes:

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

ATC has no right to deny anything; it can only work around an emergency. The
PIC is the final authority when it comes to deciding what is or is not
acceptable or possible in an emergency.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

With a declared emergency, telling ATC that he will be using runway 17 is all
that's necessary. The pilot is not required to give options to ATC.

ATC had every right to deny it.

As I've said, ATC cannot deny anything to an aircraft with a declared
emergency.

The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)

The pilot doesn't even have to talk to ATC. He can just land if he has to. A
declared emergency relieves ATC of all authority.

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

"Brian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.


Impossible scenario.



If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.


He did.



The Pilot had every right to request it.


Correct.


ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)


Absolutely incorrect. FAAO 7110.65 tells an aircraft with an emergency has
priority over all other aircraft.

In article . com,
"Brian" wrote:

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?

On Feb 22, 9:03 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,

"Brian" wrote:
An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?

You missed the point of my fictional scenrio. The point is that it is
possible that if the pilot continued to 17 without consulting or
getting approval from ATC then there might they might not have run out
gas, because they would have collided with conflicting traffic 1st.
Crashing 2 aircraft instead of one.

As I read the excerpt from artical ATC had every right to suggest
alternatives, They are there to help after all. They had already
suggested two alternative runways to the pilot that he had refused.
Why would they think he wouldn't deny the 3rd alternative. All I see
ATC doing is pointing out the pilot that landing 17 would disrupt
traffic flow and if possilbe 35 would be better. The Pilot evidently
agreed or he would have insisted on runway 17.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Brian,

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true.


In case you hold a pilot certificate, you seriously need to rethink your
role. The term is "pilot IN COMMAND", emphasis mine. Nowhere in that term
does it say that ATC is really in command of the plane you fly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:06:39 -0800, Brian wrote
(in article . com):

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

The Pilot had every right to request it.
ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)

Nonsense. The pilot declared low fuel. He is in command of the aircraft. ATC
had no right to deny anything, especially for the stated reason that it
"might delay some flights," which comes across as downright frivolous.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor