Low fuel emergency in DFW

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
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




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

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .
I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you land?
What were the weather conditions?

Allen wrote:


He was over Bonham VOR, 81 miles out probably descending through about
13,000 - 15,000 ft msl traveling 4-5 miles/minute. Where would you
land? What were the weather conditions?

KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in his
flight path.

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.


What closer airport?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.



What closer airport?



The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.

When are people going to get the basic facts right here? He had not just
left DFW. He was headed to DFW from Tulsa.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.

This is an excellent point. In this case the pilot would need to tell ATC
"unable" on the other two runways and tell them the straight-in to 17 is
required.

Danny Deger

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
can just circle over a patch of grass and land.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it is
also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.

Mike Schumann

Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
can just circle over a patch of grass and land.

And while the point is still valid, it was a 757, not a 777.