Low fuel emergency in DFW

C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.

Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

John

"The Visitor" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.


No he didn't.



Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).


This one wasn't shy, this one declared an emergency.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:07:44 -0800, The Visitor wrote
(in article ):



C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.

Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

It is a good idea to tell ATC that you have an emergency, but doing so may
not always be practical or even possible. Besides, some things are just
understood to be emergencies, like being so low on fuel that flying a normal
approach and landing might be unsuccessful.

When you are low fuel and need special handling, it is an emergency, whether
you specifically say it is or not. If you were to tell ATC that you were on
fire, they should treat it as an emergency whether you 'declare' one or not.
If you say you have runaway trim, a hijacker, or a large flying octopus that
has covered your entire windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare'
one or not. An unruly passenger grabbing for the controls is an emergency.
Losing all your hydraulic fluid is an emergency. Landing with a flat tire is
an emergency (hint: the checklist is in the "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES" section of
the POH). A passenger that passes out is an emergency.
There are many types of emergencies, with many different probabilities of
someone being hurt or killed, but they are all emergencies. Not all
emergencies have to be reported. Many emergencies are easily dealt with. But
they remain emergencies nonetheless.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:46 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not.

FWIW, I've had airplane problems where ATC has asked me "would you
like to declare?"

Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
declaring does have some significance.

C J Campbell wrote:
If you say you have runaway trim, a
hijacker, or a large flying octopus that has covered your entire
windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare' one or not.

If it's a giant squid instead of an octopus would it still be an emergency?
How about a monster in the aft circuitry room?

I've seen those kinds of things on the old TV series "Voyage to the Bottom
of the Sea" and I can't remember if they ever declared an emergency. Of
course their altitude was rather low at the time. As I recal, their vehicle
had canards on the front but rather small stubby wings; here's a picture of
them at takeoff:

http://www.omenaheights.com/voyage_b...sea_breach.jpg

(I suppose the kinds of emergencies experienced on that show now explains
why aircraft don't have circuitry rooms and composite hull construction has
never been popular. If you have to dislodge the giant octopus/squid/monster
attached to the hull, there's nothing like running 100,000V through the
hull. But that's not so easy to do if the hull is an electrical insulator.)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:07:44 -0800, The Visitor wrote
(in article ):



C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.

Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
"declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

It is a good idea to tell ATC that you have an emergency, but doing so may
not always be practical or even possible. Besides, some things are just
understood to be emergencies, like being so low on fuel that flying a
normal
approach and landing might be unsuccessful.

When you are low fuel and need special handling, it is an emergency,
whether
you specifically say it is or not. If you were to tell ATC that you were
on
fire, they should treat it as an emergency whether you 'declare' one or
not.
If you say you have runaway trim, a hijacker, or a large flying octopus
that
has covered your entire windshield, it is an emergency, whether you
'declare'
one or not. An unruly passenger grabbing for the controls is an emergency.
Losing all your hydraulic fluid is an emergency. Landing with a flat tire
is
an emergency (hint: the checklist is in the "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES" section
of
the POH). A passenger that passes out is an emergency.
There are many types of emergencies, with many different probabilities of
someone being hurt or killed, but they are all emergencies. Not all
emergencies have to be reported. Many emergencies are easily dealt with.
But
they remain emergencies nonetheless.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


There is a formal call in the world of aviation of "minimum fuel" that is
clearly stated as NOT an emergency. It simply means excessive delays can
not be tolerated.

Danny Deger

"C J Campbell" wrote

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
"declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

Excerpt from the USDOT FAA Air Traffic Bulletin:

"The Pilot/Controller Glossary describes EMERGENCY as "a distress or an
urgency condition." Aircraft instruments can individually or collectively
conspire to require pilots to consider declaring an emergency. Vacuum pump,
alternator/generator, and pilot/static systems often seem to be the
culprits. Loss of any of these systems should probably cause a prudent pilot
to consider declaring an emergency and to land as soon as practical.
However, pilots often hesitate to declare an emergency fearing the mythical
mountain of paperwork, government interviews, and ramp checks they have read
about in chat rooms and heard about in pilot lounges. Few, if any of us,
have ever met a pilot with firsthand knowledge of this paperwork
catastrophe, but most pilots believe it exists. Fortunately, FAA orders
allow controllers to handle a situation as though it were an emergency even
if the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used."

I think the idea is that if you want a guarantee of priority handling you
should use the proper terminology (note that they use the phrase "delcaring
an emergency"). Sure, ATC *may* give it to you even if you don't, but there
is no guarantee that they will, and there are plenty of real-world examples
of this out there that ended badly or very well could have.

The various recurrency training courses I have taken over the years have
always referred to the need to declare the emergency in order to be assured
of priority handling. In fact, one of the training centers I am familiar
with is run by a retired ATC professional who also designed and teaches a
portion of the course, so if this is all a misconception it seems to be a
widely held one.

BDS

"Leonard Ellis" wrote in message
...

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.


The pilot's actions can be judged after the event. During the emergency he
gets whatever he wants.