Low fuel emergency in DFW

"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.

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.

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "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.
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" writes:

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.

It takes only a few seconds to divert it.

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewher

They don't have to go far. One minute after a 10 degree heading they would
be out of the way.

Danny Deger

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.


The traffic ON the runway can depart, probably a good many that have already
taxied for departure can also depart. You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.

"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