Low fuel emergency in DFW

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to take
into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they had
to
balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to err
in
favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a duty
of
care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
terry


Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land? ATC have to
take
into account the safety of all aircraft in their control, and if they
had
to
balance the risk of one aircraft versus another , surely they have to
err
in
favour of the aircraft who has done nothing wrong. The pilot has a
duty
of
care to other people apart from his own aircraft and pax.
terry


Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

Not relevant. Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
anything he wanted and to hell with ATC. I was trying to point out that
this is not logical and used a hypothetical example to make the point.
I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread , of how mxmanic is
continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.
terry

d&tm writes:

Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
anything he wanted and to hell with ATC.

Yes. It's in the rules and regulations, for both ATC and pilots. And the
regulations are completely unambiguous about this.

The pilot in command is master and commander of the flight, following the
maritime tradition. He is 100% responsible for the flight, and he has 100%
authority for its safety. It's a time-tested principle and it works well.

I was trying to point out that this is not logical and used a
hypothetical example to make the point.

It's completely logical, which is why it has applied for centuries.

I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread, of how mxmanic is
continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.

This issue has nothing to do with ATC. Once the pilot declares an emergency,
ATC is out of the loop. The error in the incident under question was that ATC
didn't understand this. A possible secondary error was that the pilot may not
have understood it, either, but that remains to be seen with a fuller
investigation. The error of ATC Is indisputable and grave.

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

D&tm,

yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.


You're answering to a controller, IIRC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"d&tm" wrote in message
...

yet how many pilots here think they know more about ATC than the
controllers.


Many are absolutely convinced of it.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

There's _never_ a fully-laden 747 that can't be moved in time, unless it is
chained to ring bolts in the concrete of the runway. A 747 can be out of the
way in seconds.

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

Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it off
the runway. There's a lot of mass involved. Plus, you may have taxiways
that are clogged with other traffic. 747s don't make good off road
vehicles.

Mike Schumann

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll writes:

Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

There's _never_ a fully-laden 747 that can't be moved in time, unless it
is
chained to ring bolts in the concrete of the runway. A 747 can be out of
the
way in seconds.

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



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

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it
off the runway.

So not very long at all.

Mike Schumann writes:

Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it off
the runway. There's a lot of mass involved.

A 747 on the runway will have its engines running. It can be clear of the
runway in a few seconds. And in this case, it would have far more time to get
clear, probably several minutes.

Of course, this is all a hypothesis that has no real basis in reality. In
reality, 747s do not sit on the runway blocking traffic.

Plus, you may have taxiways that are clogged with other traffic.

No, you don't. The taxiways off the runway are clear. Aircraft may be
taxiing in other areas, but they are not parking on the taxiways directly
adjacent to the runway.

747s don't make good off road vehicles.

They don't have to. They can move very quickly.

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