Low fuel emergency in DFW

This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

,



DFW Air Traffic Controllers Retrained

Last Edited: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST
Created: Wednesday, 21 Feb 2007, 2:06 PM CST

DFW International Airport FORT WORTH --
Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
have been retrained after a pilot declared a low-fuel emergency but
wasn't allowed to land on the runway he requested.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight
between Tulsa and D-FW, according to a report in Wednesday editions of
The Dallas Morning News. The captain asked to land against the flow of
traffic.

"We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on
the ground right away, please," the pilot says on audiotapes obtained
by a television station.

A controller supervisor is heard saying that type of landing would
delay other flights. A comptroller suggests the pilot land on a
different runway or possibly go to Dallas Love Field. The pilot
accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

"That is not normal," Denny Kelly, a retired Braniff Airways
captain and aviation consultant, said of the air traffic controller's
decision. "That airplane could have run out of fuel, flamed out and
crashed."

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained D-FW controllers
to clarify handling of such incidents.

"This was a situation where there was confusion about the term
'minimal fuel' and 'fuel emergency,' " FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown
said. "The controller was confused about the distinction. When the
supervisors became aware of the incident afterward, they used the
tapes as an opportunity to retrain everyone in the facility that if a
pilot declares an emergency, he should be allowed to land on the
runway he's requested."






On Feb 23, 5:51 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Mike Young" wrote in message

...







"Might I suggest a closer airport?" seems to sum it up.

If it were strictly a fuel emergency, diverting to take on fuel would
solve the problem completely without upsetting the whole sector. The real
issue was one pilot willing to maintain his route and schedule at the
expense of everyone else in the air, including those onboard his own
plane. If there's justice in this world, bury him in paperwork for the
duration of his administrative leave. After a humbly apologetic ASRS,
write 100,000,000 times longhand "I will place the safety of others above
my own convenience." We learn and grow from our mistakes. His was such
that he should reach 8 ft. tall by summer.

Frankly, I'm dismayed and more than a little frightened by the shrill tone
that has become common on news broadcasts in the past few years, and the
unthinking echo emanating from the skulls they seem to penetrate so
easily.

If ATC does not grant a pilot's request in an emergency and the flight does
not then land uneventfully, who will be held responsible?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tony wrote:
This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
situation is over.

Matt

This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
situation is over.

This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this question,
but it is at least amoung the most recent.

I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31, 2006,
which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television news
item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple of
days.

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency" plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I am not concluding, just very curious.
Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I was looking for something like that too, also to see if the crew ever
really declared an emergency using the proper phraseology. I couldn't find
a transcript either, so there is some gray area here.

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.

As an aside, a few years ago a pilot flying a twin lost an engine and was
inbound to the airport for landing. The controllers asked him if he was
declaring an emergency and he said no. As he got closer a conflict
developed and guess what, the twin was told to go around. No emergency
(properly declared) = no priority.

BDS

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:14:10 -0500, "BDS" wrote:


Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel?

A 707, Avianca flight 52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.


A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

The 707 that crashed on Long Island did tell ATC they were low of
fuel, but never said the magic word "Emergency".

A lawyer for one of the interested parties later sued the FAA saying
they should have known it was an emergency, asking why not saying one
little work make any difference, and the court found an emergency had
to be declared, not implied. The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

In the DFW case ATC got it wrong, they have 'retrained' the folks who
screwed up. It's been repeated time and again here -- if a PIC
declares an emergency he owns the sky, period. Any price to be paid
for a bad call on his part gets to be extracted when he's on the
ground, he does NOT get second guessed while the emergency is in
progress. ATC can offer alternatives and suggestions, but does not
'control' the aircraft. There were minutes of time available for
someone at 'position and hold' to get off.

The airplanes do NOT fly for the convenience of the controllers, the
controllers are their for the safety and convenience of the airplanes.
FAA and ATCC get their pound of flesh, if they are entitled to it, raw
and after the fact, not cooked in a crash. They knew that, and the
controller and supervisor who were dealing the the AA flight know it
now, too. They've been taken to the woodshed (not the unemployment
line).








On Feb 23, 6:01 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"BDS" wrote in message

.. .



Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.

A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

On 23 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0800, "Tony" wrote:

The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

The FAA paid 40% of the damages in the Avianca 52 crash.

"Tony" wrote in message
oups.com...

The 707 that crashed on Long Island did tell ATC they were low of
fuel, but never said the magic word "Emergency".


Would saying the E-word have made a difference? They didn't run out of fuel
while waiting in a hold for their turn at an approach. They ran out of fuel
after missing an approach. How any pilot can make the decision to miss an
approach when he knows he hasn't got enough fuel to fly another one is
simply beyond me.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years
ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like
low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.


A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought they had made more than one attempt
at the approach - I do recall something about them having to hold for a long
time at one point enroute.

BDS