Low fuel emergency in DFW

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
at an acceptable airport ASAP.

I don't know all of the details. It does appear that ATC was reluctant to
totally screw up their arrival patterns at DFW to handle this aircraft.
That would obviously not be acceptable if DFW was the only option. However,
the pilot also appears to have been focused on getting home more than his
"emergency". Gethomeitis is what kills the most pilots every year.

Mike Schumann

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Danny Deger wrote:
"Ross" wrote in message
...
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.


This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the
south was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in
to the south at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC
have the right to decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the
pilot a reasonable alternative?

No




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

"Mike Schumann" wrote

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
request.

It has been reported here, that he asked for the emergency 17 straight in,
82 miles away. Plenty of time to vacate the runway and move any other
aircraft in his path.
--
Jim in NC

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
request.

That wasn't the case here.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:07:14 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
at an acceptable airport ASAP.

There were no other aircraft on the runway that could not move in time. The
argument is a red herring. ATC is required to comply with the pilot's
emergency request. The time to settle whether that request was reasonable or
not is on the ground. But ATC must comply.

Rule #1 of aviation: The airplane has a Pilot in Command. The airplane is not
flown by a committee or by an anonymous voice on the ground. It is not a
democracy.

It appears here that ATC wanted to avoid departure delays even if it meant
killing people. The pilot has a responsibility to his passengers, not to
complying with ATC stupidity. The pilot failed in that responsibility, but
managed to live anyway. He might not be so lucky next time.

ATC will kill you given half a chance. It is the pilot's responsibility to
see to it that that does not happen.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

ATC has admitted they screwed up.

On Feb 23, 4:57 pm, "Danny Deger" wrote:
"Ross" wrote in message

...





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.

This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
alternative? I would say ATC should immediately provide the straight-in to
DFW if they can not give the pilot a different option, but if a straight-in
to another airport is offered maybe they can deny the straight in to DFW.
Obviously, to the pilot, landing at a non-DFW airport will create quite a
fuss for his carrier. There will cerainly be a lot of ****ed off passengers
that are delayed in getting to DFW.

Obviously the pilot can fly the straight-in to DFW regardless of ATC
clearance, but the pilot will have to answer to the FAA after he lands (this
is hint that a "certain somebody" does not need to repeat for the upteenth
time on this thread that the pilot can do what he needs to do in the event
of an emergency). BTW, I don't see a regulation that requires ATC to do
exactly what the emergency pilot wants at exactly the time the pilot asks
for it in the FARs. There is a reg that says the pilot can deviate, but I
can't find the one that ATC must obey the pilot without question or offering
alternatives.

Danny Deger



--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -