ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.


No.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.


"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."

Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a
declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.

What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
avoided.

What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.

ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.

I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
since they can and do leave many things out.



"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
|
| ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of
minimum fuel,
| which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
|
|
| "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air
traffic control. "We
| got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel
leak or what, but we
| need to get on the ground, right away, please."
|
| Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as
anything less than a
| declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head
up and locked.
|
| What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some
inconvenience is
| avoided.
|
| What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field
and people die.
|
|
| --
| Dan
| C172RG at BFM
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.

Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency
should be granted *if at all possible.*

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should
be granted *if at all possible.*


Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case.

Jim Macklin wrote:



I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
since they can and do leave many things out.


It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their
database.

Chances are the FAA won't publish anything.

FOIA then.



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
|
| I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the
news
| media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
| since they can and do leave many things out.
|
|
| It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't
find it in their
| database.
|
| Chances are the FAA won't publish anything.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.

There's no reason I can think of that he could not have been cleared
for straight in from his position to the runway he requested; traffic
could have been moved out of the way without problem or incident --
delay, sure, but no problem or incident.

Rick

But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
plane with the emergency.


"Ricky Robbins" wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
| than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out
of
| the way.
|
| There's no reason I can think of that he could not have
been cleared
| for straight in from his position to the runway he
requested; traffic
| could have been moved out of the way without problem or
incident --
| delay, sure, but no problem or incident.
|
| Rick

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.


So he's north of the field, and you say it's faster to go to runway 35 than
to runway 17? Is the shortest distance between two points something other
than a straight line in your world?



ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.


Which would be done by the time he arrives for runway 17.



I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
since they can and do leave many things out.


Perhaps, but the portion of the tape that was included shows the pilot
declared an emergency and was denied expeditious handling.