![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fuel leak or auxiliary fuel pump malfunction? | [email protected] | Owning | 7 | December 17th 06 12:57 PM |
Fuel quality control standards for aircraft rental/fuel sales... | [email protected] | Owning | 19 | January 19th 05 04:12 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Owning | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |