Low fuel emergency in DFW

"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.

I thought otherwise -- thanks for the correction.

On Feb 23, 7:21 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
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