Low fuel emergency in DFW

I think I have a pretty good understanding.

I do know that no controller from any facility with traffic
like DFW has responded. So, if there is a DFW or ATL or
ORD, LAX or SFO controller out there, how long would it take
to clear the required airspace v. just fitting the emergency
into the traffic.






"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news |
| I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
| multiple runways.
|
| It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear
the
| airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| separation in one minute.
|
|
| You don't understand how ATC works.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" writes:

I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
multiple runways.

No matter what the complexity, it only takes a few minutes to clear a path.

It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
separation in one minute.

Show me the transcripts and radar traces, so that I can see how long it
actually takes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim,

I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW,


Ok, I'll be blunt: I don't think you understand you have been answered
here by controllers who know EXACTLY what that kind of emergency would
mean to operations at DFW. And they have told you repeatedly that it is
a non-issue. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Because I think they are wrong and they have not said just
how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time than
was available to allow the straight in approach and landing?

The controllers knew the position of each airplane and they
also knew the time for a straight in approach. They knew
that it would be quicker the way it was done, not the way
the PIC wanted in a "panics" state of mind.

The plane did not flame-out, there were no mid-airs, and
nobody died or was injured.

I would bet my lottery winnings from last night [did not
win] that the re-training ATC got was to include statements
of their rationalizations about traffic and flight times "on
the tape."



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in
message ...
| Jim,
|
| I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| around DFW,
|
|
| Ok, I'll be blunt: I don't think you understand you have
been answered
| here by controllers who know EXACTLY what that kind of
emergency would
| mean to operations at DFW. And they have told you
repeatedly that it is
| a non-issue. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news
I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
multiple runways.

It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
separation in one minute.

Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?



Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham" that was described
in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the emergency was called
about 70 NM out.

At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is within range. And
presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down to 250 Kts
allowing even more time.

Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the way safely.

If those distances are correct, yes ATC did not do what it
should have done. But , do all controllers have hot wives
who screw around?


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in
| news |
| I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
| multiple runways.
|
| It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear
the
| airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| separation in one minute.
|
| Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?
|
|
|
| Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham"
that was described
| in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the
emergency was called
| about 70 NM out.
|
| At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is
within range. And
| presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down
to 250 Kts
| allowing even more time.
|
| Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the
way safely.
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.


The traffic ON the runway can depart, probably a good many that have already
taxied for departure can also depart. You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:11:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.


After listening to snow removal operations at the local Class B's &
C's two weeks ago, I was surprised at how long 80 miles would be.

I heard plows on the runway with inbound jets on15 mile final.

80 miles isn't exactly right there, even for a 757. At 250 knots,
(under 10,000 ft) he's still almost 20 minutes out.

20 minutes is a long time!