Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Jim Macklin" writes:

What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?

The time required is not necessarily correlated with the number of aircraft to
be moved.

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

Nils Rostedt writes:

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?

Yes, if the alternative is hitting a hillside at 200 knots.

If, if, if ... there seems to be some grasping at straws here. The reality is
that the PIC decides in an emergency, and ATC obeys.

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

Mike Schumann writes:

That's the attitude that led up the NASA loosing two Space Shuttles, and
having a Concorde crash in flames.

Hardly. Those incidents had nothing to do with pilot decisions.

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

The question is , "Feathers or lead?"


or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?
|
|
| What's heavier, a ton of feathers, or a ton of sand?
|
|

On Feb 22, 10:41 am, Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic
wrote:

Cool. So next time someone declares anemergency, ATC is free to vector aircraft into each other,
as their "only responsibility is to keep other people out of your way."

Next time, engage your brain before you start typing, asshole.

You know, while Mxsmanic might not be my favorite poster, what he's
posting is a lot more interesting, and a lot less hostile, than the
stuff you're spewing lately. Right or wrong, he's contributing to the
discussion, and he's no more off base than many of the other people
posting to this thread.

And lately, you've been engaging in exactly the same kind of rhetoric
that's turned many people off to his posts. Take a look at yourself
before you start accusing other people.

If I had to boot one or the other of you, I'd choose you, since you're
making the group even less pleasant to read than he is. Fortunately,
I don't have to make that choice -- I've killfiled him, and I can do
the same to you. (I only looked at his posts in this thread because
you called attention to them. Oh, the irony!)

*PLONK*

Jim Macklin wrote:

What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?

Moving two would take less time, but moving 50 takes less time than
cleaning up one crash.

Matt

Mike Schumann wrote:

From what I remember that took a couple of hours before eveyone was on the
ground.

Which to me is absolutely amazing.

Matt

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

The question is , "Feathers or lead?"


or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?


It's my question, I decide what it is. I see it's got you stumped.

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three
airplanes on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into
position at the end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into
position at an intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and
another for initial climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them
is typically the departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will
need to taxi on the runway to the next free exit before vacating the
runway. That probably takes the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then
consider the wake turbulence, if it was a heavy taking off - do you really
want to land into the wake? That might cause an emergency all by itself.
Just my $0.02.


So there'd be no hurry then.

"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.