ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.

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

The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then
the trolly is on the track.

If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give
him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully
should not be needed.



"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."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

"We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
should take additional direct action.

It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out
okay, but absolutely did not follow through.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

"We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
should take additional direct action.

It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out okay,
but absolutely did not follow through.


The crew declared an emergency situation with that statement.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message ...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".

John R. Copeland wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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."



I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.


No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".


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

Sam Spade wrote:

John R. Copeland wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can
be taken as future intent.



No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".


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

Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot
wouldn't have changed that.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

John R. Copeland wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can
be taken as future intent.




No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".


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


Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot
wouldn't have changed that.


We seriously disagree on that one.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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


No.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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



No.



Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
turn out "wishy-washy?"

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
turn out "wishy-washy?"


The declaration was not wishy-washy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
turn out "wishy-washy?"



The declaration was not wishy-washy.


Agreed. But, he needed to continue to be agressive given the
circumstances, and he did not.