![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away." Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of the way. ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that have departed and are strung out on approach in case the emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach. I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape" since they can and do leave many things out. "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... | | "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: | | ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, | which is NOT a declaration of emergency. | | | "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." | | Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a | declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked. | | What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is | avoided. | | What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die. | | | -- | Dan | C172RG at BFM | | |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Macklin wrote:
The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It wanted to be on the ground "right away." Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of the way. Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should be granted *if at all possible.* |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should be granted *if at all possible.* Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should be granted *if at all possible.* Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case. Then, since you agree with that, why wasn't it "wishy-washy?" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Macklin wrote:
I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape" since they can and do leave many things out. It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their database. Chances are the FAA won't publish anything. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
FOIA then.
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | | | I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news | media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape" | since they can and do leave many things out. | | | It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their | database. | | Chances are the FAA won't publish anything. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Macklin wrote:
FOIA then. That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless you really nail them down. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Then you nail them down.
BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are stakeholders]. "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | FOIA then. | | | That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless you really | nail them down. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Macklin wrote:
Then you nail them down. BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are stakeholders]. I don't want to nail them down. ;-) I make FOIAs when it is an issue of serious interest to me. This issue is of passing interest. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote: ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of the way. There's no reason I can think of that he could not have been cleared for straight in from his position to the runway he requested; traffic could have been moved out of the way without problem or incident -- delay, sure, but no problem or incident. Rick |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW | John | Piloting | 9 | March 14th 07 03:38 AM |
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure | Rick Umali | Piloting | 17 | November 5th 06 03:35 AM |
Angel Flight fuel discounts | John Doe | Piloting | 4 | January 20th 06 01:24 PM |
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | January 11th 04 04:04 PM |
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! | Paul Millner | Owning | 1 | July 7th 03 10:10 PM |