Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me
what you think.

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach responding
"unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited approach on the
active.

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
approach on the active.


A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
approach on the active.


A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.

In article ,
"Mike Young" wrote:

A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.

In the context of Pilot-Controller communication, any distinction is
insignificant.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Mike Young wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...


"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...


The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You
did not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an
expedited approach on the active.


A response of "unable" is not a refusal?


I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.



The end result is the same. This is a distinction without a difference.

Matt

"Mike Young" wrote in message
. ..

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.


Bad analogy. Is there a distinct difference between saying you're "unable"
to hop like a frog, and saying you "refuse" to hop like a frog, when you ARE
able to hop like a frog?

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...
"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
me what you think.

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
approach on the active.



You must have listened to a different tape. Try the following. It has the
supervisor denying the straight-in.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104

Danny Deger

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...
"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
me what you think.

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
approach on the active.



You must have listened to a different tape. Try the following. It has
the supervisor denying the straight-in.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104

It's the same one that I commented on. That was a landline handoff from
enroute to approach. There was no supervisor on that tape, although it's
clear that that the reporters wouldn't mind you thinking there was. It's a
purposely inflammatory piece. Specifically, the fall-out and details of the
FAA/ATC discussions 6 months ago are only hinted at, not reported. But go
ahead. Tell me, if you know, what they talked about, what they concluded,
and how DFW approach will handle future similar situations. While you're at
it, what do you know about the suspected fuel leak or mechanical problems?

It's not the last time that low fuel situations, as distinct from
emergencies, will arise. There are very strong economic pressures to fly
with the least possible weight aboard. **** happens; cutting it close with
the fuel means you'll cut it too close some of the time. (If you're not, cut
it closer until you do!) It's in the best interest of the airlines to cut it
close. It's in the best interest for commerce, the FAA's arena, to accept
that it close has consequences. It's also in the public's interest, yours
and mine, to keep the costs low, since we drive the economic pressures. So
who's left out? Can you name two groups that would be happier with full
tanks on take off?

"Mike Young" wrote in message
. ..
snip

You are right. It was controller to controller and not a tape of a
supervisor.

It's not the last time that low fuel situations, as distinct from
emergencies, will arise.

Why bring up all this with low fuel situations "as distinct from emergency".
This was clearly and emergency fuel situation and was apparently not caused
by attempting to keep the load light to save on opperating expenses.

Danny Deger

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me
what you think.


Had I been the controller I'd have told the supervisor that if she wanted
the aircraft brought to any runway other than the one requested by the pilot
she'd have to remove me from the position.