Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.



"Jose" wrote in message
...
| neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| separation in one minute.
|
| Legal separation is nice, but in an emergency, I'll settle
for anything
| that doesn't bend metal.
|

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.

Danny Deger

| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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.

It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world, and the
reason for the heat in this thread. On the scale of bigness, the only
uncertainty I have is which is larger, the semantics of can't versus won't;
or answering "Affirmative!" to the question "Are you declaring an emergency
at this time?" There's no room for mush-mouth weasel words in that incident.
I don't believe the news broadcast told all that was worth telling.

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.

It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world...

"refuse" and "unable" means the same thing from the ATC POV.

--
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?

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

"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?

Yes, I do believe this is at the crux of this thread (rope). The presumption
is that the controller stating UNABLE in any way resembles a pilot's use of
UNABLE. It may or may not be the case that your usage is in fact a
disingenuous refutation of your responsibilities. It may in fact, or might
not, be the case that the DFW approach controller said "unable" when he
really meant "my lazy ass ain't about to clear a path for your lazy ass." I
submit that *that* would be the death knell of the NAS and civil aviation if
it were truly what transpired.

I can frog hop, but in truth, my pelvis, knees, and ankles are quite
different from a frog's. I have a doctor's note that says so. I am very
definitely unable to hop like a frog.

We're down to just the semantics of the controller's statement that he was
*UNABLE* to land the distressed aircraft on the requested runway. We know
where each of us stands as to its meaning, and there's no need to repeat it
yet again. Maybe we can be done with this at last. The sad part is that
after all the angst, there were no lessons or values to take forward from
this.