Low fuel emergency in DFW

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

The controllers I've met would probably agree.

But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.



I are.


You is? :-)

B A R R Y writes:

But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.

Even the ones who aren't pilots would agree. I'm quite surprised that anyone
in ATC would make a mistake as stupid as this one. One wonders where they
found that supervisor.

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

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.

I have not listened to the tape - I was responding to the allegation
that in an emergency, legal separation must still be maintained.

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
:

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.

Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my initial
reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency" was
not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is requesting
17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."

It's possible that the fact that he had a fuel emergency was discussed
elsewhere in the phone call. But my guess is, that if the request was made that
way, controller #2 was probably justified in his refusal to stop all area
traffix for a pompous pilot wanting to land opposite the rest of the airport.

However, the report indicates (without ever playing tapes of it) that the pilot
reiterated his fuel leak situation and his request for 17C at least one other
time before landing. Presumably, the situation eventually got to the controller
responsible for runway 17C and/or 35R. But from where I sit, it may have been a
classic case of "the Telephone Game"...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my
initial
reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency"
was
not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is
requesting
17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."


But that would still be an ATC error.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:1lkEh.3797
:


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my
initial
reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency"
was
not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is
requesting
17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."


But that would still be an ATC error.

Oh - I absolutely agree. But it makes the error a communication error caused
by a failure of Center to effectively communicate the Emergency to the Tower.
For whatever reason, that seems to be a much more realistic training issue
than an arrogant controller who refused to accomodate a plane involved in an
emergency issue, which is IMHO more of an attitude issue that may not ever be
corrected by training...