Low fuel emergency in DFW

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and
asked
for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line
of
fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
arrived. Happily I didn't need them.


So they still treated is as an emergency even though you declined to declare
it as such when asked. So what's the point in asking if you wanted to
declare?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

So they still treated is as an emergency even though you declined to
declare
it as such when asked. So what's the point in asking if you wanted to
declare?

Good question. Since the fire and rescue guys don't get too much action I
think they like to take every opportunity they can get to roll the
equipment. They seem to spend most of their time polishing it and it's
probably nice to actually drive it to the runway once in awhile.

Also, as I got closer to the airport I was cleared to land on any runway, so
you're right - even ATC was treating it as an emergency.

Things could have been different though, and had I needed priority handling
it would have been better to know that both ATC and I were on the same page
with regard to what we expected from each other.

BDS

"Andrew Gideon" wrote

Perhaps more difficult would be getting aircraft off the runway, if
traffic on the ground were sufficiently congested. What happens if a
Heavy is taxied onto grass?

??Can you sat, "Stuck?"

Sure, you can!

Perhaps FOD, too.
--
Jim in NC

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
:

If those distances are correct, yes ATC did not do what it
should have done. But , do all controllers have hot wives
who screw around?


Oh boy! Talk about confusing reality with simulation! You've hit it right on
the head!


Manix is indeed none other than John Cusack!

Shortly after Pushing Tin with the Thornton-Jolie couple (whose real life was
nearly perfectly simulated on the big screen years earlier), he effectively
simulated Being John Malkovitch, even from a lounge chair in a living room!

"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...

Danny Deger writes:

I had a generator drop off line on an F4-E once. Everything else was
working perfectly. Unfurtunately, the Air Force had just passed a rule that
a failed generator was an emergency. I had to declare an emergency for a
stupid single generator failure on a two engine airplane. Needless to say,
I didn't need the army of yellow trucks standing by the side of the runway
when I landed.

Better to be required to declare unnecssarily than to be forbidden to declare
when it's necessary. Better safe than sorry.

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

Danny Deger wrote:

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote


I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency.

I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and
asked
for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line
of
fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
arrived. Happily I didn't need them.

I have gotten older and wiser since then (and have had a few more things
break on airplanes while I was flying) - if something like that happens to
me again I will immediately declare an emergency and I will have the
equipment standing by.

BDS



I had a generator drop off line on an F4-E once. Everything else was
working perfectly. Unfurtunately, the Air Force had just passed a rule that
a failed generator was an emergency. I had to declare an emergency for a
stupid single generator failure on a two engine airplane. Needless to say,
I didn't need the army of yellow trucks standing by the side of the runway
when I landed.

Yes, but they need the practice so it isn't a problem!

Matt

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

"Mike Young" wrote in message
...
"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.


Here's the definition from the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific instruction,
request, or clearance.

Do you see a resemblance now?

Clearly, that's the working definition of the word for most literate English
speaking adults. That doesn't shed additional light.

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.


Well, we know that he was able to, the FAA said so.

Then do tell. Point it out, chapter and verse. A simple URL will suffice.
What exactly did the FAA say in regards to the requested runway?

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:19:05 -0800, Tony wrote:

Still, the PIC should have, and I think by the lessons learned, he and
future pilots in similiar circumstances, will be, mor assertive.

It's a tough call for the pilot. He or she has no way to know that using
17 isn't a serious safety hazard for some reason. At least, that would be
my first thought upon hearing "unable" from the controller in this
circumstance.

Now, I cannot imagine what that would leave *all* runways 17
hazardous, but I expect that it's possible.

Given time, I'd "negotiate" to determine what presented the least hazard:
landing on a runway with a problem or circling and spending more fuel.
That requires asking about the hazards of the runway. Given the distance,
it appears the pilot had the wall time to ask, but - not knowing anything
about landing a Heavy - I don't know how much free time he or she would
have.

- Andrew

"Mike Young" wrote in message
...

Then do tell. Point it out, chapter and verse. A simple URL will suffice.
What exactly did the FAA say in regards to the requested runway?


"This was a situation where there was confusion about the term 'minimal
fuel' and 'fuel emergency,' " FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. "The
controller was confused about the distinction. When the supervisors became
aware of the incident afterward, they used the tapes as an opportunity to
retrain everyone in the facility that if a pilot declares an emergency, he
should be allowed to land on the runway he's requested."

"We know that we did something that we should have done differently," FAA
spokesman Roland Herwig said. "We should have given the aircraft the closest
runway as opposed to routing him in."