Low fuel emergency in DFW

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:30:41 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Airport B can be considered to be just as close as airport A.

If it were me, I'd spiral down rather than head to the farther airport.
Given the number of options that I'd no longer have, that just seems the
safer plan.

I'd hate to be gliding to the farther airport only to hit a wind shift or
some other event which changes the farther airport from "in glide range"
to "out of glide range". That would be embarrassing.

Of course, I'm no glider pilot. They forever operate in what we powered
pilots call emergency circumstances, so they'd have a different
perspective laugh.

- Andrew

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"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.

There are two points being made here.

A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling. How bad was
that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just sufficient, but
maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks (full as in complying with
take off and landing maxima), how much did he carry, and why? Having left
with less than adequate fuel, at what point did it become an emergency? How
was it "apparently not caused by attempting to keep the load light to save
on opperating expenses"?

I draw the distinction between the chronic, verging on empty, self-inflicted
low fuel situations, and real honest by gosh emergencies. It is chronic and
intentional to arrive at the destination with minimum fuel. The forseeable
consequence of operating with narrow margins is that you'll sometimes exceed
those margins. The press paints a picture of an uncooperative ATC. They
present very few facts and, indeed, just stood there thumping on the "bible"
of FARs. We shouldn't expect the general public to know any better. But the
folks in aviation? All I've heard so far, in the news vid and here, is just
so much more harping on a pilot's right to the runway he requested in that
"emergency". It's a fine line. I submit that there is no such right, as
such, except as an extension of his responsibility for flight safety. Did
he, and his airline, act responsibly? Where's the outcry for their part and
their corrective actions? How is it that you can speak of pic rights,
without mentioning pic responsibilities?

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back and
all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we don't
know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems little
point rehashing it without more facts.

Judah wrote:
601XL Builder wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in news:45E0A989.1090806
@suddenlinkDOTnet:

MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.

If the aircraft was on fire, the pilot would probably do an emergency
accelerated descent. However, if he were at low fuel, an accelerated descent
would probably not be desirable.

If he was truly at 15,000', and at a 4-5 mi/min airspeed, 81 miles would be
about right...

If it was a fuel leak. This brings up two issues. Where is it leaking
and is the leaking going to continue at the current rate or increase. If
those are two unknowns I'd want to land ASAP.

Don Tuite wrote:
It's probably just because I got a lot of praise during my early
toilet training, but I get irked because flyers never get as detailed
training in emergency radio terminology as recreational boaters do.

Who says we don't? The following passage in the AIM was covered
repeatedly in my training and has been revisited occasionally in BFRs:

6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications

a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain
assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency
in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the
nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired.
Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have
decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.

b. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the
following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.

c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any
subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with
the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN
should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.

d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other
communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the
frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other
communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other
stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.

e. Normally, the station addressed will be the air traffic facility or
other agency providing air traffic services, on the frequency in use at
the time. If the pilot is not communicating and receiving services, the
station to be called will normally be the air traffic facility or other
agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, on the
appropriate assigned frequency. If the station addressed does not
respond, or if time or the situation dictates, the distress or urgency
message may be broadcast, or a collect call may be used, addressing "Any
Station (Tower)(Radio)(Radar)."

TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| If the distance was correct, [first I heard or saw that
was
| this morning], then yes there was time.
|
|
| So you posted some three dozen messages without even
bothering to review all
| available relevant information?
|
|
|
| But if the plane was 20 miles out, there wasn't time.
|
|
| If the plane was 20 miles out when the emergency occurred
it would have been
| somewhere southeast of DFW and direct to the field for a
straight-in would
| have been with the flow of traffic.
|
|
|
| So what are the facts, not rumors reported by a TV
"reporter."
|
|
| I don't think anybody is relying rumors reported by a TV
"reporter", they're
| relying on the tapes which were played as part of the
report. Tapes are
| pretty reliable. You didn't even bother to review the
tapes, what were you
| relying on?
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.


Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?

You are so clueless, it is tough to know where to start.

A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling. How bad was
that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just sufficient, but
maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks (full as in complying
with take off and landing maxima), how much did he carry, and why? Having
left with less than adequate fuel, at what point did it become an
emergency? How was it "apparently not caused by attempting to keep the
load light to save on opperating expenses"?

How much more per ticket are you willing to pay, so airliners can go zipping
around with tanks completely full?
None? I didn't think so.

In this case, it would not have mattered if he had fuel running out of the
vents, or if he had topped off at the end of the taxiway, and taken off in
3o seconds. It was a faulty reading causing the concern.

Jets carry enough fuel to divert to an alternative, plus reserves.
Sometimes they even carry more, as to make a quicker layover, or to save on
fuel costs. How much more do you want them to carry, for cripes sakes?


I draw the distinction between the chronic, verging on empty,
self-inflicted low fuel situations, and real honest by gosh emergencies.
It is chronic and intentional to arrive at the destination with minimum
fuel. The forseeable consequence of operating with narrow margins is that
you'll sometimes exceed those margins. The press paints a picture of an
uncooperative ATC. They present very few facts and, indeed, just stood
there thumping on the "bible" of FARs. We shouldn't expect the general
public to know any better. But the folks in aviation? All I've heard so
far, in the news vid and here, is just so much more harping on a pilot's
right to the runway he requested in that "emergency". It's a fine line. I
submit that there is no such right, as such, except as an extension of his
responsibility for flight safety. Did he, and his airline, act
responsibly? Where's the outcry for their part and their corrective
actions? How is it that you can speak of pic rights, without mentioning
pic responsibilities?

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
little point rehashing it without more facts.

Jeopardizing the safety of all those in the air above DFW? Jeezo Pete!
Give me a break! Scatter the whole pattern? How about maybe 5 or 6? That
is much more realistic than the whole pattern.

This should have been a non incident, if ATC had not dropped the ball. They
are human, and blew it. They know they did. No way was anyone's life in
danger. Putting someone in, even in the wrong direction, is a non issue for
ATC, and an exercise that they are well trained to do- Without Risk To
Anyone!

Save the drama for a movie, or a play. It doesn't play well, here.
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:59:34 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


Jets carry enough fuel to divert to an alternative, plus reserves.
Sometimes they even carry more, as to make a quicker layover, or to save on
fuel costs. How much more do you want them to carry, for cripes sakes?

Some even ferry fuel, where they pump some out at the destination.
I've had unconfirmed reports that AA ferried fuel from DFW to SJO, a
route I used to fly regularily.

Since DFW is AA's home base, it's possible that they have cheap fuel
there. If they do, many of their DFW bound flights might be planned
to not carry much extra, and not purchase fuel elsewhere.

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.


Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?

Are you satisfied you heard enough of the tapes? That the context of the
utterances were completely and objectively conveyed?

Are they edited?



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| TV station blurbs are not accurate, relevant useful.
|
|
| Are the tapes accurate, relevant or useful?
|
|