ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Jim Macklin wrote:

Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a
collision between aircraft operating in the system and to
organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to
its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to
provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many
factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher
priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and
detect those situations that fall in this category. It is
recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases
in which the provision of services is precluded by the above
factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
controllers shall provide additional service procedures to
the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not
optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
required when the work situation permits. Provide air
traffic control service in accordance with the procedures
and minima in this order except when:



No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way
and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request,
demand or wish can, will or should be granted.

Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional service" as
defined here. This is talking about optional services like VFR
advisories, not dealing with an emergency.

Matt

The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
necessary.

Giving priority handling does not mean or require doing
everything the pilots asks. It does mean that ATC won't
vector you the normal 20 mile base leg and they will fit you
in ASAP. There are priorities...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
| 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
|
| The primary purpose of the ATC system is to
prevent a
| collision between aircraft operating in the system and
to
| organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition
to
| its primary function, the ATC system has the capability
to
| provide (with certain limitations) additional services.
The
| ability to provide additional services is limited by
many
| factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
| congestion, quality of radar, controller workload,
higher
| priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and
| detect those situations that fall in this category. It
is
| recognized that these services cannot be provided in
cases
| in which the provision of services is precluded by the
above
| factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
| controllers shall provide additional service procedures
to
| the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
| circumstances. The provision of additional services is
not
| optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
| required when the work situation permits. Provide air
| traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures
| and minima in this order except when:
|
|
|
| No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY
means
| ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
| limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of
way
| and priority handling does not mean that every PIC
request,
| demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
|
| Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional
service" as
| defined here. This is talking about optional services
like VFR
| advisories, not dealing with an emergency.
|
| Matt

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
necessary.


ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.

That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
controller think he could do.

If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
edited report.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| The point is that declaring an emergency does not
require
| ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
| does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
| necessary.
|
|
| ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
controller think he could do.

If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
edited report.


You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing your argument on?

50 years of reading and watch news reports.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides
now,
| or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
| controller think he could do.
|
| If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't
condemn
| either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
| edited report.
|
|
| You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing
your argument on?
|
|