ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.

I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
|
| Not all the time.
|
| These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any
interpretation
| whatsoever:
|
| "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic."
|
|
| Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the
local FAA
| expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the
flight?
|
| The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL
came very, very
| close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion.
That event
| shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well
should have.
|
| Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration
of an emergency
| is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC
or anyone else
| until after the flight is terminated. After that, the
conduct of the
| PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some
cases, sanctions.
|
| But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is
supposed to be given
| the priority he requests. If that does not work then the
PIC should, if
| necessary, rephrase it as a demand.
|
| There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the
PIC would not
| be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

Jim Macklin wrote:

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113 language I previously
cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room in that
language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out of court.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| All words are subject to interpretation and very few
words
| are absolutely clear.
| Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do
lawyer
| write the laws?
|
|
| Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113
language I previously
| cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room
in that
| language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out
of court.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.

Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause really muddies up
the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be clear. But
it wasn't.

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.

You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of
| a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms
| shall not be infringed."
|
| That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws
are
| passed and people continue to argue about what it means.
|
| Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause
really muddies up
| the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of
the people to
| keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be
clear. But
| it wasn't.
|
| 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.

Jim Macklin wrote:
You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


Fuzzy is fuzzy and that is fuzzy. Plus, you have to wade through all
the background material in an attempt to determine "legislative intent."
It will forever be challenged by the meaning of militia.

Not so with the 91.113 clause previously cited in this thread.

"Jim Macklin" writes:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.*

The Constitution also prohibits involuntary servitude except as punishment for
a crime, but that has never stopped military conscription.

Essentially the Constitution means whatever the political winds of the day
want it to mean, which is why it survives.

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.


The request was possible but still refused.



I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.


The words in question are absolutely clear.