Low fuel emergency in DFW

Mike Schumann writes:

Depending on where the 747 was, it could take a minute or more to get it off
the runway. There's a lot of mass involved.

A 747 on the runway will have its engines running. It can be clear of the
runway in a few seconds. And in this case, it would have far more time to get
clear, probably several minutes.

Of course, this is all a hypothesis that has no real basis in reality. In
reality, 747s do not sit on the runway blocking traffic.

Plus, you may have taxiways that are clogged with other traffic.

No, you don't. The taxiways off the runway are clear. Aircraft may be
taxiing in other areas, but they are not parking on the taxiways directly
adjacent to the runway.

747s don't make good off road vehicles.

They don't have to. They can move very quickly.

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

Mike Schumann writes:

Which gets us back the the real question - If you have an unexplained fuel
shortage and suspect a leak, why aren't you landing at the closest airport?

There are many possible reasons. The nearest airport may not have a runway
suitable for your aircraft. The nearest airport may not have a runway that is
accessible to you without a lot of extra maneuvering. You may be low on fuel
but with a very precise idea of how long you can continue to fly, which may
allow you to reach an airport with better facilities than the closest one.

Not only do you have an issue with running out of fuel, but leaks are a
serious fire hazard.

A leak that is a serious fire hazard will cause a fire fairly quickly. A leak
that has not done so isn't likely to begin doing so after an extended period.
A leak that loses fuel to the atmosphere isn't much of a hazard at all from a
fire standpoint.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after he
declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to a
closer airport.



What closer airport?



The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Ross wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token,
it is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination
after he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of
diverting to a closer airport.



What closer airport?


The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.


OK the word is descent....

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Nomen Nescio writes:

Maybe we have to define "closest".
If you're over airport A at 30k ft and within gliding range of airport B
which is 30 nm away.......which airport is "closest".
I tend to think that from the airplane's perspective, there is virtually
no difference.

If you can be confident than you have at least x minutes of fuel, then an
airport that is x-y minutes away is just as close as one that is x-z minutes
away. In other words, fuel is not an issue for any airports that are within
your fuel endurance; the choice among those airports can therefore be based on
other factors.

If you are losing fuel at an unknown rate, then you need to take that into
consideration in your choice, but I don't know if that was the case here.

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

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...
Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


Does anyone know the details of how a flight from Tulsa to Dallas ended up
emergency fuel?

Also, on my solo flight of a T-38 at Reese AFB, I had a compressor stall on
climb out. I declared an emergency on and asked for a vector back to base.
I was initially kind of ****ed off because I was told to maintain current
heading. It was VMC, so I was seriously considering saying those magic
words "Cancel IFR" when the controller gave me my vector back to base.

Danny Deger

"Ross" wrote in message
...

The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.


What do you suppose the Dallas news would have said if the flight had
crashed on the way to KTKI or KADS after being denied their choice at KDFW?

"Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
MXMORON WROTE:

That statement makes it pretty clear that you don't understand this
thread.

I understand the FARs, which is a lot more important.

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

Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.



Rulebooks are paper, the will not cushion the meeting of metal and
stone.

Earnest K. Gann



Al G

"Ross" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that ATC didn't have a problem, but by the same token, it
is also unacceptable for the pilot to continue to his destination after
he declared an emergency to avoid the delays and hassles of diverting to
a closer airport.



What closer airport?

The Dallas news said McKinney (KTKI) and Addison (KADS) were other
choices. As someone else said, the decent cruise to KDFW would have been
just as quick.


This brings up an interesting question. Maybe a straight-in to the south
was not a problem for these other airports, but a straight-in to the south
at DFW was a pain in the ass for DFW traffic. Does ATC have the right to
decline a straight-in to DFW if they can give the pilot a reasonable
alternative? I would say ATC should immediately provide the straight-in to
DFW if they can not give the pilot a different option, but if a straight-in
to another airport is offered maybe they can deny the straight in to DFW.
Obviously, to the pilot, landing at a non-DFW airport will create quite a
fuss for his carrier. There will cerainly be a lot of ****ed off passengers
that are delayed in getting to DFW.

Obviously the pilot can fly the straight-in to DFW regardless of ATC
clearance, but the pilot will have to answer to the FAA after he lands (this
is hint that a "certain somebody" does not need to repeat for the upteenth
time on this thread that the pilot can do what he needs to do in the event
of an emergency). BTW, I don't see a regulation that requires ATC to do
exactly what the emergency pilot wants at exactly the time the pilot asks
for it in the FARs. There is a reg that says the pilot can deviate, but I
can't find the one that ATC must obey the pilot without question or offering
alternatives.

Danny Deger

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

KTKI has 7000 feet of runway, KADS had 7200 feet of runway. Both were in
his flight path.


Runway 15 at KADS is 6223', runway 33 is 6431'. I believe someone here said
the airplane was a 777 but I don't think that's been confirmed. Will the
runways at KTKI and KADS support a 777? Were they landing to the south at
those airports?