Low fuel emergency in DFW

The aircraft with the declared emergency "owns" the airport
[as many have said] but there are a ton of squatters that
must be moved out of the way, with airspace actually
vacated. To turn the airport around will take more time
than it takes to fly into the current sequenced stream.
Only one or two airplanes need to be turned out to clear a
slot for the distressed aircraft.

The object is to get on the ground ASAP. The plane did land
OK.

Might it have crashed? Sure, but airplanes that have not
declared emergencies crash too.

The fact that the PIC declined other closer airports is
evidence that the emergency was not THAT critical and it
seems to me, that the PIC got the best service possible, in
the least time.

BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
quick as possible.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?
|
| Moving two would take less time, but moving 50 takes less
time than
| cleaning up one crash.
|
| Matt

I prefer lead, except in cold weather when feathers are
warmer.

It was the controllers airport, he knew all the traffic [and
had probably practices an emergency turning the airport
around in their sim] and he decided what the best course of
action was, since he had the BIG PICTURE and the pilot was
stupid IMHO.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
news |
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| The question is , "Feathers or lead?"
|
|
| or Lead, gold, silver or diamonds?
|
|
| It's my question, I decide what it is. I see it's got you
stumped.
|
|

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Nils Rostedt"
wrote in message
| ...
|
| One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be
cleared for a
| landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to
have three
| airplanes on the departure runway - one accelerating,
one taxiing into
| position at the end and another (the next for take-off)
taxiing into
| position at an intersection. Allow 1 minute for the
take-off run and
| another for initial climbout. As for the other two
airplanes, behind them
| is typically the departure queue blocking the quickest
exit, so they will
| need to taxi on the runway to the next free exit before
vacating the
| runway. That probably takes the same 2 minutes. So 2
minutes minimum. Then
| consider the wake turbulence, if it was a heavy taking
off - do you really
| want to land into the wake? That might cause an
emergency all by itself.
| Just my $0.02.
|
|
| So there'd be no hurry then.
|
|
|

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

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.

Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

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.

Mike Schumann

Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
can just circle over a patch of grass and land.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:07:14 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's request.
This isn't a legal issue. This is a question of declaring an emergency and
then having the pilot and ATC work together to safely get the aircraft down
at an acceptable airport ASAP.

There were no other aircraft on the runway that could not move in time. The
argument is a red herring. ATC is required to comply with the pilot's
emergency request. The time to settle whether that request was reasonable or
not is on the ground. But ATC must comply.

Rule #1 of aviation: The airplane has a Pilot in Command. The airplane is not
flown by a committee or by an anonymous voice on the ground. It is not a
democracy.

It appears here that ATC wanted to avoid departure delays even if it meant
killing people. The pilot has a responsibility to his passengers, not to
complying with ATC stupidity. The pilot failed in that responsibility, but
managed to live anyway. He might not be so lucky next time.

ATC will kill you given half a chance. It is the pilot's responsibility to
see to it that that does not happen.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

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.

Mike Schumann

He already had an emergency. He had just left DFW and still had the charts
out for it. Maybe landing at a less familiar field without adequate
preparation was too big a risk in his opinion.

When are people going to get the basic facts right here? He had not just
left DFW. He was headed to DFW from Tulsa.

C J Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:58:09 -0800, Mike Schumann wrote
(in article ):

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.

Mike Schumann

Also, the closest airport is not necessarily the easiest one to land at. He
had to descend. An airport right underneath him might have been excessively
dangerous even if it had 10,000' runway. The 777 is not a Cessna, where you
can just circle over a patch of grass and land.

And while the point is still valid, it was a 757, not a 777.

"Jim Macklin" writes:

BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
quick as possible.

Wait until you have a _real_ emergency.

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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.

It takes only a few seconds to divert it.

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