Low fuel emergency in DFW

If those distances are correct, yes ATC did not do what it
should have done. But , do all controllers have hot wives
who screw around?


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in
| news |
| I don't think you understand the complexity of the
airspace
| around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
| multiple runways.
|
| It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear
the
| airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| separation in one minute.
|
| Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?
|
|
|
| Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham"
that was described
| in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the
emergency was called
| about 70 NM out.
|
| At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is
within range. And
| presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down
to 250 Kts
| allowing even more time.
|
| Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the
way safely.
|

"Danny Deger" wrote in
:

Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell
me what you think.

Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my initial
reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency" was
not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is requesting
17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."

It's possible that the fact that he had a fuel emergency was discussed
elsewhere in the phone call. But my guess is, that if the request was made that
way, controller #2 was probably justified in his refusal to stop all area
traffix for a pompous pilot wanting to land opposite the rest of the airport.

However, the report indicates (without ever playing tapes of it) that the pilot
reiterated his fuel leak situation and his request for 17C at least one other
time before landing. Presumably, the situation eventually got to the controller
responsible for runway 17C and/or 35R. But from where I sit, it may have been a
classic case of "the Telephone Game"...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency.

I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and asked
for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line of
fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
arrived. Happily I didn't need them.

I have gotten older and wiser since then (and have had a few more things
break on airplanes while I was flying) - if something like that happens to
me again I will immediately declare an emergency and I will have the
equipment standing by.

BDS

I've never seen this documented with respect to Aviation. Unless the rest
of the pilots and controllers on your frequency are also Coast Guard-
approved boaters, all keying "SECURITY-SECURITY-SECURITY" would do is get
me an F-16 escort at best...

I can't imagine what the kind of responses "Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon-Pon" would
solicit. I'm guessing several smart remark about cheerleaders, though.
Especially in Dallas.


Don Tuite wrote in
:

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.

Here's what boaters are supposed to pick up from Coast Guard Auxiliary
or Power Squadron classes:

"There are three levels of emergency calls.

"First Level Emergency: The "distress" signal is "MAYDAY". This word
should be said three (3) times: "MAYDAY - MAYDAY - MAYDAY!". This
signal is to be used only when there is grave danger (you’re gonna
die) to your crew or your boat.

"Second Level Emergency: The "urgency" signal is "Pan-Pan" (pronounced
"pon-pon"). This should be stated three (3) times: "PAN-PAN - PAN-PAN
- PAN-PAN!". This signal should be used when you have a serious, but
not life threatening, situation that requires assistance. Some
examples are serious illness or injury to a crewmember, or if the
captain himself becomes incapacitated. Running out of gas is not a
Pan-Pan situation, unless you are in danger of being swept ashore in
high seas.

"Third Level Emergency: The "safety" signal is "Security" (pronounced
as "SAY-CURE-IT-TAY"). This word should also be said three (3) times:
"SECURITY - SECURITY - SECURITY!". This signal should be used to warn
of conditions that may affect boaters in that area. Some examples are
storm warnings, hazards to navigation (such as a huge log or other
objects that could damage a boat) or alerts from large ships when they
are going to be in a narrow channel. ("Security - Security - Security,
this is the car ferry Badger. We will be at the Ludington pier head in
20 minutes.")"

Don

"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.

Danny Deger

"BDS" wrote in message
.. .

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency.

I lost an engine on a twin a few years ago and when I advised ATC and
asked
for vectors to the nearest airport I was asked if I was declaring an
emergency. Being young, proud, and confident, I stupidly told them no.
Then they asked if I wanted the "equipment" standing by. I stupidly told
them no again, for the same dumb reasons. Then they asked the usual
questions about how many "souls" were on board and how much fuel I had.
After I gave them the fuel information they advised that they would "roll
the equipment" for me anyway. What a nice reception I got - a whole line
of
fire fighting trucks and resuce equipment lined up and standing by as I
arrived. Happily I didn't need them.

I have gotten older and wiser since then (and have had a few more things
break on airplanes while I was flying) - if something like that happens to
me again I will immediately declare an emergency and I will have the
equipment standing by.

BDS


I had a generator drop off line on an F4-E once. Everything else was
working perfectly. Unfurtunately, the Air Force had just passed a rule that
a failed generator was an emergency. I had to declare an emergency for a
stupid single generator failure on a two engine airplane. Needless to say,
I didn't need the army of yellow trucks standing by the side of the runway
when I landed.

Danny Deger

"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!


My summary of this massive thread is if the controller was not able to clear
the straight-in runway because there was not enough time the controller did
well. But it the controller did not clear the straight-in runway because it
would mess up his normal traffic, the controller and/or supervisor was at
fault.

Danny Deger

My summary is a little different. AA complained, the FAA said their
controllers screwed up and retrained the folks on the ground so that
they'd treat the next emergency the way the rules say it should be
treated.


On Feb 25, 12:24 pm, "Danny Deger" wrote:
"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!

My summary of this massive thread is if the controller was not able to clear
the straight-in runway because there was not enough time the controller did
well. But it the controller did not clear the straight-in runway because it
would mess up his normal traffic, the controller and/or supervisor was at
fault.

Danny Deger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"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?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, when I listened to the edited tape on the WFAA report, my
initial
reaction to the inter-controller phone call was that the word "emergency"
was
not mentioned. Basically, controller #1 said that "American 489 is
requesting
17C" and controller #2 said "Unable."


But that would still be an ATC error.