Low fuel emergency in DFW

Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as
a
| pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about
half
| an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other
airplanes
| to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the
traffic,
| which seems to be the better solution.
|
|
| Irrelevant. The only acceptable response to any declared
emergency is to
| give the pilot whatever he wants.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" writes:

Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.

It's not up to the controller to make that decision.

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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around.

The other 12-30 airplanes have not declared emergencies.

Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?

It's not up to the pilot to justify his emergency, nor is it the controller's
role to second-guess him.

If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.

If there is nobody on the runway, he has a clear shot. If he's out of fuel,
it doesn't really matter, as there may not be any other options.

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

Brian writes:

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

ATC has no right to deny anything; it can only work around an emergency. The
PIC is the final authority when it comes to deciding what is or is not
acceptable or possible in an emergency.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

With a declared emergency, telling ATC that he will be using runway 17 is all
that's necessary. The pilot is not required to give options to ATC.

ATC had every right to deny it.

As I've said, ATC cannot deny anything to an aircraft with a declared
emergency.

The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)

The pilot doesn't even have to talk to ATC. He can just land if he has to. A
declared emergency relieves ATC of all authority.

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

Matt Whiting writes:

Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

The PIC is the sole judge of what is safe or not on the flight. He has the
option of deciding to do something different if he considers it safe. He even
has the option of following a _suggestion_ from ATC. But he doesn't _have_ to
listen to ATC, and ATC cannot _deny_ him anything, once he has declared an
emergency.

Perhaps he felt that he could safely land a different way; the investigation
will determine this. If he changed his plans solely on the basis of what ATC
told him, however, and this further endangered the flight, then perhaps a
change of career is advisable.

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

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

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

Yes, legally they are very important indeed, because they give a pilot in an
emergency full authority to do anything he considers necessary for safety,
which means that ATC has nothing to say in the matter. A pilot who declares
an emergency and ignores ATC is fully covered legally, as long as he was
maintaining the safety of the flight. Indeed, he doesn't even have to declare
an emergency for that, but it's administratively easier if he does.

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

"Brian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.


Impossible scenario.



If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.


He did.



The Pilot had every right to request it.


Correct.


ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)


Absolutely incorrect. FAAO 7110.65 tells an aircraft with an emergency has
priority over all other aircraft.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
long sequenced flights.
Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?


They didn't know how the situation developed, they mentioned a leak as a
possibility.



If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.


No it wouldn't. You simply move the other traffic.



BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!


The tapes were part of the report. ATC was wrong, no question about it.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

Not if that would take longer than what the controller can
do, which is to fit the plane into the sequence.


Wrong. The emergency aircraft instantly becomes number one for his
requested runway. Any aircraft that might delay it's arrival is moved or
held.

In article . com,
"Brian" wrote:

An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?