Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Jim Macklin" writes:

Sure, and ATC can make those other airplane instantly become
ghosts, not take any volume or be physically manifest in the
air.

Those other airplanes can easily get out of the way, as they are not involved
in an emergency. It's not as if these aircraft are only twenty feet apart.

ATC can simply broadcast a command, "ALL aircraft, there is
an emergency in progress at DFW, all aircraft fly away,
maintain VFR and good luck!"

It's not quite as simple as that, but sometimes it's close. It helps that
other pilots will probably hear what is going on and will be prepared to do
whatever is required to assist.

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

Jim Macklin wrote:

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?
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.

They do this all of the time when a thunderstorm passes over the
airport. There are procedures to interrupt traffic flow for periods of
time such as this.

If the flight had insisted on using 17C, the only time it takes is for
the airplane to get to the runway. There is no extra 30 minutes. Where
do you get that from?


Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?

It is easier than having an airliner run out of fuel and crash.

Matt

"Jim Macklin" writes:

And you don't seem to understand that what I said was
sarcasm. You are the one that said it was simple to clear
all the other airplanes out of the way. It just isn't
possible in less than a certain amount of time ...

That amount of time can be extremely short with good controllers and good
pilots. In no time a path can be cleared for the flight in trouble.

... yet you can
clear one airplane out of line and fit the airplane with the
emergency in line.

You don't do any of that. The plane with the emergency tells you his
intentions, and you work with that. You don't "fit" the airplane anywhere,
you just deal with whatever the airplane needs to do. In practice, this means
getting everyone else out of the way.

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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

moving the other traffic is not simple when in the DFW area.

Simple or not, it has to be done.

It takes time because you have to talk to each airplane and
have a place for it to go.

It takes only a few seconds.

There will likely be an NTSB and or FAA report after an
investigation, into causes, remedies are determined. I'll
wait for that. But if the goal is to get on the ground
ASAP, consider the airplane declaring the emergency did land
safely. If a longer delay was needed to clear the airspace,
it might not have.

If there is anyone on 17C, you have him clear the runway. If there is anyone
above decision height for landing, you have him go around. If he's below, you
have him land and get out of the way ASAP. Anyone taking off is similarly
vectored out of the way. Problem solved.

Everyone else is far enough away to be immediately moved out of the way. And
they'll be listening and waiting for instructions, which they will execute
instantly, you can be sure of that.

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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

Really, at DFW, easier than just fitting one airplane into
the stream and moving one airplane out, easier in your mind
to turn 10,20, 30 airplanes around?

There's plenty of room in the sky. You just clear a path to the runway, which
is easy. It's awkward, but any competent controller should be able to do it.

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

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

Was there a fully laden 747 on the runway that couldn't be moved in time?

There's _never_ a fully-laden 747 that can't be moved in time, unless it is
chained to ring bolts in the concrete of the runway. A 747 can be out of the
way in seconds.

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

d&tm writes:

Mxmanic was trying to make the point that the pilot could do
anything he wanted and to hell with ATC.

Yes. It's in the rules and regulations, for both ATC and pilots. And the
regulations are completely unambiguous about this.

The pilot in command is master and commander of the flight, following the
maritime tradition. He is 100% responsible for the flight, and he has 100%
authority for its safety. It's a time-tested principle and it works well.

I was trying to point out that this is not logical and used a
hypothetical example to make the point.

It's completely logical, which is why it has applied for centuries.

I wonder how many people see the irony in this thread, of how mxmanic is
continually pilloried for thinking he knows something about flying without
ever taking the controls, yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.

This issue has nothing to do with ATC. Once the pilot declares an emergency,
ATC is out of the loop. The error in the incident under question was that ATC
didn't understand this. A possible secondary error was that the pilot may not
have understood it, either, but that remains to be seen with a fuller
investigation. The error of ATC Is indisputable and grave.

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

d&tm writes:

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?

If he felt this was necessary to ensure the safety of his flight, yes.

In practice, of course, fully laden 747s can be moved in a few seconds.

A pilot with an emergency has the right to do whatever is necessary to
maintain safety, no questions asked. ATC has nothing to say in this matter.
They just listen to the pilot's intentions and route other traffic
accordingly.

ATC have to take into account the safety of all aircraft in their
control, and if they had to balance the risk of one aircraft versus
another, surely they have to err in favour of the aircraft who has
done nothing wrong.

ATC is not a player here. Once the pilot has declared an emergency, ATC has
no authority at all. It still has to try to keep other traffic safe, but the
pilot of the aircraft with the emergency does whatever he wants, irrespective
of anything ATC might think.

The pilot has a duty of care to other people apart from his own
aircraft and pax.

His first and overriding duty is to his own flight, because he is the pilot in
command of that flight. The other flights are commanded by other pilots.

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

ATC supervisors have admitted the organization errored in how this
flight was handled and are retraining the DFW controllers.


It is quite incorrect to suggest they are not players -- their
specific responsibility is to make it as safe as possible for the PIC
who has declared an emergency to do what he deems necessary to resolve
the emergency.


On Feb 23, 7:41 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
d&tm writes:
So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the pilot
was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?

If he felt this was necessary to ensure the safety of his flight, yes.

In practice, of course, fully laden 747s can be moved in a few seconds.

A pilot with an emergency has the right to do whatever is necessary to
maintain safety, no questions asked. ATC has nothing to say in this matter.
They just listen to the pilot's intentions and route other traffic
accordingly.

ATC have to take into account the safety of all aircraft in their
control, and if they had to balance the risk of one aircraft versus
another, surely they have to err in favour of the aircraft who has
done nothing wrong.

ATC is not a player here. Once the pilot has declared an emergency, ATC has
no authority at all. It still has to try to keep other traffic safe, but the
pilot of the aircraft with the emergency does whatever he wants, irrespective
of anything ATC might think.

The pilot has a duty of care to other people apart from his own
aircraft and pax.

His first and overriding duty is to his own flight, because he is the pilot in
command of that flight. The other flights are commanded by other pilots.

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