Low fuel emergency in DFW

This may not be the best place in the thread to put this, however,
here we go. This, from Fox News, makes it clear ATC is saying they
screwed up. The time to beat up on the pilot is AFTER the airplane is
on the ground. "Emergency" does mean the pilot owns the sky, details
and blame will be sorted out later.

That has always been my understanding. The pilot still has to answer
for his/her actions, but the Q&A doesn't start until the emergency
situation is over.

This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this question,
but it is at least amoung the most recent.

I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31, 2006,
which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television news
item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple of
days.

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency" plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I am not concluding, just very curious.
Peter

D&tm,

yet how many pilots here think they know more
about ATC than the controllers.


You're answering to a controller, IIRC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Peter Dohm" wrote

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.

I was looking for something like that too, also to see if the crew ever
really declared an emergency using the proper phraseology. I couldn't find
a transcript either, so there is some gray area here.

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.

As an aside, a few years ago a pilot flying a twin lost an engine and was
inbound to the airport for landing. The controllers asked him if he was
declaring an emergency and he said no. As he got closer a conflict
developed and guess what, the twin was told to go around. No emergency
(properly declared) = no priority.

BDS

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
:

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


I'm no expert, and I wasn't there, but presumably the AA declared the
emergency at some point before reaching short-final for the requested
runway. I suspect it doesn't take all that much time to send P&H traffic
off to taxiways, get landing traffic vectored out of the way and assigned
to holds, or on the ground and off the runways safely ahead of the
emergency aircraft. We're talking about DFW - a Class B with mostly airline
traffic (capable of understanding missed approach procedures and holding
assignments) and multiple parallel or near-parallel, non-crossing runways
(I think they have 5 parallel runways, and two more that don't cross)...
LOTS of options to get this guy on the ground safely without too much
inconvenience. If 35C didn't work for them because they had departing
traffic, they could have sent him to any of 4 other parallel runways!
Instead they had him circle around. That's ludicrous if you ask me.

Quite frankly, I would be more concerned if something like this happened at
a smaller airfield because there are fewer options - crossing runways,
possible VFR traffic that does not know from holds or missed approaches,
fewer control sectors, and much more required coordination with fewer
bodies and frequencies to manage it.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in news:
:

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

You're missing the point. This is not a wind change. No one is suggesting
turning the other planes around. The appropriate action would be to STOP
the flow of traffic until the aircraft with the emergency was safely on the
ground. Presumably, depending on separation requirements, they may still be
able to continue releasing traffic as long as practical until the emergency
aircraft is within some range. And yes, as a result, some delays might be
caused in the DFW schedule that day.

But guess what? Stuff like that happens... What do they do when there are
hurricane-force winds or severe thunderstorms? They deal with the problem,
some planes get delayed, and everybody ultimately gets safely to their
destination.

Same happened here, but had the fuel emergency been more severe the delays
caused by a crashed airliner trying to circle to land would have been much
more significant...


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

I agree with you 100% here. In fact, I would go as far as to say that most
news stories contain significant innacuracies or ommissions in order to
sensationalize and emotionalize the reader/viewer/listener.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:06:39 -0800, Brian wrote
(in article . com):

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.

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

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

Nonsense. The pilot declared low fuel. He is in command of the aircraft. ATC
had no right to deny anything, especially for the stated reason that it
"might delay some flights," which comes across as downright frivolous.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From what I remember that took a couple of hours before eveyone was on the
ground.

Mike Schumann

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jim Macklin wrote:

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

Jim, you are demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of how the ATC
system works. Look how fast they cleared the skies after 9/11. And that
was the entire country, not just the 30 miles around DFW.

Matt



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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. Plus, you may have taxiways
that are clogged with other traffic. 747s don't make good off road
vehicles.

Mike Schumann

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
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.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

Mike Schumann

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


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

Yes, legally they are very important indeed

Up there in the top ten stupidest things I've read on usenet.

Thanks for the laugh, ****-stain.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"d&tm" wrote in
:

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

Presumably, landing on a fully laden 747 would not be considered "ensuring
the safety of flight." Certainly that would be the PIC's responsibility,
whether or not ATC advised him...

From a practical standpoint, I believe it would be reasonable (and perhaps
even be Tower's responsibility) for Tower to inform the Pilot that he had
requested a runway that was opposite the current direction of traffic, and
ask the pilot if he would be able to circle to land with the current traffic
flow.