A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 24th 07, 03:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.

ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.

The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then
the trolly is on the track.

If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give
him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully
should not be needed.


"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."


  #22  
Old February 24th 07, 03:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the
worst about this because of subtle company intimidation.

ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.

The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC
response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then
the trolly is on the track.

If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the
pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give
him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully
should not be needed.



"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

"We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
should take additional direct action.

It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out
okay, but absolutely did not follow through.
  #23  
Old February 24th 07, 03:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,477
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.

"We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an
emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory;
i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC
should take additional direct action.

It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out okay,
but absolutely did not follow through.


The crew declared an emergency situation with that statement.


  #24  
Old February 24th 07, 04:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 678
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.


"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."


Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a
declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.

What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
avoided.

What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


  #25  
Old February 24th 07, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:58:51 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade wrote
(in article ):


http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/Vi...vidId=122817&c
at


Id=104



It appears somebody forgot what pilot in command means.


Actually, at least two people forgot.


Indeed. Well, stuff happens when you get distracted by an emergency. ATC
needed to retrain their staff, but I hope that the chief pilot had a little
prayer meeting with the crew.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #26  
Old February 24th 07, 04:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.

ATC has to clear not just the runway, but the airplanes that
have departed and are strung out on approach in case the
emergency aircraft needs to make a missed approach.

I'll wait for the FAA and NTSB to issue a report, the news
media is not a valid source, even if they have a "tape"
since they can and do leave many things out.



"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
|
| ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of
minimum fuel,
| which is NOT a declaration of emergency.
|
|
| "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air
traffic control. "We
| got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel
leak or what, but we
| need to get on the ground, right away, please."
|
| Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as
anything less than a
| declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head
up and locked.
|
| What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some
inconvenience is
| avoided.
|
| What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field
and people die.
|
|
| --
| Dan
| C172RG at BFM
|
|


  #27  
Old February 24th 07, 04:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

"Sam Spade" wrote in message ...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."


I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.


No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".

  #28  
Old February 24th 07, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

John R. Copeland wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."



I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be
taken as future intent.



No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me.
According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need".


Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.
  #29  
Old February 24th 07, 04:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Dan Luke wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel,
which is NOT a declaration of emergency.


"We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We
got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we
need to get on the ground, right away, please."



Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a
declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked.


And, the PIC has to be sufficiently assertive to overcome that "up and
locked" syndrome.

Who has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of
the flight?

What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is
avoided.

What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die.


Those are issues that the captain could have short-circuited.
  #30  
Old February 24th 07, 04:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Sam Spade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,326
Default ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Jim Macklin wrote:

The plane was out of Tulsa, and was northeast of Dallas. It
wanted to be on the ground "right away."

Unless you can show that ATC vectored the aircraft into a
standard 30 mile south right traffic for runway 35R, then
ATC did in fact get him on the ground "right away" faster
than if they had tried to move all the other aircraft out of
the way.


Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency
should be granted *if at all possible.*
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW John Piloting 9 March 14th 07 04:38 AM
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure Rick Umali Piloting 17 November 5th 06 04:35 AM
Angel Flight fuel discounts John Doe Piloting 4 January 20th 06 02:24 PM
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight C J Campbell Piloting 5 January 11th 04 05:04 PM
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! Paul Millner Owning 1 July 7th 03 10:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.