Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

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.


Had I been the controller I'd have told the supervisor that if she wanted
the aircraft brought to any runway other than the one requested by the pilot
she'd have to remove me from the position.

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach
responding "unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited
approach on the active.


A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:46:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


Had I been the controller I'd have told the supervisor that if she wanted
the aircraft brought to any runway other than the one requested by the pilot
she'd have to remove me from the position.


The controllers I've met would probably agree.

But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

The controllers I've met would probably agree.

But then again, they're also pilots, as I believe you are.


I are.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:11:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.


After listening to snow removal operations at the local Class B's &
C's two weeks ago, I was surprised at how long 80 miles would be.

I heard plows on the runway with inbound jets on15 mile final.

80 miles isn't exactly right there, even for a 757. At 250 knots,
(under 10,000 ft) he's still almost 20 minutes out.

20 minutes is a long time!

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:07:44 -0800, The Visitor wrote
(in article ):



C J Campbell wrote:
The pilot declared low fuel.

Well that's it then isn't it. That allowed him to get priority handling
with no fruther delays. And that's what he got.

Pilots still are shy about saying something is an emergency, but a low
fuel declaration is something specific and not an emergency(yet).

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

It is a good idea to tell ATC that you have an emergency, but doing so may
not always be practical or even possible. Besides, some things are just
understood to be emergencies, like being so low on fuel that flying a normal
approach and landing might be unsuccessful.

When you are low fuel and need special handling, it is an emergency, whether
you specifically say it is or not. If you were to tell ATC that you were on
fire, they should treat it as an emergency whether you 'declare' one or not.
If you say you have runaway trim, a hijacker, or a large flying octopus that
has covered your entire windshield, it is an emergency, whether you 'declare'
one or not. An unruly passenger grabbing for the controls is an emergency.
Losing all your hydraulic fluid is an emergency. Landing with a flat tire is
an emergency (hint: the checklist is in the "EMERGENCY PROCEDURES" section of
the POH). A passenger that passes out is an emergency.
There are many types of emergencies, with many different probabilities of
someone being hurt or killed, but they are all emergencies. Not all
emergencies have to be reported. Many emergencies are easily dealt with. But
they remain emergencies nonetheless.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

If your aircraft is on fire, you need to land immediately. Availability of
fire / crash rescue resources is not an issue. Getting off the aircraft as
quickly as possible is the issue. Just look at what happened with the
Swissair flight over the atlantic, who took their sweet time while the were
researching where the smoke was coming from.

Mike Schumann

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"601XL Builder" wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in message
news:45E0A989.1090806@suddenlinkDOTnet...

MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.


Did he? Perhaps you assume too much. Maybe he'd prefer the field with
appropriate crash/fire/rescue capability. I think that'd be DFW.




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

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:46 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words "declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not.

FWIW, I've had airplane problems where ATC has asked me "would you
like to declare?"

Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
declaring does have some significance.

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

If your aircraft is on fire, you need to land immediately. Availability
of fire / crash rescue resources is not an issue. Getting off the
aircraft as quickly as possible is the issue. Just look at what happened
with the Swissair flight over the atlantic, who took their sweet time
while the were researching where the smoke was coming from.


Then you don't need an airport at all.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:39:15 -0800, B A R R Y wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:26:46 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

There is some sort of myth that a pilot has to say the magic words
"declaring
an emergency" before it becomes an emergency in the eyes of either the FAA
or
the pilot or the law. There is no such requirement. What if the pilot
passes
out? Is it not an emergency just because the pilot doesn't say it is? When
you are low fuel and require special handling, it is an emergency, whether
anyone has actually 'declared' it or not.

FWIW, I've had airplane problems where ATC has asked me "would you
like to declare?"

Fortunately, I've always been able to reply to the negative, but
declaring does have some significance.


That is true, ATC will sometimes ask that. I have not always been able to
reply in the negative. :-( But even if you reply in the negative, if might
still be an emergency. You and ATC just might not know it yet. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor