Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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?

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.

"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. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

Excerpt from the USDOT FAA Air Traffic Bulletin:

"The Pilot/Controller Glossary describes EMERGENCY as "a distress or an
urgency condition." Aircraft instruments can individually or collectively
conspire to require pilots to consider declaring an emergency. Vacuum pump,
alternator/generator, and pilot/static systems often seem to be the
culprits. Loss of any of these systems should probably cause a prudent pilot
to consider declaring an emergency and to land as soon as practical.
However, pilots often hesitate to declare an emergency fearing the mythical
mountain of paperwork, government interviews, and ramp checks they have read
about in chat rooms and heard about in pilot lounges. Few, if any of us,
have ever met a pilot with firsthand knowledge of this paperwork
catastrophe, but most pilots believe it exists. Fortunately, FAA orders
allow controllers to handle a situation as though it were an emergency even
if the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used."

I think the idea is that if you want a guarantee of priority handling you
should use the proper terminology (note that they use the phrase "delcaring
an emergency"). Sure, ATC *may* give it to you even if you don't, but there
is no guarantee that they will, and there are plenty of real-world examples
of this out there that ended badly or very well could have.

The various recurrency training courses I have taken over the years have
always referred to the need to declare the emergency in order to be assured
of priority handling. In fact, one of the training centers I am familiar
with is run by a retired ATC professional who also designed and teaches a
portion of the course, so if this is all a misconception it seems to be a
widely held one.

BDS

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"Mike Young" wrote in message
t...
"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.

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.



You must have listened to a different tape. Try the following. It has
the supervisor denying the straight-in.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104

It's the same one that I commented on. That was a landline handoff from
enroute to approach. There was no supervisor on that tape, although it's
clear that that the reporters wouldn't mind you thinking there was. It's a
purposely inflammatory piece. Specifically, the fall-out and details of the
FAA/ATC discussions 6 months ago are only hinted at, not reported. But go
ahead. Tell me, if you know, what they talked about, what they concluded,
and how DFW approach will handle future similar situations. While you're at
it, what do you know about the suspected fuel leak or mechanical problems?

It's not the last time that low fuel situations, as distinct from
emergencies, will arise. There are very strong economic pressures to fly
with the least possible weight aboard. **** happens; cutting it close with
the fuel means you'll cut it too close some of the time. (If you're not, cut
it closer until you do!) It's in the best interest of the airlines to cut it
close. It's in the best interest for commerce, the FAA's arena, to accept
that it close has consequences. It's also in the public's interest, yours
and mine, to keep the costs low, since we drive the economic pressures. So
who's left out? Can you name two groups that would be happier with full
tanks on take off?

In article ,
"Mike Young" wrote:

A response of "unable" is not a refusal?

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.

In the context of Pilot-Controller communication, any distinction is
insignificant.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Mike Young wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...


"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?


I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.



The end result is the same. This is a distinction without a difference.

Matt

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:02:47 -0800, BDS wrote
(in article ) :

"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. Same thing with fires, control
failures, or anything else that is an unplanned threat to life or property
that requires action to avoid it.

Excerpt from the USDOT FAA Air Traffic Bulletin:

"The Pilot/Controller Glossary describes EMERGENCY as "a distress or an
urgency condition." Aircraft instruments can individually or collectively
conspire to require pilots to consider declaring an emergency. Vacuum pump,
alternator/generator, and pilot/static systems often seem to be the
culprits. Loss of any of these systems should probably cause a prudent pilot
to consider declaring an emergency and to land as soon as practical.
However, pilots often hesitate to declare an emergency fearing the mythical
mountain of paperwork, government interviews, and ramp checks they have read
about in chat rooms and heard about in pilot lounges. Few, if any of us,
have ever met a pilot with firsthand knowledge of this paperwork
catastrophe, but most pilots believe it exists. Fortunately, FAA orders
allow controllers to handle a situation as though it were an emergency even
if the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used."

I think the idea is that if you want a guarantee of priority handling you
should use the proper terminology (note that they use the phrase "delcaring
an emergency"). Sure, ATC *may* give it to you even if you don't, but there
is no guarantee that they will, and there are plenty of real-world examples
of this out there that ended badly or very well could have.

The various recurrency training courses I have taken over the years have
always referred to the need to declare the emergency in order to be assured
of priority handling. In fact, one of the training centers I am familiar
with is run by a retired ATC professional who also designed and teaches a
portion of the course, so if this is all a misconception it seems to be a
widely held one.

No, I think you described it pretty much as I understand it. There is no need
to declare it to be an emergency for it to be treated as one. All emergencies
should be treated as such even if they are not declared. And to ensure proper
handling declaring an emergency is good communication practice.
That pretty well sums up your post.

The mountain of paperwork is definitely mythical. The worst emergency I ever
had, in which several people were injured when we flew into a microburst, did
have some paperwork, but all they wanted was a written one-page description
of what happened. And that was in the Air Force, where paperwork is king.
Most emergencies require no paperwork at all, and few would require so much
as a NASA report.

Heck, I had to fill out more paperwork for auto accidents the missionaries
had while i was in the Philippines than I have had for any emergency.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

It's probably just because I got a lot of praise during my early
toilet training, but I get irked because flyers never get as detailed
training in emergency radio terminology as recreational boaters do.

Here's what boaters are supposed to pick up from Coast Guard Auxiliary
or Power Squadron classes:

"There are three levels of emergency calls.

"First Level Emergency: The "distress" signal is "MAYDAY". This word
should be said three (3) times: "MAYDAY - MAYDAY - MAYDAY!". This
signal is to be used only when there is grave danger (you’re gonna
die) to your crew or your boat.

"Second Level Emergency: The "urgency" signal is "Pan-Pan" (pronounced
"pon-pon"). This should be stated three (3) times: "PAN-PAN - PAN-PAN
- PAN-PAN!". This signal should be used when you have a serious, but
not life threatening, situation that requires assistance. Some
examples are serious illness or injury to a crewmember, or if the
captain himself becomes incapacitated. Running out of gas is not a
Pan-Pan situation, unless you are in danger of being swept ashore in
high seas.

"Third Level Emergency: The "safety" signal is "Security" (pronounced
as "SAY-CURE-IT-TAY"). This word should also be said three (3) times:
"SECURITY - SECURITY - SECURITY!". This signal should be used to warn
of conditions that may affect boaters in that area. Some examples are
storm warnings, hazards to navigation (such as a huge log or other
objects that could damage a boat) or alerts from large ships when they
are going to be in a narrow channel. ("Security - Security - Security,
this is the car ferry Badger. We will be at the Ludington pier head in
20 minutes.")"

Don

"Mike Young" wrote in message
. ..

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.


Bad analogy. Is there a distinct difference between saying you're "unable"
to hop like a frog, and saying you "refuse" to hop like a frog, when you ARE
able to hop like a frog?

Jim,

I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW,


Ok, I'll be blunt: I don't think you understand you have been answered
here by controllers who know EXACTLY what that kind of emergency would
mean to operations at DFW. And they have told you repeatedly that it is
a non-issue. Why do you continue to insist otherwise?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Mike Young" wrote in message
. ..

I am "unable" to hop like a frog.
I "refuse" to hop like a frog.

There's a distinct difference.


Bad analogy. Is there a distinct difference between saying you're
"unable" to hop like a frog, and saying you "refuse" to hop like a frog,
when you ARE able to hop like a frog?

Yes, I do believe this is at the crux of this thread (rope). The presumption
is that the controller stating UNABLE in any way resembles a pilot's use of
UNABLE. It may or may not be the case that your usage is in fact a
disingenuous refutation of your responsibilities. It may in fact, or might
not, be the case that the DFW approach controller said "unable" when he
really meant "my lazy ass ain't about to clear a path for your lazy ass." I
submit that *that* would be the death knell of the NAS and civil aviation if
it were truly what transpired.

I can frog hop, but in truth, my pelvis, knees, and ankles are quite
different from a frog's. I have a doctor's note that says so. I am very
definitely unable to hop like a frog.

We're down to just the semantics of the controller's statement that he was
*UNABLE* to land the distressed aircraft on the requested runway. We know
where each of us stands as to its meaning, and there's no need to repeat it
yet again. Maybe we can be done with this at last. The sad part is that
after all the angst, there were no lessons or values to take forward from
this.