Low fuel emergency in DFW

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
both heads should roll.

And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want the
hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it to get
to DFW.

Mike Schumann

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

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
both heads should roll.




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

I once had a tower controller tell me after I had turned base (close in
base) that I was now sequenced #2 behind a Cessna... I did not see the
Cessna and did not know where it was. I told him UNABLE... other people on
the frequency reported hearing other things that I will deny saying. I was
giving a ride in a Blanik L-13 and I was in the back seat. The controller
promptly sent the Cessna on a go around.

He and his supervisor came over and apologized to us about an hour later.
They were not used to controlling traffic at our field. It was a temporary
tower for a fly in and air show. We had briefed the tower controllers
earlier that when a glider calls the down wind, he owns the runway.

We have parallel runways for glider and power operations, and the tower was
using both runways for power.. as they should because of the increased
traffic.

BT


"Tuno" wrote in message
oups.com...
And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

Tony wrote:


We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!


All the PIC had to say was "unable" and say he was landing on 17C. Its
up to the controller to deal with it.

91.3 lets you break all the rules, but you have to account for them
later on review.

Dave

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...
Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

from reading the tone of your post , I presume you think this is all the
controllers fault?
I suspect the PIC has a damn lot of explaining to do to keep his job..
terry

Tony,

butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.


If any, then the pilot's. He/She would have needed to be more
assertive. IN an emergency, you don't request a runway, you tell the
controller which one you're landing on. If you find the time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want
the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it
to get to DFW.


I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

Once you've declared an emergency, denial is moot. ATC's only responsibility
is to keep other people out of your way.

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