ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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


Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.


No.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
plane with the emergency.


Nonsense.

"Jim Macklin" writes:

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.

That only takes a few minutes. Besides, that's their job.

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

IF there was no traffic, 17 would be faster, but there is
always traffic at DFW.

Even though the emergency status gives priority, it does not
create a magic wand that eliminates the traffic.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news |
| 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.
|
|
| So he's north of the field, and you say it's faster to go
to runway 35 than
| to runway 17? Is the shortest distance between two points
something other
| than a straight line in your world?
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| Which would be done by the time he arrives for runway 17.
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| Perhaps, but the portion of the tape that was included
shows the pilot
| declared an emergency and was denied expeditious handling.
|
|

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

Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it.



No.



Since he did not get the runway he *should have demanded* why did it not
turn out "wishy-washy?"

"Jim Macklin" writes:

But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
plane with the emergency.

Only the pilot knows what he requires.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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



Yes, and it was certainly possible in this case.



Then, since you agree with that, why wasn't it "wishy-washy?"

Jim Macklin wrote:

Then you nail them down.

BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport
and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are
stakeholders].

I don't want to nail them down. ;-)

I make FOIAs when it is an issue of serious interest to me. This issue
is of passing interest.

From now on, from this day until Hell freezes over, only ONE
airplane allowed within 30 miles of any airport at any time,
this is the way they guarantee Air Force One immediate
landing priority.


It will of course reduce airport and system capacity. But
that is a minor price to pay, sort of like cutN run in Iraq,
we can have peace tomorrow if we are willing to surrender.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| But only the controllers know which would be fastest for
the
| plane with the emergency.
|
|
| Nonsense.
|
|