ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

Jim Macklin wrote:


We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.

Not all the time.

These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any interpretation
whatsoever:

"An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic."


Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the local FAA
expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the flight?

The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL came very, very
close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion. That event
shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well should have.

Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration of an emergency
is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC or anyone else
until after the flight is terminated. After that, the conduct of the
PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some cases, sanctions.

But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is supposed to be given
the priority he requests. If that does not work then the PIC should, if
necessary, rephrase it as a demand.

There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the PIC would not
be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

Jim Macklin wrote:

PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light for every
action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable, and will get all
possible assistance.

The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've wasted too much
time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating rumors and TV
gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either.

Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that is mostly not
relevant to the discussion?

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a
collision between aircraft operating in the system and to
organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition to
its primary function, the ATC system has the capability to
provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many
factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
congestion, quality of radar, controller workload, higher
priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan and
detect those situations that fall in this category. It is
recognized that these services cannot be provided in cases
in which the provision of services is precluded by the above
factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
controllers shall provide additional service procedures to
the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not
optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
required when the work situation permits. Provide air
traffic control service in accordance with the procedures
and minima in this order except when:



No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY means
ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of way
and priority handling does not mean that every PIC request,
demand or wish can, will or should be granted.

Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional service" as
defined here. This is talking about optional services like VFR
advisories, not dealing with an emergency.

Matt

I copied the whole thing previously. Yes, I have honor and
common sense.
I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but
91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated
for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the
emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any
action not needed.
If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the
limitations exception, not as a total argument.
see a dictionary for carte blanche...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
| 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
|
| The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent
a
| collision between aircraft operating in the system and
to
| organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition
to
| its primary function, the ATC system has the capability
to
| provide (with certain limitations) additional services.
The
| ability to provide additional services is limited by
many
| factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
| congestion, quality of radar, controller workload,
higher
| priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and
| detect those situations that fall in this category. It
is
| recognized that these services cannot be provided in
cases
| in which the provision of services is precluded by the
above
| factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
| controllers shall provide additional service procedures
to
| the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
| circumstances. The provision of additional services is
not
| optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
| required when the work situation permits. Provide air
| traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures
| and minima in this order except when:
|
|
| Right of way is a statutory right granted an airplane to
proceed ahead of
| another. I see that you deleted subparagraph c. from your
copy and paste of
| FAAO 7110.65 paragraph 2-1-1. You have no honor.
|
|
|
| No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY
means
| ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
| limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of
way
| and priority handling does not mean that every PIC
request,
| demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
|
|
| What does it mean to you?
|
|
|
| We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
|
|
| Did ATC do the best they could in this case?
|
|

It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.

I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
|
| We all do the best we can, that includes pilots and ATC.
|
| Not all the time.
|
| These words are absolutely clear and not subject to any
interpretation
| whatsoever:
|
| "An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic."
|
|
| Are you aware that AAL management wrote a letter to the
local FAA
| expressing strong dissatisfaction with the handling of the
flight?
|
| The evening that Avianca crashed near JFK in 1996, AAL
came very, very
| close to loosing an MD-80 at JFK due to fuel exhaustion.
That event
| shook the flight ops culture at the company, as it well
should have.
|
| Any action taken by a pilot in command after declaration
of an emergency
| is not subject to modification or second guessing by ATC
or anyone else
| until after the flight is terminated. After that, the
conduct of the
| PIC is fairly open to critique and review and, in some
cases, sanctions.
|
| But, while the flight is still on-going the PIC is
supposed to be given
| the priority he requests. If that does not work then the
PIC should, if
| necessary, rephrase it as a demand.
|
| There is no omnipotence involved. If there was, then the
PIC would not
| be subject to review and possible sanction after the fact.

yes
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| PIC does not mean you're God, god or have a green light
for every
| action. It does mean you're responsible, accountable,
and will get all
| possible assistance.
|
| The tapes from a TV station do not interest me, I've
wasted too much
| time over the years seeing some talking head. Repeating
rumors and TV
| gossip or 91.3 does not help the god-like image either.
|
| Was there a point to posting over 1,000 lines of text that
is mostly not
| relevant to the discussion?
|
| Matt

The point is that declaring an emergency does not require
ATC to do the impossible or grant every deviation. 91.3
does allow the pilot to deviate without a clearance if
necessary.

Giving priority handling does not mean or require doing
everything the pilots asks. It does mean that ATC won't
vector you the normal 20 mile base leg and they will fit you
in ASAP. There are priorities...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Right of way DOES NOT mean carte blanche, see
| 2-1-1. ATC SERVICE
|
| The primary purpose of the ATC system is to
prevent a
| collision between aircraft operating in the system and
to
| organize and expedite the flow of traffic. In addition
to
| its primary function, the ATC system has the capability
to
| provide (with certain limitations) additional services.
The
| ability to provide additional services is limited by
many
| factors, such as the volume of traffic, frequency
| congestion, quality of radar, controller workload,
higher
| priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and
| detect those situations that fall in this category. It
is
| recognized that these services cannot be provided in
cases
| in which the provision of services is precluded by the
above
| factors. Consistent with the aforementioned conditions,
| controllers shall provide additional service procedures
to
| the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
| circumstances. The provision of additional services is
not
| optional on the part of the controller, but rather is
| required when the work situation permits. Provide air
| traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures
| and minima in this order except when:
|
|
|
| No document I have found says that declaring EMERGENCY
means
| ATC shall grant any pilot request, those requests have
| limitations due to traffic and other events. Right of
way
| and priority handling does not mean that every PIC
request,
| demand or wish can, will or should be granted.
|
| Handling a flight with an emergency isn't an "additional
service" as
| defined here. This is talking about optional services
like VFR
| advisories, not dealing with an emergency.
|
| Matt

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news

I copied the whole thing previously.


Why didn't you read it?



Yes, I have honor and common sense.


You have neither.



I clearly stated that not every request can be granted, but
91.03 does say you can do what you want and not be violated
for breaking a FAR if that was required to handle the
emergency. It does not give blanket protection for any
action not needed.
If you'll notice I used 2-1-1 to show the FAAs use of the
limitations exception, not as a total argument.
see a dictionary for carte blanche...


The request we're discussing could have been granted, and should have.

Jim Macklin wrote:

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.
Otherwise, why are there so many lawyers and why do lawyer
write the laws?


Because few regulations are as clear as the 91.113 language I previously
cited. No competent lawyer would try to find wiggle room in that
language. If he did, a federal judge would throw him out of court.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It has right of way, it does not say that ATC shall grant
every pilot request. It does mean that ATC can and will,
shall cut them into the line and not place other aircraft
[except one with a high degree of emergency] ahead of them.
It is not carte blanche.


Priority and right of way do not mean everything, it means
what is possible.


The request was possible but still refused.



I'm glad that management at the FAA and AAL are talking,
maybe it will improve service on both sides.

All words are subject to interpretation and very few words
are absolutely clear.


The words in question are absolutely clear.