Low fuel emergency in DFW

The 707 that crashed on Long Island did tell ATC they were low of
fuel, but never said the magic word "Emergency".

A lawyer for one of the interested parties later sued the FAA saying
they should have known it was an emergency, asking why not saying one
little work make any difference, and the court found an emergency had
to be declared, not implied. The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

In the DFW case ATC got it wrong, they have 'retrained' the folks who
screwed up. It's been repeated time and again here -- if a PIC
declares an emergency he owns the sky, period. Any price to be paid
for a bad call on his part gets to be extracted when he's on the
ground, he does NOT get second guessed while the emergency is in
progress. ATC can offer alternatives and suggestions, but does not
'control' the aircraft. There were minutes of time available for
someone at 'position and hold' to get off.

The airplanes do NOT fly for the convenience of the controllers, the
controllers are their for the safety and convenience of the airplanes.
FAA and ATCC get their pound of flesh, if they are entitled to it, raw
and after the fact, not cooked in a crash. They knew that, and the
controller and supervisor who were dealing the the AA flight know it
now, too. They've been taken to the woodshed (not the unemployment
line).








On Feb 23, 6:01 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"BDS" wrote in message

.. .



Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.

A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

"Mike Schumann" wrote

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
request.

It has been reported here, that he asked for the emergency 17 straight in,
82 miles away. Plenty of time to vacate the runway and move any other
aircraft in his path.
--
Jim in NC

One guesstimation regarding how quickly a runway can be cleared for a
landing in the opposite direction. It's not uncommon to have three airplanes
on the departure runway - one accelerating, one taxiing into position at the
end and another (the next for take-off) taxiing into position at an
intersection. Allow 1 minute for the take-off run and another for initial
climbout. As for the other two airplanes, behind them is typically the
departure queue blocking the quickest exit, so they will need to taxi on the
runway to the next free exit before vacating the runway. That probably takes
the same 2 minutes. So 2 minutes minimum. Then consider the wake turbulence,
if it was a heavy taking off - do you really want to land into the wake?
That might cause an emergency all by itself. Just my $0.02.

On 23 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0800, "Tony" wrote:

The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

The FAA paid 40% of the damages in the Avianca 52 crash.

I thought otherwise -- thanks for the correction.

On Feb 23, 7:21 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
On 23 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0800, "Tony" wrote:

The fact that a foreign flag aircraft
didn't know the the procedures in the US was not given as a reason for
the FAA to be held at fault.

The court got it right.

The FAA paid 40% of the damages in the Avianca 52 crash.

This is not necessarily the correct place in the thread for this
question,
but it is at least amoung the most recent.

I noticed that this incident actually occurred on or about August 31,
2006,
which was about six months ago--even though it has been a television
news
item and also subject of debate on this news group over the past couple
of
days.

My question is this: Does anyone here have a working link to either the
audio tape of the incident or a transcript of the tape?

My justification for asking is that "phraseology" is a frequent topic of
lecture and discussion at Wings Seminars, and I and curious as to what
was
actually said. IFAIK, there only two or three ways to say "emergency"
plus
one additional way to say "fuel critical"--none of which were
specifically
quoted in any of the links which I was able to find.


ABC news played the tapes in their report. The pilot used the word
"emergency" to declare that he had an emergency.


Thanks for the clarification, I had not been able to link to it.

Peter

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Remember the jet (747 I think) that crashed on Long Island a few years
ago
after running out of fuel? That had alot to do with the fact that the
crew
never properly declared an emergency. They kept saying something like
low
fuel or critical fuel, but never used the word "emergency" IIRC.


A 707, I believe. They crashed on Long Island because they executed a
missed approach procedure when they didn't have enough fuel to fly another
approach anywhere.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought they had made more than one attempt
at the approach - I do recall something about them having to hold for a long
time at one point enroute.

BDS

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

What takes less time, moving 50 airplanes or moving two?


What's heavier, a ton of feathers, or a ton of sand?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

BS, you get then best and quickest solution.


That's simply not the way it works.

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

If the pilot wants a straight in approach to a runway that is occupied by
another aircraft that can't be moved in time, ATC can certainly suggest
alternatives as well as point out the impossibility of the pilot's
request.

That wasn't the case here.