Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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.

It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world, and the
reason for the heat in this thread. On the scale of bigness, the only
uncertainty I have is which is larger, the semantics of can't versus won't;
or answering "Affirmative!" to the question "Are you declaring an emergency
at this time?" There's no room for mush-mouth weasel words in that incident.
I don't believe the news broadcast told all that was worth telling.

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.

It's not just significant. It's all the difference in the world...

"refuse" and "unable" means the same thing from the ATC POV.

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

No, it does not, it gives the PIC the legal authority to
deviate from any law, rule or clearance GIVEN by ATC pr the
FAA. It does not allow the PIC to justify causing an
accident.

ATCs job in an emergency is to think straight and get the
PIC priority service and on the ground ASAP within the
bounds of possibilities. Think about the movie Airport,
that had a snow covered runway, a stuck plane on a runway
and noise complaints. Dean Martin as PIC was demanding
clearance to the runway that was blocked. ATC doesn't have
authority to physically clear a runway, that was about the
only accurate part of that movie.


Priority does not mean ATC will build a runway in 30 seconds
so you can land.



"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| Which law, rule or regulation allows near mid-air
collisions
| because one aircraft has a cob up their ass?
|
| The one that gives an emergency aircraft priority over all
other aircraft.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Because I think they are wrong and they have not said just
how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time than
was available to allow the straight in approach and landing?

The controllers knew the position of each airplane and they
also knew the time for a straight in approach. They knew
that it would be quicker the way it was done, not the way
the PIC wanted in a "panics" state of mind.

The plane did not flame-out, there were no mid-airs, and
nobody died or was injured.

I would bet my lottery winnings from last night [did not
win] that the re-training ATC got was to include statements
of their rationalizations about traffic and flight times "on
the tape."



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in
message ...
| 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)
|

601XL Builder wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in news:45E0A989.1090806
@suddenlinkDOTnet:

MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.

If the aircraft was on fire, the pilot would probably do an emergency
accelerated descent. However, if he were at low fuel, an accelerated descent
would probably not be desirable.

If he was truly at 15,000', and at a 4-5 mi/min airspeed, 81 miles would be
about right...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...

Maybe Steve can elucidate what it means when ATC asks you if you would
like to declare an emergency and what happens when you do. I think at
least
part of it is calling out the emergency equipment on the ground.


I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency. It does say
an emergency can be declared by the controller as well as a pilot. Pilots
are often hesitant to declare an emergency, but I've never known a
controller to be. In situations that have the properties of an emergency
ATC tends to treat it as an emergency without advising the pilot.

If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number], then
ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was the
airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where was
he when he asked for straight in to 17?



"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
| 601XL Builder wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in
news:45E0A989.1090806
| @suddenlinkDOTnet:
|
| MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire
that the pilot
| probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.
|
| If the aircraft was on fire, the pilot would probably do
an emergency
| accelerated descent. However, if he were at low fuel, an
accelerated descent
| would probably not be desirable.
|
| If he was truly at 15,000', and at a 4-5 mi/min airspeed,
81 miles would be
| about right...

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


Here's the definition from the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

UNABLE- Indicates inability to comply with a specific instruction, request,
or clearance.

Do you see a resemblance now?



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.


Well, we know that he was able to, the FAA said so.

I don't know - I was quoting someone else who said he was 81 miles out...

Which is why I said "If"...




"Jim Macklin" wrote in
:

If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number], then
ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was the
airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where was
he when he asked for straight in to 17?

There really is too much speculation, TV reports are not
reliable and knee-jerk reactions don't clarify the issue.


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
|I don't know - I was quoting someone else who said he was
81 miles out...
|
| Which is why I said "If"...
|
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in
| :
|
| If he was at 81 miles [first I've seen that number],
then
| ATC did have time to clear the airspace. Just where was
the
| airplane when the pilot declared the emergency and where
was
| he when he asked for straight in to 17?