If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes: Why do you think that? That's what most people here seem to believe. Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight simulators. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade wrote:
USAF operations are far more volatile than most civil operations. I like the Navy's approach. If the first emergency is blocking the runway, just shove it over the side and let the next guy land. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Mxsmanic wrote:
"Jim Macklin" writes: The FAA could run this in their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW ... I thought simulators didn't count. How much time did you spend in their simulator trying this out? As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's just YOUR simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the clueless yahoo attempting to utilize it. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they
overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there. I'm not advocating the actions of ATC here, but I am suggesting that the crew acted in a manner contrary to what they were saying. -- Jim Carter Rogers, Arkansas "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104 |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade wrote:
http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104 I listened to the tape all the way through. FIRE THE CONTROLLER. I'd have been yelling at him, at that point. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade writes:
Not me. I did most of my training and check rides in *real* flight simulators. Same thing. Another artificial distinction being made. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Rip writes:
As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's just YOUR simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the clueless yahoo attempting to utilize it. Quite a revealing statement. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
The FAA has a simulator for ATC training at OKC, they can
simulate traffic and weather to reproduce any condition at any airport. "Rip" wrote in message t... | Mxsmanic wrote: | "Jim Macklin" writes: | | | The FAA could run this in | their simulator at OKC academy or probably at DFW ... | | | I thought simulators didn't count. | | How much time did you spend in their simulator trying this out? | | As usual, it went right over your pointy little head. It's just YOUR | simulator that doesn't count, primarily due to the clueless yahoo | attempting to utilize it. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Carter wrote:
If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they overfly other suitable airports? That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there. I'm not advocating the actions of ATC here, but I am suggesting that the crew acted in a manner contrary to what they were saying. That is difficult to say. Perhaps he was sufficently higher passing Love that it would have taken more time to land there. An example I am familar with is passing Ontario Airport on the way into Los Angeles. You are usually at 14,000 feet passing Ontario and on a fuel efficent profile to land at LAX. That is a judgment call that can go either way. I wouldn't second guess his decision to stick with a company airport that may have been on the best fuel-efficient descent profile. It is part of the review that I am sure was conducted about his decisions. Nonetheless, at the time, that decision was not for anyone in ATC to question. Only after the fact was it reasonable to determine what, in fact, were the nearest suitable airports. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Jim Carter" wrote in message t... If the aircrew "needed to get on the ground right away", why did they overfly other suitable airports? What other suitable airports did they overfly? That action alone could have suggested to ATC that this wasn't that big an issue. Love Field has equipment to deal with air carrier class aircraft and they flew right past it even after being asked about landing there. Which way were they landing at DAL? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW | John | Piloting | 9 | March 14th 07 03:38 AM |
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure | Rick Umali | Piloting | 17 | November 5th 06 03:35 AM |
Angel Flight fuel discounts | John Doe | Piloting | 4 | January 20th 06 01:24 PM |
Passenger attempts to hijack American Eagles flight | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | January 11th 04 04:04 PM |
American Safety Flight Systems seat belts -- Help! | Paul Millner | Owning | 1 | July 7th 03 10:10 PM |