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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the worst about this because of subtle company intimidation. ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, which is NOT a declaration of emergency. The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then the trolly is on the track. If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully should not be needed. "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... You are absolutely correct. Airline pilots, as a group, tend to be the worst about this because of subtle company intimidation. ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, which is NOT a declaration of emergency. The magig words are, "American 123 is declaring an emergency." ATC response, "American 123 what is the nature of your emergency?" And, then the trolly is on the track. If ATC fails to respond to that properly and gives the run around, the pilot should then be resourceful to get them to understand they will give him what he needs. "Mayday, mayday, mayday" is one option that hopefully should not be needed. "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be taken as future intent. "We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory; i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC should take additional direct action. It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out okay, but absolutely did not follow through. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be taken as future intent. "We need to..." clouds the issue. "American 123 is declaring an emergency." Then, let ATC respond. If the response is unsatisfactory; i.e., "What is the nature of your emegency American 123?, then the PIC should take additional direct action. It is not the time for brevity or inferences. The crew started out okay, but absolutely did not follow through. The crew declared an emergency situation with that statement. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, which is NOT a declaration of emergency. "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked. What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is avoided. What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:58:51 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ): C J Campbell wrote: On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade wrote (in article ): http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/Vi...vidId=122817&c at Id=104 It appears somebody forgot what pilot in command means. Actually, at least two people forgot. Indeed. Well, stuff happens when you get distracted by an emergency. ATC needed to retrain their staff, but I hope that the chief pilot had a little prayer meeting with the crew. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
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. 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. 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. "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... | | "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: | | ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, | which is NOT a declaration of emergency. | | | "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We | got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we | need to get on the ground, right away, please." | | Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a | declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked. | | What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is | avoided. | | What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die. | | | -- | Dan | C172RG at BFM | | |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be taken as future intent. No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me. According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need". |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
John R. Copeland wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." I still think the imperative has to be stated, rather than what can be taken as future intent. No part of "need" sounds wishy-washy to me. According to the quote above, the pilot *twice* said "need". Nonetheless, it turned out "wishy-washy, didn't it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Dan Luke wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: ATC could have very well taken this as a declaration of minimum fuel, which is NOT a declaration of emergency. "We need to declare an emergency," a pilot radioed air traffic control. "We got a low fuel situation. We're not sure if it's a fuel leak or what, but we need to get on the ground, right away, please." Right. Any controller who would treat this statement as anything less than a declaration of a life-threatening emergency has his head up and locked. And, the PIC has to be sufficiently assertive to overcome that "up and locked" syndrome. Who has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the flight? What is the upside of denying the requested runway? Some inconvenience is avoided. What is the downside? The plane doesn't make the field and people die. Those are issues that the captain could have short-circuited. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
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. Right or wrong, the runway requested in a declaration of emergency should be granted *if at all possible.* |
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 |