ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

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.


ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:17:59 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

Roger wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:41:03 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:


http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/Vi...2817&catId=104


Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

Not exactly.

Aw, come on now. Just look at all the thoughtful people involved.

You have an ATP who is willing to fly around the airport to make
things easier on the controller even though he may be about to run out
of fuel with 100 plus passenger on board. You have approach calling
the tower to inform them the pilot would like 17, but doesn't want to
worry them with the though of a low fuel "situation" and a tower
controller who guides the "troubled" plane around the airport to keep
them out of the way of regular traffic.

However: You would think the ATP would at least have a bit of self
preservation in mind.

One of our local pilots in a 172 was coming back from down south on an
IFR flight plan when the engine swallowed a slug of ice. She was
shaking badly and didn't appear to be getting better., He declared an
emergency and ATC told every one else "shoo". Airliners and all
cleared out to make way for him. He landed without incident and made
it to the FBO. After setting for a while it ran fine. The verdict was
carb ice and all concerned told him he did the right thing. The tower
guys told him "good job", kinda like when you put it where they want
at Oshkosh:-))

As others have said, you, not the tower chief or any one else owns
that airport after having said those magic words declaring an
emergency.

If it's me "up there" and something goes wrong, I'm not too proud to
holler for help. We'll sort out the paper work later if there is any.
In the case of the 172 above, he didn't have to fill out anything.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
| 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.

That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
controller think he could do.

If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
edited report.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| 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.
|
|
| ATC wasn't asked to do the impossible.
|
|

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.

Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause really muddies up
the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be clear. But
it wasn't.

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.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides now,
or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
controller think he could do.

If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't condemn
either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
edited report.


You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing your argument on?

"Jim Macklin" writes:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."

That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws are
passed and people continue to argue about what it means.*

The Constitution also prohibits involuntary servitude except as punishment for
a crime, but that has never stopped military conscription.

Essentially the Constitution means whatever the political winds of the day
want it to mean, which is why it survives.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of
| a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms
| shall not be infringed."
|
| That is as clear as can be, yet several thousand laws
are
| passed and people continue to argue about what it means.
|
| Actually, this is quite fuzzy. The antecedent clause
really muddies up
| the waters. It =could= have been written "The right of
the people to
| keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That would be
clear. But
| it wasn't.
|
| 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.

50 years of reading and watch news reports.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| That may be true, but it isn't what this group decides
now,
| or even what the FAA decides tomorrow, but what did the
| controller think he could do.
|
| If he needs more training, so bet it, but I won't
condemn
| either the controller or the pilot based solely on a TV
| edited report.
|
|
| You said you hadn't seen the report, what were you basing
your argument on?
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
You should read the versions prior to the final. It is very
clear, although there is a tendency to add two commas that
were not part of the original as voted on in the Senate in
1789. That really muddies up the water.

Of course the people,who wrote it remembered that the
Revolution started with British attempts to confiscate arms
at Concord and Lexington and the Bill of Rights read in
conjunction with the Declaration of Independence, and
considering Patrick Henry's speeches on the subject during
the Virginia ratification debates, it makes perfect sense.
Under Ashcraft, the DOJ even got it right in the report
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm


Fuzzy is fuzzy and that is fuzzy. Plus, you have to wade through all
the background material in an attempt to determine "legislative intent."
It will forever be challenged by the meaning of militia.

Not so with the 91.113 clause previously cited in this thread.