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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
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. It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their database. Chances are the FAA won't publish anything. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Sam Spade wrote:
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. Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot wouldn't have changed that. Matt |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
FOIA then.
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | | | 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. | | | It doesn't seem to be of interest to the NTSB. I can't find it in their | database. | | Chances are the FAA won't publish anything. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Matt Whiting wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: 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. Only because of an incompetent controller. The words used by the pilot wouldn't have changed that. We seriously disagree on that one. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Jim Macklin wrote:
FOIA then. That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless you really nail them down. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
Then you nail them down.
BTW, since DFW is owned by the airlines, contact the airport and say you're a stockholder or even stakeholder [we all are stakeholders]. "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... | Jim Macklin wrote: | | FOIA then. | | | That is a giant PITA, then they only send you crap unless you really | nail them down. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Sam Spade" wrote: 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. That does not in any way excuse the improper actions of the controller. 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. Nevertheless, he should not have needed to. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote: 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. There's no reason I can think of that he could not have been cleared for straight in from his position to the runway he requested; traffic could have been moved out of the way without problem or incident -- delay, sure, but no problem or incident. Rick |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
But only the controllers know which would be fastest for the
plane with the emergency. "Ricky Robbins" wrote in message ... | On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:34:36 -0600, "Jim Macklin" | wrote: | | 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. | | There's no reason I can think of that he could not have been cleared | for straight in from his position to the runway he requested; traffic | could have been moved out of the way without problem or incident -- | delay, sure, but no problem or incident. | | Rick |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news 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. So he's north of the field, and you say it's faster to go to runway 35 than to runway 17? Is the shortest distance between two points something other than a straight line in your world? 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. Which would be done by the time he arrives for runway 17. 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. Perhaps, but the portion of the tape that was included shows the pilot declared an emergency and was denied expeditious handling. |
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 |