ATC Handling of Low-Fuel American Flight

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news

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.


DAL would have been only about 4 miles closer that DFW, but DFW has about
4600' more runway.

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 don't know. It isn't relevant to what happened. During a declared
emergency the PIC gets what he or she needs. The questions come later.
That didn't happen in this case and that is all that matters.

Matt

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
t...
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.

Between Tulsa and DFW, which airports would those be?


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Colorado Springs, CO

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.


Please explain the artificial distinction?

Jim Macklin wrote:

The FAA has a simulator for ATC training at OKC, they can
simulate traffic and weather to reproduce any condition at
any airport.

As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.

These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
in-service purposes.

Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~

Sam Spade writes:

Please explain the artificial distinction?

Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?)
simulation.

The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and
"whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target.

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

Sam Spade writes:

As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.

These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
in-service purposes.

Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~

The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary.

MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would
impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the
product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten.

Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means
certification.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


As they have a simulator at OKC to model and simulate TERPs criteria.

These types of simulators are carefully crafted, then certified in
accordance with professional protocols before they are used for
in-service purposes.

Bill Gates does not exactly do that for his PC game. ~


The main difference is certification, and certification is arbitrary.

MSFS is not certified for most uses because there's no market for it, it would
impose arbitrary and not necessarily useful or desirable constraints on the
product, and it would multiply the price by at least a factor of ten.

Certification doesn't mean realism, utility, or completeness. It just means
certification.

O-kay

Mxsmanic wrote:
Sam Spade writes:


Please explain the artificial distinction?


Real flight vs. simulation. Now "real" simulation vs. "unreal" (?)
simulation.

The real distinction, of course, is between "whatever Mxsmanic does" and
"whatever I do," so it's a bit of a moving target.


You have created your own "prison."

A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the
actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a
type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications.

Level D has high-level visual simulation of good and minimum visibility
conditions, and so forth.

You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a
simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator.

Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect.

Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight
simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT! I have previously
provided you with fatal issues with MSFS, which, as I recall you stated,
"I will check those out." Of course, that meant you did not accept my
claims and, according to your form, you did not bother to report your
findings in the group.

Sam Spade writes:

A $11 million Level D flight simulator is sufficently faithful to the
actual aircraft that no aircraft time is required to train and acquire a
type rating or conduct periodic training to maintain qualifications.

As soon as I have $11 million, I'm going to get me one of those.

You seem to keep insisting that MSFS does good enough to be considered a
simulator not unlike a CERTIFIED Level D simulator.

It all depends on what type of simulation you want.

And certification does not equate to realism, it just equates to ...
certification.

Perhaps I am overstating your position in that respect.

You are.

Nonetheless, you insist in proclaiming MSFS as a faithful flight
simulator on some level, which is absolutely NOT!

It absolutely is. It depends on the level you choose.

Why such hostility towards PC simulators, I wonder? Something tells me that
no matter how good they get, someone will always find a reason why they aren't
"good enough." I've been using them for a long time, and they've come a long
way.

I just finished a nice little trip from Phoenix to Payson, which taught me
that I'm not very good at recognizing landmarks, even in areas I know well. I
guess I'll have to practice that more. I know how to use all the fancy
navigation stuff, but I'm rather awkward when I have only a VOR/DME to guide
me (plus visual information).

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