Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.


Incorrect. See subparagraph c. below:



FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-1. ATC SERVICE

The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision
between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the
flow of traffic. In addition to its primary function, the ATC system has the
capability to provide (with certain limitations) additional services. The
ability to provide additional services is limited by many factors, such as
the volume of traffic, frequency congestion, quality of radar, controller
workload, higher priority duties, and the pure physical inability to scan
and detect those situations that fall in this category. It is recognized
that these services cannot be provided in cases in which the provision of
services is precluded by the above factors. Consistent with the
aforementioned conditions, controllers shall provide additional service
procedures to the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other
circumstances. The provision of additional services is not optional on the
part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation
permits. Provide air traffic control service in accordance with the
procedures and minima in this order except when:

a. A deviation is necessary to conform with ICAO Documents, National
Rules of the Air, or special agreements where the U.S. provides air traffic
control service in airspace outside the U.S. and its possessions or:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations
regardless of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

b. Other procedures/minima are prescribed in a letter of agreement,
FAA directive, or a military document, or:

NOTE-
These procedures may include altitude reservations, air refueling,
fighter interceptor operations, law enforcement, etc.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Procedural Letters of Agreement, Para 1-1-9.

c. A deviation is necessary to assist an aircraft when an emergency
has been declared.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Safety Alert, Para 2-1-6.
FAAO 7110.65, Emergencies, Chapter 10
FAAO 7110.65, Merging Target Procedures, Para 5-1-8.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

The aircraft with the declared emergency "owns" the airport
[as many have said] but there are a ton of squatters that
must be moved out of the way, with airspace actually
vacated. To turn the airport around will take more time
than it takes to fly into the current sequenced stream.
Only one or two airplanes need to be turned out to clear a
slot for the distressed aircraft.


I assume by "turn the airport around" you mean to reverse the flow. Land
and depart to the south instead of to the north. What makes you think
that's necessary?



The object is to get on the ground ASAP. The plane did land
OK.


Yes, but it did not get on the ground ASAP.



Might it have crashed? Sure, but airplanes that have not
declared emergencies crash too.


That's comforting.



The fact that the PIC declined other closer airports is
evidence that the emergency was not THAT critical and it
seems to me, that the PIC got the best service possible, in
the least time.


Ya think? Did the PIC decline any suitable closer airports?



BTW, I have declared emergency on more than one occasion. I
have flown in and out of DFW, DAL Love, Addison, FTW
Meacham, Atlanta, O'Hare, and I would expect priority into
the landing stream, but I would never demand that everybody
get way out of my way, I know that would take MORE time.
Just get me quickly into the train and on the ground as
quick as possible.


You don't KNOW that it would take more time, you BELIEVE it would take more
time.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It was the controllers airport, he knew all the traffic [and
had probably practices an emergency turning the airport
around in their sim] and he decided what the best course of
action was, since he had the BIG PICTURE and the pilot was
stupid IMHO.


So when a pilot declares an emergency it is up to the controller to decide
on the best course of action? If it's the pilot that was stupid, in your
uninformed opinion, then why is it that it's the controller that was given
remedial training?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

It isn't just the traffic ON the runway, but the traffic in
the air within many miles that has to go somewhere.


The traffic ON the runway can depart, probably a good many that have already
taxied for departure can also depart. You don't have to shut down all
operations immediately for an emergency aircraft that needs to land against
traffic but is still some 80 miles or so away.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
That is not an option for all the other airplanes or ATC.



"Jose" wrote in message
...
| neither does a 10° heading change create legal
| separation in one minute.
|
| Legal separation is nice, but in an emergency, I'll settle
for anything
| that doesn't bend metal.
|

Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller was
willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no without
any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been cleared,
but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me what you
think.

Danny Deger

| 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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

This is an excellent point. In this case the pilot would need to tell
ATC "unable" on the other two runways and tell them the straight-in to 17
is required.


He did.

You are correct. I listened to the tape after I posted my statement.

Danny Deger

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

A compressor stall in a two engine airplane was not seviour enough to blow
off IFR separation from other aircraft if I had been IMC. At least that
was the decision I made at the time. If I had been on fire, I would have
turned then told the controller I had turned.


What did you say to the controller when you declared the emergency?



I used to own a Bonanza and if was VMC I would often "Cancel IFR" if I was
being vector all over the place or if VFR and being vectored all over the
place I would "Cancel Radar Service". Those are two very powerful
statements that you don't need an emergency to use.


Generally, if you're operating VFR in an area where ATC can initiate
vectoring, you're not in an area where you can "cancel radar service".

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news

I don't think you understand the complexity of the airspace
around DFW, with arrival gates, departure corridors,
multiple runways.

It is not a 1 minute or a two minute exercise to "clear the
airspace" neither does a 10° heading change create legal
separation in one minute.


You don't understand how ATC works.

"601XL Builder" wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet wrote in message
news:45E0A989.1090806@suddenlinkDOTnet...

MB made the point that had the aircraft been on fire that the pilot
probably wouldn't have bypassed the other two airports.


Did he? Perhaps you assume too much. Maybe he'd prefer the field with
appropriate crash/fire/rescue capability. I think that'd be DFW.

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
Have you listened to the tape. It is pretty obvious that the controller
was willing to give the pilot the straight-in and the supervisor said no
without any rationalization. In my opinion the airspace could have been
cleared, but the supervisor choose not to. Listen to the tape and tell me
what you think.

The heavily edited tape includes enroute handing off to approach. You did
not at any time hear the supervisor. What you heard was approach responding
"unable" to the 17C request, not a refusal, and an expedited approach on the
active.