Low fuel emergency in DFW

Some years ago I was over eastern PA in IMC and had the alternater
fail. I told NY Center I wanted to land at Lancaster because of the
failure, and I was specifically asked if I wanted to declare an
emergency. Of course it wasn't one, and I made no such demand, but
understood that if I said that word they could clear traffic more
aggressively than having to fit me into the approach patterns like a
normal IFR arrivial.

So they do ask, sometimes. Sometimes it's a CYA thing, but I think
much more often it's ATC trying to understand how serious the problem
is.


On Feb 25, 8:49 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"C J Campbell" wrote in avecable.com...



Maybe Steve can elucidate what it means when ATC asks you if you would
like to declare an emergency and what happens when you do. I think at
least
part of it is calling out the emergency equipment on the ground.

I can't personally recall a controller asking a pilot if he'd like to
declare an emergency. I don't believe FAAO 7110.65 ever directs a
controller to ask a pilot if he'd like to declare an emergency. It does say
an emergency can be declared by the controller as well as a pilot. Pilots
are often hesitant to declare an emergency, but I've never known a
controller to be. In situations that have the properties of an emergency
ATC tends to treat it as an emergency without advising the pilot.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:16:59 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:

I certainly don't always agree with Steven, but I'm betting he's a lot
more familiar with moving airplanes out of the way that you are or than I
am.

Some people aren't quite thinking the situation through. Unless we're
speaking of airships or helicopters or 152s or such, nobody needed to be
"moved out of the way". Rather, anything moving into conflict with the
pilot's intended route needs to be vectored away from the conflict.

I'm not saying that that's trivial, but it's not the same thing as "moving
something out of the way".

There's also the fact that, no matter the emergency, it takes time for the
plane with the emergency to get to any given point. So it's not as if all
potential conflicts must be instantaneously handled.

I don't know the DFW area. But around the EWR class B, traffic tends to
follow a limited number of paths. Presumably, this helps achieve the
necessary sequencing by the runway threshold.

This organization too would help the vectoring.

Again: I'm not saying that this is trivial. But I've no doubt that it can
be done.

Perhaps more difficult would be getting aircraft off the runway, if
traffic on the ground were sufficiently congested. What happens if a
Heavy is taxied onto grass?

- Andrew

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

Because I think they are wrong and they have not said just
how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time than
was available to allow the straight in approach and landing?


So because you have no idea how it can be done you concluded it can't be
done.

It's been stated here the airplane was about 80 miles from DFW, I don't know
if that's correct but nobody has disputed it so we'll assume it is. We know
it was being worked by center so it sounds about right. So figure at least
15 minutes from touchdown, that's a lot of time. Most of the arriving
aircraft already within approach control airspace, perhaps all of them, can
get on the ground before the emergency arrives. Other DFW bound aircraft
will be held at arrival fixes or enroute. A flow control message will be
sent to stop departures to DFW from at least the closer airports. Most of
the departure aircraft that have already taxied will be able to depart
before the emergency arrives, those that haven't taxied will be held on the
ramp. Traffic at satellite fields will be largely unaffected. It certainly
isn't necessary to "turn the airport around" or sterilize the airspace.
What made you think it was?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

There really is too much speculation, TV reports are not
reliable and knee-jerk reactions don't clarify the issue.


The TV report played the tapes and the FAA confirmed ATC was wrong.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

If you can be confident than you have at least x minutes of fuel, then
an airport that is x-y minutes away is just as close as one that is x-z
minutes away. In other words, fuel is not an issue for any airports
that are within your fuel endurance; the choice among those airports can
therefore be based on other factors.

I disagree completely.

The ideal airport is the closest airport that you will reach at a reasonable
descent rate. If you delay your descent until you are out of fuel, you will
be in a position where you MUST make the field, and you will not be able to
Go Around if there is an issue, since you are dry.

OTOH, if you land at an airport that is closer than your remaining fuel, you
may leave yourself with more options if the landing is less than uneventful.

For example, had the AA flight waited to land until he was dry, the request
to Circle to Land or the decision to land upon an active runway in the wrong
direction may have had much more dire consequences. Fortunately, the flight
still had fuel, so the circle to land manuever was possible.

"Al G" wrote in news:i8JDh.43$1X5.18
@newsfe05.lga:

Rulebooks are paper, the will not cushion the meeting of metal and
stone.


I dunno...

There are A LOT of rulebooks in Aviation!

Ricky Robbins wrote in
:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:54:31 +1100, "d&tm"
wrote:

So if the pilot chose to land on R17 and crashed into a fully laden 747
that couldnt be moved in time, and 600 people died, are you saying the
pilot was in his rights to ignore ATC telling him not to land?

Yes, if he still considered it necessary to land on R17, he was within
his rights. Now, granted, once ATC mentions the fully loaded 747 that
can't be moved in time, said pilot might determine it isn't the best
course of action, but the point is that once the emergency is declared
it's the pilot's decision--not ATC's--whether or not to continue to
R17.

Rick

How many of the FIVE - count 'em FIVE - parallel runways had a fully loaded
747 in Position & Hold that couldn't be moved in time?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
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.

Oh, come on! Didn't you see "Pushing Tin"?



Seriously, though, based on the "10 miles north of Bonham" that was described
in the WFAA report (assuming that was accurate), the emergency was called
about 70 NM out.

At 450 Kts, that's about 10 minutes before the plane is within range. And
presumably, once they get below 10,000', they'll slow down to 250 Kts
allowing even more time.

Plenty of time to vector even dozens of planes out of the way safely.

If the distance was correct, [first I heard or saw that was
this morning], then yes there was time. But if the plane
was 20 miles out, there wasn't time. So what are the facts,
not rumors reported by a TV "reporter."


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| Because I think they are wrong and they have not said
just
| how they would have "cleared the airspace" in less time
than
| was available to allow the straight in approach and
landing?
|
|
| So because you have no idea how it can be done you
concluded it can't be
| done.
|
| It's been stated here the airplane was about 80 miles from
DFW, I don't know
| if that's correct but nobody has disputed it so we'll
assume it is. We know
| it was being worked by center so it sounds about right.
So figure at least
| 15 minutes from touchdown, that's a lot of time. Most of
the arriving
| aircraft already within approach control airspace, perhaps
all of them, can
| get on the ground before the emergency arrives. Other DFW
bound aircraft
| will be held at arrival fixes or enroute. A flow control
message will be
| sent to stop departures to DFW from at least the closer
airports. Most of
| the departure aircraft that have already taxied will be
able to depart
| before the emergency arrives, those that haven't taxied
will be held on the
| ramp. Traffic at satellite fields will be largely
unaffected. It certainly
| isn't necessary to "turn the airport around" or sterilize
the airspace.
| What made you think it was?
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

ATCs job in an emergency is to think straight and get the
PIC priority service and on the ground ASAP within the
bounds of possibilities.


In this case they did neither.



Think about the movie Airport,
that had a snow covered runway, a stuck plane on a runway
and noise complaints. Dean Martin as PIC was demanding
clearance to the runway that was blocked. ATC doesn't have
authority to physically clear a runway, that was about the
only accurate part of that movie.


No, ATC doesn't. But there are people with that authority and Burt
Lancaster had ordered the snow plows to push the 707 off the runway if
George Kennedy wasn't able to move it by more conventional means before the
emergency aircraft arrived.

Actually, "Airport" was pretty accurate, far better than it's sequels which
went progressively from bad to bizarre.



Priority does not mean ATC will build a runway in 30 seconds
so you can land.


No, it means ATC will give an aircraft in distress the right of way over
all other air traffic. They didn't do that in this case, that's the error.