Low fuel emergency in DFW

"Mike Young" wrote in message
...

Are you satisfied you heard enough of the tapes? That the context of the
utterances were completely and objectively conveyed?


Yes.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

Are they edited?


Probably. Do you believe the portions that were played were altered?

Morgans writes:

Save the drama for a movie, or a play. It doesn't play well, here.

After reading your example, I must agree.

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

Probably.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
|
| Are they edited?
|
|
| Probably. Do you believe the portions that were played
were altered?
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

Probably.


Right. It must be a conspiracy.

On Feb 22, 9:03 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
In article . com,

"Brian" wrote:
An emergency exists when the pilot declares it; the ATC perspective is
irrelevant from that point.

Not at all true. If ATC's perspective is that a 767 on short final for
runway 35 will not be able Go Around or Clear the Runway with out
creating a collision hazard with the Emergency aircraft landing runway
17, then ATC has every right to deny the pilot runway 17.

When the plane runs out of gas, it's going to create a collision hazard
with the ground. Perhaps the controller should just deny the emergency
aircraft permission to crash and everything will be OK?

You missed the point of my fictional scenrio. The point is that it is
possible that if the pilot continued to 17 without consulting or
getting approval from ATC then there might they might not have run out
gas, because they would have collided with conflicting traffic 1st.
Crashing 2 aircraft instead of one.

As I read the excerpt from artical ATC had every right to suggest
alternatives, They are there to help after all. They had already
suggested two alternative runways to the pilot that he had refused.
Why would they think he wouldn't deny the 3rd alternative. All I see
ATC doing is pointing out the pilot that landing 17 would disrupt
traffic flow and if possilbe 35 would be better. The Pilot evidently
agreed or he would have insisted on runway 17.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Mike Young wrote:
A 757 can cross a continent *and* an ocean without refueling.

Is that a fact? Boeing says the -200 has a max range of 3900 nm, the
-300 3395 nm, and the freighter version 3150 nm. Which combination of
continent and ocean did you have in mind? LAX to Heathrow is more than
4700 nm by great circle, for instance.

How bad was that suspected fuel leak if he left Tulsa with, not just
sufficient, but maximum fuel? If he didn't leave with full tanks
(full as in complying with take off and landing maxima), how much did
he carry, and why? Having left with less than adequate fuel, at what
point did it become an emergency? How was it "apparently not caused
by attempting to keep the load light to save on opperating
expenses"?

Because, as has been reported in the press and here in this thread, the
root cause was determined to be a malfunctioning fuel valve. Having fuel
on board that you cannot access can lead to an emergency as well.

Here's my guess at "unable". The pilot's request for 17C jeopardized the
safety of all those in the air above DFW. They likely also are running
minimum fuel loads. We don't know how many. All? None? Just one? Was the
controller unable to scatter the entire pattern, and then get them back
and all on the ground safely? Or was he just unwilling? The fact is, we
don't know. I have my opinion, and I've already heard yours. There seems
little point rehashing it without more facts.

Yet you're willing to toss out all kinds of speculation and
misinformation without bothering to search out readily available facts.
Hmmmm...

Here's one thing that can happen when you run out of fuel in an
airliner, Air Transat Flight 236. Look at some pics on the internet,
they melted the rims off of the plane trying to stop it after crossing
the fence at 200 knots in their GLIDER!.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN
You think maybe the AA pilots had this on their mind when turning down
Addison and askng for a long wide runway that they were intimately
familiar with?
One of the scariest emergency calls I ever heard was an AA Airbus out
of New York, they declared an emergency after takeoff and asked for a
return to JFK. When the controllers asked them for their fuel state
and souls on board, they responded with the number of people and said
"we're not sure how much fuel we have remaining". Later they estimated
they had maybe 15-20 minutes at the rate that it was leaving the
airplane. They made it to JFK. We are talking 10,000 gallons plus that
disappeared. How would you like to make that radio transmission?

Pull up the airport diagram for DFW. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0702/06039AD.PDF
There are a 7 runways there to land on, esp if you hold some
departures for a few minutes on the inboards (17R or 18L). Taxiway L
was even a runway at one point in the early days. I personally
wouldn't mind holding my takeoff for someone who was coming in with a
fuel emergency. Now anyone who has to go around has probably just
become minimum fuel themselves, so spinning them is not the best
option, now you have a daisy chain of low fuel birds. The controllers
I know are hard workers and do a job I would not (probably could not )
do. My gut feeling here is an important communications lesson was
learned here, with a happy ending. Maybe the phone call could have
gone "AA 489 has declared a fuel emergency, they will be landing 17C
(or17R).", not they "are requesting..." Easier to beg forgiveness than
request permission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236