Low fuel emergency in DFW

Leonard Ellis writes:

From ATC's perspective, because
he/she declined both alternatives airports, the "emergency" wasn't really an
"EMERGENCY."

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

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested ...

A pilot who has declared an emergency doesn't require that anything be
granted--he simply states his intentions. ATC's responsibility is to work
with and around the emergency.

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

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

That statement makes it pretty clear that you don't understand this thread.

I understand the FARs, which is a lot more important.

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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.


Irrelevant. The only acceptable response to any declared emergency is to
give the pilot whatever he wants.

"Leonard Ellis" wrote in message
...

Not to stir the pot too much, but my impression from the media reports
here in Dallas (assuming they are accurate and complete): the airplane was
a B757 and ATC offered the flight two adequate runways closer to his/her
ground track to DFW (McKinney [KTKI] and Addison [KADS]). Per the media
reports, the PIC declined both, I imagine for many reasons including
inconvenience to his passengers and heat from his company. From ATC's
perspective, because he/she declined both alternatives airports, the
"emergency" wasn't really an "EMERGENCY."

In any case, while ATC should have granted the PIC what he/she requested,
in my opinion the PIC should suffer a serious roasting for declining two
adequate closer runways (especially McKinney), chosing instead to fly his
reportedly critically low-fuel bird over the much more densely populated
areas closer to DFW enroute to either DFW's 17C or 31R. If he truly had
insufficient fuel to make a safe landing anywhere, going down in the
relatively sparsely populated countryside would have likely risked far
fewer lives than trying to put that B757 down on a crowded freeway, a lake
or river, or into someone's neighborhood.


The pilot's actions can be judged after the event. During the emergency he
gets whatever he wants.

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.

If runway 17 was the pilots only option then he need to let ATC know
that.

The Pilot had every right to request it.
ATC had every right to deny it. (in this case it ended here)
The Pilot had every right to insist, at which point the Pilot would
have to explain why (he had turned down two closer runways and must
runway 17)
ATC has every right to insist as well but would have explain why he
could not use Runway 17. (Example, Departing aircraft runway 17)

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Yeah, the FARs are really important when you're out of gas.


I've been lurking and watching the various attempts to silence mxmanic
for the past couple of months and really wondering what it is about
his
postings that get pilots (including me at times) so worked up.

Clearly, he can be a little annoying, but then, so are most of us to a
degree, so I don't really think that's it. He is also obviously quite
interested in aviation, and is knowledge of theory of flight, FARs,
etc,
is probably better than more than a few pilots I know.

So, then, what's the problem? I think it boils down to the fact that
it's hard for a non-pilot to fully understand at a visceral level,
what
piloting is. Of course, it's about knowledge and skill, but I think
anyone who has been flying long enough knows that the true job of a
pilot is to exercise excellent judgment -- in real time, with
incomplete
information, and in a situation where the consequences are totally
real
and completely non-negotiable.

Being PIC is an exercise in what economists might call "bounded
rationality". You often cannot make globally optimal decisions. The
best
you can do is make decisions that are "locally" optimal based on the
information
and time you have. The FARs, interestingly enough, are only one input
among many to this process. They are by no means that ultimate
authority.

Contrarily, though debating on the Internet what would have been the
best
course of action in a given situation is a favorite passtime of
pilots,
I think we all know that such debate does not capture "piloting." At
best
it gives us opportunities to consider possible game plans for
scenarios
in which we might find ourselves one day.

Anyway, this, I think, is what the "mxmanics" of the world don't seem
to
"get." It's not that they're bad people, they're just not pilots.

Now, back to our story. I think it's fair to say that there is no
reason the pilot and controllers cannot both take blame for this
near-disaster. The pilot should have acted in whatever way he believed
was safest. It has nothing to do with FARs or procedures. It has to
do with whose hands are on the yoke. Pilots who don't understand that
from their training are a danger to us all. At the same time, this guy
is going to have to explain how he got into this particular situation
in the first place. And finally, if you ask me, although the
controller
should not have denied the request, he is less at fault in my mind
than
the pilot. The controller, ultimately does not "control" the flight --
both he and the pilot should have both known that.

my $0.02,
-- dave j

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
ps.com...

Did anyone see the news about an AA (maybe 777) airplane declaring a
fuel emergency in DFW, requesting a downwind landing to I think 17
Center, and being told no, had to circle to land on 31 R?

I'm not exactly sure of those details, but it's close enough. It's
that old deal, when a pilot makes a mistake, the pilot dies, and when
a controller makes a mistake, the pilot dies. Turns out the airplane
had enough fuel to circle and land, butr damn it, heads should roll,
or at least jobs lost.

I hope the next time such an event happens the PIC TELLS the
Controller p@ic@ he is landing on 17 Center, rather than request it.
As it happens DFW was using 35 C runway for departures, and I gather
it would have been 'inconvenient' to make a suitable hole.

We should OWN the sky when we declare an emergency, and sort out the
details once the event is over, dammit!



I saw the report on ABC news. I agree completely, heads should roll. The
reporter said, I believe, that there was disagreement on who denied the
requested runway, the controller or the supervisor. Regardless, I think
both heads should roll.

Yes, and I think the pilots should be fired also. They should have told
the controller they were landing on 17C and kept on coming. To let a
controller browbeat them into making a decision that could have been
fatal is inexcusable. I'd fire 4 people (at a minimum) over this one.

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as a
pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about half
an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other airplanes
to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the traffic,
which seems to be the better solution.

And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short of 31, do you
still like this better solution?

I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone forge a post?

Matt

"Brian" wrote

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.

From an article referenced by ATC-News:

"(February 21, 2007)--Air traffic controllers at Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport have been retrained after a pilot was denied a runway
request after declaring a low-fuel emergency.

The emergency was reported on an Aug. 31 American Airlines flight arriving
at DFW from Tulsa, Okla. The captain declared the emergency and asked to
land against the flow of traffic. But a controller supervisor said that
type of landing would delay other flights. A controller suggested the pilot
land on a different shorter runway or possibly divert to Dallas Love Field.
The pilot accepted landing with the air traffic, and the flight got on the
ground safely.

The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained DFW controllers to clarify
the controllers understanding and handling of such incidents."

It would appear that the FAA does not agree with how the controllers handled
the situation.

BDS

It takes less time to fit the Tulsa to DFW flight into the
flow of traffic than it does to turn 12-30 airplanes out of
the way to turn the airport around. DFW, unlike many
smaller airports never has a slack time, there are always
long sequenced flights.
Departing Tulsa, by jet, to DFW is not a long flight...why
did they have a "fuel emergency," did they depart without
fuel, did they have a leak?
If the flight had insisted on landing 17, then it could
easily have taken 30 minutes to get them a clear shot at the
runway.

BTW, I have NEVER seen an accurate report on TV or in a
newspaper of any airline accident or incident. NEVER!


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| How many "outraged" posters have ever flown into DFW as
a
| pilot? For ATC to turn the airport around takes about
half
| an hour, even if all they do is tell all the other
airplanes
| to go away. ATC did fit the "emergency" into the
traffic,
| which seems to be the better solution.
|
| And if the airliner had run out of fuel and crashed short
of 31, do you
| still like this better solution?
|
| I actually can't believe you wrote the above. Did someone
forge a post?
|
| Matt