Low fuel emergency in DFW

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!

"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.

And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

I once had a tower controller tell me after I had turned base (close in
base) that I was now sequenced #2 behind a Cessna... I did not see the
Cessna and did not know where it was. I told him UNABLE... other people on
the frequency reported hearing other things that I will deny saying. I was
giving a ride in a Blanik L-13 and I was in the back seat. The controller
promptly sent the Cessna on a go around.

He and his supervisor came over and apologized to us about an hour later.
They were not used to controlling traffic at our field. It was a temporary
tower for a fly in and air show. We had briefed the tower controllers
earlier that when a glider calls the down wind, he owns the runway.

We have parallel runways for glider and power operations, and the tower was
using both runways for power.. as they should because of the increased
traffic.

BT


"Tuno" wrote in message
oups.com...
And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

-ted
Ventus 2C "2NO"

"Tuno" wrote in message
oups.com...
And if I were the airline, I would start with the PIC, for endangering
the passengers by not being P*I*C.

I made the mistake once of letting the controller tell me I couldn't
land, and I almost busted the &^%$ out of my glider because of it. Not
making that mistake again ...

"Unable" is a word that should be used, and with emphasis, then do what you
need to do, and sort it out later.

The only reason I could see for a glider not given priority, is another
glider closer than you, or a balloon., right?
--
Jim in NC

The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want the
hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it to get
to DFW.

Mike Schumann

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

"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.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .

The controller made an interesting suggestion that if the aircraft was
really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer airport. I would
suggest that it would be wise to get the full info before jumping to
conclussions.

Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was when the pilot
declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an emergency, particularly if
you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land at the closest
available field. It is certainly conceivable that the pilot didn't want
the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was trying to streach it
to get to DFW.


I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had an emergency, and
that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.

Once you've declared an emergency, denial is moot. ATC's only responsibility
is to keep other people out of your way.

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

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.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Mike Schumann" wrote
in message
| .. .
|
| The controller made an interesting suggestion that if
the aircraft was
| really that low on fuel he should divert to a closer
airport. I would
| suggest that it would be wise to get the full info
before jumping to
| conclussions.
|
| Obviously one major question is where the aircraft was
when the pilot
| declared a fuel emergency. Once you declare an
emergency, particularly if
| you suspect a fuel leak, I would think you should land
at the closest
| available field. It is certainly conceivable that the
pilot didn't want
| the hassle of making an unscheduled landing, and was
trying to streach it
| to get to DFW.
|
|
| I didn't jump to any conclusions. The pilot said he had
an emergency, and
| that he needed 17C at DFW. He was denied.
|
|

On 2007-02-22, Jim Macklin p51mustang 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.

I'm sure if this had resulted in (a non-fiery, given the lack of fuel)
crash, this would really have comforted the crew and passengers on that
plane.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de