Thursday, February 22, 2007
Get Out And Start Walking Folks.........
Good afternoon, this is your captain speaking. I would like to request that everyone near a window please open it up, stick your arm out, and start flapping like crazy.......
It seems that last August, an American Airlines flight (#489) was inbound to the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. During the approach, pilot called the control center to declare a fuel emergency. He requested a straight-in approach to the airport's southbound center parallel runway, (17C) an approach that would get him on the ground in the least amount of time as safely as possible. Incredibly, he was REFUSED that request, and told to expect a normal landing pattern for a northbound runway in use at that time. The pilot said that was not going to be acceptable, and re-requested the center parallel. Once again, he was refused and asked if he wanted to re-direct to another airport. This would have involved interrupting all of the pilot's emergency procedures, forcing them to look for new approach plates and make changes in altitude and headings, all of which would have burned up time and distracted the pilots from their primary job at hand, managing their fuel situation and getting the plane down safely. The pilot knuckled under to the knuckle head controller, and finally accepted the NB runway assignment. Luckily, he was able to land without incident.
Film at ten.
I am speechless..........
Well, almost:
For those of you who aren't up on aviation procedures, trust me when I tell you that pilots do not make fuel emergency declarations lightly. FARs require that whenever you fly to a specific destination, you must have a fuel reserve of a certain amount. It's a percentage of the flight duration. If you don't have enough fuel reserve, you either use shorter legs, allowing for refueling, or remove weight from the aircraft (cargo & baggage) to allow enough fuel to be added to meet the minimums. Every commercial flight made involves these calculations. Every single one. If these calcs aren't made, the flight is illegal before it even pushes back from the gate, and no self respecting PIC would forgo them. None. Allow me to repeat that. No self respecting PIC would forgo the fuel and weight and balance calculations. None.
Got that? Good. Now, if a pilot declares a fuel emergency, as this one did, then that could mean several things.
1. They miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the trip.
2. They didn't do the weights and balance calculations correctly and therefore was heavier (Which takes more fuel to push through the sky.) than they thought.
Either of these situations infer that the flight crew has made a serious mistake, putting many souls in danger. Yet, if the PIC declares the emergency anyway, he/she is putting their personal and professional reputations and their jobs at risk for the sake of the passengers. Something they are legally obligated to do. And 99.5% of the ATP's out there WILL do that.
3. They had a mechanical problem. Either a fuel leak from a tank or associated part, or a mechanical problem, such as a fuel valve or pump or line or whatever leaking. Or it could have been an associated pump or valve not functioning, which makes fuel from a certain tank unavailable for use. In that case, for all intents and purposes, that fuel might as well not even be on the plane.
In this situation, there's no way for the pilot to know for certain just how much fuel is left, and whether what you DO have left isn't coming out of the aircraft before you have a chance to get it on the ground. This pilot had no way of knowing for certain that a possible dribble from a tank wouldn't turn into a gusher before he was on the ground. Neither did the controller. The last is a VERY important point. The controller is not flying this aircraft. The PIC is. FAR part 91, Sec 91.3, line b spells it all out. "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
Thus, the call as to which runway to use belonged to the PIC, not the controller. Landing on 17C may have made the controllers job harder, but that is what they are paid for. The crew was already coping with one serious problem. The controller should be helping. Not throwing up additional obstacles. This means if the pilot thinks he needs runway 13c, and the controller tells him no, the pilot should still make his approach to runway 13c, and proceed to land. Now if that sounds rash to you, trust me, it isn't. The pilot is the one flying the aircraft, NOT the controller. I know, I know, I said that before, but I can't emphasize that enough. Trust me, the controllers would have diverted whatever traffic needed diverting if the PIC had said "I need to get on the ground now. The runway assignment is unacceptable. I intend to land on 13C. Please make your traffic adjustments accordingly." Other pilots in the area and on the ground would have had NO trouble with making delays and adjustments to help out. Now of course, line c means he'll have to justify his actions, but I don't think that would have been a problem in this case. The FAA and the NTSB take fuel problems VERY seriously, and are loath to persecute pilots about them, (Please refer to the title of this post.) if the pilot has a good faith reason to believe he has a problem. In this case, the pilot stated he's suspecting a fuel leak. As stated before, he has NO WAY of knowing if the problem is going to get worse.
The upshot is that, thankfully, no one was hurt. There's a whole lot of finger pointing going on. The controller says his supervisor made the call, and the FAA says the call was the controller's. I personally believe the pilot should have stood up to the controller, but that's not really the point. In my estimation, the controllers who made this call need to either find a new career, or get an assignment to some backwater one-hanger field in northern Alaska. A certain now-retired senior heavy captain I'm familliar with would have used the runway he wanted, and after landing would have gone into the control room and personally dismembered the controller responsible for the decision.
That would have been fun to see!!
(Special thanks to TUA!)
An update:
It seems that last August, an American Airlines flight (#489) was inbound to the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. During the approach, pilot called the control center to declare a fuel emergency. He requested a straight-in approach to the airport's southbound center parallel runway, (17C) an approach that would get him on the ground in the least amount of time as safely as possible. Incredibly, he was REFUSED that request, and told to expect a normal landing pattern for a northbound runway in use at that time. The pilot said that was not going to be acceptable, and re-requested the center parallel. Once again, he was refused and asked if he wanted to re-direct to another airport. This would have involved interrupting all of the pilot's emergency procedures, forcing them to look for new approach plates and make changes in altitude and headings, all of which would have burned up time and distracted the pilots from their primary job at hand, managing their fuel situation and getting the plane down safely. The pilot knuckled under to the knuckle head controller, and finally accepted the NB runway assignment. Luckily, he was able to land without incident.
Film at ten.
I am speechless..........
Well, almost:
For those of you who aren't up on aviation procedures, trust me when I tell you that pilots do not make fuel emergency declarations lightly. FARs require that whenever you fly to a specific destination, you must have a fuel reserve of a certain amount. It's a percentage of the flight duration. If you don't have enough fuel reserve, you either use shorter legs, allowing for refueling, or remove weight from the aircraft (cargo & baggage) to allow enough fuel to be added to meet the minimums. Every commercial flight made involves these calculations. Every single one. If these calcs aren't made, the flight is illegal before it even pushes back from the gate, and no self respecting PIC would forgo them. None. Allow me to repeat that. No self respecting PIC would forgo the fuel and weight and balance calculations. None.
Got that? Good. Now, if a pilot declares a fuel emergency, as this one did, then that could mean several things.
1. They miscalculated the amount of fuel required for the trip.
2. They didn't do the weights and balance calculations correctly and therefore was heavier (Which takes more fuel to push through the sky.) than they thought.
Either of these situations infer that the flight crew has made a serious mistake, putting many souls in danger. Yet, if the PIC declares the emergency anyway, he/she is putting their personal and professional reputations and their jobs at risk for the sake of the passengers. Something they are legally obligated to do. And 99.5% of the ATP's out there WILL do that.
3. They had a mechanical problem. Either a fuel leak from a tank or associated part, or a mechanical problem, such as a fuel valve or pump or line or whatever leaking. Or it could have been an associated pump or valve not functioning, which makes fuel from a certain tank unavailable for use. In that case, for all intents and purposes, that fuel might as well not even be on the plane.
In this situation, there's no way for the pilot to know for certain just how much fuel is left, and whether what you DO have left isn't coming out of the aircraft before you have a chance to get it on the ground. This pilot had no way of knowing for certain that a possible dribble from a tank wouldn't turn into a gusher before he was on the ground. Neither did the controller. The last is a VERY important point. The controller is not flying this aircraft. The PIC is. FAR part 91, Sec 91.3, line b spells it all out. "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
Thus, the call as to which runway to use belonged to the PIC, not the controller. Landing on 17C may have made the controllers job harder, but that is what they are paid for. The crew was already coping with one serious problem. The controller should be helping. Not throwing up additional obstacles. This means if the pilot thinks he needs runway 13c, and the controller tells him no, the pilot should still make his approach to runway 13c, and proceed to land. Now if that sounds rash to you, trust me, it isn't. The pilot is the one flying the aircraft, NOT the controller. I know, I know, I said that before, but I can't emphasize that enough. Trust me, the controllers would have diverted whatever traffic needed diverting if the PIC had said "I need to get on the ground now. The runway assignment is unacceptable. I intend to land on 13C. Please make your traffic adjustments accordingly." Other pilots in the area and on the ground would have had NO trouble with making delays and adjustments to help out. Now of course, line c means he'll have to justify his actions, but I don't think that would have been a problem in this case. The FAA and the NTSB take fuel problems VERY seriously, and are loath to persecute pilots about them, (Please refer to the title of this post.) if the pilot has a good faith reason to believe he has a problem. In this case, the pilot stated he's suspecting a fuel leak. As stated before, he has NO WAY of knowing if the problem is going to get worse.
The upshot is that, thankfully, no one was hurt. There's a whole lot of finger pointing going on. The controller says his supervisor made the call, and the FAA says the call was the controller's. I personally believe the pilot should have stood up to the controller, but that's not really the point. In my estimation, the controllers who made this call need to either find a new career, or get an assignment to some backwater one-hanger field in northern Alaska. A certain now-retired senior heavy captain I'm familliar with would have used the runway he wanted, and after landing would have gone into the control room and personally dismembered the controller responsible for the decision.
That would have been fun to see!!
(Special thanks to TUA!)
An update:
Comments:
<< Home
There's not much I can add to an excellent post, other than this: As you know, I'm a desk pilot, and have been all my life. BUT: I love the "game" and the sensation of flying so much, that I took it to heart. They said learn the basics, so I did. And as we discussed in email, we both knew the right call for a fuel emergency. Here's where the mashed tatters start getting crunchy.
Somebody that learned to fly, sitting on a computer late at night in his underwear, knows procedures better than a Supervisor of ATC's????
It's time to get scared, America!!
Post a Comment
Somebody that learned to fly, sitting on a computer late at night in his underwear, knows procedures better than a Supervisor of ATC's????
It's time to get scared, America!!
<< Home
