Printable View
This is unacceptable! Check out the video below, this is very irresponsible on the controllers part. When an aircraft declares an emergency, no matter what you do all you can to meet their requests. I was dumbfounded when I watched this video!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... &catId=104
I have to agree. Though it turned out ok, it could have been worse.
One thing we don't know is whether or not the DFW controller that made that runway decision had a full understnading that the flight had declared a fuel emergency. Just my way of looking at it from the other side.
Check out this thread on LiveATC.net for insight from real controllers: http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php/topic,2809
Kind of hard to have an opinion without listening to all of the communication, which we did not hear. There was communication prior to this, maybe that is what triggered the Controller to offer an alternate airport.
Listen to the Pilots voice, not exactly the tone that I would have expected to hear in a "Life & Death" situation.
The Pilot did say that he did have enough fuel for the runway the Controller offered, & the Controller suggested alternate airports.
What you are watching is how the media can make things bigger than they really were, little things that we did not hear is if the Pilot requested a crash crew team.
I am not placing the blame on anybody, I am just saying that we did not hear all of the information....
in the portion of the phone call they played, one controller did not communicate to the other that AAL489 had an emergency on board. i don't know if that was communicated or not, but if it had been i doubt that they would have forced the flight to land on 31L.
Kind of hard to have an opinion without listening to all of the communication, which we did not hear.
That is my thought. I can't really have an opinion without the entire picture.
From another article I read, it said the first controller made it clear that he declared an emergency. It doesn't matter if he made it or not, when an emergency is declared that plane has priority over everything else.
Now, i'm not calling for the controllers head, but it was an irresponsible move, very unacceptable! The FAA says he was de-certified and retrained.
A$$holes......arrrrggggg.... to pissed to write a reply to this!!!! GGGGRRRRRRR
What???Quote:
Originally Posted by Derf
The magic word " Emerengcy " was used, the pilot should have notified him if the runway was torn up or a vehicle was on it and still not declined him to land on the runway, strongly advise not to....OTHERWISE, he should have shut down the airport when the aircraft was inbound as it was an EMERENGCY. Pilot is in command...when declaring an emerengcy, the plane must be handled before any aircraft on the ground by that jag off......
There was talk about because it may delay.....FOR THE LOVE OF AN HUMAN LIFE, DO NOT RETRAIN THIS CONTROLLER...He should be shot! He could have cost the lives of everyone inboard because HE did not know the situation, the PILOT gave a clear indication when he declined the runway change. It is a good thing that I was not in his pants or I would have been fined quite a bit for cursing on the mic but I would not be fined for landing on a taxiway at this point!
Oh, I agree, he declared an emergency, you should do whatever you can to help the pilot. If that means freezing all departing traffic, than by God you do it!
But I wouldn't go as far to say he should have been shot ;)
one engine possibly flamed out before touchdown..... Possible Leaking Fuel... If there was a crash 5 meters before the threshold..my words would be the norm
The situation is as bad as I could hear and goes along with others that creep me out...l can think of other ClusterF^c%s from so called professionals, and I can only think of one that passes this screwup.
National Airlines DC-10 crew
"If you pull the n1....will that throttle respond?"......Bang!!!
In our case,
If an emerengcy is declared....EVERYTHING STOPS FOR THAT AIRCRAFT!
It did not....BIG PROBLEM!
Fred its the FAA. Big Problem is their middle name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derf
Care to explain the National DC-10 stuff? What happened?
Captain and Copilot were having a discussion if they pulled the N1 breaker, if the autopilot would push the engine past its limits.... IT DID, the #3 engine tore up itself and the aircraft over New Mexico... 1 dead, aircraft badly damaged.
Rule of thumb, if you are in the office drinking a cup of coffee and you coworker says.. "Hmmm, Lets see if..." Hope your office is not in the air!
But as usual the FAA will defend the controllers. Not to insult the ATC guys here or anything but there are some controllers that think they are god but in truth are *******s. SRQ for example and big ups now to DFW in their running for ******* ATC award. Emergency means emergency bottom line and that is that. Pilot get final say in an emergency and if I were the PIC on that bird I would have probably called F it and went with it regardless. Fuel emergency and smoke on board fall into a higher cat for me than med on board.
Dude, don't spew out such crap. The FAA hates its controller workforce! With a passion at that. Cut pay 30%, not to honor a fair contract. The FAA does not defend its controllers, the FAA defends it's Management personal aka Supes.Quote:
Originally Posted by hiss srq
Here is an article posted on liveatc.net as a follow up
You guys really jumped on this guy without of course knowing the facts or how things actually happen in a TRACON. This article clears up some things, first it clears up that a Supe told him not to disturb the flow. Which if you read in that thread that Jason posted. One of the posters (A 20 year controller at C90 [Chicago TRACON]) posted that it most likely it was a supe's decision.
Here is another thing to think about. When your at the airport (doesn't happen all the time) and you hear pilots complaining of tailwind or crosswind components? Who do you think is to blame? Not the controllers.. but again the Supes who ultimately decide when to turn the boat and switch. Most of these guys haven't controlled traffic in 10-20 years so they've completely forget how it is working traffic and make dumb decisions all the time. Anyway, this post does clear some stuff up.
FAA retrains air controllers
By DAVID WETHE
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
The Federal Aviation Administration has retrained its North Texas supervisors and air traffic controllers after the improper denial of an American Airlines pilot's request to land at the nearest runway because he thought his plane was dangerously low on fuel.
On the morning of Aug. 30, Flight 489 reported that it was having a low-fuel emergency and needed to land on the closest runway it could reach, which was D/FW's 17C. But that meant it would be landing headed south, the opposite direction of that day's traffic.
The controller was ordered not to disrupt the airport flow. The plane was forced to land on Runway 31R, meaning its crew had to burn more fuel by flying around to the south and landing in the same direction as other planes.
The FAA admits it was wrong. "We know that we did something that we should have done differently," spokesman Roland Herwig said. "We should have given the aircraft the closest runway as opposed to routing him in."
In the end, American discovered that a malfunctioning gauge prompted the emergency and that the plane had plenty of fuel. But that didn't take away from the FAA's mistake, said John Hotard, a spokesman for the Fort Worth-based carrier.
"Our pilots have to feel comfortable that they'll receive appropriate help if they ever encounter an emergency such as this one," Hotard said. "It is a serious matter because the pilots didn't know what the situation was at the time when they declared the fuel emergency."
American has talked with the FAA and believes that everything has been resolved, he said.
The FAA held a training session for its local controllers and supervisors, Herwig said. It has already paid off, he said. On Feb. 1, when another incident occurred, the plane was allowed to land on a different runway than normal, temporarily suspending all other flights.
Mike Conely, president of the local air traffic controllers union, said the blame for the Aug. 30 incident lies with the FAA supervisor that day.
"A controller doesn't have at his capability the power to completely shut everything," he said. "It would have been up to the supervisor to do that."
Conely also questioned the training. The FAA mentioned the incident in a memo last year and talked about it during a 30-minute weekly meeting, he said.
"They don't put a lot of emphasis on it," he said. "They don't put a lot of emphasis on people attending, simply because of the shortage of controllers."
Herwig begged to differ.
"We had the emphasis," he said, "and we discussed the different things that needed to be going on."