|
Low fuel situation handled poorly by DFW ATC
|
Supervisor makes a bad call = everyone gets retrained.
|
Learning from Mistakes
Basically good - Ok so some people had egg on their faces for a few minutes - but perhaps its saved a lot of lives in the future. Similar to Air New Zealand (if memory serves) using a potential SNAFU as a learning tool.
Does this mean we are growing up and becoming a mature industry (lets hope so):D |
Problem occured - error noted - problem fixed.
Seems to me that is what it should be. 20driver (Controllers no doubt picked up some OT on the retraining - so there was a bonus) |
Not privvy to the tapes, but did they use the M word?
"We are low on fuel, need to get on the ground, have a problem, not sure how much longer we have" etc etc are all open to interpretation. Declaring a mayday removes any ambiguity in the message you are trying to get across. |
I've seen differing views on the problem...one says the x feed valve failed, another a fuel gauge problem
I have to say this: IF the pilots didn't want to land on any runway except the one seven center...they should have insisted and not been convinced to take another runway. I think some pilot training should be involved too. |
JTR...
In the US, Mayday may or may not be the operative word... If in fact the crew said or declared a fuel "EMERGENCY", then they should be given all assistance, even if it means diverting or delaying other air traffic in the pattern.... Does anyone remember the "limited English" Avinaca B-707 crew that flamed out at JFK a decade ago? The FAA's lessons should have been learned there, not in this day and age with a native English speaking crew at their home hub... No excuse here folks, somewhere in the DFW ATC crew needs to lose their job, or at least be demoted a few grades to entry-level or basic FPL Controller... And Bomarc, I agree with you...if I thought I was running out of gas, I'm landing....where I feel it's the safest...then I'll let the chips fall where they may....If this crew had flamed out and had an accident, no doubt the Capt would be trashed for not executing his "Command Authority" and ATC would only be listed as a "Contributing Factor"... |
Had to use the "m" word to get it into atc's head that I was not going to continue on an assigned heading due weather years back...have to side with "JTR" on this one..the "m" word does indeed remove all doubt as to the situation..unfortunately the more appropriate "pan" call is not used in the non-standard USA atc environment...
|
DI3G, as I mentioned, I have no idea what was said on the tapes, or in fact of the actual details, as opposed to the reported details, however the order of thoughts going through my head would have gone something like...
Am I up sh$t creek in a barb wire canoe, needing to get OTG asap? Yes it sure seems that way. Am I getting what I want from ATC having made my situation as clear as I can? No .... "Mayday Mayday Mayday" No ATC certainly weren't being too helpful at the time, but in the accident report after it all goes quiet due flame out, who would get the majority of the blame? My money is on the guy in the LHS. I have only flown into the US about 200 times so I am not intimately familiar with the nuances of ATC, particularly DFW. On a completely different note, where is 411A or whatever his name is. He would usually be on this type of post like a rabid dog. |
A little more detail from the Ft Worth Star-Ledger:
FAA retrains air controllers 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." |
I have to wonder exactly what sort of 're-training ' can be necessary here... other than a simple statement to the effect of "do that again and you're in the mangle.
The skipper of a bloody great aeroplane full of people tells atc that he has a fuel problem and needs to land on the nearest runway... M word or not , it doesn't leave much room for any response other than to get the thing on the ground bloody fast... the why's, wherefores and maybe's can all be sorted out later at leisure but whatever terminology has been used you don't send the poor b*gger off on a cross country to suck up another 5 tons of fuel. |
In the UK, unless you use the words PAN PAN PAN or MAYDAY, you will not be afforded any priority if you have an emergency of any type and that includes fuel.
It was bought in many years ago after a series of incidents where pilots would say or intimate they were short of fuel, just to get in ahead of anyone else. I am not suggesting that this was the case here, far from it, had I been on duty I would have afforded the aircraft the utmost priority and then, after the event was done and dusted, gone out of my way to ensure that every angle of their performance was examined in the minutist detail. Their failure to declare an emergency goes against the most basic of ICAO procedures and is probably a reflection of their airlines operating procedures. As for demoting the ATC staff with the benefit of hindsight, I come back to my original point, the crew didn't act in accordance with International (ICAO) procedures, so it's the crew who should be nailed first for failing to communicate their position clearly - or is that judging them with the benefit of hindsight....:ugh: :rolleyes: |
Their failure to declare an emergency goes against the most basic of ICAO procedures and is probably a reflection of their airlines operating procedures. Does anyone know how far out the aircraft was when this occurred, and did DFW ATC have a point when they suggested they maybe ought to be thinking about a closer airport? |
10-1-1. EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS
a. An emergency can be either a Distress or an Urgency condition as defined in the "Pilot/Controller Glossary." b. A pilot who encounters a Distress condition should declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word "Mayday," preferably repeated three times. For an Urgency condition, the word "Pan-Pan" should be used in the same manner. c. If the words "Mayday" or "Pan-Pan" are not used and you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency. d. Because of the infinite variety of possible emergency situations, specific procedures cannot be prescribed. However, when you believe an emergency exists or is imminent, select and pursue a course of action which appears to be most appropriate under the circumstances and which most nearly conforms to the instructions in this manual. The above is from the FAA ATC handbook 7110.65. Hope this helps to clear up any misunderstanding of ICAO vs FAA. What this means is that if the word emergemcy is heard, or thought to be heard it is to be considered the same as a Mayday call. |
Niknak, I agree with all you've said and would like to emphasize that the crew accepted the directions to choose another runway. Should that happen to me, "Mayday, mayday, mayday..."
In many countries where English is not the mother tongue, nattering about low fuel and a possible emergency will likely be ignored. I think the use of non-standard phraseology and generally chatting on the radio has (possible) dire consequences and the 'macho' pilot talk de-emphasizing an emergency does nobody any favours! |
I have also read the section from the controller hand book, IMO the word MAYDAY works fine in country's that don't speak English, as an ex-ATC you are trained to fully understand (USA) what the word EMERGENCY means, if he doesn't understand that, he is sure to understand the statement "we have got to get this thing on the ground"
I am not trying to second guess the Supervisors decision but, the problem stands out from the viewpoint of "what if", good that it turned out well. As far as the nearest runway comment, sounds as if he was tracking from the east and then has an emergency, OK if you have an "emergency" and you are flying over a major airport like Dallas Love, how bad can it be? Just curious. |
Sounds more to me it was handled poorly by all parties...imagine it running out of fuel on downwind and the crew having to explain that if they survived...what a screw-up by all parties concerned
|
Handled poorly by both parties is exactly right.
Yes ATC made a mistake. They have admitted it, and retrained to fix the problem. On the other hand the AA crew made a mistake, and they are pointing the finger at ATC. AA should perhaps revise its training and make sure its crews know how to declare an emergency. Instead they are busy trying to shift blame. Not safe. |
Since no one seems to know how much fuel they landed with, the crew probably was more concerned about fuel imbalance than arrival fuel. If they had a leak probably only one tank was low and they would then land with crossfeeds open. Deciding to go along with the controller must have at that time seemed safe to do or they would have just landed on 17C using their emergency authority. Funny after 6 months the facts are not out.
|
"minimum fuel" and "emergency fuel" have specific meaning in the U.S.
It APPEARS the controller didn't respond appropriately, but the pilots should have demanded what they wanted/needed. |
After the loss of the Avianca(?) B707 a declaration of "minimum fuel" was introduced in the USA the idea being to make this declaration BEFORE an Emergency situation arose. On declaring "Minimum Fuel" the controller is obliged to tell you whether there is any unusual delay ahead ..... if you can't accept the delay then you better shout "MAYDAY" I have used "Minimum Fuel" once when a runway was changed at SFO and I was taken out of the approach flow for re-sequencing which involved an exceptional delay / holding at low altitude. The response couldn't have been better and we were re-inserted into the approach sequence to an uneventful landing.
|
Niknak-"Unless the crew declare Mayday or Pan,no priority is given by ATC"-not true-any half decent controller will assess what he is being told by the crew(especially if non native English speakers) and act accordingly.In the LTMA last week,usual delays for EGLL,foreign national carrier checks in and says"my captain is ill"we didn't go through all that b:mad:s about declaring an emergency,just ascertained that the co-pilot was happy to make an immediate approach and he was given priority.
|
In situations like this, the crew is under a lot of pressure. There is a natural tendency to avoid formal declaration of an emergency and just try and get an informal traffic priority. Unless we hear the tapes ourselves, it's impossible to draw a personal judgement.
However, that said, if in doubt the controllers should query the crew directly with something like "Roger, AA 241, are you declaring an emergency?" That removes all doubt in everybody's mind. If I had a fuel problem and I was unsure about the actual fuel state of the aircraft, I think I'd default to "emergency" and worry about the paperwork later. |
And likewise, the controller has the authority to declare the emergency for the flight crew.
|
The crew did declare an emergency to the center controller and requested landing 17C with a fuel problem. The center controller did relay the emergency to the approach controller and stated they wanted 17C. That should have been end of story, with the crew getting exactly what they asked for.
When the ATC approach controller simply refused to do what the crew asked, in my opinion the crew should have simply stated what they were going to do and do it. It is becoming more evident in flying the skies of the good old USA that a lot of ATC folks actually think they are in charge of the aircraft and the safety thereof. It is an arrogance that should have been stopped years ago, but in this instance it is glaringly evident. Our government ATC folks are not in charge of the aircraft, but they are required to assist in anything the crew asks for especially when they have declared an emergency. A whole new mindset needs to be imparted to the government ATC controllers that they are there to help the air crews and not vice versa. If you listen to the tape of the exchange between the approach controller and the aircrew, I think you will see what I mean. Everything is bassacwards. |
The skipper of a bloody great aeroplane full of people tells atc that he has a fuel problem and needs to land on the nearest runway... M word or not... http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2007-02-26.mp3 (you have to register) and disagree with most comments so far. The pilot indicates he has an emergency and requires 17C, without actually using the right words. By not using the right words they leave it to the guys on the ground to figure out how serious their situation actually is. I would have to know more about the position of the aircraft relative to the required runway, and to any alternative airports, to guage the approach dudes reply. He says, "Can I suggest a closer airport if you're that low?" To me this indicates there are alternatives and if the flight really has a problem the pilot can go elsewhere for a more expeditious arrival. If the situation is not urgent enough to require a diversion then the approach guy doesn't think it is urgent enough to fark up his sequence to help some spud that can't make up his mind whether to take his own emergency seriously or not. It is mere speculation to imagine what the same ATC would have done if the flight had called MAYDAY and if there was a more formal exchange between the Center and Approach. I would pay no attention to the assurances of Ronald Earwig, sounds like butter-em-up PR drool to me. That should have been end of story, with the crew getting exactly what they asked for. |
In the USA at least for the last 40 years that I have been flying the skies if you declare an emergency that is the end of the story. Those are the correct words. The pilot did declare and emergency and did state what he wanted to the center controller who then transferred them to approach and stated they had an emergency and what they wanted. IT IS REALLY NOT UP TO THE CONTROLLER to decide what they want or what they should do. I agree that when the controller ignored what they wanted that the crew should have simply stated what they were going to do and do it.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#194541 |
Command Authority
The controller(s) were clearly at fault here..."land at a closer/different airport" is not an acceptable response to the the PIC emergency request for 17C. "Reprimand/retrain" are not appropriately strong enough post-event fixes for the debacle either.
Having said that and having listened to (at least a portion of) the tapes, I believe the the pilot did not exercise his rightful command authority in a forceful enough way. The Human Factors guys will have to sort that out. In a very recent personal experience, I lost one of the two available engines that came with the aircraft (with what seemed like important pieces of the machinery departing the aircraft) on intial climb after departure from a major NYC GA airport at MTOW(what else). After securing the engine but unsure of secondary effects(like fire) , an emergency was declared with Departure Control along with the information that we would return to the departure airport and which runway we would use. The controller acknowledged the emergency status but then stated that XYZ airport (a smaller GA field not the departure airport) was "twelve o'clock and 4 miles and XYZ ATC will be advised of your status". This was tempting for a virtual straight-in but I refused and advised I was initiating a turn back towards the departure airport; it was night-time, I was un-familiar with the XYZ aerodrome, did not have landing charts immediately available, did not know the AFRS status/availability, and did not have the time or inclination to explain or to sort all that out. Controller again attempted to direct me to XYZ instead of the busy departure airport (at peak time of 6 PM local) which was now about 6 miles away; I do not wish impute any motive to the controller's suggestions (which may have been properly motivated), but, at the time, my thought was that the recommendation might be based on our possible interuption of the heavy-iron traffic flow at the departure airport. I then said something like " look, this is an emergency, we are returning to ABC for runway 00 " perhaps with a hint of irritation in my voice. This quickly clarified the situation and a crisp "yes sir, suggest heading of HHH for right base for runway 00 ( a prohibited traffic pattern to this runway in normal ops but now the shortest distance to the stripes) ..cleared to land....equipment rolling" response quickly followed with all further communications being very brief, professional and solicitous of our status. The night landing a few minutes later was uneventful, no fire, engine destroyed, pax relieved to be on terra firma. I would have liked to have seen a firm "this is what we're gonna do" (unless you tell me the desired runway is occupied or contaminated) approach by the AAL PIC. But.....All's well that ends well. |
Pilot has a serious problem and feels safe enough to continue to an airport that he is familiar with, only to have his decision questioned by ATC, not good.
|
Two days ago the pilot's report was published concerning the Aug. 31 incident. 20 minutes into the flight the low fuel warning light illuminated. They had 7000 in left, 1200 in right and 1300 in center. Fuel configuration was normal, crossfeed closed. They declared and emergency, opened crossfeed valve and shut off right fuel pumps. They landed with 7000 left and 1200 right, cleared the runway and shut down the right engine and had plane checked for fuel leaks. There were none. Planned landing fuel was 8600, actual was 8200. The cause of the imbalance was a faulty crossfeed valve that was open but didn't show open. Right fuel pumps had slightly more pressure than left causing imbalance. Fuel config light should have come on first but didn't. Looks to me like they handled it just fine. Too bad the controller didn't.
|
A310 Driver:
I think you are correct. While it can be helpful for ATC to point out other options, the PIC is the boss. It might help us all to just say: I am operating under FAR part 91.3 (or similiar 121 regs) and I WILL BE LANDING ON RUNWAY 17C GET EVERYONE OUT OF THE WAY. in the incident we have been talking about, 2 things come to mind. Minding the fuel during climbout. And, did the crew realize after the emergency declaration that the situation was under control and then just didn't cancel the emergency? During the climbout (highest fuel flow) if the crew had noticed a problem, why didn't they return to departure airport? much less crowded than DFW. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.