AUS_ATC

mike734 and everyone else,

Please read the following letter from a DFW Controller to the local news reporter who reported this story. The critical aspect that was NOT reported, was that an FAA Supervisor made the decision for the "emergency" aircraft to continue to RWY 31R at DFW. All of the Controllers were simply shocked at this decision, but are required to comply with their Supervisors orders -- or face disciplinary action.

Another similar situation is developing here at MEM, and that info should be in the press within the next day or two.




And here's a fine letter to the local news hitman from one of my fellow controllers. I wish I could formulate ideas this well.



Dear Mr. Ronan,

I have been an air traffic controller at DFW since 1983. I viewed your report on the emergency fuel situation involving AAL489. I really don't want to nit pick your report over all the inaccuracies. I understand that the general public wouldn't know or care about the differences.

Let me also add that I agree with the main point of your story. The situation with AAL489 was not handled correctly. Almost every controller in the facility was disturbed and upset with the handling of that aircraft on that night. But the controller assigned AAL489 runway 31R because that is what the supervisor told him to do.

Now, I can understand that you don't have the level of knowledge about how these things are handled that any of us that work in the approach control would have. But let me just ask you to consider a few things.

DFW approach control runs traffic in and out of all the airports that lie roughly within 35 miles of DFW. That includes Love Field, Addison, McKinney, Dallas Executive, Alliance, Meacham Field, etc. It is a complex operation and everyone does their part in concert and cooperation with the other sectors.

I say this to point out that an emergency situation such as AAL489 does not happen in isolation. It affects the entire operation. Even though there may be one controller talking to AAL489, everyone has to be informed and involved in what is going on.

AAL489 was talking to Fort Worth Center when they initially declared the emergency. Management at the center coordinated the emergency with management at DFW. I don't know if you had the opportunity to listen to those tapes or not, but they were not a part of your report.

You did play a segment of tape in your report where the controller at the center called the controller at DFW and said that AAL489 was requesting runway 17C. You ask the audience to "listen closely". I would ask you to do the same. Did you notice that the center controller did not say that AAL489 had declared an emergency? Did you notice that the DFW controller gave an immediate response to expect runway 31R? There was no discussion of a fuel situation. Did you wonder why? That coordination had already taken place between the supervisors of the two facilities. The controller at DFW had an immediate response to the runway request because he had already been instructed about which runway to assign to AAL489.

No one controller in the approach control can act like the Lone Ranger. There is way too much activity, too much traffic, too many people involved, for that to happen. My point is that no one controller decides on his own how to handle a situation like this. The supervisor in charge of the operation decides how to handle the emergency aircraft, and then he coordinates with all the concerned or affected sectors so that everyone knows what is going on.

Now the FAA issues a statement, unattributed to anyone in your report, saying that the controller should have given AAL489 the runway they requested. Then they add the curious statement that "no supervisor ordered the controller to handle the flight differently." Now, I don't know why an FAA spokesman would think to add a statement like that, but I do know that is is false. The FAA is attempting to absolve management from responsibility and blame the controller.

But just for the sake of argument, let's take the FAA statement at face value for now. Let's consider the possibility that the supervisor did not direct the controller to assign AAL489 runway 31R. Does that achieve the absolution that FAA management is seeking? If I were investigating this situation, I would want to know what the supervisor was doing while this aircraft with an emergency fuel situation was being taken to a runway other than the one they requested. Where was the supervisor? Why didn't he take action to correct this situation if it wasn't being handled properly?

You see, the FAA supervisor is responsible for the operation. That is his job. That is why he is there. He is not merely an observer. It is ludicrous for the FAA to issue a statement such as the one you included in your report, and to believe that they have covered themselves.

Do you have the ability to put whatever you choose on the evening news, or do you have some level of supervision that reviews it for content before it goes on the air? Now consider you get a report on the air that is not well received and your station gets some criticism because of it. How would you feel if your bosses made a statement to the effect of, Mr. Ronan should not have aired that report, and we did not order him to do it. Pretty ridiculous, don't you agree?

Hopefully, your employers would not attempt to dodge responsibility like that. Unfortunately, mine did.

Well, thanks for your time. Take care.

SC-7

Disagree. Close enough for the win on Jeopardy.



My suggested response to "unable 17" in this case would be,

"For the tape, American 489, emergency aircraft, 10 mile final, landing 17, acknowledge."

I think that's what I would have tried to say, but of course I wasn't there. MEM ATC, what should he have said?

P.S. (For MEM ATC) What's the latest on the midnight crew?

frozenboxhauler

SC, I like your radio reply.
fbh

CE750

Yea.. I agree. "We need" and "We are" are likely in a court of law the one in the same.

ToiletDuck

In the post of puppiez it says that on the video.

ToiletDuck

"We [blank] [blank] emergency". Only two words matter. It wasn't minimum fuel or anything else. It was emergency. Regardless of what kind. The pilot has ability to deviate as needed. What was the final outcome of why the aircraft had low fuel? Was it pilot error and that be why he complied instead of doing it the quickest way or was there a big leak?

SikPilot

Isn't it proper procedure after an emergency is declared to ask how many soles are on board?

For the record, I am NOT knocking controllers. I am amazed at what they can keep track of in their heads. I could never pass those tests.

rickair7777

"We need to declare an emergency" sounds clear enough to me.

Controllers are SUPPOSED to be trained as to a pilot's natural reluctance to declare an emergency, and are supposed to err on the side of caution as to whether a situation is an emergency. SOCAL did this for me when I was PP w/ a wet instrument ticket and had a pitot/static malfunction in IMC over the mountains...I didn't declare an emergency, but the controller heard the tone of my voice when I explained my problem (unreliable altimeter) and she declared the emergency for me...

Bitme

On the tape of the handoff to approach control the approach guy says there is an aircraft that has declared an emergency. Period.

agsbill

I remember years ago.....we shut an engine down in southern Canada...exiting the "north Atlantic Tracks" (NATS). We were in a MAC C5a galaxy.....We declared an emergency and got a lower altitude.....I will never forget when we checked in with New York....the controler asked "is this a real emergency or a MAC emergency?"...we laughed and said it was a MAC emergency ...."Let me know if you need anything special" was his reply.....he had a grasp of the situation.

Bill