mike734

Do you all know the one about the Bonanza pilot who was pulled off a practice ILS? He was advised to climb straight ahead and expect delays for an emergency aircraft behind him. Out of curiosity he asked, "What is the nature of the emergency?"

"A B-52 has one engine shut down!" came the reply from ATC.

"Ah yes," said the Bonanza pilot, "The dreaded 7 engine approach."

ToiletDuck

I heard that but it was a T-38 very low on fuel who was told to go missed for the B-52

mike734

I hear you. I'm glad you took the time to respond and I'm glad your friend wrote the reporter. I am still shocked that the incident happened. I'm not sure what is more shocking, the controllers words or the pilots acceptance of the other runway.

I can only conclude that the winds and the pilots thoughts on his actual fuel, led him to find the longer approach acceptable. He probably just thought it was not so critical that he had to push the situation. I hope the supervisor is relieved of supervisory authority until he is retrained and truly believes what the previous poster said, "He is down there because the pilot is up there. Not the other way around." They should have that painted on the walls in every tracon and center.

BTW I have flown in many other countries and you guys in the USA are the greatest IMHO. I appreciate the work you do and wish you every success in your negotiations with the FAA.

mike734

Thanks toilet. That is probably right but it really doesn't matter what kind of aircraft went around. The punch line is still funny.

SNAFU

[quote=MEM_ATC;123381]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.

Yes, much better to have a (non) smoking hole in the ground than to face the dreaded disciplinary action.

I hope the supervisor gets a little disciplinary action.

palgia841

You're right, the controller should have asked that information.

For the record, there were 328 "soles" on board, but only 164 souls

ogogog

thats par for the course, welcome to the new FAA.as bad as it sounds controllers are no longer in charge of our sectors, its do what you are told period or else.thats untill the sups screw up than its the controllers falt.nothing like being the dick in the middle.iam sure every controller at D10 felt like ****** when this was going on,the pilot should have just said iam an emergency fuel and were heading for rwy 17C, remember an aircraft in distress has the right of way over all others and the FARs were in the pilots favor.this is what happens when arrival rate is more important safety.

AUS_ATC

SikPilot,

There was much more pilot/ATC Q & A relating to this incident than what was aired in the 30-second clip on the evening news. I feel certain that the first Controller who was informed that there was a "problem" of some sort, started obtaining all of the necessary information to provide assistance: 1) callsign, 2) nature of emergency and 3) pilot desires are the bare minimum. That info is then handed off to an FAA Supervisor, who will then disseminate the emergency info via landline (recorded) or commercial telephone (might be recorded).

Just guessing here, but the Supervisor probably notified each and every sector that the aircraft would transit while entroute to DFW; the DFW Tower and TRACON were notified; and someone might have called the airline Operations or Ramp Tower at DFW. The Tower Crash Phone was activated at some point, and a bunch of other agencies are notified via this network. There's quite a bit of coordination that takes place behind the scenes, and very little (if any) of this is heard on the frequency -- it's mostly internal.

By the time that this emergency aircraft checked-in with the Feeder Controller at DFW TRACON, everyone in the building already knew that there was an emergency aircraft inbound; they knew the callsign; the type; and runway that was going to be assigned. There was no further need to question the pilot about information that had been previously obtained by a Fort Worth Center Controller.

From the audio clip that was aired on TV, it seems pretty clear to me that the pilot wanted RWY 17C. However... if my Supervisor orders me to take an aircraft to a different runway than what was requested by the pilot -- I'm gonna do it. Insubordination is not something that my career can stand at this point of the game. I have to trust that the Supervisor is privy to some other information that I don't have at that particular moment. The company might want the aircraft on a particular runway, RWY xx might be closed or ARFF might prefer an emergency aircraft on RWY xx for some logistical reason.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes the pilot has to express his concern or desires in such a manner that would appease an attorney (or an FAA Supervisor/Manager) who might be sitting at the RADAR scope. I tried to talk a pilot into a particular runway many years ago (non-emergency), and was informed the following: "Look Son, I'm the captain of this here aircraft. I've got 170+ passengers on board, and I'm telling you that I need RWY XX, and no other runway will suffice." Okey dokey... and we started clearing a path for the guy.

If you are weight restricted... speed restricted... or experiencing difficulty of any nature, do not allow ATC to talk you into something that is unsafe in your opion. The Captain is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and in an emergency -- the Captain's desires should be met if at all possible. Stopping departures at DFW for an opposite direction arrival will create a mess, but it is/was possible -- if only FAA Management would have allowed it to happen.

MEM_ATC

CE750

btw.. thanks to the ATC guys for chiming in with good info, and not getting defensive at some of our comments. Bravo.

mike734

Thanks for your input Ogogog. Do you think you can start using punctuation in the future? You see punctuation makes reading your pearls of wisdom much easier. I like to read many of these posts quickly. Your lack of proper punctuation (or even the smallest attempt) makes for a difficult read. Sorry for being pedantic but it needed to be said.

Thanks