AA 757 Low Fuel, DFW
 

I just saw a story on ABC news about a AA 757 low on fuel. He declaired an emergency, requested direct DFW. Center cleared him to the airport but when he got there the controller told him to expect rnwy 31R even though he had requested a more expeditious approach to 17C. http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/5971396.html
What outrageous behavior! The controller has apparently been "retrained."

I don't want to second guess the captain, he probably had enough reason to believe he could make the controllers choice of runway but, come on! He should not even have to think about the controllers concerns. When you declare an emergency you get Carte Blanche.

I would have liked to hear the Captain say something like, "I say again, we are landing straight in 17C. I request you clear the airspace immediately. If you are unable, I suggest you get someone who can." That would have made for some interesting listening.

Any AA guys out there with details about this situation?

I saw that also. They said it was last summer. I did not see an incident report on it. The Captain said he may have a fuel leak or something. If I was the Captain and I was sure that the low fuel issue was not my fault I would have told the controller I'm going straight for 17 and to clear the way and I'll be coming up to talk to you after I land.

ATC does not actually treat low fuel as an emergency which is probably why they made him circle.

If the captain declared an emergency...ATC has no say in it. It IS an emergency.

Correct. I had the same issue about six years ago out there and unless you declare an emergency they do not care and will vector you all over the place.

There's a difference between declaring minimum fuel and declaring an emergency because of low fuel...

Nick,

You are absolutely correct.

A minimum fuel ADVISORY is just that, an advisory. From the AIM,...advise ATC of your minimum fuel status, when your fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching your destination, you cannot accept any undue delay.

A low fuel EMERGENCY suggests the need for traffic priority (i.e. landing against the flow of traffic) to ensure a normal landing.

There is more, of couse, and I'm sure others will add to these two definitions; but two points I'd like to add. One, the media isn't always accurate in their reporting especially about aviation.

Secondly, Tulsa to DFW is about an 1 hr and 20 minutes of flying. The 757 burns about 10K lbs the first hour and approx. 8K lbs the second hour. On a 80 minute flight, that equates to approx 13K -14K lbs of fuel.

If my old age memory serves me correct the minimum fuel amount for dispatch on the 757 is 14K of fuel. You can't leave the gate with less than 14K in the tanks. Then add to that taxi fuel , alternate fuel, holding fuel, etc.

My point is how do run low on fuel if you had the necessary fuel at takeoff brake-release on an 80 minute flight. Did they get lost ? Did they depart with less that takeoff brake-release fuel ? Did they forget that DFW is a congested hub for their airline ? I wonder if there is more to the story.

Minimum fuel is what you're thinking of. It's a reminder to help get you in ASAP. He declared an emergency. That's when the capt can do what needs to be done if needed.

The capatin said he thought there was a fuel leak.

Hiya Duck,

I understand you're just the messenger. So I won't shoot the duck.

Over 80 minutes, he lost that much fuel. Did they get hit by a scud missile ?
A whole that big that they missed the 20 foot by 20 foot puddle of jet-A under the wing on the walkaround ??????

If I remember correctly, back in 2002/2003 when I flew for TWA/American the flight plans had fuel remaining/fuel burn at each checkpoint. In addition, the 757 FMS has fuel totalizer readouts (what is actually in the plane) and compares it to a calculated fuel burn (what should be in the plane). The magic box will flash messages if there is a disagreement.

Sounds fishy.

Maybe he was trying to make a jumpseat?

In all seriousness...I don't give a sh!t what his reason was. He has the authority to declare an emergency for whatever he wants. That's why he gets paid the big bucks. Although, he also has to fill out the paperwork for declaring said emergency. And, if he's out to lunch...He'll be doing a tap dance in front of our friends at the FAA.

Having said all that...It's not the controller's responsibility to determine how much of an emergency, the A/C is in. If the capt. declared an emergency, they both should do whatever it takes to get the aircraft safely on the ground.

Tell ya what fellahs, he got it on the ground. Give the guy a break! He said he suspected a fuel leak so let's take him at his word. You guys sit here and ask what happened to captain's authority. He did what he had to do and got it on the ground in one piece. GREAT JOB guys if you are reading this.

Oh yeah, a buddy mine had his first engine fire in three decades of flying. A fuel line had rubbed through and was spraying high pressure fuel on the burner cans. He got it on the ground no problem, but whose to say these AA guys didn't have a hose rub through as well? It might have been fine the first portion, but on the way down, a high g load in a certain configuration could have been ALL it took to pinch and rupture a line. Give the guy a break.

Tom

You've got my vote!

Cargo Bob,
I guess we can add you to that club .

bill

Is that you, honey?

Ohh, sorry. I thought you were my wife there, for a minute.

say what MikeCargoBob?
 

you wrote on 2-14
"My truck produces more greenhouse gases than Dicaprio's hybrid, but his Gulfsteam flights across the country/Atlantic chasing p_ssy destroy the environment at a rate that would make even Al blush."

you need to read your own posts dude...lol

deleted...

We can't second guess the PIC or his FO on their decision making process. I'm sure they were keeping track of their rate of fuel burn and loss of fuel at every check point as well as in contact with their Mx control. I am sure that with his experience and if the low fuel situation became an emergency he would have set down in Alliance, Love, or Fort Worth. The crew did an OK job... at then end of the day, nobody went to the hospital. Let's give the captain and yes his FO some credit.

I think if they were trying to hide some thing, like a mis-load of fuel, wrong calculations etc, they would have advised of a min fuel situation. I don't think they would have came out and declared an emergency, and stated that they were low on fuel and had no idea why. Sounds pretty up and up to me. Oh yeah, none of us where there.

There's something not quite right about this story, but then again, it's discussed on an internet forum.

According to the link, he did declare a "low fuel emergency." But then again it is the mass media. 8)

that's a bad situation.. glad it worked out safely.

saw the story air, it was on wednesday. He repeated a couple of times that he was declaring an emergency and that he needed to land on 16C or whatever it is regardless of the wind. He stated they had a fuel emergency , but none the less it was an emergency.

I believe these are the actual recodings:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2893887

i would have told that controller that i was going to stick the nose of my 757 up his A$$........

old quote i heard from a DAL Captain : "Am I up here because your'e down there or is it the other way around?"

That is a good. I'll have to remember that one.

"We need to declare an emergency" were his exact words. Im amazed that on a forum for airline pilots we can't even all agree the controller screwed up. The captain declared an emergency and got dicked around. That should NEVER happen. Can we all agree on that?

Absolutely. It seems pretty simple to me!!

Like the man said... When a pilot declares an emergency the red sea parts.

"We "need" to declare an emergency" and "We "are" declaring and emergency" are two different things. Did the Captain declare and emergency? I really don't know. Don't get me wrong, ATC should have dropped everything, but the verbage was not strong enough. You're right, SikPilot, this should never happen again.
fbh

ERAUdude,

There is "minimum fuel" and "emergency fuel", and both are significantly different.

MEM_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.

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?

SC, I like your radio reply.
fbh

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

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

"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?

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.

"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...

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

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