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.