Pan Pan?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Anybody else come across this?

We're all aware that the majority of UK airports will accept a safety related diversion, and that most should then waive landing fees for it. Fine, a good position, respected by pretty much everybody.

A couple of weeks ago, due to a combination of some slightly tight flight planning on my part, and an unexpected and substantial request for a dog-leg whilst under RADAR control, I realised that I wasn't going to get to my (unlit) destination in daylight.

So, I spoke to the controller working me, with words something like "zzzzz radar, I have a problem, because of requested route change am now unable to make destination in daylight, my aircraft is not equipped for night flying, request a diversion to yyyyy". yyyy is a regional airport operated by BAA (and on zzz radar's patch).

This they arranged reasonably quickly and helpfully, and the diversion was smooth enough, as was the very helpful ground handling. I ended up stopping the night and departing in the morning.


Only thing is, I got charged a standard fee for the landing. I paid, and don't plan to complain about this - it was my cutting my planning a bit fine that caused the whole thing after all. But, apparently had I made a PAN call, they'd have waived my landing fee.

It struck me as a slightly odd position, since a diversion is a diversion, I'd had no problem getting what I needed without declaring an urgency or emergency, and could potentially have just landed in a field or continued a little into night, so hadn't used the term.

Anybody have any experience or views of this?

G

[gcolyer]

I had an incident where I caught in a bad snow storm about 30 minutes after departure (met forcast did not predict it). I was going from Peterlee to Isle of man. 30 minutes from departure put me right in the middle of the Pennines. The freezing level was about 2000ft, so even VFR i would be winding down valleys. To top it off my VOR went down.

I never declared an emergency but I did ask Newcastle for RIS. As i was not Instrument rated and was outside of their airspace they refused. So i dumped them and called Teeside.

I explained the condition and they were more than happy to vector me to them. By this time the snow was really bad and it was almost dark.

Teeside radar handed me to Teeside tower who vectored me to just above 200ft until I became visual on approach.

My other option was to climb through the freezing layer and press on to the otherside of the pennines.

Teeside did not charge me for landing (even with RWY lights on!) and £4.23 for overnight parking. I got told to park with all the nice falcons and learjets and a man with a minibus picked us and took us to the terminal. The next day he dropped us off at the aircraft.

I guess I could have called a PAN PAN but I thought it would have been over kill. I went to pay the landing fee and expeted to get clobbered, instead what a lovely surprise...free. And with excellent service.

[FullyFlapped]

Teeside did not charge me for landing (even with RWY lights on!) and £4.23 for overnight parking. I got told to park with all the nice falcons and learjets and a man with a minibus picked us and took us to the terminal. The next day he dropped us off at the aircraft.

GColyer, I'd be interested to know when this happened. Only a couple of months ago, I had to divert to Teeside because the wx at my destination had crapped out completely, a very long time ahead of forecast conditions. By the time I got to my original, viz was down to 100m, with a cloudbase(fog) at 100', so I reckon I can be excused for calling this a wx diversion !

I got charged full whack for landing, handling and overnight parking (and no-one gave me a lift anywhere!).

When I paid up I asked why they don't subscribe to the weather diversion scheme, and the answer was "we just don't" - very informative ... :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: !

FF :ok:

[niknak]

Anybody else come across this?
A couple of weeks ago, due to a combination of some slightly tight flight planning on my part, and an unexpected and substantial request for a dog-leg whilst under RADAR control, I realised that I wasn't going to get to my (unlit) destination in daylight.

G

If you were under "Radar Control Service" you were inside controlled airspace, an IFR flight and therefore should be equipped and qulified to fly IFR i.e. to fly at night.
That aside, why mess about? You obviously recognised you were approaching a situation beyond the limits of your flying qualifications and experience, which is to be applauded, so why not do what the training says you should do - broadcast a PAN or, if you feel it appropriate, a MAYDAY?

If you don't keep us informed, we can't help you.

As for quibbling restropectively about landing fees..:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[FlyingForFun]

There is an article in (I think) this month's CHIRP, where someone reported having diverted into a regional airport due to the weather deteriorating. I don't have the article to hand, but from memory (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) his intended destination had no approach aids. He was IMC-rated, and in a suitably equipped aircraft, so decided to land at a regional airport with an ILS. He wrote to CHIRP to comment that (amongst other issues) he was charged for his landing, despite the airport being listed as a diversion airport.

The comment from the editor was that if he had declared a Pan Pan, he would not have had to pay for his landing. I thought this strange as I read it, and intended to post here as soon as I got a chance (which has taken me a while since I've been very busy).

This sounds very similar to your experience, Genghis - although the circumstances were quite different, the similarity is that in both cases the pilot felt the need to divert, but did not consider himself in any trouble or any urgent need of assistance. In both cases, the advice is that if a Pan Pan had been declared, no landing fee would have been payable.

I've never heard of this before, but if it really is the case, perhaps we ought to be teaching pilots that any diversion should be accompanied by a Pan Pan call???

FFF
---------------

[Pitts2112]

interesting how that re-inforcement then gives a financial value to calling a PAN.

A pilot declard a PAN yesterday at Popham. I think he had just taken off from Popham, engine started running rough, turned around and put her back down after declaring a PAN. Chris on the radio did an excellent job of keeping the radio freq clear and assisting as he could, pilot did an excellent job of keeping it under control and using PAN appropriately.

Pitts2112

[FullyFlapped]

If you were under "Radar Control Service" you were inside controlled airspace, an IFR flight and therefore should be equipped and qulified to fly IFR i.e. to fly at night.

Niknak, I don't understand this. I've been placed under "radar control" numerous times when taking VFR transits through zones at all times of the day : I've also been handed substantial "re-routes" under these conditions.

Care to clarify your comments ?

FF :ok:

[dublinpilot]

Airports seem to think that the scheme is for 'Emergency landing'. It's actually for precautionary diversions.

So in my mind, your diversion would have qualified.

Having said that I think there is an onus on all of us not to abuse the scheme, and if you feel yourself that it would not be appropriate to ask for it, then you are probably right not to.

Earlier on in the year, I diverted into Liverpool when returning to Ireland, as I met a severely reduced viz as I approached the sea. On the ground, I asked if Liverpool were part of the scheme, and was told no.

Later on checking it, I realised that they were, but like you I didn't make an issue of it. I knew shortly after taking off that a diversion may be a possibility once I reached the sea......the viz wasn't great over the land.....so likely to be worse over the water, with nothing much to see.

Like you, I felt it was borderline whether I was entitled to it or not, as it wasn't entirely unpredictable, so didn't make an issue of it.

dp

[bookworm]

It struck me as a slightly odd position, since a diversion is a diversion, I'd had no problem getting what I needed without declaring an urgency or emergency, and could potentially have just landed in a field or continued a little into night, so hadn't used the term.

I agree Genghis -- it's daft. It's a failure to ditinguish between andemergency situation from a risk management point of view, and a request for priority from ATC. While the two are often coincident, they aren't always, as you found out.

While I have a lot of time for the principle behind the free-landing-fee-for-diversions thing, I can't help but think that in practice it benefits those who plan poorly, at the expense of those who plan well (and have foreseen the contingency of needing to land at a rather expensive airport rather than their intended destination).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Niknak, I don't understand this. I've been placed under "radar control" numerous times when taking VFR transits through zones at all times of the day : I've also been handed substantial "re-routes" under these conditions.
Care to clarify your comments ?
FF :ok:
My experience also.

You obviously recognised you were approaching a situation beyond the limits of your flying qualifications and experience, which is to be applauded,

Insofar as my qualifications and experience don't include flying at night, in an aircraft with no lights, to land at a grass strip with unlit approach obstacles and runway. However, since probably nobody else's do either, I'd prefer to consider that I was approaching a situation that was outside of the (legal or safe) capabilities of my aircraft - different aeroplane and different destination, I'd have turned the lights on and carried on.

But it's still an interesting point about the landing fees - I was within rights to declare a Pan, and it would have saved me some money apparently. Would it have changed anything else?

G

[gcolyer]

GColyer, I'd be interested to know when this happened. Only a couple of months ago, I had to divert to Teeside because the wx at my destination had crapped out completely, a very long time ahead of forecast conditions. By the time I got to my original, viz was down to 100m, with a cloudbase(fog) at 100', so I reckon I can be excused for calling this a wx diversion !

I got charged full whack for landing, handling and overnight parking (and no-one gave me a lift anywhere!).

When I paid up I asked why they don't subscribe to the weather diversion scheme, and the answer was "we just don't" - very informative ... :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: !

FF :ok:


It was either Feb or march this year.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd favour a fixed fee of ~£30 (inc. handling and parking for a day or two) for a diversion to any regional airport. It's not enough to influence a safety decision, but some recompense for the airport operator.
A pan shouldn't be necessary. The ATC officer should decide to accept a diversion due to safety or not, and that would be established in flight before the decision is made by the pilot to divert.

That is pretty much what happened to me (I think it came to a little over £26 for landing and 1 overnight).

G

[Whirlybird]

The weather diversion scheme seems to be interpreted differently by different airfields. Last summer, a friend and were at Manston, where we'd stayed overnight due to thunderstorms, trying to get to Le Touquet. We waited for the mist and low cloud to clear, then left, thinking we could get above the low cloud, and knowing Le Touquet was clear. With the cloud building, we eventually dived below it, and decided to divert to Lydd, where the weather was marginally better than at Manston, and anyway, we were tired of Manston. We were quite amazed when Lydd said it was a weather diversion and waived the landing fee. We wouldn't even have thought of asking under those circumsances, since we could have gone back to Manston.

It would be quite nice if someone would standardise this whole issue, wouldn't it.

[Chilli Monster]

If you were under "Radar Control Service" you were inside controlled airspace, an IFR flight and therefore should be equipped and qulified to fly IFR i.e. to fly at night.

Not true - VFR flights inside CAS, above the minimum RMA (Radar Manoeuvring Area) level can and are placed under Radar Control.

[Pianorak]

Not true - VFR flights inside CAS. . . can and are placed under Radar Control.
(Sorry, slight topic creep) Chilli – Whilst fairly clear about the difference between Radar Advisory and Radar Information I am no longer sure I understand the definition of Radar Control although ENR 1-6-1-1 seems clear enough. I happen to be talking to someone (PPL/IMC) yesterday who claimed he was given a Radar Advisory Service while flying VFR in Class D (Solent) airspace. Could that have been the case?

[Chilli Monster]

I happen to be talking to someone (PPL/IMC) yesterday who claimed he was given a Radar Advisory Service while flying VFR in Class D (Solent) airspace. Could that have been the case?

No - either your friend was mistaken or Solent didn't change the service from RAS to RCS on entry. RIS/RAS only exists outside CAS.

MATS Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 5, Para 1.2 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf)

[tmmorris]

In my experience it's very common not to be positively told 'radar control service' on entering CAS. Brize, for example, usually just say 'entering controlled airspace' plus a reminder of the clearance conditions (e.g. 'maintain VMC, not above 1200ft Brize QNH 1012'). In fact, I think I've only ever been told 'radar control service' explicitly by Lyneham when entering the CTA.

It's good to have that confirmed, though, Chilli. I told my passenger on Friday that we were under RCS (he's a NPPL pilot and was rather enjoying the experience of IFR which was new to him!) so I'm glad I was right...

Tim

[FlyingForFun]

Getting back to the original question, Pitts said (slightly off-topic):
A pilot declard a PAN yesterday at Popham. I think he had just taken off from Popham, engine started running rough, turned around and put her back down after declaring a PAN
Then Genghis asked:
I was within rights to declare a Pan, and it would have saved me some money apparently. Would it have changed anything else?

I suggest that yes, it might possibly have done so. For example, if the pilot Pitts heard happened to be returning to the same airport as you diverted in to, at around the same time, and both of you had declared a Pan, perhaps the other pilot might not have got the priority over you which he required???

FFF
---------------

[Pianorak]

Chilli – Thanks for confirming my suspicion and quoting chapter and verse! :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Getting back to the original question, Pitts said (slightly off-topic):
Then Genghis asked:
I suggest that yes, it might possibly have done so. For example, if the pilot Pitts heard happened to be returning to the same airport as you diverted in to, at around the same time, and both of you had declared a Pan, perhaps the other pilot might not have got the priority over you which he required???
FFF
---------------

A very very good point, which seems to justify the approach I made. After all, I always had the option.

Maybe I should have called Pan on short finals? :}

G

(Before anybody jumps on me, the last is supposed to be a humourous point, and for the assistance I received, I don't begrudge a penny of it.)

[spekesoftly]

I was within rights to declare a Pan, and it would have saved me some money apparently.
Declaring a PAN (or MAYDAY) is not about "rights", it's about a matter of judgement. You elected not to declare a PAN, because in your judgement, the airborne situation didn't warrant it. Declaring a PAN simply to gain financial advantage would, IMHO, be an abuse of a) Emergency procedures, b) the priviledges of a pilot's licence, and c) the Strasser scheme.

Would it have changed anything else?Yes. ATC are required to file an MOR following any PAN message (not so with a routine diversion). This could lead to "slightly tight flight planning" etc attracting adverse comment from the CAA.

Having said that, Pilots should never fear declaring any category of emergency for the right reasons, but financial consideration isn't one of them!

[dublinpilot]

Yes. ATC are required to file an MOR following any PAN message (not so with a routine diversion). This could lead to "slightly tight flight planning" etc attracting adverse comment from the CAA.

Having said that, Pilots should never fear declaring any category of emergency for the right reasons, but financial consideration isn't one of them!

Sound to me like you just gave them a good reason to fear declaring an emergency!

[spekesoftly]

Sound to me like you just gave them a good reason to fear declaring an emergency!

Only if you 'shoot yourself in the foot' by declaring an emergency without a valid reason.

[jamestkirk]

Just to pick up what niknak said and to relect some of the comments some of you have corerectly made about his IFR comment.

He also said about maybe declaring a MAYDAY, which I think is a little over the top.

Seeing as a MAYDAY is - ' I am in need of urgent assistance (OK) and I AM in imminent danger'.

Whereas; a PAN is' I am in need of urgent assistance and BUT I AM NOT in imminent danger'.

I am not sure that a mayday for approaching official night without a night rating is really necessary.

NIKNAK, if you are syill looking at this thread maybe you could clarify your comments on IFR inside CAS and the use of MAYDAY for this.

[niknak]

Firstly, I have been put in my place by my good mate Chilli and rightly so!:oh: :ooh:

James et al....

It entirely depends on your personal confidence in dealing with the pertaining situation, it's all very well being wise after the event but if you feel you need to get on the ground ASAP, declare a MAYDAY and we'll do the best we can for you.

There is absolubtly no shame whatsoever in admitting that you need help, , we will decide the level of emergency assistance required via well planned procedures and we can always upgrade or downgrade this as required.
That aside, given that a minor problem occassionaly develops into a more serious situation, fore armed is fore warned.

[dublinpilot]

Seeing as a MAYDAY is - ' I am in need of urgent assistance (OK) and I AM in imminent danger'.

Whereas; a PAN is' I am in need of urgent assistance and BUT I AM NOT in imminent danger'.


James,

Not sure where you got your definations from.

From CAP413a) Distress A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
b) Urgency A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but does not require immediate assistance.
1.2.2 The pilot should make the appropriate emergency call as follows:
a) Distress ‘MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY’
b) Urgency ‘PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN’

A Pan indicates that you do not require immediate assistance, while a Mayday indicates that you do require immediate assistance.

dp

[Diddley Dee]

Whilst the merits of decalring a Pan or Mayday are being batted around, please bear in mind that if you declare a Pan the ARCC will be informed of your predicament & a watching brief will begin.
If however you declare a Mayday, the ARCC will as a general rule, launch SAR assets towards the point at which you are requiring immediate assistance.

Diddley Dee

[jamestkirk]

I got that definition from my Oxford ATPL notes. Those bas*ards have duped, conned and violated me with thier verbose and decietful ramblings.

Although, I believe the definition i put forward is down to semantics. I would not expect a student to reel me off the cap 413 definition. Although, I might pose that to them for a laugh to fill the foggy, groundschool days.

[NudgingSteel]

Although as dublin pilot mentioned, CAP413 states that a PAN PAN indicates immediate assistance is not required.....in reality you'll find that PAN PAN will invariably get you immediate attention, quieten down the frequency, and should set you up from some immediate help from ATC if you require it.