Mayday, Lea Valley area.

[ShyTorque]

A distress call on 125.625 this morning, just after 10:00. A twin with number two engine failed.

Sounds like it was being well handled by the pilot and ATC. Hope he reached Biggin Hill and landed with no further concerns. I presume he did, as there are no media reports of near misses with schools etc.

[Islander2]

Further info available here. (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/366105-market-twin-twin-share.html)

[Mike Cross]

and also here (http://http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=53438)

[Fitter2]

Your link doesn't work for me Mike, but this (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=53438) might.

I'm not sure I would want to fly with anyone who has had 10 engine failures. Although they would have the experience of what to do next............

[Timothy]

I'm not sure I would want to fly with anyone who has had 10 engine failures.I think you are being a little unfair.

I have listed out the failures on the Flyer thread and I really cannot see that I could be held responsible for any except the fuel icing, and even then, most people would think that they could fly from Stockholm to London in late April in an Aztec without a fuel additive (indeed most people would not know what a fuel additive is.)

I really don't know what I could have done to avoid any of the others, and all have resulted in perfectly safe, comfortable outcomes.

[ShyTorque]

Timothy, well handled in my book (speaking as an ex UAS Bulldog QFI). I heard the your little episode on 125.62 as we were leaving the LHR zone.

[Timothy]

I assume it was band-boxed as I was on 132.7!

I must say that I thought the whole episode was a testament to preparedness and training, both on the controllers' parts and my own. I am absolutely not trying to blow my own trumpet, but because of years of practice and enforced recurrency checks there was no doubt in my mind as to what I had to do, as, I hope would have any other pilot in a similar position. Similarly, the controllers were right on the button and everything just flowed in an obvious, ordered way, with my 5 pax clearly thinking that it was a workaday occurrence.

[Rodent1982]

Good work mate! I too share 'neaton's thoughts.

Cheeky!

Tim, you are to be commended. Given that there are only so many engine failures each year, it's very noble of you to take more than your fair share.

It makes sense too, you're obviously quite good at them now... http://forums.flyer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

[ShyTorque]

Yes, 125.625 and 132.7 were band-boxed, the same controller was covering both. We went en route as soon as we left the zone, rather than continue with a basic service outside, to give the controller another free brain cell or two for you. Hence my original post.

[Talkdownman]

You mean 'cross-coupled'=combining (re-transmit) of comms.
'Band-boxed' has a different meaning=combining ('collapsing') of sectors without necessarily combining comms and would not normally be apparent to the listener.
There are times when Thames and Special are 'band-boxed' and times when 132.7 and 125.625 are cross-coupled. Both have different purposes.

[ShyTorque]

I think the same controller was covering both positions; it's nothing unusual for that to occur with regard to these two.

[flybymike]

As a matter of interest how is it possible for a controller to work two frequencies simultaneously if calls are received by the controller on both frequencies at the same moment in time? (other than with difficulty and very little traffic) For example one often hears miltary controllers talking on both VHFand UHF and I am fairly sure I have been handed from Tower to Approach, and vice versa, only to hear the same controller again but yet with no obvious cross coupling of transmissions across both frequencies.

[Comms Boy]

It is very common for a controller to "cross couple" frequencies when quiet, but they can only listen to one aircraft call at a time when in "cross couple" mode.
If two aircraft transmit at the same time on the same frequency (stepped on) the speech will be garbled.
If two aircraft on different frequencies which happen to be x coupled together by the controller transmit at the same time, the voice comms equipment will re broadcast the first received call onto the other frequency.
You can imagine what happens when a controller has 6+ frequencies x coupled together and then gets a stuck PTT or sticky mute lift on a receiver or stuck PTT from aircraft:{

[Talkdownman]

I think the same controller was covering both positions; it's nothing unusual for that to occur with regard to these two.

Interestingly the two cross-coupled frequencies have different callsigns therefore 'technically' it is necessary for the single controller doing the two jobs to detect which frequency he is being called on and use the appropriate callsign. In practice this does not happen which can, and does, cause confusion. This is not usually the case at Mil units which crosscouple V and U but for the same task. Thames and Special will band-box and/or cross-couple for 'staffing reasons', which is fine until both sectors become busy. I recently attempted to obtain a Special VFR clearance from Thames doing Special but the Thames task loading was too busy for there to be any spare capacity for Special obligations consequently 'customer service' suffered.

[chevvron]

Nah; AlanM just recognised your voice!!

[Timothy]

Nah; AlanM just recognised your voice!!
You're just jealous that I called Thames and not Farnborough.