Air controller during emergency landing: 'I know that's BS' | 9news.com (http://www.9news.com/news/article/261127/339/Controller-during-emergency-landing-Thats-BS)

Related Links

Plane makes emergency landing at DIA

NTSB finishes inquiry of DIA air controllers during emergency landing
DENVER - NTSB investigators and Federal Aviation Administration officials are inquiring about air traffic controllers' actions at Denver International Airport's main control tower Tuesday morning during an emergency landing.

Investigators are looking at whether controllers' confusion delayed first responders as the plane was on its final approach, 9NEWS Aviation Analyst Greg Feith, a former NTSB investigator, said.

Only one of the 21 people on board the plane was taken to the hospital after the incident.

Tuesday morning around 8:30, United Express Flight 5912, operated by ExpressJet, declared an emergency landing during its final approach to DIA after being cleared to land, according to a control-tower recording provided by an FAA source. The emergency landing was because of smoke in the cockpit.

On the recording, a voice from the cockpit, either the co-pilot or pilot, is heard saying, "Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please."

A controller in the tower responds, asking, "Who was that?"

The voice responded, "5912."

The controller responds, after about 10 seconds, asking, "United 12, what's your position?"

After no response, more time elapses and the controller asks someone, "Did you hear that? I know that's BS. I know it is."

Another controller responds, "That's what?"

The first controller responds, "United 12. You know of United 12 anywhere?"

Feith says the controller may have been distracted, only hearing the last part of the flight number.

"So when they hear an oddball number," Feith said, "whether it's real or perceived, like in this case United 12. That's a bogus number so all of a sudden now you're spring-loaded towards, 'That's a phantom call.'"

Although rare, Feith says phantom or fake calls can originate from someone near the airport on the same frequency as the control tower.

"It's very complex because we've had these bogus calls in the past," Feith said.

"It sounded like somebody just (sic) on a handheld somewhere to me," the controller said later in the recording. "Did you hear that though?"

Another controller responds, "Yeah, I did."

"That didn't sound good," the first controller said.

"I know," responded the other controller.

The controllers then direct other traffic for another 30 seconds when the pilot makes another emergency call saying the plane had landed and was evacuating on the runway.

The controller tries to verify with the pilot, but after no response, he tells another pilot, "I apologize if you probably heard [something] there. That's not real. They're what we're hearing on the frequency."

Ultimately, nearly five minutes passed before the controller confirms to the pilot help is on the way, according to the recording.

According to his sources, Feith, said fire trucks did not deploy until after the plane had landed on the runway.

A passenger on flight 5912, Linda Irwin, says she saw smoke in the cabin during the landing, and said the pilot and co-pilot landed the plane extremely well, considering snowy conditions and smoke in the cockpit.

She also says the flight attendant remained calm during the evacuation from the front of the plane.

Irwin learned of the control tower recordings Thursday.

"One would hope that with all of the investigations that go on after any incident, one would hope that those communications would be checked out because when there are lives at stake," she said. "You don't want to make assumptions about what's real, what's not real. What's serious and what's not serious, you want to go with the worst case scenario and make sure you've addressed it."

Feith says NTSB investigators are looking at whether the Embraer 145 regional jet's right engine failed during final approach.

An FAA report says firefighters extinguished a fire in the instrument panel.

UPDATE: An NTSB spokesman says the Safety Board has not launched an "official" investigation into the incident.

(KUSA-TV © 2012 Multimedia Holdings Corp

I know its easy to point fingers from the comfort of my hotel room but this emphasizes the importance of standard phraseology....

If correct,

Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please

is pretty far away from standard phraseology.

......... +1.

Completely agree with captain prop. It seems that the lack of professionalism and radio discipline caused the problem, if it had been a routine pan call then the message would have been conveyed first time. All the controllers can do now is learn from it!

R

All the controllers can do now is learn from it!
Pilots more likely!

We use key alerting words for a reason... UAL5912, emergency conditions in the cockpit or not - problem exacerbated by not using correct words; when the controller said "who was that" you still failed to get it right...

Poor r/t phraseology by the Expressjet pilot, although all too common in the USA. This guy can´t even get the attention (understandably so) of the tower and that is basically on his home turf. Would not work anywhere in the world either. :ugh:

R/t phraeology in the Hudson River ditching was similar, and it also took a couple of calls before ATC realised what was going on.

Lessons for anyone?

A lot of them learn their R/T from Smokey and the Bandit .....
Which works ok most of the time and makes them sound cool like Chuck Yeager!! Except for this time.....:ugh:

Oceancrosser is raising a very valid point here, this was in the US!! How about if it was in France, Spain or China?!

Oceancrosser is raising a very valid point here, this was in the US!! How about if it was in France, Spain or China?!

Possible it would have been smoother. Possible the ATC would have understood "emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll the trucks". In fact I cannot recall that the sentence "emergency, smoke in the cockpit" was once not understood by the French, for example, ATC.
So if the ICAO language is english and if basic simple sentences are not understood in the US, maybe that's time to change language ;) ;) ;)

A good old MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY would have worked, funny when you know that it directly comes from the french M'AIDER M'AIDER M'AIDER wich means in french HELP HELP HELP.
To be understood, speak french my friend!


The Mayday callsign was originated in 1923 by Frederick Stanley Mockford (1897–1962).[4] A senior radio officer at Croydon Airport in London, Mockford was asked to think of a word that would indicate distress and would easily be understood by all pilots and ground staff in an emergency. Since much of the traffic at the time was between Croydon and Le Bourget Airport in Paris, he proposed the word "Mayday" from the French m’aider. "Venez m'aider" means "come help me."


And honestly, they are very lucky on that one, this mistake could have cost a lot in human life if the fire had been more serious.

More Rubbish from European pilots who work so hard to sound Veddy Veddy British with their Kings English. Maybe if they spent more time on safe aircraft operation then radio pedantry, they could one day equal the safety record of US 121 carriers.....

The pilot said "smoke in the cockpit" and then gave his flight number. What part of that did the controller not understand. :ugh:

if it had been a routine pan call then the message would have been conveyed first time.

Not in the USA it wouldn't... it would just add the the confusion...

Hmmm, let's see. Smoke in the cockpit to the extent passengers can see smoke in the cabin during the landing. High workload environment in snowy conditions. Recall items most likely include donning masks/goggles first and foremost, establishing interphone comm, etc. Got the aircraft on the ground with a subsequent evacuation.

Made the emergency call that was possibly fainter, broken, or odder-sounding due to a mask mic instead of a boom, which led the controller to suspect a phantom transmission. I'm not aware of any "Smoke in Cockpit" Emergency checklist that first doesn't begin with donning masks immediately, so all intercrew communication is also rendered more difficult.

Sorry it doesn't work this way in dummy America...

PM: "Excuse me Commander, whilst you may want or need my assistance during the last few moments of final approach and landing this aircraft we can barely see out of, I must at once divest myself of my duties coordinating with you or executing procedures that remain of favor of placing an absolutely correct radiotelephone transmission."

PF: I told you already, I have the aircraft and the radios and the emergency call has been made. Are the Phase 1 items complete? Has the cabin been advised we'll be evacuating and unless otherwise advised, through the main door? Before Landing Checklist please."

PM: Excuse me Suh, but I couldn't help but notice your R/T phraseology was NOT ICAO-standahd and it is imcumbent upon me to call this to your attention.

PF: Help me fly this plane to get it on the ground and stopped. Standard callouts please, and be ready with the Evacuation Checklist. Man, there's a lot of smoke here. Jeezuz, where's your mask?

PM: (cough, hack) But SUH, the R/TEEEE!

Funny how this crew was dealt a last minute emergency that detrimentally affects both the ability to see to fly and to communication between crewmembers and controllers, in less than optimum weather conditions, landed the aircraft safely with a subsequent evacuation, but are dogpiled on by armchair nitpickers who probably never got closer to a real emergency than their last sim session....

Insctr: Well done lads. There were problems but it was more than made of for by your brilliant R/T. In the event your CVR is ever extracted from a smoking hole, that, combined with the ATC tapes will render your reputations intact and even somewhat burnished on PPRUNE. I dare say, that Pan you issued was spot on it. Sterling!

Nigel 1: Thank you Suh, we've worked hard to become so.

Nigel 2: Extremely, Suh, extremely.

Insctr: And remember fellows, Comminicate, comminicate, aviate. Ta ta.

I must at once divest myself of my duties coordinating with you or executing procedures that remain of favor of placing an absolutely correct radiotelephone transmission."

Silly boy, it should be, radiotelephonic transmission.

PukinDog, the point is to communicate your predicament. If communication conditions are poor then priming the listener by using standard attention grabbing words such as MAYDAY or PAN PAN is a good place to start. Now you've grabbed his full attention & he can listen to your mumblings attentively instead of thinking "what was that?". If you continue to use standard phraseology it is easier for the listener to make out what is being said in poor conditions. He isn't left trying to guess what you're mumbling. FFS it's your arse on the line up there not mine sitting here on the ground.

And FYI - Australia wasn't in Europe last time I checked. Even the guy from Ireland is expat Aussie :ok:

Nice one Dog. Unfortunately, your great story-telling doesn't quite match the performance of your compatriots here. Regardless of the order of things ANC CNA NAC, the comms were a c@<hidden> and the outcome was a c@<hidden> Nuff said! :ok:

The pilot said "smoke in the cockpit" and then gave his flight number. What part of that did the controller not understand.

How freaking hard is it to say 'MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, UNITED 5912, UNITED 5912, UNITED 5912, smoke in cockpit, require emergency services'? It'd take a nano second longer than comms indicated in the OP and would be clear and unambiguous to the ATCO.

I know it's Aviate, navigate, communicate but there are times when the communicate needs to be very clear in order to not further complicate the next bit of aviating and navigating that needs to be accomplished. Communication in this event sounds like it was NOT clear which made subsequent aviating (evacuating the aircraft with emergency services already rolling) much more difficult.

but are dogpiled on by armchair nitpickers who probably never got closer to a real emergency than their last sim session....

Lol. You get stuck into those of us who indicate that standard phraseology may have resulted int a much better outcome in these circumstances and accuse us of monday morning quarter backing whilst at the same time presuming that those of us who comment haven't experience emergencies of our own. :rolleyes: :ugh:

If we don't learn from these things then what freaking hope does aviation have?

The pilot said "smoke in the cockpit" and then gave his flight number. What part of that did the controller not understand.

Really?! First of all, this is not about "European", US, Asian or whatever pilots. Secondly, going by information provided here, assuming (for now) that its correct, the pilot stated "Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please" and when the controller questioned "Who was that?" the reply was "5912".

Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please is not correct, and will never be correct, coming from any pilot, American or European.....

Again, its easy to judge when not being in this crew's situation, regardless of nationality, level of language proficiency etc etc, but no mayday call was made and no (correct) flight number was communicated. Period.

How about "Mayday mayday mayday, ExpressJet 5912 (or whatever their FULL call sign is), we have smoke in the cockpit! Standby!"??

The pilot said "smoke in the cockpit" and then gave his flight number. What part of that did the controller not understand.

Evidently, all of it.

Sure, the controller might have been a bit sharper on the uptake, or made a broadcast requesting more info, but the problem began when the pilot in trouble failed to announce he was in trouble clearly.

The controller then assumes (yeah, really bad idea) that it is probably a prank call.

So it seems to me there are fairly serious failings and assumptions on both sides.

A 7700 code might have made things clear to the controller, too, if it was so hard to communicate correctly due to workload or masks.

To the pilots: How long does it take to set that on the transponder?

I have yet to see an emergency that was performed perfectly, always things to learn. Why do you all think your countries somehow have cornered the market on perfect pilots. Being an expat for many years and flying with many different cultures I can say all countries have great, good, bad and awful pilots. These guys got it on the ground without hurting or killing passengers, they did it with little time and probably confusion. Job well done.
if the controller thought it was a fake call, why would saying pans or maydays make him think it was real? The issue is the controller thought this was a fake call, not that he was confused by frasing. You guys need to pull your large over inflated egos out of the skies. I can assure you your emergencies could have been handled better, just like everybody else's who has encountered them.

The pilot said "smoke in the cockpit" and then gave his flight number. What part of that did the controller not understand.

Again, quite clearly - most of it due to the usual cowbay phraseology.

As for the comments regarding the increased time required to process said phraseology to do it properly, that's PRECISELY why it should be trained and used correctly in everyday circumstances - so that little or no thought is required.

Of course, then the cowboys wouldn't be able to sound so cool! :ugh:

What's more important?

Remove the windscreen from your car. So when you drive to work, reality can come flooding in.

Guy,
North America has more flights than anywhere in the word, yet have one of the safest if not the safest operations in the world. So the "cowboys" as you so arrogantly posted, must be doing something correctly.
Try and put yourself in their position for a moment instead of sitting back with hours to ponder how you would handle the situation. Way more important to get a plane on fire on the ground and get the passengers out, than dealing with atc. Especially on short final with no time and important things to discuss between flight crew and cabin crew. I suppose your probably a super pilot and every detail of a fire and evacuation on short final would be briefed with time to fully brief atc with masks on. :ugh::ugh:

drive73 said
" I have yet to see an emergency that was performed perfectly..."

I thought the Thomson birdstrike was pretty good, how would you improve on that ?

Pete

No-one seems to have apportioned blame to those who make spoof calls on their little hand held transmitters on their way to mommy from elementary school.

How about "Mayday mayday mayday, ExpressJet 5912 (or whatever their FULL call
sign is),




Feith says the controller may have been distracted, only hearing the last
part of the flight number.


It's not in the recording as included in the media coverage--what is the full callsign? ExpressJet 5912, or United 5912? Because obviously something led the controller to believe the callsign given was "United 12".

(Yeah, I know that other than the number of syllables "fif-ty nine" and "U-nit-ed" don't sound very much alike, but Feith's explanation makes it seem as if the controller heard only the number "12".)

Don't forget that a controller may not be listening solely to the frequency being worked.
Could be speaking to another controller or using intercom and miss part of a truncated call - or even saying "Milk, one sugar." :)

How about "Mayday mayday mayday"

Yes, this word repeated three times, alerts everyone to the seriousness of the situation. Everything said after that will be listened to intently and acted on. Without them the call could easily be dismissed or miss-interpreted, as appears to have happened here. Even if the controller misses them, the emergency services listening in could have heard and reacted without prompting.

(Yeah, I know that other than the number of syllables "fif-ty nine" and "U-nit-ed" don't sound very much alike, but Feith's explanation makes it seem as if the controller heard only the number "12".)

Actually, that's the first thing I thought.
"Fife-niner", with a bit of audio distraction in the background, could easily be mis-heard as "United". Mind-set follows.

I would say that in the first transmission "5912 smoke in cockpit roll trucks please" the "fifty-nine" part is not very clear and could be heard as "united".
But when the controller asked "who was that" the pilot answers clearly "fifty-nine twelve", should be clear enough.

According to the newspaper the pilot declared his emergency AFTER having been cleared to land. But the controller seams not aware of a "5912" on his freq. I don't think we have the full picture; was it a scheduled landing, was it a return after t/o, was the pilot just switched over to his freq?

Question for controllers: when I visited an approach-control facility once I noticed on the radar screens that any time a pilot keyed his mike there was a selectable option of cross bearings on the screen indicating the position of the plane with the keyed mike. Gives the controller an extra check of who is actually talking. Good option if there is confusion due to similar call signs but could work as well when a prank call is suspected. Is there such a possibility for tower controllers as well?

BTW: usually someone digs up the original ATC-recordings on the net, did they surface yet?

First of all this resulted in the right outcome. Nobody killed or injured. No metal bent. Well done to the crew in what sound like challenging conditions.

The only major problem appears to be a breakdown in communication.

No emergency prefix. No callsign. Just a rather garbled message which to me sounds COMPLETELY like it could have come from some Hillbilly Flightsim pilot, with zero formal training, on a walkie talkie! I don't blame the controller for suspecting it was a malicious call. That's what it sounds like to me too.

I think everyone agrees that the pilots should be congratulated for landing the aircraft safely and making sure everyone was safe, of course that is the most important thing. But a bigger problem underlies and it can't be ignored. The use of non standard RT has meant an aircraft was on fire on the runway for a period of time without any emergency services helping it. Sure it's easy to blame the pilots but under pressure and high stress they did their natural radio call because they aren't used to correct RT procedure. In the UK you are trained to use standard RT at all times because it is clear and precise and prevents this from happening. A simple Pan Pan or mayday if the smoke was that serious would have meant the controller heard the call sign and took it seriously. No reason to blame anyone because the pilots did a good job, doesn't mean it couldn't have been better...

R

Gosh for a humble crew member on the other side of the door its shocking to listen to some of 'our intelligent leaders' bash each other whilst dressing it up as intelligent debate!

From a humble steward - congratulations to the pilots, crew and everyone else involved in a safe landing and preserving life.

If I bring you chocolate with your tea and speak with varying accents when I come in the flight deck will you all be nice to each other? :D

My post is made in good humour, have a good day and safe (clearly spoken) flying! :ok:

In an Emergency situation such as this one keeping ATC busy, what will you do if you are in a traffic pattern or approaching this aerodrome? (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/481989-emergency-keeping-atc-busy-what-will-you-do-situation.html)

The only time I had a real problem my first call was "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" It seemed to work just fine. What's wrong with standard terminology, or are folks just scared to admit they may have a real problem?

Aditya, as soon as an emergency is declared radio silence should be maintained to aid in the solution of the emergency, radio silence would usually be imposed by the controller. That's my understanding anyway...

R

When was the last time ATC actually helped a flight in trouble other than calling the crash crew out to meet you? It doesn't matter much if you say mayday, declaring an emergency or I have smoke in the cockpit just tell them what you are doing so other flights will give you the room you need to do what you are going to do anyway. As we all know the PIC can do anything in an emergency he feels necessary to deal with it.

When was the last time ATC actually helped a flight in trouble other than calling the crash crew out to meet you?
And that, Bubbers, is exactly the point being made. Bad comms, late services. :ok:

Question for controllers: when I visited an approach-control facility once I noticed on the radar screens that any time a pilot keyed his mike there was a selectable option of cross bearings on the screen indicating the position of the plane with the keyed mike .......

I've used such a system in the past, but it wasn't available to the Tower controller. The single bearing from the direction finder (D/F) could also be overlaid on the approach radar screen. Especially useful before we had SSR, and for non-transponder equipped aircraft. Unfortunately a number of UK civil ATSUs no longer have D/F.

(Not to be confused with the UK Auto-Triangulation system available on 121.5)

When was the last time ATC actually helped a flight in trouble other than calling the crash crew out to meet you? Please don't let this deteriorate into a them and us debate. Based on the information in this thread - and I haven't looked for any other sources - there is no question that the ATC involvement in this event was not as good as it could have been. That is why we investigate what happened and try to learn from incidents - and this applies both to the airborne and ground-based parts of the system.

In my part of the world there have been huge advances in the way that ATC are trained to handle unusual and emergency events. In many cases this has led to a far greater understanding of what ATC can do to help a crew with a problem - even if that is just to shut up for a while to let the crew sort things out - and, for the crews who get involved in the ATC training, a much greater understanding of what ATC can do to help and even some of the constraints that ATC have.

Nothing is perfect though, and there is always room for improvement and learning. One of the things that took a while for ATC to learn about was TRM. But it is there now in many places - and, hopefully, it means that ATC can do more than just call out the crash crew out to meet you.

Only time I had a real emergency, it was on a boat. My cousin called the Coast Guard, politely. They came back with all kinds of questions: have you got your lifejackets on? what is your social security number? have you got the correct number of flares on your boat? etc etc etc. So I asked her for the mike and said the magic words: Mayday, Mayday Mayday!

Instantly everything changed; we had a senior chap come on frequency who sent us a helicopter and a cutter, which solved our problem eventually, but on a boat you have plenty of time thinking you are going to die. On a plane very little time, in this case, when ATC thought it was a hoax.

This, by the way, was off Galveston, Texas. They did understand the term I used, which in my case arose from my UK radio training. Incidentally, we were told later, after the rescue, that the Coast Guard had been plagued by shrimpers making hoax calls and they thought ours was also a hoax....which is why we had the initial runaround.

Although rare, Feith says phantom or fake calls can originate
from someone near the airport on the same frequency as the control tower.

"It's very complex because we've had these bogus calls in the past," Feith
said.

"It sounded like somebody just (sic) on a handheld somewhere to
me," the controller said later in the recording. "Did you hear that though?"

Another controller responds, "Yeah, I did."

"That didn't sound good," the first controller said.

"I know," responded the other controller.





drive73

if the controller thought it was a fake call, why would saying
pans or maydays make him think it was real? The issue is the controller thought this was a fake call, not that he was confused by frasing.




Butyou see, in some parts of the world the word "Mayday" is magical and overcomes any predisposition towards thinking a call is coming through from a handheld transmitter , and heavens to Betsy a faker would never think to use an actual callsign and Flight number they're hearing on the freq.


Keg

You get stuck into those of us who indicate that standard
phraseology may have resulted int a much better outcome in these circumstances and accuse us of monday morning quarter backing whilst at the same time presuming that those of us who comment haven't experience emergencies of our own.



No, I'm just pointing out that most here are ignoring the controller's own words that indicate why he had a doubt about the veracity of the call he heard, and are injecting their own cause (phraseology) because in their mind not adhereing to it in the strictest terms fits the preconceived notions they already hold; 1) Americans are sloppy cowboys on the radio, and 2) since Americans are bad at it, we are good at it, and we're going agree this is the cause no matter what.

And I can pretty much guarantee that those deriding this crew haven't suddenly had their cockpit fill with smoke on final approach to the point it's in the cabin and dealt with all that entails, let alone done so whilst (see, I can use it ina sentence too) using their best James Bond movie voice with the appropriate touch of sangfroid.

The controller states to his colleague that, to him, it sounded like the transmission came through a handheld. This could point to the clarity andvolume issues associated with a mask mic the flight crew may have been using. This may have also created the impression in the controller's mind he was hearing a "new" voice on freq, not someone who had already been cleared to land, possibly even by him. The other controller's response that it didn't sound "good" evenre-inforces this incorrect notion...that it was a rogue transmission.

You can "Mayday" and phrase correctly until Henry Higgins'eyes water and every sticker in the RAAF pecks up in a snappy salute, but that isn't going to automatically trump the disbelief of a controller who's initial doubts arise due to the quality of the transmission and new-sounding voice. The M.O. of a phantom transmitter IS to sound like an aircraft or the controller as much as possible...they use the callsigns they're hearing on freq and the phraseology pilots and controllers use.....that's how they try and fool people. They would actually say Maday, so saying it when the controller is in that frame of mind doesn't cure a thing. Get it?

The reason he thought it wasn't a real call was because he didn't hear the call sign. Using standard phraseology he most likely would have. End of.

R

Perhaps the ATC was unfamiliar with the characteristics of a transmission via a microphone in an O2 mask -- leading him to believe the communication came from a handheld?

With advance apologies for a little thread creep...

Some years ago I was manning an Approach console (Mil) with a mixture of a/c inbound, outbound and transitting. One of the inbound civil a/c made a comment about being tight on fuel. This, I acknowledged and asked if the a/c was declaring an emergency. He replied "Negative".

I kept routing the a/c inbound (in an expeditious manner and routing, but without any particular priority against other traffic, although I kept his fuel state at the forefront of my mind) and he again made a comment about his fuel being tight.

Again he declined to declare any form of emergency. On the ground, I spoke to him on the phone and he was bordering on apoplectic with me for not giving him priority handling and not having crash crews standing by.

When I was able to get a word in edgeways, I invited him to calm down and asked why he had twice refused my offer to declare a Pan or Mayday, and had not chosen to do so on his own instigation. He said that he thought he would be in trouble from both his company and ATC for doing so, and thought I would be able to read between the lines and essentially declare one on his behalf.

Explaining the real world (as I saw it) to him, I assured him that ATC would NEVER think badly of a crew for declaring an emergency and if his company did so that, to be frank, was his problem to deal with. I also explained;

1. What I could/would have done if he had called Pan or Mayday.
2. The fact that not only was I not psychic, but tried not to make assumptions.

The moral was then, and should be now - don't be afraid to say you need help, and use correct terminology to do it. Not rocket science really.

:ugh:

Quote:
Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please

He said please:E Yihaaaahh:cool:

I've flown on both sides of the Atlantic and I know which ATC environment I prefer. That's just me though - I enjoy both.
For most pilots, comms are nothing to do with sounding like a Cowboy or James Bond - its about using the resources available to you to maximum effect. If you don't believe that ATC will help you and that making others aware of your situation is unimportant, fine fill your boots. ATC can offer you a huge amount if they know a) what's happening to you and b) what your intentions are. If they don't know any of that - then you're not going to be getting much back.
In my experience, when you get to the Comms part of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, it should be executed as professionally as the first 2. It's not an optional extra - but a big part of airmanship, especially in congested airspace. Standard phraseology is the only way we can ensure things are done properly - where possible - obviously not all situations are alike and there will be variations. I don't see why that's such a contentious issue.

One quite amazing aspect of this thread is the number of (apparently professional) respondents arguing on the basis of flag waving and 'my country's ops are better than yours' nonsense.

There is no need for that. This case is very straightforward.

In an emergency, declare: "MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY ... [FULL CALLSIGN]" and follow up with details of the emergency.

If the incident is less serious, declare: "PAN, PAN, PAN ... [FULL CALLSIGN]" and follow up with details of the emergency.

This will ALWAYS command the full attention of the ATCO, I assure you. Regardless of national niceties. Just do it!

Anything else risks confusion as this case illustrates. Remember that this was an UNEXPECTED non-standard call for the ATC staff to interpret out of the blue, so it is vital that it is as clear as possible and makes sense. At many ATC units, staff will flick the RT onto loudspeaker on hearing the "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" prefix to a transmission so all present can hear the message and get straight to work helping out.

Use those three vital words, please! Save the colloquial chatty RT for routine situations.

By the way, I have always considered aircrew from the US and Europe to be very competent and professional across the board. Well done. But don't defend mistakes ... learn from them! (ATC and aircrew alike).

SHED.

There's no real excuse for non-standard RT terminology in a case such as this one. With 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday,' then you have made it clear that you have declared an emergency; everything else comes from that understanding, particularly that other traffic knows to keep silent so that ATC can communicate clearly with the aircraft in distress. If I hear a 'Mayday' I know to pipe down to let the crew and ATC sort out what should happen next, or perhaps pass a message if the call seems to have been missed. Here we can see that no other crew pointed out the missed emergency call to ATC; that seems to show that nobody else understood it as a 'Mayday' call, showing this is not some argument about how 'we' do it compared to 'them.'

I have noticed that the USA seems to have a lot of non-standard RT. What some here have noted with a certain amount of pride, that we have most of the traffic, really is part of the problem, that we sometimes forget the standard procedures, as if we all should know what we mean anyway. 'Roll the trucks' sounds like something from a movie, Die Hard VII, perhaps. Coming from an aircraft in flight it's almost meaningless.

I got my American radio licence by sending in a postcard. That was it!

I got my UK licence by taking two short writtens, one for IFR and one for VFR. (Brits speak completely differently when the flight rules change. This is something that most people do not know.) Then I did a two-way oral test, including making a proper 'Mayday' call.

I got my German AZF by taking a spoken test in German, since they graciously accepted that I already could communicate in English, when that included a whole lot of possible situations. It was that typical German thoroughness, with the testing being done by the Federal Ministry for Post and Telecommunications. (I now have a small blood-group tattoo high up inside my left arm to show my status post-test, plus of course I had to swear the oath.)

Some of that might account for differences one can easily hear between different RT standards in the States versus elsewhere. We usually get the job done well enough here, but sometimes we need a higher standard.

If the incident is less serious, declare: "PAN, PAN, PAN ... [FULL CALLSIGN]" and follow up with details of the emergency.
Waiting for Pukin Dawg to correct this... :}

One thing that cracks me up is this: Saying "MAYDAY" means you are declaring an emergency; saying "We are declaring an emergency" must mean something else, apparently.

I've flown on both sides of the Pacific and, my fellow Americans, we can sound like Cletus on a CB haulin' go go girls down I-70.

I've said it before, and the next media report of "smoke" in the cockpit, I'll probably say it again. If the engine is the problem, then pilots and passengers might have been exposed to oil FUMES, or MIST, which occurs frequently when an engine leaks oil in the compressor stage forward of the bleed air inlets.
That compressed air can be 600 degrees or much hotter. Common jet engine oils contain trycresyl phosphate, which is a neurotoxin. MOST IMPORTANTLY, this is a flight safety issue. The flight crew can be intoxicated by the fumes, and their cognitive function, and motor coordination seriously degraded. That could have influenced the pilots' non-standard communications in this instance. I thought what he said was exceedingly clear, emergency, smoke, roll trucks. The controller didn't mis-hear his words, he just didn't think it was real. I don't care if he said something as non-standard as "5912 is on fire, we're landing, roll trucks," the controller can interpret and declare the emergency, and should default to "this is real" not "this is BS."

The crew and passengers should be tested for TCP exposure, and the airline should be required to inform everyone of what substances they were breathing, so they can get appropriate medical attention. Doctors will misdiagnose unless they know about exposure to organophosphates. Blood tests should be done within the first 48 hours if possible. Pilots are largely unaware of toxic bleed air contamination, and can take a cavalier attitude, which is unfortunate.

The protocol for blood testing is here: http://www.baileygreer.com/library/Lockridge_TCP_blood_test___ALL_FORMS.pdf

The medical protocol for physicians to use after a fume event is here:

http://www.baileygreer.com/library/FAA_Medical_Guidance____Exposure_to_Bleed_Air.pdf

What's more interesting for me, as a TWR controller, is the fact that seemingly for qute some time TWR was oblivious to the fact that an a/c that landed, stopped on the rwy, is not proceeding and not calling. I know that's a big a/d and maybe it's difficult to see some parts of it, but there's surveillance, and last but not least, lack of the 'vacated' call should arouse questions.

@<hidden> Basil

Don't forget that a controller may not be listening solely to the frequency being worked.
Could be speaking to another controller or using intercom and miss part of a truncated call - or even saying "Milk, one sugar."

EXACTLY!!! That's yet ANOTHER reason to use "MAYDAY X3", apart from it being standard phraseology, because this alerts everybody on the frequency and now you become number one on the controllers attention list.

Capn Blogs


If the incident is less serious, declare: "PAN, PAN, PAN ... [FULL
CALLSIGN]" and follow up with details of the emergency.


Waiting for Pukin Dawg to correct this...


Certainly. A correct PAN call would be "PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN...[Station calling], [Full Callsign] and then follow up details of the urgency. If it's an emergency, a MAYDAY call would be appropriate.

Frankly, I'm disappointed an a little suprised the pendants here hadn't jumped on this already. But in my expat civ flying years as a Captain, Training Captain and Check Airman working with more non-Americans than cowboys in almost exclusively non-U.S. airspace, I've seen my share of R/T nazis using it as a comfort-zone crutch to compensate for a lack of being able to prioritize and manage everything from a garden-variety approach in IMC or use and interpret a wx radar correctly to handling the most basic abnormal situation. Lots of beautiful talking but a lot of walking that would be better described as the aviation version of a pub crawl.

Standard phraseology?...Absolutely, it's a great idea. I use it, taught it, and expect it. In half the countries out there you won't even get a "say again" response to anything non-standard because the only English the controllers know is the standard phraseology script.

R/T obsession?....usually coming from those who'll sit in a sim and let an engine burn off it's pylon or flight controls stay jammed while they're having a conversation with ATC re SOBs and fuel remaining. There's a lot of obsession around here.

I'm very concerned that too many US pilots think they are Chuck Yeager while actually showing the wrong stuff.

saying "We are declaring an emergency" must mean something else, apparently.
It doesn't mean anything.
My favourite place for an emergency is LHR.
Once, long ago:
Bas: Mayday x3 Fire stbd engine request priority app.
LHR: Heading 240 clear ILS 27L break x2 LH Go around straight ahead 3000ft call app xxx.
Bas: (Thinks) HTF did he know I was going to declare an emergency?
Respect!

It amazes me that some professionals here are trying to lay blame to the controller when the crew did not using the correct (and the most simple) phraseology! "we are declaring an emergency etc etc etc"? if it were medical, a tad embarrassing if the controller put on a full emergency as he hasn't heard properly or missed some of it (on the phone, a colleague talking to them etc) or it would need to controller to clarify the situation by which time the crew are then focused on the problem. As already said many times, MAYDAY or PAN MUST be used if you want to declare. Even MAYDAY x 3 and callsign and nothing else will get the fire vehicles moving! Doesn't take a crew discussion to figure it out, it's instant! Just last week I had an aircraft on frequency, crew said they'd like to return due to a technical issue, nothing declared. Several minutes later I observed the aircraft slowing down and tracking towards nearest landfall, on asking the crew to confirm the issue- "eerm, yeah, pan pan....", THEN we set the wheels in motion for an emergency landing, actually resulted in a forced landing at a disused airfield. If they waited any longer to declare, emergency services would not have been there on arrival. Remember the Avianca near JFK??? Every presentation I've been to where that crops up results in the same 100% agreement between all there, they should have declared an emergency! You need less thinking to say Mayday / Pan, and it works! Anything else may not work.....

Zeffy

Perhaps the ATC was unfamiliar with the characteristics of a transmission via
a microphone in an O2 mask -- leading him to believe the communication came from a handheld?


That possibility only exists in the real world where pilots land aircraft with smoke-filled cockpits and recorded ATC conversations implicate that very thing.

Here, however, the real human factor experts decide what's irrelevant and what's not, and when coorelation does in fact equal causation.

For example, in this case an American pilot used the word "Emergency" to an American controller working at an American airport. That the controller would be entirely familiar that the word "Emergency" means an emergency, but doesn't matter to the experts who will pretend what you have here is the equivalent of speaking Swahili to a Mongolian because it grates on them like nails on a chalkboard. If it mattered, then it blows their whole chance to pontificate about sloppy American phraseology, thus reducing the chance to feel superior, which in turn starves what can only be described as a cultural need.

So one must ignore that the first action for virtually any smoke-filled cockpit scenario is to don an O2 mask, and therefore transmissions were likely being made via the same. Forget also that transmitting on same sounds much different to the reciever not only vs boom mic, but also if that "new" voice suddenly pops up in airspace where nobody else is. Disregard the controllers own words about the call "sounding like it was from a handheld" as well as the person in the article who implies prior rougue transmissions helped lead the controller to erroneously jumping to this conclusion.

And of course, reject out of hand the message could have been truncated in the first place. After all, they were cowboys, and the fact they were transmitting to someone fluent in cowboyspeak is irrelevant when there's a chance to admonish the wild-ass rodeo riders in the U.S. ATC system.

It's really no fun and one can't run an internet Ground School on one's favorite subject if this incident can't simply be equated to other incidents or accidents where poor phraseology was the cause. Therefore, this one must be chalked up to that too, you see.

You guys just don't get it! The controller thought it was a fake call, most likely because the o2 masks distorted the transmission. Have you ever spoke through the o2 masks? We can barely communicate with each other let alone atc.
Mayday calls can be faked, the Microsoft wanta bees do know how to say it.

Next time I hear the beautiful European rt exclaiming "Charlie Charlie, twice really or roger"and continuing to read back clearances I will quickly correct them in my finest cowboy accent because that's what us Americans do is sit around thinking of ways to sound cool on the rt. lol :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have flown all around the world and can tell you everywhere is different and uses different terminology, trying to get English in France, central, south America, china, Russia, etc, can be a real challenge sometimes. Domestic operations are even less standard in every country I have flown, USA included. This was a domestic flight and they should use proper rt, but what they said was perfectly understandable for local controllers to understand if they heard it properly.

For the guy who thought atc should have known by the plane stopped on the runway, dia is huge with multiple runways. I think the taxi distance from the far runway is around 4 miles.

Section 3. Distress and Urgency Procedures

6−3−1. Distress and Urgency Communications

a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communica-tions procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.

b. Distress and urgency communications proce-dures discussed in the following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.

c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN−P AN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.
For the uninitiated, this is from the US AIM.

Obviously, this would be the document most pilots of an American RJ would be familiar with. Paragraph 6.3.1.a sums up our discussion quite nicely.

"For the guy who thought atc should have known by the plane stopped on the runway, dia is huge with multiple runways. I think the taxi distance from the far runway is around 4 miles. "

I know that, but still I think you don't get my point. Taxi distance is irrelevant here. You clear an a/c to land, it lands, for quite a long time you have no confirmation that it rolled out and vacated (either observing visually, or on surveillance, or from 'vacated' call), and there's no bell ringing.

even if the pilot was masked up, MAYDAY x3 would be far more understandable if distorted (hearing the same thing 3 times isn't used for anything else afaik), than anything else said, so even more likelyhood of the controller not understanding the situation if not used! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

drive73

Next time I hear the beautiful European rt exclaiming "Charlie Charlie, twice
really or roger"and continuing to read back clearances I will quickly correct
them in my finest cowboy accent because that's what us Americans do is sit
around thinking of ways to sound cool on the rt.


Ah yes, the oh-so-cool "Charlie Charlie". The "Roger..(read back clearance)..confirm?" for every transmission which does wonders for radio congestion. The French ATC speaking French to you because sign on freq flying a French reggo aircraft. And one of my favorites, the good old "Fully ready". Really? How does that compare on the readiness scale to, say, "Really ready" or "Completely ready", and is there an "Extremely ready" out there somewhere I don't know about? I think "Absolutely ready" would be the readiest ready of all.

True, they should make sure the runway is clear but they have four or more runways going at a time and if these guys were on a less used runway the focus could be on other more active runways. He was also confused about the "bs" call. Not many runway vacated calls in the US. Lots of problems, with plenty of blame to go around. Just frustrating to see fellow pilots constanty think they are somehow superior. One thing we all have in commen is we are human and make mistakes despite our training, nationality, or experience. Plenty of non standard rt in all countries including Europe.
631 clearly states contact the agency and state the emergency, it also states the advantages of using pan or mayday, not that they must be used. Should they have used it yes, would it have helped maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say without knowing what the controller was thinking.

The very lack of standard phraseology might have just been what made the controller assume it was someone without RT background trying to mess around.
Had the call been made in the standard fashion, it would probably have just triggered the routine drill execution instead of making the controller think about a possible prank.

Used 'Charlie' on HF.
What's wrong with that?

Three maydays might or might not have lead the controller to believe the call was real. But I doubt he'd want to risk having to explain why he ignored it. This thread would certainly have looked a lot different, anyway!

AviatorDave

The very lack of standard phraseology might have just been what made the controller assume it was someone without RT background trying to mess around.


Except the controller states that he thought the transmission came through a handheld radio. How does mere non-standard phraseology trigger the assumption of a handheld radio in an American controller that spends every day listening to non-ICAO-standard phraseology in a system rife with it? He'd be ingoring 50% of calls if he were, so that's very unlikely. That leaves clarity/tone/volume issues of the transmission causing his suspicion, not it's content.

If the call was made while wearing an O2 mask, which is probable given the nature of the emergency, there's also a high probability the clarity/tone/volume of the message was affected. If rouge calls were on that controllers mind as something to be watchful for, then his predisposition could easily be to make that assumption when hearing an unusual, odd-sounding transmission regardless of its content.

Had the call been made in the standard fashion, it would probably have just triggered the routine drill execution instead of making the controller think about a possible prank.

Only if you believe mere non-standard phraseology in America leads American controllers to believe any transmission containing some as fake.

Why do you and others think that someone who's determined to commit a Federal crime by making rogue transmissions on a handheld from his parked car think he wouldn't also take the trouble to verse himself in standard phraseology and use callsigns/flight numbers they are hearing on freq while breaking in? It's not Top Secret information you know, and the phantom caller could very well be a pilot himself, and well-versed.

For whatever reason, sometimes we do things differently than we're supposed to (read: we make mistakes or forget something). That applies to every pilot in the world. However as fellow pilots we should give those two colleagues a break, and congratulate them for doing a good job and getting everybody out alive. If you ask me they set their priorities in the right order: Aviate, Aviate, Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

To those nitpicking around...please land a plane with a flight deck full of smoke first and then continue ranting around. You're really the living proof that the internet brings out the worst in people.

To the pilots of that flight: Good Job!

InTheWeeds

We had an incident at our training centre where an aircraft hit wires while
conducting low level training in an area of poor comms. The AC gave a MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY C/S x 3 position and intentions before putting down in a paddock.


Due to the poor comms the only portion of the call approach heard was
the call sign three times and the position. Lucky for the crew the ATCO on duty was pretty switched on. He made the D that the only time that a pilot says his C/S three times (in standard phrasology) is for MAYDAY/PAN. He launched the SAR chopper and ground rescue based only on that info.

The use of standard comms along with a well trained ATCO ensured a quick rescue of a downed crew.


Cool story bro.

To those fighting the use of standard phrasology... What does it hurt?

Show me where anyone has fought against the use of standard phraseology.

The aircraft landed, no one injured and therefore some contributors are saying 'great job boys' as though the outcome determines whether or not the actions were appropriate. Aviation is littered with prangs where the guys and gals did everything right but still ended up in a smoking hole. Likewise I'm sure we can all point to incidents and accidents (sometimes even our own) where despite really ordinary decision making and processes the outcome has been an aircraft parked at the terminal and passengers disembarking without any clue as to what has transpired.

The point is that an outcome of 'landed, no injuries', does NOT mean there aren't lessons to be learned here and it seems quite clear that many contributors trivialise and/or minimise the potential impact of non standard phraseology. What if the smoke had been worse and they'd need fire trucks much earlier than they actually were? What if it'd been a cabin fire? It's not being a Monday morning quarter back to look at an accident/ incident and try and work out what I would do differently if faced with similar circumstances. In fact, it would be counter intuitive and detrimental to aircraft to NOT consider the impact of non standard phraseology in this incident.

To simply wash our hands and say 'the ATCO should have been more on the ball' or 'the aircraft landed safely, pax evacuated, good job' ignores the reality of the industry that we're in. To be blunt, it actually frightens me a little that I share the sky with people who are NOT prepared to learn from where others could have done better.

You guys just don't get it! The controller thought it was a fake call, most likely because the o2 masks distorted the transmission.

The only way to know for sure is to listen to the tapes, or hear what the controller actually thought.

What seems clear to me is that he thought this was a new callsign.He may have heard the first transmission and understood it. Because he could not ascertain who made it, and probably because it sounded different from the other radio calls he'd recently been hearing, he erroneously treated it as a spoof.

Possibly of more importance than the word "mayday" to have been used, was the full callsign. ExpressJet (or whatever it is) 5912, rather than just "5912". (That's not to say that I think the word "mayday" is unimportant.)

How would an American domestic pilot usually phrase those numbers?
Five-niner-one-two, or Fifty-nine-one-two, (or something different,) or is there no set format for this?

And would someone from the airline world please answer: How long does it take to change a transponder from whatever it was set to, to 7700? That action certainly would have removed any doubt in the controllers' mind.

As a real example of non-standard R/T, and how extremely opposite of professional R/T conduct...

I was listening to approach in OMDB 2 weeks ago with an English sounding lady manning Tower frequency on a Friday morning at about 10am... She was not very busy and was professionally coordinating traffic as normal.

The R/T went something like this (excuse my poor memory):

TWR: xxx 897 - Wind 010 degrees at 8 knots. Continue approach 30L expect to exit left at Kilo 8.

xxx897: xxx 897 - Okey dokey...

About 3 mins later...

Twr: xxx897 - Cleared to land runway 30L. Wind 010 degrees at 4 knots. Expedite exit left at Kilo 8, traffic on short finals behind...

xxx897: xxx897 - Okey dokey...


I sat there with my mouth open.... Twice the same response! Now I know OMDB was not busy at that time of the morning but surely the pilot/co-pilot could have done a professional callback regardless of light traffic conditions..?

Why do people always Monday morning quarter back. 7700 on short final with a plane on fire is probably the last thing on a guys mind. They don't have time to run the smoke removal checklist and briefs for evacuation let alone think of all the possible ways to let atc know they are on fire.
It's like guys have never had a time sensitive emergency. The us air crew never made it through the ditching checklist, should they be reprimanded and scoffed at by peers who obviously have never had a true time sensitive emergency?
Lots to learn from every incident, let's try and pretend like you might not get it perfect with 2 minute clock and a burning airplane. Lots of perfect pilots on these forums.

@<hidden>

The fact remains... If the pilot/co-pilot had preceded his emergency broadcast with "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY' things would have turned out very differently.

He could have said whatever he liked after declaring "MAYDAY".... He would have had ALL the ATCO's attention....

Not sure if this adds or confuses. I doubt the sequence of events was exactly as reported..

Accident: Expressjet E145 at Denver on Apr 3rd 2012, smoke in cockpit, hard short landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=44d72e46&opt=0)

An Expressjet Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of United, registration N27152 performing flight EV-5912/UA-5912 from Peoria,IL to Denver,CO (USA) with 17 passengers and 3 crew, was cleared to land on runway 34R. Tower controller was issuing instructions to other aircraft when he interrupted in surprise at 08:33L (14:33Z) and exclaimed "he hit the lights" followed by "runway 34R is closed" instructing the next arriving aircraft to cancel approach clearance, maintain 9000 feet and continue on the localizer..

Sources at the airport reported that the smoke began to emanate when the aircraft was on short final descending through about 1000 feet AGL, quickly filling the cockpit. When the aircraft was just about to overfly the numbers the crew had lost visual reference due to the smoke and brought the aircraft down rapidly stopping as fast as they could. Tower did not believe the first Mayday Call (already after touch down) and pressed the crash button after the second Mayday Call.

Next time, just call 911. The trucks roll regardless if we think its a joke or not or if we think someone is on our frequency making a fake call. We respond regardless.

Wouldn't that make for a story ? Fire/EMS respond to runway after pilot calls direct from cockpit.

Sure would shorten the response time :)

>> Tuesday morning around 8:30, United Express Flight 5912, operated by ExpressJet, declared an emergency landing during its final approach to DIA after being cleared to land, <<

Is it possible that the crew reported the emergency while on final approach and as such felt ATC was already aware. If so, their radio call that they were evacuating was a second call with assumption ATC was already aware of their plight.

After recently making a visit to my local tower on a familiarisation exercise, the tower controller hardly looked at his radar screen (was for extra info and when he was also manning approach frequency). Also they are taught to use mainly primary radar rather than secondary as primary more accurate.
I would expect pilots to have hands full on approach - playing with avionics would be last on their minds.
I don't know about this aircraft but my experience is they would either have to dial, then set it (5 button pushes), turn 4 knobs or turn and press 1 knob 4 times. All options not practical or the priority for them.
Radio is much quicker and easier.

SPW, you are right 911 is the answer. No question about your emergency and they have your LAT/LON position when you call. Just stay connected and they will know exactly where you crashed. One of our retired airline pilots crashed recently in California and the cell phone was how they located him in a remote area. He didn't make it but they found him quickly. He didn't even have to remember to say Mayday three times.

I have run hundreds of smoke drills in the simulator. We are told that the smoke appeared as they were passing 1,000 ft on finals.

The idea that the crew should have selected 7700 on the transponder is, quite frankly, risible.

Since the content of the pilot's radio call is of such consequence, I'd like to point out that the initial reporting call on the full version of the tape includes the full (if rushed) callsign of "Acey 5912". "Acey" being the callsign of Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA), now a subsidiary of ExpressJet.

I would also point out that the controller has come under increased scrutiny because this was the same airport that sent emergency responders in the wrong direction last time there was an accident on the runway.

KDEN 031440Z 32011KT 1/2SM R35L/3500V4500FT -SN FG
SCT003 BKN011 OVC028 00/M01 A3018 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0004

KDEN 031422Z 33012KT 1/2SM R35L/3000V3500FT SN FZFG
SCT003 OVC009 M01/M02 A3017 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3/4 P0002




So on an approach in weather like that , smoke beginning at l,000' and filling the cockpit to the point they can't see the runway by the time they're over the fence and pax in the back see smoke in the cabin as well.

One part of that article states the first call was made after the aircraft was already on the ground. In the quickly worsening situation they were in at that height (appx 90 seconds from touchdown) in those wx conditions where seeing the instruments to find the runway and then the runway itself is becoming difficult to (ultimately) impossible...essentially being forced from flying a mins Cat 1 approach to ad-libbing and managing a fire-induced mins Cat 3.... I'm suprised if anyone on the crew would be making a radio call while airborne. Nor do we know yet if they had begun losing any CRTs (the fire crews reported an active fire and hot spots behind the panel after extinguishing), or needed to coordinate a transfer of control inside the cockpit prior to touchdown.

With their hands full like that flying the aircraft (aviating) and finding the runway (navigating) with lousy outside wx and the vis in the cockpit rapidly approaching zero due to a fire behind the panel, the required level of coordination between crewmembers for a successful outcome would have been high in a very stressful environment (as in, a fire behind the panel and no time for an attempt to fight it properly given phase of flight and conditions), so I'm leaning towards believing the article is correct when it says the first radio call they made was after touchdown (possibly during rollout), where the next priority immediately becomes evacuating the aircraft.

Nitpick all you want, internet heroes, but the CFR crews arrived later at an already-evacuated aircraft that had landed in IMC conditions after suddenly being rendered in distress on short final due to a fire behind the panel (possibly losing instrumentation) and smoke to the degree they were not able to see outside well-enough to see the runway. They fact they were over the runway and touched down on it means they stuck to business flying and aligning the aircraft with nobody futzing around on the radio, as it should be....at least in Cowboyland.

Or would you rather have the CFR crews arrive sooner, but at the scene of a crash instead?

I suspect it would only work in the USA.
I am not sure of other countries using 911.

Nor do we know yet if they had begun losing any CRTs (the fire crews reported an active fire and hot spots behind the panel after extinguishing), or needed to coordinate a transfer of control inside the cockpit prior to touchdown.
From the same article...

On Apr 6th the NTSB reported they are not going to investigate the occurrence. The cause of the smoke was determined to be an engine seal leak, there was no fire.

Just to add/reiterate a few points:

ICAO RT doesn't need to apply in this instance. The US FAR-AIM doesn't require MAYDAY calls to declare an emergency. (ICAO would be much better, and maybe this very flight will change things.)

The Pilot used a shortened callsign, but the controller used the exact same shortened call sign when he told the flight to expedite clearing. If the pilot had used the callsign Acey 5912, the controller wouldn't have thought "Acey United 12???"

It seems to me the controller's bias against believing the odd sounding call (O2 mask) came from any real aircraft bears a large part of the blame. Perhaps this even lead the controller to think it couldn't have been 5912 that made the call since he sounded normal (boom mic) when checking in.

On Apr 6th the NTSB reported they are not going to investigate the
occurrence. The cause of the smoke was determined to be an engine seal leak, there was no fire.


That answers the instrumentation question. Perhaps over at some firefighter's version of PPRune (FFRune?) they're harumphing and critisizing these guys....


Firefighters, who had entered the cockpit, reported they had dealt with an active fire by deploying an agent, the halon had put the fire out, they were however still seeing hot spots
behind a panel.

The pilots did well to land as they did.

Unfortunately, the communication failed to get across to the controller as there was no 'attention getter' phraseology. Remember it may sound silent on the frequency you are on - but the controller may have a lot of other communications to deal with that the flight crew will be completely unaware of. Therefore an 'attention getter' phrase - like "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY" shuts everyone up and they all listen really hard -- Then when you have their full attention, callsign so ATC (and others listening) know who has the problem. If you feel that sounds too 'trite' for a US operator who prefers to sound laid back how about "EMERGENCY EMERGENCY".

After the 'attention getting' and callsign, it would be nice if the rest of the message is clear and provides all the information needed but in an emergency there may well be more to think about. The important thing is to shut everyone up and make them take notice of your problem and know what you need NOW. If you aren't going to shut them up and make them listen then you may as well not bother and just assume they'll realize from what you are doing and somehow guess what you want.

In the same way there are attention getting alarms in the cockpit as well as an EICAS - to shut up any chat and get your attention here NOW!! then handle the event. In that order.

Just to clarify, the crew's first call was "Acey 5912" on the tape, and when asked to repeat, responded with the shortened "5912".

A rushed version of the initial call as spoken into an O2 mask could have very easily been misinterpreted as "This is United 12".

I thought standard phraseology was to help EVERYBODY understand in a simple way what was going on!

Maybe Mayday Mayday Mayday, is not required in the USA, however starting to chatter non-standard phraseology, does not call attention and can be ambiguous!

The whole point with standard phraseology is to avoid ambiguity!

Have there not been enough fatal incidents that this is a complicated are to understand?

It is quite clear that ATC did not get attentive by the RT call, pretty sure sure a Mayday call would have created a much more effective response!

There should not be a guessing game of how the situation really is, blame arrogant Europeans for their wish of standard RT, but what the heck does Roll Trucks mean???????

Roll trucks???? My simple MIA call was we are declaring an emergency, we have smoke in cabin and cockpit. Everything went well even though we didn't say mayday three times. Trucks were there when we landed. I don't know how saying mayday would have helped.

Video: Air traffic controller dismisses emergency landing call as a prank - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9192890/Air-traffic-controller-dismisses-emergency-landing-call-as-a-prank.html)

With video. Pilot seems level headed enough.

but what the heck does Roll Trucks mean???????
It might mean nothing to a non-American, but for pilots and controllers, it's well understood. Consider us bilingual, if you will. I didn't understand most of the things said in another language when I was flying around the world. If this was an American airline and pilot landing in the UK, then your point would be much more valid.

Again, it's nothing that an American wouldn't understand if heard correctly. However, the ICAO procedures are better. Blame instructors or training departments. Most US pilots don't learn ICAO "RT" until flying international.

To me the first transmission sounds slightly truncated intially, and pinched/cupped, as well as during his response "5912" to the controller's query. Very well could have been through an O2 mask mic. The word "emergency" is clear enough, as is smoke in the cockpit.

Turns out on his subsequent transmission he did state "Mayday, mayday, mayday". Try listening only with your eyes closed instead of listening while reading what they've (mis) transcribed and you'll hear "Mayda (broken) day, Mayday. We'll be evacuating. We'll be evacuating 34R". Go ahead, try it.

So "Mayday" was in the cowboy's repetoire after all. Even so, after the Mayday call the controller still goes on to tell others the transmission is bogus.

Given the tower vis was 1/2 mile and rvr was 3000' - 4000', good on the crew (it sounded like the last evac transmission was from a different crewmemeber) for re-iterating which runway they were stopped/evacuating on, trying to drive the point home to a controller they most likely heard tell other aircraft on freq their transmissions aren't real. There's a good chance they couldn't be seen from the tower and less likely by a following aircraft, the crew of which would be concentrating on looking for the approach lights and Touchdown zone.

Involved in recruitment in Europe for a few years now, it's a well to have ICAO English Levels, but I had to reject applicants more than once for their poor English communication skills. It looks good on paper, but some pilots with even level 6 in Europe, still can't speak English properly, let alone in an Emergency situation. How they get their certificates is another issue...

A native speaker or good command of English language can find different ways of passing the message across. One can easily and quickly rephrase to make oneself understood.

I had once to declare a medical emergency on short finals, and ATC mumbled that their were not informed earlier! Told them I tell you what I know when I know it, and when it's relevant, and it was not before that very moment, keeping up to date with the cabin.

With such a short time on finals, I cannot say I would've done any better.

I strongly disagree with the controller's attitude. What if it had been a new pilot flying solo? You think they would have had a perfect phraseology? Have you ever heard a Korean Airlines or Chinese aircraft in EU or US airspace? Their way of speaking is hard to understand, and it would be far from standard phraseology.

Flex

ATC re SOBs and fuel remaining.
SOBs? You meant POBs?:p

An example of R/T from those discribed earlier as inexperienced proper R/T obsessed pilots.
Music to my ears..
Thompson fly Mayday full - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkZBR89y_M&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

bubbers44;

The whole point is that ATC did not catch it, so all went well, but there was a breakdown in communications!

It is impossible to know if a Mayday x 3 would have alerted ATC in a better way, from what we are lead to believe a Mayday x 3, will wake up quite a few people in the local area, not just the ones in the ATC!

This time all went well, but would it be so difficult to just say Mayday x 3, and state the emergency! Why would the pilot need to start telling ATC what they should do or prepare!

The fact that standard RT was not used, was probably also the cause that ATC thought the call was BS! As maybe that is one way of differentiating between prank calls and real RT calls!

There are so many potential variations on emergencies, imagine if everybody should have their own twist of RT calls, it would become less effective as nobody would really know what was going on!

However I rather tend to believe that some are afraid of the aftermath of a Mayday call, they imagine they will have less to explain if they use other words, that are not standard.

Imagine, "We have an emergency, a passenger is having a heart attack" or "We have an emergency, the aircraft is on fire, and we have smoke"

2 very different kinds of emergencies, which would require very different responses, however using same phraseology will maybe not catch the attention required to provide the correct response, which was proven in this incident.

This is not about anti-america/FAA, ICAO standard RT is world-wide, maybe you don't need to use it, but this does not mean it is better to use non-standard RT!

Who cares if Mayday is french, screw the french fries, and use something that will make everybody alert, instead of mumbling around about rolling trucks etc.

Since the content of the pilot's radio call is of such consequence, I'd like to
point out that the initial reporting call on the full version of the tape
includes the full (if rushed) callsign of "Acey
5912". "Acey" being the callsign of Atlantic
Southeast Airlines (ASA), now a subsidiary of ExpressJet.





To me the first transmission sounds slightly truncated intially, and
pinched/cupped, as well as during his response "5912" to the controller's query.
Very well could have been through an O2 mask mic. The word "emergency" is clear
enough, as is smoke in the cockpit.

Turns out on his subsequent
transmission he did state "Mayday, mayday, mayday". Try listening only with your
eyes closed instead of listening while reading what they've (mis) transcribed
and you'll hear "Mayda (broken) day, Mayday. We'll be evacuating. We'll be
evacuating 34R". Go ahead, try it.



Is there a more complete recording out there than that which accompanied the news story in the opening post? If so, I haven't heard it. None of the other media versions seem to contain any more audio than that which has been available all along.

I've listened a number of times, and as for the earliest transmission heard, to my long abused ears, it could be "Acey 5912", but when I listen to it, every time, I hear "this is 5912".

As for the subsequent transmission, every time I listen to it, I never hear "Mayday", just something clipped and unitelligible.

FWIW, on the LiveATC site, this doesn't seem to have captured much attention, but there is a clip of the ground frequency immediately post incident. The ground controller seems equally unaware of the emergency, as she asks Acey 5912 to exit the runway: Expressjet hits lighting at KDEN, anyone got it? | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/expressjet-hits-lighting-at-kden-anyone-got-it/)

Just as an aside, does it seem odd to anyone else that the FAA's own audio of an incident under investigation found its way into the media so quickly?

I suspect it would only work in the USA.
I am not sure of other countries using 911. True enough, most other countries have their own unique emergency numbers.

However, on GSM phone systems (more or less the world standard), 112 is used as a universal number that automatically connects to 911, 999 or whatever the appropriate local number is. Even the US, where the GSM carriers are AT&T & T-Mobile. (I am not sure if the CDMA phone standard shares this protocol.)

Whether someone who speaks English will be available at the other end of the line is another matter.

SOBs? You meant POBs?:p

An example of R/T from those discribed earlier as inexperienced proper R/T obsessed pilots.
Music to my ears..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkZBR89y_M&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Well I learned something today. "Climb to three and a half thousand" is the new correct way to tell ATC your altitude request, and I guess you have to wait until ATC tells you before you squawk 7700. I mean this is a UK airliner and they are of course the gods of radio telephony so they must be perfect...right :rolleyes:.

The one thing I don't understand is, although I know the UK operates some very odd aircraft I have never heard of one that requires "steam" to taxi. :E

The level of "emergency" you have when the stove goes out on a day with the weather clear and a million and a 6 knot wind, after you have selected gear up and are in the second segment, is at an altogether different level then being faced from a smoke filled cockpit on final to a near minimums landing......

Don't get me wrong, the Thompson crew did a good professional job and are to be commended. But I frankly resent the implication that they would have handled the situation 5912 found themselves in any better simply because they were European and not American

I am hard over on this incident. The controller failed in his duty. There was clearly ambiguity in his mind about whether an aircraft was in trouble or whether someone was spoofing the frequency and yet it appears he did nothing substantive to resolve the confusion. I don't think if the pilot had said Mayday 3 times anything would be different.

But I agree regardless of the jurisdiction, the best thing to do is to preface the first call with Mayday as that is universally understood and will get everyones attention. However I don't understand why the Thompson boys repeated it before every single transmission they made. Were they worried that ATC might had forgotten they had an emergency in the 11 seconds between each of the many, many radio transmissions they made :rolleyes:

Finally I think the the biggest problem in aviation is not how pilots are alerting ATC to their problem, it is the fact that too many wait too long. Two pilots burned to death in their cockpit in a King Air which crashed just short of the runway at CYVR last year. If they had declared the emergency the fire trucks would have been 100 meters from the crash site instead of on the other side of the airport in the firehall.......

Big Pistons,

Here are a couple of extracts from the CAP 413 CAA Radio Telephony Manual.

1.4.2 Pilots are urged – in their own interests – to request assistance from the emergency service as soon as there is any doubt about the safe conduct of their flight. Even then, the provision of assistance may be delayed if a pilot does not pass clear details of his difficulties and requirements, using the international standard RTF prefix ‘MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY' or ‘PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN' as appropriate. For example, a vague request from a pilot for ‘confirmation of position' is unlikely to be accorded as much priority as would be given to a statement that he is lost. If, subsequent to the transmission of a ‘MAYDAY' or ‘PAN', a pilot considers the problem not to be as serious as first thought and priority attention is no longer required, the emergency condition may be cancelled at the pilot's discretion. It is invariably preferable for pilots believing themselves to be facing emergency situations to declare them as early as possible and then cancel later if they decide the situation allows.

1.4.3 If a pilot is already in communication with a civil or military ATSU, before the emergency arises, assistance should be requested from the controller on the frequency in use. In this case, any SSR code setting previously assigned by ATC (other than the Conspicuity Code 7000) should be retained until instructions are received to change the code setting.

1.4.4 If, however, the pilot is not in direct communication with an ATSU and the aircraft is equipped with an SSR transponder it should be switched, preferably before the emergency call is made, to Emergency Code 7700, with Mode C if available. If the transponding aircraft is high enough to be within secondary radar cover, the selection of the Emergency 7700 Code will alert the Emergency Controller to the presence of an incident by means of an audio and visual warning. The received SSR plot will show the precise location of the aircraft on the controller's radar display, and will then obviate the need for the emergency controller to carry out the more time-consuming manual aircraft position plotting procedure. Information on SSR operating procedures, including Special Purpose Codes 7700 (Emergency), 7600 (Radio Failure) and 7500 (Hijack or Other Act of Violence) are detailed in the ENR Section of the UK AIP.

1.4.6 Following the initial distress or urgency message, it is permissible for pilots and controllers to use 'MAYDAY' and 'PAN' as a callsign prefix at their discretion, where it is judged that this would have a beneficial effect on the outcome.


Sorry for the long post. Hope it helps though. I agree "three and a half thousand" is very non standard. They should have paid closer attention to the manual.

Jazzy

How can you expect the controller to respond to the aircraft when he doesn't even know which aircraft made the distress call? The reason he didn't understand the call was probably because it was too rushed and non-standard. Even the people that had the time to listen over and over to the tapes to make the transcript for the video couldn't get it right!!!

This more than likely led the controller to believe it was a hoax. When the aircraft made its subsequent calls prefixed with MAYDAY the controller (although still suspicious) sent following traffic around and responded to the emergency.

Had the original call been standard and readable, allowing the controller to recognize the distress aircraft, the controller would have had no choice but to respond even if the thought it was a hoax.

Air Traffic Control: "Rough" Emergency Landing at JFK - YouTube

here is another example where non-standard phraseology in the states caused confusion

Back in the sixties,I thought the RAF pretty keen on correct phraseology BUT seem to recollect being taught: "Pan, pan, pan!"
I was into my civil career before having "Panpan" pointed out.
But then, I did misunderstand a few things in the Mob.

Basil,

even in the 1970's Pan Pan Pan was the correct phraseology for the civilian RT licence. I still have my course notes from the time.

I don't know when it was changed to PanPan but in the marine environment PanPan was used well before it became aviation procedure.


coldair

Thanks, coldair,
Glad to be reassured it isn't the dementia - yet.

I've also long wondered where the US preference for the use of 'emergency' comes from rather than the use of ICAO standard MAYDAY or PAN PAN, phraseology. Reference to the US FAA Airmans Information Manual, Pilot/Controller Glossary explains this. Included is the glossary is the word in bold italics, "EMERGENCY− A distress or an urgency condition'',

In document preface we find-

PURPOSE

a. This Glossary was compiled to promote a common understanding of the terms used in the Air Traffic Control system. It includes those terms which are intended for pilot/controller communications. Those terms most frequently used in pilot/controller communications are printed in bold italics. The definitions are primarily defined in an operational sense applicable to both users and operators of the National Airspace System. Use of the Glossary will preclude any misunderstandings concerning the system’s design, function, and purpose.

b. Because of the international nature of flying, terms used in the Lexicon, published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), are included when they differ from FAA definitions. These terms are followed by “.” For the reader’s convenience, there are also cross references to related terms in other parts of the Glossary and to other documents, such as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM).


under MAYDAY-

MAYDAY− The [I]international radiotelephony distress signal. When repeated three times, it indicates imminent and grave danger and that immediate assistance is requested.


So the FAA AIM includes the term 'emergency' for use in indicating a distress or urgency situation. So where I agree MAYDAY/PAN PAN is a much better way of communicating your situation, the FAA chooses to differ with ICAO and use Emergency over the ICAO standard. However, I can't help but think 'Emergency' should be repeated three times to preface the distress/urgency. call.

So, where we (non-US types) consider their use of the term 'emergency' non-standard, it is approved phrasology in the US system.

It's frustrating when partial callsigns are used. Last trip ATC center use only our flight number on three different occasions - 123, turn right heading 180. "Is that for XX 123??"

Full call signs prevents additional confusion or the necessity to repeat radio calls.

No sig

.....So, where we (non-US types) consider their use of the term 'emergency' non-standard, it is approved phrasology in the US system.


It should also be noted that a controller can initiate an emergency response on their own authority with no "Mayday" or "Emergency" call being made whether the aircraft is in flight or on the ground. Plain-language "Smoke in the cockpit" would be enough to warrant that.

here is another example where non-standard phraseology in the states caused confusion

I have worked for both US and UK operators and I have been involved in two situations where even the standard UK R/T phraseology was causing unnecessary confusion (in both circumstances with an Englishman as my f/o). We both were unclear about "rwy XX is CAT II only" advisory from the Tower or Director. It was so unnecessarily strangely worded that even after three queries the issue was not clarified.

While proper R/T is certainly nice, I think that this non-standard R/T accusation from Europe is very overblown; in addition to the ever returning "dual language ATC environment [shock, horror]" threads that are mainly directed at France.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. From my personal observation, most pilots in the US (with sad exceptions) are far better stick pilots than their European colleagues who heavily rely on AP use.

On a personal note, I am getting tired of this mainly "British" sport to bash foreign pilots, R/T, ATC, countries etc., whether across the channel or across the Atlantic. Can't we just all get along?

What's far more amusing Squawk, is all the CAP quoting from the Brits. It’s a CAA publication, so why on earth would you think it’s contents would be known or even valid to US/FAA pilots. It's just as arrogant as the Southern Hemisphere Colonials, some of whom, don't seem to be able to comprehend that other countries can do things differently but just as effectively, safely and professionally.

“My God, what do you mean the rest of the world doesn’t repeat the callsign three times, as part of a PAN call!!”

Hat off to No Sig, who actually had the common sense and gumption to do a bit of homework and understands that there are differences between the two.

UK, USA, Chinese? What difference should it make? ICAO lays down recommended standards phraseologies etc designed to reduce the possibility of this happening

Seems like the crew did a top job to me.

Imagine you're on approach in poor weather, then you are finding yourself in a smoke filled environment during the most critical phase of flight. Whilst your brain is going "OH S***", and you are trying to fly an approach whilst at the same time donning masks, etc.., in diminishing visibility, the radio call he actually made is probably all the poor guy could get out at that moment.

Let's throw some of those commenting in here in that situation and see what happens then. :eek: At least they can die knowing they had perfect RT for the investigators to analyze. :}

It does make a difference. If it were a US flight in a foreign country, thenICAO standard phraseology would be expected, and I would agree with you. However, it was not aninternational flight, it was domestic with an FAA Controller and FAA certifiedpilots, using FAA standard phraseology and procedures. As was pointed out, theterm emergency is considered standard and is listed in the Pilot/Controllerglossary. What the crew did was correct; their initial call declaring theemergency was in compliance with FAA phraseology.

It was not that the controller did not hear the emergency and emergencyconditions being stated, it was that the controller did not believe that it wasa real emergency. The controller failed to verify the situation and take theproper action. Stating that had the pilot said "Mayday" as opposed to "Emergency" the controller would have somehow come to a different conclusion as to the authenticity of the radio call, given the above facts regarding FAA phraseology, is nonsensical.

Who was the controller supposed to "roll the trucks" for? United 12? A VDF and say again button are handy in these situations.

There is more to this incident than just 'dumb controller ignored the pilot'.

It was not that the controller did not hear the emergency and emergencyconditions being stated, it was that the controller did not believe that it wasa real emergency

I think it was more that he wasn't able to reconcile the transmission with any of his known traffic.

The little prefix indicating the airline was missing. The voice was (apparently) new, its timbre probably changed due to factors already mentioned. The audio quality probably wasn't that great, either.

If the full callsign had been used, I suggest the outcome, in regard to the timing of the trucks being "rolled" might have been quite different.

Down here, in non-America land, if I'd heard that transmission, and knew (or had reason to believe) it came from one of the a/c on my frequency, I wouldn't have needed an ICAO-formal distress call to get the fire service alerted, and I'd suggest no other controller, anywhere in the world, would, either. As soon as you become aware that someone has a problem, whether formally declared or not, you treat it the same way as if they had said the ''magic words".

The advantage of prefixing such a call with the appropriate words is that it will get our undivided attention immediately, instead of after the words "emergency,smoke in the cockpit", by which time the callsign had obviously been not heard correctly.

As 1Charlie said, a "say again" button on the ATC comms console would have been useful. (Replays the last transmission.)

Who was the controller supposed to "roll the trucks" for? United 12? A VDF and say again button are handy in these situations. The controller asked him to repeat. The pilot replied 5912 very clearly.
How many 5912's of any persuasion was he handling at the time ?
Controller then went on about United 12...didn't he hear the reply ?

obviously not.

I guess big pistons forever is smokey? Or was it the bandit... :E

Being non British and non US, but having lived in both... They are the hardest sometimes to understand on the radio cause of their local accents...

AND

Mayday mayday mayday has a bit of a cocktail party effect :)

I guess big pistons forever is smokey? Or was it the bandit... :E

Being non British and non US, but having lived in both... They are the hardest sometimes to understand on the radio cause of their local accents...

Since I fly a firebomber "Smokey" would be more appropriate for the work flying. For pleasure flying in my Nanchang CJ6A "Bandit" would fit nicely as I usually get to kick ass on tail chases. :E

As for the topic at hand the controller should have alerted CFR that there may have been an issue immediately and then actively worked to resolve the confusion. Instead he pretty much sat on his hands. With a potential cockpit/cabin fire seconds can mean the difference between a successful cabin evacuation or a smoking hulk full of dead people.

Since I am guessing the closest you are going to get to handling an airliner emergency is listening to the FA while seated in seat 34B you probably should not be insulting aviation professionals....

What would happen if the pilot in question had used non-standard RT during a sim check? He'd be grounded and sent back for re-training.

Surely he should have his "professional" head on when he's in the front of an aircraft. He clearly didn't in this case... Either he panicked, or he doesn't give a damn about standard RT!

I know his primary contact is the controller, but it could be vital that his transmission is heard and understood by other pilots as well. For example, if someone is on approach and cleared to land behind another aircraft (as happens all the time in the US, which personally I find stupid but hey-ho), and the aircraft ahead gets into difficulties, surely it's pretty damn important that they know about it too and so they can prepare themselves for the go-around etc?

R/t phraeology in the Hudson River ditching was similar, and it also took a couple of calls before ATC realised what was going on.



Not to take anything away from those involved in the Hudson ditching, and I appreciate the workload pressure at the time, but the R/T referred to the US A320 by at least three different flight numbers, if I recall correctly. Easily done.

dns

Surely he should have his "professional" head on when he's in the front of an aircraft. He clearly didn't in this case... Either he panicked, or he doesn't give a damn about standard RT!

I know his primary contact is the controller, but it could be vital that his transmission is heard and understood by other pilots as well.


Pure, unadulterated rubbish.

The crew of the BA 777 who pancaked their aircraft short of the threshold when faced with a similar-type situation (within 90 seconds of landing faced with a sudden, dire situation forcing immediate action by both crew to keep the aircraft flying and under control). Mere seconds before impact the captain transmitted;

"Mayday mayday. Speedbird Speedbird. Nine-five nine five."

Except that they were Speedbird 38, not Speedbird 95 or Speedbird 9595 (however you might interpret that double number).

Wrong call sign. No location. No nature of emergency. The only reason the controller guessed correctly as to who and where that aircraft was visibility from the tower cab allowed him to see a 777 parked in the dirt where one wasn't supposed to be.

The captain then went on to give his PA evacuate order over the tower freq, instead of the PA.

Perhaps instead of asking this...

What would happen if the pilot in question had used non-standard RT during a sim check? He'd be grounded and sent back for re-training.

Maybe a better question you should ask is why a highly-trained pilot would use his sim check callsign and commit flagrant sins of R/T ommision during an actual, real-life emergency? I'm guessing, but I bet that BA Captain never did such a thing in the sim.

Panic? Hardly. A BA senior Captain who doesn't care about standard R/T?....that's too ludicrous to contemplate. Didn't have his professional head on? That BA crew kept flying the aircraft first and foremost and as a result, everyone survived when the result could have easily been otherwise.

I'd say the only problem here is you don't understand the difference between a dire situation that DEMANDS immediate, full attention to the task at hand with the accompanying survival response of brains going into hyperdrive (yes, even to the point less important priorities such as R/T aren't perfect or are innacurate) and a situation that doesn't. Frankly, any pilot committing anything less than 100 percent of their cognitive resources to flying the aircraft when that's what's needed is doing it wrong.

A cockpit of an aircraft suddenly filling with smoke during landing IMC to the point visibility inside is less than a foot (according to that company's info) requiring immediate action to include donning masks etc is a bona fide dire situation requiring the full focus and attention of both pilots to make it survivable. This is not the same situation as losing an engine (with no fire indication) after takeoff on a CAVOK day which in some aircraft I've flown doesn't even fall under the category of an "emergency" condition, but rather as an "abnormal" (What was that Thompson clip anyway....something that serves as aural porn for air-cadet one-stripers?).

Armchair aces commenting on that crews' "professionalism" based on an imperfect or garbled radio callsign through an o2 mask is a load of utter garbage. "Emergency" IS standard phraseology in the U.S., and that crew DID announce...twice...the most vital info (especially so because vis was 1/2 mile )...where they were and what they were doing....evacuating on Rwy 34R. This was heard by the controller, and yes, other aircraft.

Happened to be looking through the Jeppesen Private Pilot Written guide the other day, for a youth-program ground school that I help teach.

It specifies that the proper usage for an instructor, say, taking over the yoke is:

"I have the flight controls."

"You have the flight controls."

Whatever happened to "My airplane/Your airplane"? Saves six words and is explicit, unmistakable...

Pete Burkill on the BA038 made a balls-up with the flight number, hardly a difficult mistake to make.

On this occasion, the guy decided to say "roll the trucks" instead of the bog standard "mayday, mayday, mayday" call.

There's a big difference between a balls up with a callsign and saying something like that!

On this occasion, the guy decided to say "roll the trucks" instead of the bog standard "mayday, mayday, mayday" call.


He said "Emergency" instead of "Mayday, mayday, mayday", not "Roll the trucks" instead of "Mayday mayday mayday". He also stated the nature of the problem (smoke in the cockpit), which is enough for a controller to declare him an emergency aircraft on his own authority without ever hearing either "Emergency" or "Mayday" uttered.

"Emergency" is standard, unambiguous FAA approved-and-published R/T phraseology in the U.S., understood by every pilot and controller alike.

And Captain B balled-up a lot more R/T than only giving a bogus callsign.

Deal with it.

Why do you have such an unpleasant, aggressive attitude towards posters?

dns

Why do you have such an unpleasant, aggressive attitude towards posters?


I don't. I respond to content in posts. If that content includes declarative, unsubstantiated twaddle I'll give my reasons why I believe it to be so. If you find disagreement unpleasant or view disagreement with content as aggressive because you are the twaddle-poster, your problem not mine.

Phrases such as "deal with it" aren't viewed as particularly pleasant by most people I'm afraid...

Dns,

You're the one being aggressive and arrogant. You've made statements that show you simply don't understand what is standard RT phraseology in the US and you've assumed that just because it's done a certain way in your neck of the woods, it should be the same elsewhere.

Just to make this simple for you......

In Domestic Ops in the US, one can "Declare an emergency" as opposed to saying "Mayday, mayday, mayday". Done it myself twice and it worked well without any confusion displayed by ATC.

Also, "Roll the trucks" while not specifically mentioned in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary, is a colloquialism used by US Pilots, within the US. It's such a common phrase that I would be amazed if any ATCO would be unaware of its meaning.

Perhaps you should go back to the CC forum and pontificate about matters you are actually well versed in, rather than spouting off about something you obviously aren't.

I'm actually an FAA qualified pilot, trained in the US...

Kenny, out of interest did you actually use the word "mayday" during your incidents? Not trying to be cocky here, I'm just curious. I was of the understanding that calling "mayday" was the internationally understood phrase which every pilot (or seaman for that matter) would understand, regardless of their location.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Now, if you'd ever like to substantiate the the highlighted content below where you declare...


dns

Surely he should have his "professional" head on when he's in the front of an aircraft. He clearly didn't in this case... Either he panicked, or he doesn't give a damn about standard RT!


...with something of merit, get back to me.

Mayday was not used, since it's not required in US Domestic Ops. I simply stated to ATC that I was "Declaring an emergency".

As much as some of us like to believe there is only one way to skin the proverbial aviation cat, the phrase "ICAO standard phraseology" is almost nonsense.

I've flown in Europe, Australia and the US and they all have their quirks and colloquialisms. For example; what the Euros would consider a standard Mayday call would be a debrief item during a sim ride in Australia, as they feel the need to repeat the call sign 3 times, as well. So you see, there's standard RT and then there's standard RT.

In US "I'm declaring an emergency" then stating the nature of it, is PERFECTLY acceptable. Roll the trucks as previously noted is everywhere in US understood by controllers. Flight checks and real emergencies have some things in common, but in the situation here, stress can get the better even of fully competent professionals. Admittedly, in other parts of the world, roll the trucks may not be understood. In my opinion pilots did a GREAT job. Controller should respond to the transmission first and ask questions later.

dns

I'm actually an FAA qualified pilot, trained in the US...


If you're an FAA-trained pilot, then you are supposed to be familiar with not only FAA phraseology but also with the Regs, including those that pertain to uncontrolled field ops. So it's while it's troubling in itself that you don't know (or refuse to accept) this;

FAA Airmans Information Manual, Pilot/Controller Glossary: "EMERGENCY− A distress or an urgency condition'',

...it's particularily worrisome considering this fundamental FAA Regulation..


Sec. 91.113 — Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic


I'm wondering how you....as a U.S.-trained pilot... could adhere to the above regulation and yield the right-of-way to an aircraft in distress if you don't know (or refuse to believe) that another pilot declaring "Emergency" is in fact one? At an uncontrolled airport with no controller to direct your actions, are you going to refuse to yield to an aircraft who's pilot has declared "Emergency" instead of using the phrase "Mayday, mayday, mayday"? Will you ignore FAA-approved phraseology and break an FAA regulation that is the starting point for Right-of-way rules and wind up getting in the way, making his/her bad situation worse?

In the U.S., if you choose to transmit "Mayday" other pilots will respect it. As a U.S. pilot in U.S. airspace, however, it's also imcumbent upon you to respect an "Emergency" transmission as one coming from an aircraft in distress, and respond accordingly.

As a European PPL we have learned the priority between different types of R/T communication, where ‘Mayday’ have the highest priority, and ‘Pan Pan’ have the second highest priority.
A European PPL could in principle be flying in US airspace without knowing that he is expected to back off when the world ‘Emergency’ is used.
It is important that we all use the same standard ICAO Phraseology, whatever that is.

HighWind

As a European PPL we have learned the priority between different types of R/T communication, where ‘Mayday’ have the highest priority, and ‘Pan Pan’ have the second highest priority.
A European PPL could in principle be flying in US airspace without knowing that he is expected to back off when the world ‘Emergency’ is used.
It is important that we all use the same standard ICAO Phraseology, whatever that is.


As a pilot, it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the rules and regulations of any country you operate into, whether it's FAA vs. JAR-ops or differences country-to-country to ICAO "standard". In this case, the FAA's "Emergency" supplements ICAO phraseology as long as it's used in the U.S., it doesn't negate it. But this recognition of ICAO phraseology doesn't negate your responsibility to know FAA phraseology as it relates to regulation while you are operating in the U.S., or to comply with it.

It's no different than my responsibity to know what the Transition Level is in Qatar, the max holding speed at 6000' is in Germany, the Chinese metric altimetry system, or Brit ATC legalese when they aren't coming up with a new way to phrase clearance to climb on a SID and what they mean this month. When I operate in those countries, or anywhere else some of the other hundreds of differences that exist, I'm expected to know them.

I've converted my ATPL to 3 additional licenses over the years expat flying and taken a respective Air Law test for each one, and not one of those was mere transposition of ICAO-standard rules and regs. Perusing the "Differences to ICAO" section in the Jepps is routine part of flight planning into any country; there's plenty there to read. You're kidding yourself if you think you can close your eyes, point the nose across all borders, and depend on "ICAO-standard" to see you through.

Dns,

If I find myself to be flying somewhere in the SIM, I'll fly with you.

On the other hand, if I'm in a real aircraft, I want someone else.

Jeeeeez... you need a set of proceedures and stick to them. It's so easy for the sailing fraternity in the UK (at least the ones who paid attention during their VHF cert for Yachtmaster/Coastal Skipper). mayday distress signals boating (http://www.btinternet.com/~motorboat/distress.htm) I can still recant this "memory item" 12 years after the course (and 9 years after selling my boat).

For someone with your skills your guess is far off...
:D

mayday and declaring an emergency have the same meaning in the US. It all ends up the same, you do what you need to and tell ATC watch my blip, I am coming in. Works every time. You just have to fill out a report of why you did it but it is no big deal.

I'm not disputing the use of the word "emergency". If that word was used instead of "mayday" in the UK it would be understood (although not standard). Of course, being a fluent English speaker I'd understand the word emergency and act accordingly (although the same could maybe not be said for a non-English speaker). Personally I think the internationally understood phrase should be used everywhere, but that's just my opinion.

"Roll the trucks" however is not standard phraseology in any country as far as I'm aware. IMHO it sounds very unprofessional, whether understood by the controller or not.

Personally I think the internationally understood phrase should be used everywhere, but that's just my opinion.

Well here's what you do. Become a U.S. citizen. Ingratiate yourself to the President. Have him appoint you to head the FAA. Issue a decree that "Emergency" will no longer by uttered over U.S. airwaves. Simple really.

"Roll the trucks" however is not standard phraseology in any country as far as I'm aware. IMHO it sounds very unprofessional, whether understood by the controller or not.

Please reference the published ICAO-standard phraseology for a request to have men and equipment standing by. When you can't find it, here's an excerpt from a Eurocontrol publication re ICAO-phraseology that may help you wrap your head around something you seem to not understand...

Phraseology has evolved over time and has been carefully developed to provide maximum clarity and brevity in communications while ensuring that phrases areunambiguous. However, while standard phraseology is available to cover most routine situations, not every conceivable scenario will be catered for and RTF users should be prepared to use plain language when necessary following the principle of keeping phrases clear and concise.


The FAA also recognizes the reality that plain-language plays an essential part of communications between pilot and controller, and their handbook also cites similar awareness. This is especially true during an emergency.


So you may not like the expression "roll the trucks", but every controller in the U.S. knows what a U.S. pilot is talking about when requesting he/she do so. This incident was a U.S. pilot talking to a U.S. controller, and the request made in plain language. That's all that matters. Nobody in the FAA or smoke-filled cockpit cares what your BA cabin crew experience tells you what sounds "professional", it's chirping from the bleachers from someone not even in the game. What's next, his accent didn't sound phony, practiced, or dripping enough to sound "proper"?

This is the 2nd time you've called into question the professionalism of these pilots, who landed an aircraft safely in snowy IMC with a smoke-filled cockpit. Do you think years of reciting scripted PA announcements in the back somehow qualifies you to do so?

Perhaps he should have said, "Invert the lorries."

Pukindog I feel you have completely misunderstood what dns was saying and taken offence far too easily. Everyone on here agrees that the pilots did a great job and flew the aircraft very well, that cannot be denied. However, dns agreed that declaring an emergency in that way worked even if not standard. The standard phraseology to get the emergency services to standby is one of two: "mayday, mayday, mayday" or "panpan, panpan, panpan". Using either of these phrases will get the controller to put airfield emergency services on standby and possibly get them to call local emergency services too. I don't think there was a need for the rude reply as you weren't completely correct. Also I was under the illusion that ICAO was above the FAA and all ICAO states had to follow the ICAO rules at a minimum, including RT communications. I'd also like to add that a distress call such as a mayday or pan let's everyone on frequency know there is radio silence so there is more than meets the eye for a reason behind standard communications.

Another note, I think the controller was unprofessional and as soon as he heard emergency should have started the standard procedure. It could have ended much differently because of the hesitance. Live and Learn hopefully!

Typhoonboy,

I'm not sure how you've missed the content within the numerous posts in this thread but the point that countless posters have made is that your comment....

The standard phraseology to get the emergency services to standby is one of two: "mayday, mayday, mayday" or "panpan, panpan, panpan". Using either of these phrases will get the controller to put airfield emergency services on standby and possibly get them to call local emergency services too

is not the ONLY way to notify ATC of an emergency situation in the US. You can also "Declare an emergency" or simply use the word "Emergency". I understand that a Mayday or PAN call are the only 2 ways elsewhere in the world but this was not the rest of the world, it was in the US and in keeping with FAA approved verbiage.

I don't understand why posters can't get their heads around local procedures that may differ from their own. Especially when they haven't even flown in the US.

Dns, who is BA CC and not even a professional pilot, made the statement that the crew screwed up their RT calls and had thus been unprofessional, when in fact they had made the calls required of them by the FAA.

I don't think Pukin misunderstood anything.

I know that you don't have to "declare" an emergency in the US and it worked... I have flown in the US and even though it's more relaxed it usually works. I agree THEY didn't screw up the radio call even though it was misinterpreted by the controller. The fact that it was the minimum required by FAA doesn't mean it was the best call to make and couldn't have been done better. People get very touchy when a view differs from there's and get quite upset when a good debate is what helps people understand why things are wrong, such as why an aircraft was left on the runway for 5 minutes.

I may be working as cabin crew, but I am an qualified pilot. I think that gives me the right to comment (even if my views hold less weight than those of a full-time commercial pilot)

typhoonboy

Pukindog I feel you have completely misunderstood what dns was saying and taken offence far too easily. Everyone on here agrees that the pilots did a great job and flew the aircraft very well, that cannot be denied. However, dns agreed that declaring an emergency in that way worked even if not standard.


It was to FAA-standard. You're wrong if you think it wasn't.

The standard phraseology to get the emergency services to standby is one of two: "mayday, mayday, mayday" or "panpan, panpan, panpan".

In the U.S. you're wrong if you think there are only 2 ways. While you can indeed use either of those 2 ICAO-standard terms for (respectively) a distress or urgency condition, in the U.S. you can also use the FAA-standard "Emergency", a word used to convey either condition.

Using either of these phrases will get the controller to put airfield emergency services on standby and possibly get them to call local emergency services too.

Of course it will. So will using the standard "Emergency", believe it or not.

Also, if you picked up an FAA ATC Controller's handbook and read it you'll find out that a controller is directed to commence emergency response procedures even when a "Mayday" or "Emergency" call isn't heard when there's doubt about an aircraft or if plain language conveys a distress or urgency condition.

I don't think there was a need for the rude reply as you weren't completely correct.

What part was incorrect?

Also I was under the illusion that ICAO was above the FAA and all ICAO states had to follow the ICAO rules at a minimum, including RT communications.

You are suffering under an illusion if you believe that supplementing the ICAO-standard phraseology somehow renders the ICAO-approved void, when the ICAO-standard is also recognized and responded to. It exceeds the ICAO minimum. Many ICAO-states have differences to ICAO-standard that must be complied with, yet this phraseology-issue isn't even a matter of forced, regulatory compliance within the U.S.


I'd also like to add that a distress call such as a mayday or pan let's everyone on frequency know there is radio silence so there is more than meets the eye for a reason behind standard communications.


So does using "Emergency" when heard in the U.S, and the pilot in question transmitted "Emergency". What's your point? "Standard phraseology is a good thing in general when applicable"? Nobody has disagreed with that in this thread. Along with the ICAO script, you should also learn that ICAO (as well as the FAA) recognize that plain language is also an important, essential, and approved part of communication. "Plain language" means it falls outside scripted "phraseology".

For example, this means that any pilot who hears another transmitting to ATC they have "smoke in the cockpit" in plain language but doesn't shut up to allow them a clear frequency simply because they didn't hear the declaration "Mayday/Emergency/Pan-pan" is and idiot.

In the real world of flying calls get missed, garbled, blocked, truncated, etc etc. all the time. The system of emergency response is designed to default to the conservative in the imperfect, real world because it recognizes that in emergency situations things often go awry. Defaulting to the conservative is part of a controller's responsibility as directed by their Handbooks, rules and procedures.

By now, there should be nobody reading this thread who, if they fly in the U.S., doesn't know that "Emergency" is standard, unambiguous phraseology when in the U.S. or what it means. The only difference to ICAO is that the FAA doesn't ask pilots to try and differentiate between distress or urgency conditions. If you want to go right ahead, the response you get will be the same. But it is not mandatory that you do so and it is not improper, sloppy, or non-standard in any way if you dont.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/fss/fss0501.html#Section 1. General

Seems there are some quite worrying misinterpretations of the regs...

"A pilot who encounters a DISTRESS condition may declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. For an URGENCY condition, the word PAN-PAN may be used in the same manner."

The whole "declaring an emergency" instead of calling "mayday" thing that people are on about is nonsense. The regs clearly state that the emergency should declared by the use of a mayday or pan call.

Yes, the controller should have handled it as an emergency as a precaution, but the pilot made an error by not declaring using the standard phraseology.

dns

Seems there are some quite worrying misinterpretations of the regs...

"A pilot who encounters a DISTRESS condition may declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. For an URGENCY condition, the word PAN-PAN may be used in the same manner."


When trying to interpret regs it would behoove you to first start at the beginning where they define the meaning of certain words found therein....

14 CFR Part 1.3
Rules of construction.
(b) In Subchapters A through K of this chapter, the word:
(1) Shall is used in an imperative sense;
(2) May is used in a permissive sense to state authority or permission to do the act prescribed....

Doing so would prevent you from coming to this mistaken conclusion....

The whole "declaring an emergency" instead of calling "mayday" thing that people are on about is nonsense. The regs clearly state that the emergency should declared by the use of a mayday or pan call.


See, you're confusing the word "may" with the imperative construction-word "shall". What confuses me is you then went on to use "should" as if that word is an imperative, when it's not. Were you perhaps looking for something along the lines of "The regs clearly state that the emergency "must be" declared" or "will be" etc.? Well, even if you were using a more appropriate word your assertion is still wrong because the Regs clearly state "may", not "shall". It doesn't even say "should". All you've done with that referenced material is show that "Mayday" and "Pan-pan" are permissible, recognized, and will be responded to.

That's how they write in Reg-land, and there is a difference between one and the other (may/shall). If there wasn't they wouldn't have spent all that ink telling you there is. This clarification right from the start, by them, is designed to prevent misinterpretation, like your written one above.

In fact, the use of "may" vs "shall" is so pervasive in the regs the distinction between the 2 is considered to be fundamental knowledge for even student pilots reading them for the first time. Ground school 101 stuff. I find you less and less credible as time goes on.

Yes, the controller should have handled it as an emergency as a precaution, but the pilot made an error by not declaring using the standard phraseology.

He did use standard phraseology. He was in the U.S. and used "Emergency", which is not an error. I'm worried that you say you're an FAA-trained pilot and don't know that, and seem to disregard and ignore the existence of the published FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary.

The argument about the meaning of the words "mayday" or "panpan" or "emergency" I think misses the point.

Human beings, though we like to think we live in realtime, have a perception the lags behind reality by varying degrees. For a completely anticipated event it may be a small fraction of a second, but for the completely unexpected it can easily be over a second - maybe two.

It has been decided by people who know a lot about these things, that a two syllable word, with a clearly understood meaning, repeated distinctly three times, is just about the right amount of time to get everyone fully tuned into the situation and ready for the detail that will inevitably follow.

The potential problem with saying "Emergency" just once is that you could then be several words into the detail by the time a busy controller becomes fully alert to what is after all an unexpected call outside the context of his/her current mental air picture. Momentary confusion, and a failure to understand at least part of the message is likely to result.

Dns,

You just don't get it do you?

You've been given factual information by current US Pilots who've been flying in the FAA 121 world for countless thousands of hours, in the US and who've provided you with links to the relevant FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary.

Pukin amongst others, has quite succinctly shown you where you were wrong in your assumptions about the procedures used in the US and yet you still won't accept that you might just have been wrong. It's starting to sound like listening to a petulant teenager who's been chastised in public and just has to prove he's right. You may well think you're a qualified pilot but knowledgeable you certainly are not. Not on this matter.

If you are so sure you're right about this, head over to flightinfo (A US version of Pprune) and air your views there. If nothing else it'll be entertaining to watch what happens.

When trying to interpret regs it would behoove you to first start at the beginning where they define the meaning of certain words found therein....

Even the brief, 15-page SOPs for my class of teenage Tuskegee Airmen flying-program students has a brief preamble defining the meaning of shall, should, will and may. They understand the difference...

In my relativity short three decades in aviation, I have found that the word Mayday tends to make people both put up and shut up.

"Roll the trucks"? :ugh:

Nobody is saying they expect an Irish pilot, or a Brit or Frenchman or Mexican, to be familiar with the term "roll the trucks." We American pilots are, however, as are many nonpilots as well, and this incident did take place in the U. S.

Fine, I'll try it next time I'm stateside. Do I need to change my accent as well? :)

Cows getting bigger

Fine, I'll try it next time I'm stateside. Do I need to change my accent as well


With 30 years of experience, surely then you can cite and reference the specific ICAO-published standard phraseology a pilot uses to request emergency equipment to be standing by?

"Request equipment standing by" is plain language. "Roll the trucks" is also plain language in the U.S, understood by pilot and controller to mean the same thing , and meets the brevity requirement.

So what are the correct magic words?...the specific phraseology?

What's the point in the ICAO laid down phraseology if it doesn't get used in critical situations? Clearly they're wasting their time...

I think if the US had phraseology like the UK it wouldn't have happend.

"mayday mayday mayday speedbird one two five six" - can easily hear the callsign

US: "twelve fifty-six emergency" if said rapidly or the pilot is a split second too late pushing the PTT in his high-stress situation the 12 could easily be lost and rather than AAL1256 being the a/c the controller thinks is in trouble he could think UAL56 is in trouble.

I think the RT should be a lot stricter, only need to listen to LiveATC to hear how laid back it is.

"Mayday" is used in so many things world wide from fire fighters to boating I don't see why they need to add the ambiguous word that is "emergency". Ambiguous by the fact it can mean mayday or pan pan.

Although, the US are very far from being a dangerous place for aviation so they're doing something right, but still...tighten the RT up.

I bet all you Americans are thinking how strict and tight us EUs are and we need to chill out. :8 :}

To be honest, sometimes I seriously wonder how there aren't more accidents in the USA (and some other countries)... So many of the procedures aren't "fail-safe". Like clearing multiple aircraft to land on a runway at one time....

No, that's not American-bashing, that's just an observation of procedure...

pudoc

I think if the US had phraseology like the UK it wouldn't have happend.

"mayday mayday mayday speedbird one two five six" - can easily hear the callsign



No? UK Captain at UK Heathrow.

"Mayday mayday. Speedbird Speedbird. Nine five nine five" - Sure, you can easily hear the incorrect/nonexistant/wrong callsign. After the wrong callsign, nothing. No nature of emergency. No position.

Do you honestly believe that the Heathrow controller who responded to the crash of that 777 would have had the slightest clue who or where "Speedbird 9595" was had the weather been such as it was in Denver (1/2 mile/snow) based on that useless call made a second before impact? Not a chance. The "Who" and "what" of that event was made self-evident looking out the window.

I bring this up to answer your conjecture that UK R/T in the U.S. would prevent the incident in Denver. Are you suggesting that if the United Express had declared "Mayday Mayday, Acey Acey, Fantasy Flight Number, Fantasy Flight Number", and then said nothing from that time foward until the tower heard the Captain of some unidentified aircraft giving the PA evacuate order on tower freq of an aircraft he couldnt see due to IMC conditions, the trucks would have arrived there sooner? Sorry, but I'm just not buying that uttering "Mayday" has that magic power.

US: "twelve fifty-six emergency" if said rapidly or the pilot is a split second too late pushing the PTT in his high-stress situation the 12 could easily be lost and rather than AAL1256 being the a/c the controller thinks is in trouble he could think UAL56 is in trouble.


The controller heard "NIne, and thought it sounded like "uNIted". Probably the best prevention would have been if the pilot had transitted 'Five Niner One Two" in response to the Controller's query instead of "Fifty-nine twelve". Even a "Five NIne One Two" response probably would have triggered "uNIted One Two" in the Controllers brain. Denver is a United hub, they probably hear and default to "United" in their sleep if they arent careful.

The controller wasn't careful enough. He has the strip with the Flight Number for reference. Yet when he experienced cognitive dissonance from thinking he heard United 12 knowing there was no United 12, instead of doing so or trying to continue the communication loop by reading back to the pilot what he heard (United 12) he defaulted to 'Hoax". Why? perhaps the odd sound of a pilot who's not used to speaking in a pinching Eros mask with O2 under pressure and speaking rapidly had him imagine some hunched over prankster in his car...he did say it "Sounded like it came from a handheld". Not using "Mayday" does NOT equate to "sounding like it came through a handheld" when U.S. standard "Emergency" phraseology is still there.

Maybe they talk about hoaxers too much at DIA without reiterating the responsibility to default to confusion with the safest response. Maybe he's the kind of guy who thinks "oh this can't be happening to me". Who knows, but for whatever reason he dropped the ball by assuming too quickly that which was wrong.

I think the RT should be a lot stricter, only need to listen to LiveATC to hear how laid back it is.


We want to sound cool :cool: and if you tell us what "should be", we'll just do the cool, opposite thing.

"Mayday" is used in so many things world wide from fire fighters to boating I don't see why they need to add the ambiguous word that is "emergency". Ambiguous by the fact it can mean mayday or pan pan.


That's your own private definition of "ambiguous", and the reason the FAA includes both in "Emergency" is they don't want pilots getting wrapped around the axle trying to differentiate the 2 conditions...they want the pilot to request assistance right away whether it's urgency or distress. As an example, look no further than the 4th post on this thread. You'll see Typhoonboy, one of the first to jump on the "Hmph they were so unprofessional" bandwagon, opining that what the United Express pilot had (smoke in the cockpit landing IMC) rated a "routine pan call". And just think, he had time to sit around thinking at his computer before writing that.

The FAA responds to a "Pan" call like an emergency because pilots can't be trusted to always know or state the actual seriousness of their condition, and since only 0.0000001% of us went to Oxford, they try to keep it simple by removing any area that could be used for debate.

Although, the US are very far from being a dangerous place for aviation so they're doing something right, but still...tighten the RT up.


No, we sound cooler the way we do it inside the U.S. When we fly overseas and adhere to ICAO-standard R/T, it makes us feel all nerdy inside.

I bet all you Americans are thinking how strict and tight us EUs are and we need to chill out.

We are, in fact, thinking that. It's axiomatic that the cooler you sound, the better you fly. And we value flying ability above radio telphony because fun chicks don't care about radio telephony. Back in the day, when you were practicing R/T phraseology holding dictaphones and rating each other on how you sound, we were holding keg parties and rating girls asses. So there's logic behind why we do what we do.

We are, in fact, thinking that. It's axiomatic that the cooler you sound, the better you fly. And we value flying ability above radio telphony, because fun chicks don't care about radio telephony. Back in the day, when you were practicing R/T phraseology holding dictaphones and rating each other on how you sound, we were holding keg parties and rating girls asses. So there's logic behind why we do what we do.

I don't care who you are but that's funny right there. :D

No, we sound cooler the way we do it inside the U.S. When we fly overseas and adhere to ICAO-standard R/T, it makes us feel all nerdy inside.


Funny again and it also explains the rather peculiar behaviour of US pilots at the end of their journey. For 25 years I've been thinking that it was due to fatigue. :ugh:

dns.

To be honest, sometimes I seriously wonder how there aren't more accidents in the USA (and some other countries)... So many of the procedures aren't "fail-safe". Like clearing multiple aircraft to land on a runway at one time....


and adding to the insanity, not one of us is wearing a high-vis vest while barreling in. It's like queuing with no line on the floor telling you where to stand while you wait your turn. Like fueling your car while talking on a mobile phone. Like letting kids go outside during school lunch hour when it snows despite knowing one might slip or throw snowballs. It's a Wild West thing, and if you don't own spurs you'll never understand.

Diogenes, your search for an honest man can end. He goes by the name of PukinDog, and he can be found on PPrune. :ok:

Pukin Dog, you really are losing credibility very quickly!

Maybe you could comment on this situation...

Aircraft on approach, 10 mile final, been cleared to land despite poor vis, despite 3 aircraft ahead. One of those 3 stops on runway for whatever reason. Aircraft on approach continues. 30 seconds later he is told to go-around due to blocked runway. Now, what would happen if that a/c had had a comms failure, or missed the go-around instruction? He'd land (as cleared). Potential disaster... How is this a good system?!

By way of diversion and as I'm getting a bit bored with the endless arguing bitching and theorising above:

Does any one know if the controller who let his son operate the radio at JFK about 2 years ago was reinstated after his suspension? I really hope he was.

Pukin,

Thank you for that....best laugh I've had all week.

The only time I declared an emergency was with smoke fumes in the cabin and cockpit out of MIA in a 757. I had never heard the words mayday spoken on ATC, only in movies so felt uncomfortable being the first so declaring an emergency worked quite well and landing was safe. It might be a nice international response but in the US it isn't required to get what you want.

For what it`s worth to either point of view, Cactus 1549 (Sullenberger, Hudson) didn`t declare emergency, mayday or pan, and was repeatedly referred to by ATC as 1529.
But then the Captain and F/O were concentrating on aviating and couldn`t give a monkees what they were called, or indeed whether anyone was rolling anything.
You say tomato!

In a case like they had ATC couldn't help them because they couldn't land downwind in their judgement or make any other airport with their power. Mayday might be the proper word but usually the ground people can't help you much anyway except for notifying the crash crew. Not much point in wasting a lot of time notifying people that can't help you. The AF A330 making a mayday call would accomplish nothing out of RIO. If they can't help you just do what you can and don't get distracted with needless mayday calls.

Ignoring a call he had smoke in the cockpit would not be ignored in the US. I had it and the handling was fine with no maydays. Trucks were there and we didn't have to say roll the trucks or mayday. We are declaring an emergency did everything. 23,000 hrs in US flying and zero ATC problems. Aruba is another issue on ATC problems. Also Caracus, cenamar, Dominican republic and a few other third world countries. Thank God for TCAS in some of these places. We went over Swan Island at FL350 one day going to central america in the clouds and reported Swan Island on the hour at FL350. 30 seconds later World Airways reports Swan Island at 01 at FL350. I asked, World, what direction are you going? He said SE, I was going S so quit worrying about him. It can get scarey down there. The TCAS I had was in a 727 and only looked forward so I do not know how far he crossed at our altitude behind us.

Delta 1063 Bird strike out of JFK, Emergency call, r/t recording in report

Here's another one to discuss,

Delta Flight Makes Emergency Landing in New York After Bird Strike Destroys Engine [with Air Traffic Control Audio] | NYCAviation (http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/04/passengers-remarkably-calm-after-bird-strike-destroys-engine-of-delta-jet/)


BBC News - Delta Airlines plane makes emergency landing after bird strike (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17788229)

no sig

Delta 1063 Bird strike out of JFK, Emergency call, r/t recording in report

Here's another one to discuss,




First in with "cowboys", "unprofessional", and the requisite :ugh::ugh::ugh:s for good measure. C'mon people, you know the drill. Pack-up and pile on, it's a miracle anyone survived.


But amidst that ridiculous furball of jabbering (you know, why don't we just all agree to refer to anything that's a big pile of shlt as "pan-less" from now on) did you notice how cool the pilot of United 286 sounded at 3:29 when he stated they were "On the go"? Nice :ok:. The guy is obviously a good stick to pull one right off the same page as "Roll the trucks" in the Merican Aviation Lexicon, and his sense of timeliness...well, if it were any better it would be downright creepy, it's like he knew we're gathered here. So not only will his SH radio-work earn him beaucoup skybabe tail, but also the additional pleasure of hearing the sound of a million teeth gnashing on the other side of the pond.

Mr Sick Dog

What exactly does " beaucoup skybabe tail" mean?

Furthermore. Your posts come across as though you feel a tad insecure.
You really shouldn`t rise to the bate of others. Just remind the rest of the world that flight began in NC and let it go mate.

doubtfire,

I can't resist.

"beaucoup", pronounced "boo-coop" or "boo-coo" with a Southern accent, preferably Louisiana, is a commonly used word meaning "a lot of" or "many"

"skybabe" is obviously an "FA/stew/trolley dolly"

"tail" - you probably know or can guess.;)

You know, I hate to bring this up, but.....

(sigh) Speebird 177

....had a golden opportunity to ride, straight and tall in the R/T saddle, into the morass of airwave cluster-feckedness and set an example for the yokels to aspire to (not that we would), and if not (safest bet), then at least as a matter of integrity and to post a big, proud win for airline, queen, and country. But what did Speedbird 177 do at 4:25 when this chance to shine presented itself? He choked, big-time, muffing his landing clearance readback by omitting "Speedbird" entirely: "Cleared to land, Two Two Left, One Seventy Seven". He just....omitted it. Like it didn't even exist.

Oh the humanity, not to mention a chance for glory blown (and with the high priests of ICAO sitting just down the road in Montreal no less). As it was, his readback could have been made from someone..I dunno, say....with a handheld, it was so cavalier.

Speaking of which, if the NYC's terminal airpace was Balaclava and (callsign omitted) 177 rode in like they did...Delta approaching 22R to the right of them, other aircraft most likely somewhere to the left of them, certainly additional traffic inbound behind them...well you get the picture, and look at how THAT much-studied example of mis-communication turned out. Haven't we learned yet that callsigns are always important, sometimes critical? For example, recently in Denver there was a little-known incident where a pilot garbled/ommitted a callsign which led to an ATC tower controller becoming confused, and he convinced himself...well, it was bad let me tell you, the upshot being the Controller thought the flight didn't even exist.

In that incident, about 100 people could have died if only more things had gone wrong. And that was just a little airplane. (Callsign omitted) 177 was a big airplane flying in the busiest airspace in the world, which means the ANIEWW (Adjusted Numbers If Everything Went Wrong) casualty count is lot more. Somewhere around 600 or so.


doubtfire
Furthermore. Your posts come across as though you feel a tad insecure.

I'm fairly troubled if they do. I was aiming higher, for Paranoid. This sid must be on the weak side.
You really shouldn`t rise to the bate of others.
The only "bate" I've seen around here is the circle-type, and yikes, just the spectacle of the first 9 replies on this thread made me want to reach for a firehose and break it up for the sake of common decency.


But I get your meaning about rising to the bait. The question you need to ask yourself is "Am I?" Oooooooo. Do dee doo doo mate.
Just remind the rest of the world that flight began in NC and let it go mate
Nah, the Kiwis have been working that "first flight" angle forever, and they're just so damn cute.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I've had two serious emergencies right after take off in the last several years.

I never used the word Mayday, I was asked if I was declaring an emergency.

Both times, the controllers informed me that they were rolling the trucks.

If I have the same situation anywhere else outside of the US, I'll be sure and declare Mayday three times so you won't crucify me here on PPRune !

I think ATC and pilots do an amazing job considering how many English accents are used and how many different ways the same thing is said, but it's time to streamline and organize the communication system.

I learned military radio proceedure in late 60s. Universal terminalogy in short concise statements.

Current radio communicaton is nothing even remotely uniform, short or concise. It's more like a phone conversation using abbreviations for commonly used words/phrases... and may words used for same meaning. It's no wonder ATC and pilots get confused. Problem is not language accent, it's the lack of the universal use of a communications code.

As good as ATC and Delta 1063 did, it is still not the use of a universal communications language/code.

Delta 1063 bird strike dialog:
"Aah Delta 10 6 ter 3 has had an engine failure on the right engine declaring an emergency do to a bird strike."
Should be something to the effect:
"Delta one zero six three, engine failure number four, mayday, bird strike"

Maybe not mayday, but something simple to denote a lessor degree of emergency.

"Delta one zero six three, bird strike number four, Delta one zero six three"

Just my thoughts after following this thread from the start.

I've noticed that CPDLC takes some of these regional differences into account with both EU and US preselect options for some of the more important comms.

For example,

EU: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday

US: : ( , : ( , : (

Slightly off the specific topic, but to widen the view a bit, here's a discussion about a GA pilot who declared neither a mayday nor an emergency and perhaps bent some metal because of it.

Happened two days ago about 15 miles from where I'm sitting (awaiting the passage of the Interpid's Supermarine Scimtar up the Hudson on a barge, in fact):

http://n631s.********.com/2012/04/lift-is-temporary-gravity-is-permanent.html

Does anyone really really think that after declaring an "emergency" or a "mayday", that there is a need to ask for "roll the trucks" or "request emergency services". As soon as ATC hear those words they push a little red button connected to the fire station and before you can finish your R/T those guys put down their volley ball, car wash bucket etc and jump into their shiny fire engines to meet you. Can we PLEASE put that one to bed.

Mr Sick Dog. After reading many of your posts I have decided you do not really have anything positive to say. You just enjoy belittling and insulting others. Both your diction and syntax seem to come from some hollywood interpretation of aviation. You go out of your way to speak gobbledegook instead of plain english, or plain american. I have heard banner towers up and down Myrtle Beach sound more professional. Are you indeed a commercial airliner pilot at all? "fun chicks don`t care about radio telephony" " When we fly overseas and adhere to ICAO-standard R/T, it makes us feel all nerdy inside." and my favourite "the cooler you sound, the better you fly" Please do us all a favour and go back to your microsoft flightsim. No offence.

Mr Sick Dog. After reading many of your posts I have decided you do not really have anything positive to say.

Mrs. Doubtfire, have you ever heard the expression "jerking your chain"?

Mrs. Doubtfire, have you ever heard the expression "jerking your chain"?

Or in British....."Taking the p!ss"

Or in British....."Taking the p!ss" \
Or in Kiwiland, "taking the pus". ;)

I personally like PukimgDog posts. They confirm in a very nicecly written and humourous way our prejudices against Americans. He may have inspired some of Woody Allen film scirpts..

Back to mayday vs emergency and misusing call signs during an emergency . This is as old as the aviation world began.
The point one seem to forget is the reason to tell ATC you are in the Sh.t. It is to make sure everyone else knows, will shut up on the frequency and ATC clears everyone else around and below you so that you won't hit anyone else when you descent/ return etc..
3X Maydays does all this very well. Anything else , being innovative or "cool" might not achieve this. Just a remark and my 2 cents , but your aircraft .I am here to help, just ask, but make sure I unserstand what you want. Hence someone invented standard phraseology.

Callsigns, : stress does wonders to your body. but remembering your correct call sign is not high on the list. In nearly all the emmergencies and accidents I studied, the call signs were wrong at one point or another, even during simple TCAS RAs reports . In the HLF crash in Vienna , the pilot used callsign 123, 123 is the call sign used in the simulators when practicing emergencies.... variations are endless.

Point is that it does not matter much which call sign you use if you are the only one on the frequency or if there is only one of your airline in there. But flying into your hub will be a totally different story.
Just remember that.

PukinDog...this Limey is lovin' your posts,keep up the good work:ok:

Does anyone really really think that after declaring an "emergency" or a "mayday", that there is a need to ask for "roll the trucks" or "request emergency services". As soon as ATC hear those words they push a little red button connected to the fire station and before you can finish your R/T those guys put down their volley ball, car wash bucket etc and jump into their shiny fire engines to meet you. Can we PLEASE put that one to bed.

Multiple times in my round motor days, after advising ATC that we were declaring an emergency and shutting down an engine, when handed over to the tower we were asked if we wanted the equipment standing by. We'd decline but ask them to check with airport ops to see if they were setting up an escort for a tug and towbar. Eventually I got enough practice, I could taxi a DC-3 across DFW on one engine.

Doubtfire,

I suspect the somewhat unwell hound is indulging in a spot of irony and baiting.

The lad obviously comes from a place where 'yank it an bank it' was the prime instruction in intial training, rather then the 'a touch more right rudder sir' that you and I might be more accustomed to. :)

doubtfire

Mr Sick Dog. After reading many of your posts I have decided you do not really have anything positive to say. You just enjoy belittling and insulting others. Both your diction and syntax seem to come from some hollywood interpretation of aviation. You go out of your way to speak gobbledegook instead of plain english, or plain american. I have heard banner towers up and down Myrtle Beach sound more professional. Are you indeed a commercial airliner pilot at all? "fun chicks don`t care about radio telephony" " When we fly overseas and adhere to ICAO-standard R/T, it makes us feel all nerdy inside." and my favourite "the cooler you sound, the better you fly" Please do us all a favour and go back to your microsoft flightsim. No offence.


Whoa Amigo, you've been to Myrtle Beach? Was it wonderful???

"Whoa Amigo, you've been to Myrtle Beach? Was it wonderful???"

In my experience it is second only to Vegas in terms of being utterly apalling, but each to their own.

Fortunately, I'm now short-haul through choice, so the 'delights' of most of the US are long behind me.

If I said 'thankfully', would I uspset anyone? ;)


http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=7151733) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7151733&noquote=1)

Whenever an aircraft declares an emergency, why does atc ask for the tob and fuel on board. Surely the pilots are busy enough without having to pass this info which can be obtained just as easily from the ground staff. Also are atc or the emergency services going to provide a different level of service if the tob is 10 or 410 ?

Quote:
Mr Sick Dog. After reading many of your posts I have decided you do not really have anything positive to say.
Mrs. Doubtfire, have you ever heard the expression "jerking your chain"? "Whoa Amigo, you've been to Myrtle Beach? Was it wonderful???"

In my experience it is second only to Vegas in terms of being utterly apalling, but each to their own.

Fortunately, I'm now short-haul through choice, so the 'delights' of most of the US are long behind me.And the beat goes on ... Next?

Whenever an aircraft declares an emergency, why does atc ask for the tob and fuel on board. Surely the pilots are busy enough without having to pass this info which can be obtained just as easily from the ground staff. Also are atc or the emergency services going to provide a different level of service if the tob is 10 or 410 ?

Basically because they want to know as quickly as possible how many people they need to look for if an emergency turns into a crash, and remember, the guy flying a Navajo with eight or nine sob doesn't -have- a "ground staff."

Fuel should be obvious, since it determines much of what your capabilities might be in terms of range/endurance if the emergency isn't necessarily a land-instantly situation.

And if you're too busy to tell them, say you'll get back to 'em on that...

Fuel should be obvious, since it determines much of what your capabilities might be in terms of range/endurance if the emergency isn't necessarily a land-instantly situation.

I'd hazard a guess that fuel quantity might also affect ARFF response strategies.

Once again a bit of education for the non professionals out here :

We ATC do not need POB and FOB, the fire fighters are. We ask because they need to know to help the emergency in the best possible way. One reason among others is the fact that they do no send the same number of ambulances and fire foam trucks for, say a 747 cargo with 2 POB and 100+ tons of Fuel, than you will for an Embraer with 100 pax and 4 tons fuel.

We need this info quickly . As pointed before, not everyone has a ground ops and we ATC do not have all airlines flying out there ground ops contact details , only the major at your hub, and even then, will take too long before you get the right guy at the end of the phone anyway.
The procedure is a a well rehearsed one, standardised by ICAO, applicable globally. Again a standard quick answer in standard phraseology is what will work best and save the most lives in the end.

The archaic blame game conclusion to this incident (dumb controller didn't do his job properly) helps no one and prevents nothing in the future. It maybe true in the US that nonstandard is standard regarding R/T, but to suggest phraseology and quality of radio call (amongst other things) played no part in the confusion is blinkered.

I'm not saying the pilots did a poor job of saving the aircraft from disaster. Aviate navigate communicate bla bla bla but if u don't want to end up a molten mess on the runway, it's in your own interest to make damn sure the controllers knows who u are and that ur in the s@<hidden>#t. Use what ever phraseology you want but make sure it's understood.

We ATC do not need POB and FOB, the fire fighters are.

That is certainly true in specific kinds of emergencies--those that threaten to quickly end up on a runway somewhere--but there are many other kinds of emergencies, sorry maydays, where SOB and FOB are determinants for different reasons. Which I say not as "a nonprofessional" but as somebody who made his living flying GA aircraft. We aren't all airline pilots.

The procedure is a a well rehearsed one, standardised by ICAO, applicable globally. Again a standard quick answer in standard phraseology is what will work best and save the most lives in the end. Having never been asked the question, what is the standard ICAO R/T terminology?
POB? SOB?

I would include myself in the POB count, but maybe not in the SOB count.

it is Persons , POB, you've watch too much "Titanic ":)

here you go, educating again , sorry for those here who knew it all before :

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

RTF Emergency Communications
As soon as there is any doubt as to the safe conduct of a flight, immediately
request assistance from ATC. Flight crews should declare the situation early; it can always be cancelled.
! A distress call (situation where the aircraft requires immediate assistance) is
prefixed: MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY.
! An urgency message (situation not requiring immediate assistance) is
prefixed:
PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN.
! Make the initial call on the frequency in use, but if that is not possible
squawk 7700 and call on 121.5.
! The distress/urgency message shall contain (at least) the name of the
station addressed, the call-sign, nature of the emergency, fuel endurance
and persons on board; and any supporting information such as position,
level, (descending), speed and heading, and pilot’s intentions.

RTF Emergency Communications
MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, Metro Control, Big Jet 345, main electric failure,
request immediate landing at Metro, position 35 miles north west of Metro,
heading 120 flight level 80 descending, 150 persons on board, endurance three hours
Big Jet 345, Roger the MAYDAY, turn left heading 090, radar vectors ILS runway 27
Big Jet 345 request runway 09
Big Jet 345, roger, turn right heading 140 for radar vectoring runway 09,
descend to 3000 feet, QNH 995, report established
Big Jet 345, heading 140, descend to 3000 feet QNH 995 , report established
localiser runway 09

Fuel Reserves Approaching Minimum
’Fuel Emergency’ or ‘fuel priority’ are not recognised terms. Flight crews
short of fuel must declare a PAN or MAYDAY to be sure of being given the
appropriate priority

source ICAO phrasology guide

I should get paid for this :E

Fuel Reserves Approaching Minimum
’Fuel Emergency’ or ‘fuel priority’ are not recognised terms. Flight crews
short of fuel must declare a PAN or MAYDAY to be sure of being given the
appropriate priority

source ICAO phrasology guide

Another area where FAA differs from ICAO. Here, we have "minimum fuel" and "fuel emergency", without a MAYDAY or PAN call required, being a recognized, sanctioned term. ( http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08004.pdf ).

Note: Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by a pilot that his/her fuel
supply has reached a state where, upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any
undue delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an advisory that indicates an
emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory
does not imply a need for traffic priority

Emergency Fuel. Although not defined in the AIM or Federal aviation regulations, the
industry-wide connotation typically associated with the term “Fuel Emergency” is:
The point at which, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it is necessary
to proceed directly to the airport of intended landing due to low fuel. Declaration
of a fuel emergency is an explicit statement that priority handling by ATC is both
required and expected.

it is Persons , POB, you've watch too much "Titanic

The problem with using "Souls On Board" isn't so much the ICAO-standards issue, but rather because it's not out of the realm of possiblity to have a passenger by the name of Gunnery Sgt .... USMC aboard and erroneously include him in the count. I know for a fact he wasn't issued a soul, and why would he be? The Corps built The Antichrist for the purpose of collecting those of others, like ours, and didn't require one himself in order to function.

Then there's the dog-soul issue if any happen to be in the hold. Some people get real funny about it.

POB vs SOB

I dunno. In the "land of the free, etc, etc", I think you are more likely to hear something along the lines of: "say souls on board and endurance", which seems to me to be more awe inspiring - something more fitting for communicating with someone wearing a big watch and expensive sunglasses.

say souls on board and endurance

In 40 years, I've heard "say souls on board" but never the question "endurance."

Stepwik,

I've always thought that was a bit confusing. ATC will ask for FOB but what they're after is endurance. In the heat of a non-normal situation where you've got an "Oh sh!t" element and possibly up to your armpits in checklists, it would be easy to give them the wrong answer in lbs.

Jeebus!! 11 pages of transatlantic bitching - man, this is painful.

It's very simple. The language is called English, there's a clue in the name. If you're not from England, it's no wonder these confusions will arise when you try to master it. I suggest that the US should adopt its majority language of Spanish for aviation purposes which should clear everything up a treat.

Toodle pip.

Yay!


England? Oh, you mean Angle Land. As in the Germanic tribe, the Angles. Wasn't there some bit about William, some Norman dude, too? And then there was that guy with the little mustache. . . Can't remember his name.

;)

Thanks Adolf H, i havnt laughed like that in a while:ok:

Use of the term “minimum fuel”
Heard this the other day, in the US but from a KLM captain. We were both talking to Norcal at SFO, he had just begun a go-around (no idea why) and used exactly that phrase as they vectored him around for a new approach. I guess he wanted to avoid being sent on a 20 mile downwind to fit in with the rest of the traffic - in fact they brought him in very close, almost like flying a traffic pattern.

Minimum fuel - Yes, a controller awareness call indicating they are requesting minimum delays without asking for priority, I think it works well in the West, but up in the New York area it will fall on deaf ears.

I'm just an SLF, and I'm from the UK, so I really don't know what language or strange political correctness formulations they use over in the US. However, even as an idiot foreign SLF, I do feel that the phrase "Emergency, smoke in the cockpit, roll trucks, please." should at the very least grab any human being's attention in a professional environment, because of that interesting word "Emergency". You know, Emergency, as out of the ordinary, hey, I am having serious trouble here


"Smoke in the cockpit" is also pretty clear as an indication that a pilot is having trouble. Please is a direct request. Previous comments about standard phraseology are a red herring here because the Tower's "excuse" was pranksters, and pranksters are also fully able to recite "Mayday Mayday Mayday. Let's not kid ourselves, the guys in that tower who couldn't react and then went fishing for an excuse are idiots - no amount of standard phraseology is going to upgrade their innate abilities. The fact that these guys are not employed in the third world is what is making y'all defend them. An IQ test administered as a condition of employment might prevent this type of situation, I hear firemen have physical tests.

The interesting thing is that now "jurisprudence" has basically been set in stone by the NTSB inquiry, which let the guys off easy. God help any pilot who requests assistance without some form of secondary ID like a squawk. The graveyard is a bad place from which to lodge a protest.

Ironically, just the other morning I was listening to a couple of Delta flights as they checked in with Shannon and London and was struck by the fact that there was not a single "Good Morning" or "G'day" from either of them in any call they made. In fact they stuck to absolute standard phraseology. It really stood out and sounded very unfriendly. I guess they cannot win.

England? Oh, you mean Angle Land. As in the Germanic tribe, the Angles. Wasn't there some bit about William, some Norman dude, too? And then there was that guy with the little mustache. . . Can't remember his name

The guy with the little mustache [sic] never made it. Can't remember exactly why, but I think it was something to do with British pilots being the best in the World.

....and Czech,French,Poles,Canadian and plenty of others....even (say it quietly)Yanks!

Eventually...