Crash button consequences

[Solar]

Anybody care to comment on the potential consequences of a controller placing the fire engines on standby for an aircraft on finals during a strong crosswind.
The experienced PIC did not indicate that he was in any way concerned and this decision was made by the controller without the PIC being informed during the landing (greaser) or afterwards and the PIC was totally unaware of it until a few days later when one of the fireman involved mentioned it to a club member.
Reason for the question is that it was reported to the CAA by a disgruntled FI who has his own beefs against the PIC.

[goldeneaglepilot]

So what is the real issue? Reading between the lines there are some clear politics at work. Its all about being safe - if there was no accident then there is nothing (at face value) for the CAA to be involved with. If the air traffic controller thought that there was some risk to the pilot, perhaps from how he appeared to be flying, or from the crosswind exceeding the published limits for a particular aircraft type (and the air traffic controller knowing the limits for that type, perhaps through personal experience) then the air traffic controller was in my opinion right to work on the side of caution and having the fire services on standby was a positive move. They were not needed and will no doubt treat the whole incident as some "practice" which ensures they remain effective and ready for a real incident.

The pilots ego may be bruised, so what?.... at the end of the day the rescue services were not needed. if they had been then they would have been on scene in seconds rather than minutes. Perhaps even the difference between life or death.

It all sounds a little childish.

[Spitoon]

It's a perfectly normal and standard practise - called a weather standby. Very often the crew know nothing about it because the fire vehicles stay in the station abut are crewed up and ready to go. At some airports the vehicles will move out of the station to specific standby points - it's all about increased risk (however you might want to qualify it) and mitigation measures to improve response times if something does go wrong. No reflection on the pilot's ability or the robustness of the aeroplane!

[spekesoftly]

Just as Spitoon writes - no drama and a routine precaution which does not involve activating the crash alarm.

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

Reason for the question is that it was reported to the CAA by a disgruntled FI who has his own beefs against the PIC.

What is meant by "reported to the CAA"?

e.g. An MOR?

From the facts presented it seems that there is no reason for the CAA to take an interest.

[gasax]

On the other hand at my local 'major' airport there is at least one type where ATC and the fire team keep a close eye on all landings and routinely attend if conditions are difficult. They have had to retrieve this type from the grass a few times and nothing will convince them it is not going to happen this time.

From what the OP says though it looks to be a lot more about egos than anything else. Or it there more pertinent detail?

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's been done to me twice that I know of. Once coming in for a difficult approach in a strong and gusty crosswind, I noticed a fire engine had been deployed as I turned finals. I wasn't told, it just happened. A second time I had a funny vibration in my engine just after take-off, and called an immediate tight circuit and landing just in case; again, a fire engine became visible - that time about when I turned base.

After both good landings (phew!) I made a point of thanking the tower as I taxied to park. This was different years, different airports.

Anybody who has an issue with this being done, has an attitude problem that they need to deal with. The tower controller in both my cases was absolutely spot on - as they were in the case being talked about here.

G

[silverknapper]

Perfectly normal, can't see what possible consequences there could be.

[dont overfil]

Standard practice for first solo, rotors running refuel and many other reasons which can be nothing to do with the pilot.

D.O.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

It's been done to me twice that I know of.
I think I've managed to frighten ATC into sending out the fire trucks three times!

:D:O:=

One was after making two approaches to different runways and failing to land off each in gusty crosswinds, no problem on the third attempt. One was after reporting an engine hiccough downwind. Don't remember what the third one was about.

[Jan Olieslagers]

FWIW, I remember an F50 circling its home base at EBAW with some doubts about the nose gear properly extended and locked. I heard the pilot manifest "Antwerp Tower, we are NOT declaring an emergency" but even so not only the airport's fire engines were lining the runway but also some nearby municipal teams turned up. Tower wasn't taking chances, and who could blame them?

[mad_jock]

What the ATC do with thier AFS has got nothing to do with the PIC.

I have also in the past been a bit narked at the blues and twos circus. But have come round to the fact its thier toy set and 9 times out of 10 its used as training and also to cover there own arses. So not a problem would like to know though so I can brief the pax or don't stop thinking someone else is having problems.

As for the report to the CAA, just forget about it. There is major miss-understanding about what a MOR actually is and for that matter what happens to it after you send it in.

Its not there as a report to the head master, it is a statistical collection device. Most MOR's at catorgory E or something like that which means they go on file and forgotten about. ATC have other forms if you bust the ANO thankfully something I know nothing about.

Using "I am going to MOR you" is farcical as a threat. My responce would be "crack on" in the UK.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What the ATC do with thier AFS has got nothing to do with the PIC.

In one direction only.

If ATC decide to deploy the AFS on a whim, for a training exercise, or just a mildly uneasy feeling, that is absolutely their right and privilege.

If the pilot declares an emergency, asks for a fire engine to be on standby for any reason that seems reasonable to them - then it should be there UNLESS the watch commander decides that safety is better served by doing things in a better way that they understand with their professional experience and training.

If I ask, as PiC airborne and inbound, for a fire engine, it had damned well better be there.

G

[Crash one]

"Antwerp Tower, we are NOT declaring an emergency"

Is there some sort of stigma of shame attached to declaring an emergency? or even allowing someone to declare one on your behalf?
I have not yet declared one in my miserable 200 hrs, does that make me a better pilot?

Reason for the question is that it was reported to the CAA by a disgruntled FI who has his own beefs against the PIC.

What exactly was reported to CAA? The Tower controller nearly pressed the crash button?
The pilot was flying in a crosswind?
The FI doesn't like the PIC?
Seems to me that someone needs to grow up.

[mad_jock]

I think the word Fire would garantee you a fire engine G well in the Uk at least.

Does seem strange though that some airports you can come in with say a hydralic failure and all hell lets loose. Yet others there seems to be little if any fuss.

The strangest one I have had was the seal blew out on the door at FL200 with 300 miles to run . We desended down to FL100 and had enough fuel to get to destination, passing on the way at least 5 international sized diverts.

When we landed the whole lot was out including the AFS incident burger van. Would have thought that flying for over an hour after decending due pressurisation failure would sort of tell them that the full monty wasn't required for landing. Can only presume that the AFS had done something to piss off ATC and it was a good excuse to make there dinner cold and stop them watching eastenders.

Seems to me that someone needs to grow up.
And requires a right good kick in the chugs.

[Unusual Attitude]

Can understand the FI being narked if the PIC was flying the aircraft with an x-wind out of club limits but only if he'd departed knowing it was likely to be out of limits on return. Even so a quiet word in his ear should have been enough.

As for fire trucks etc, only ever had it once in my life but given the way I fly I'd be very happy to have them around for every landing! :E

[mad_jock]

As most GA planes its "demonstrated cross wind limits" anyway submitting a report to the CAA just shows the FI is a bit of a clueless prat anyway.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis:



I think you mean, It's been done FOR me twice that I know of.

Indeed, well corrected.

G

[Unusual Attitude]

Agree MJ, most GA aircraft 'demonstrated limits' are worthless but a couple of clubs I've flown with over the years have club imposed x-wind limits.

Even so these are usualy enforced with a bit of common sense, fair enough if you only have 50hrs on a mint PPL then 15kts is probably a sensible limit but for someone with hundreds of hours on type on something like a C172 double that limit is do-able without too much stress....

[mad_jock]

And crash one not all countries are like the UK where declaring an emergency doesn't result in a huge bill.

In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.

I had heard if you declare an emergency into DXB your looking at over a $10k bill heading your way as a min.

Even in the UK shall we say the selection of where you going to crash has a cost associated with. If you block a runway at certain airports you will get a bill for the "parking"

[BackPacker]

In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.

Even for a genuine emergency?

In any case, I would expect your insurance to cover that bill. Provided it's a genuine emergency of course.

Just as with calling the fire department as a prank from your home phone, I would expect a fake emergency declaration will result in a bill/fine and possible prosecution.

[mad_jock]

Yep and the insurance doesn't cover it.

You don't know how easy life is operating inside europe.

[Crash one]

And crash one not all countries are like the UK where declaring an emergency doesn't result in a huge bill.

In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.



About time Johny Foreigner got his act together. Gun boat tactics required:mad:

[Rod1]

“the crosswind exceeding the published limits for a particular aircraft type”

What aircraft type? Very very few have crosswind limits. A demonstrated crosswind component is not a limit, it is advisory.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been responsible for defining the "demonstrated crosswind limits" for a number of types. In all but one, it was the maximum we ever saw in flight test, and not limited by any aircraft characteristic. Essentially it was a declaration that the aeroplane is safely controllable at-least this far.

In one only we decided we'd passed safe and sensible limits due to controllability and pilot workload, and put clear wording in the POH recommending that a specific value was not exceeded. That's out of maybe a dozen types.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

It's interesting to read the splitting of hairs over the crosswind limits, on my own aircraft it claims a maximum demonstrated limit of 17kts, which I respect. The undercarriage is far to expensive to repair should it go wrong. Equally an aircraft I owned many years ago claimed 25kts as the demonstrated limit - again I would not want to place the aircraft at risk. Whats the point? The chances are that the demonstrated limit was reached by an extremely able and competent test pilot who was at the point of not feeling happy going further.

In my book the cost of a diversion against the cost (and downtime) of a repair does not make the risk worthwhile.

[Unusual Attitude]

I seem to remember the C172 'demonstrated' limit is about 15kts which is miles off its actual capabilities in the real world. I've landed one with a 30kts x-wind up in the windy Islands and it actually didnt feel that bad though the wind was pretty steady, I've heard stories from some of the old flying farmers in my last group of much higher figures being 'do-able'.....

Saying that the ability to land with significant wing down and plant the upwind wheel first really does help... the Tri Pacer is an odd beast in this respect with the interlinked rudder and ailerons, really needs to be manhandled with crossed controls and I'm not so sure I'd try it in 30kts....

[mad_jock]

The chances are that the demonstrated limit was reached by an extremely able and competent test pilot who was at the point of not feeling happy going further.

Its not actually what the test pilots limits were. It just that that was the max amount of cross wind they could find during testing. The Cessna 152 I think it has a 13 or less knt max demonstrated.

[BackPacker]

It just that that was the max amount of cross wind they could find during testing.

Not quite. I'm sure GtE has the details, but for certification purposes the test pilots are required to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely be landed, by an average pilot, with a crosswind that is a certain percentage of the stall speed in the landing configuration. I think the percentage is 50, but I'm not sure.

Once that demonstration has been done, that certification point has passed and the test pilots can move on to other things. There is no need or incentive for them to prove that the aircraft can be landed safely at higher crosswinds.

[mad_jock]

Might be right but one of the small cessnas has alot less than 50% of the stall speed.

[goldeneaglepilot]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_029553.pdf

[Unusual Attitude]

Retractables are obviously far more fragile when it comes to side loads......

[mad_jock]

How does crap maintanence coming in to landing outside the demostrated crosswind limits?

I might add this is exactly why Cessan has just brought out all the SID's for there aircraft.

One of the feet showed evidence of cracking, and the surface of the
crack was corroded, suggesting that it was old damage. The remaining fracture surfaces were clean
and bright.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Retractables are obviously far more fragile when it comes to side loads......


Might not be always the case, the Saab 2000 has a demonstrated limit of 40kts.

MJ - I agree, they missed that on inspection. NDT test should have found that as per the Piper AD

[goldeneaglepilot]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_027249.pdf

An interesting article on how crosswind limits are decided in larger aircraft

http://reports.nlr.nl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10921/343/TP-2006-324.pdf?sequence=1

[gasax]

At the same airport I metioned earlier during my ppl training we cam back to the single runway with a crosswind in excess of 30kt - in a C150.

My instructor simply said follow me through and we landed on the centreline with no drama - an object lesson in how 'demonstrated crosswinds' are just that and why there is usually no mention of the word 'limit'.

IIRC some of the C172 manuals even add 'without using crosswind technique' so the old Landomatic approach.

It was this background, that lead me to use the wing down, crossed controls approach for crosswinds - working on the basis that if I can stay on the centreline when just flying a taildragger I should manage to stay there until I need the brakes - and one good application should be enough. And so it has proved to date.

Mind you taxiing can be a real pain .......

FWIW a Tripacer without the interconnect can actually take a huge crosswind - well over 30 kts - and it's really straight forward.

[mad_jock]

And the saab 2k has got a huge cross wind limit because its got a whore of a big rudder to allow for a engine failure of one of those massive donks.

Coupled with the fact its got quite a high wing clearance and its low wing.

We generally try not to land big things going sideways unless they are designed for it like the 747.

And that accident they busted the limit which is different to what we are talking about which is the max demo. If they hit a max limt during testing thats what it gets defined as in the manual.

[Unusual Attitude]

GEP,

Kitfox 2
Maximum Total weight Authorised: 950 Lbs

Same reason I didnt fly my Tipsy Nipper in much more than 15kts as they are prone to being tipped over onto a wingtip in strong winds being light weight with diehedral wings...

Thanks for the heads up on the Tri Pacer Gasax, alas ours still has the bungees in place though I'd be much happier if they were removed.....that and the stupid Johnson bar! Have landed it fine with 20kts crosswind but it does need to be muscled around a bit more with the bungees in place....

[goldeneaglepilot]

UA - Kitfox, Yes, I agree, not a brilliant aircraft on ground handling.

What has suprised my though is how some of the flex wing microlights seem to cope with wind.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Kitfox, Yes, I agree, not a brilliant aircraft on ground handling.

What's wrong with it? I fly an Apollo Fox (tri-gear), one of several Kitfox derivatives, and this phrase makes me fear "undocumented features" as we call it in IT.

[goldeneaglepilot]

My first flight in a Kitfox was following many hours flying a Pitts S2A and numerous other taildraggers, all without concern or worry. The Kitfox (it was an early one) was in many ways more difficult on the ground than most other aircraft that I had flown. It required great care. I guess a tricycle U/C would be a vast improvement.

I flew a MK2 some time later, and it was an improvement but not to the point that I would confidently fly it in most winds without concern.

[Genghis the Engineer]

UA - Kitfox, Yes, I agree, not a brilliant aircraft on ground handling.

What has suprised my though is how some of the flex wing microlights seem to cope with wind.

Landing a flexwing in a crosswind is not unlike a wheeler in a taildragger - you land on the mains with the nosegear well off, let it skew straight with the drag of the runway, then drop the nosewheel. Some bigger nosegear aeroplanes are landed like that, but it does rely upon having an adequately strengthened maingear. Fortunately certification standards require flexwing maingear to be built like a brick outhouse - I've certainly landed with 30 degrees of crab a few times, which is pretty scarey the first time you do it, but actually a non-event once you've held your nerve and just done it properly.

G

[L'aviateur]

Well, I suspect some Ego's are at play, and a little bruised. It's something you should take on the chin.

Although, if you start to find the whole world is telling you that you are wrong, it would be time to question yourself.

To be honest there is too little information to make an informed comment on the actual scenario.

[pudoc]

Don't see the issues here.

PIC didn't indicate there was a problem, and there wasn't because he greased it. Good job.

Controller was being safe putting fire vehicles on standby. Nothing wrong with being safe. Good job.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not quite. I'm sure GtE has the details, but for certification purposes the test pilots are required to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely be landed, by an average pilot, with a crosswind that is a certain percentage of the stall speed in the landing configuration. I think the percentage is 50, but I'm not sure.

Once that demonstration has been done, that certification point has passed and the test pilots can move on to other things. There is no need or incentive for them to prove that the aircraft can be landed safely at higher crosswinds.

For sub-5700kg aeroplanes at-least the rules are pretty relaxed. The demonstrated crosswind limit has to be at-least 20% of the stall speed in the landing configuration, and if it's considered by the flight test team to be genuinely limiting, we have to put that in the manual.

In practice what we tend to do in a certification programme is monitor the crosswinds (and if necessary make sure we increase what we fly in in smallish stages) and then grab opportunities to explore crosswind limits when they present themselves. You want a reasonably high and sensible number, but only twice can I remember having to go back and do a separate crosswind limits trial, and both of those were military training aeroplanes where the rules are a little different.

Which reminds me of a story I've not told for a few years. Picture the scene - I was managing a crosswind limits trial for a military trainer out of a certain airfield in Wiltshire. Dressed as I normally do in the office - smart business suit and a fairly distinctive tie, I went up to the tower to brief the controller on what information we wanted from the threshold anemometers, then went off and changed into flying kit, briefed the sortie, and strapped into the right hand seat with a certain nowadays very senior Test Pilot who at the time went by the callsign "Gauntlet 80".

Taxiing out, we had a call from the Tower...

"Gauntlet 80 - Tower"

"Tower, 80, go"

"Gauntlet 80, we've just had your boffin up here and he wants all these numbers written down. Do you actually want this stuff?"

(brief pause)

"Hang on, he's just here, I'll ask him"


- Most punchy ATC I can ever recall at BDN after that little conversation!

G

[Solar]

A lot of the expected replies as usual with I think Airpolice being the most square on the head so to speak.
The AFS were placed on standby so the title was indeed somewhat misleading.
The CAA were informed by the disgruntled FI due to his failure in previous unsubstantiated detrimental claims/actions aimed at one of the persons in the plane specifically and the Club in general.
There certainly are egos in play but not so much in the aircraft.
ATC/AFS did their job without any fuss and it only became an issue when a fireman/refueller mentioned it to the aforementioned FI who obviously decided that this could be yet another pinprick of annoyance.

Some people want to fly and some don't want anybody other than themselves to fly.

[TheOddOne]

Mad Jock doesn't say if any passengers were involved in his door seal blowout. In a previous life, I was involved in a few emergencies involving returning passenger aircraft due to depressurisation - we had a first-hand account from one of these as a member of our staff was on board, genuine 'rubber jungle' job.

Now, with the first couple of these (funny, isn't it, how you get a run of similar incidents, then nothing at all on that subject for years?) an Emergency was declared by the crew, then cancelled by the crew as they got safely down below 10,000'. This meant that ATC stood everybody down, including the local ambulance service. Now, the flight that my colleague was on, when it got to the gate, many pax were in a lot of pain, blood coming out of ears etc and so ambulances had to be re-called, some delay in treatment as they'd all gone away. There was a major revision to Emergency Orders to state that if there was an inbound a/c that had previously declared an emergency for depressurisation, then cancelled it, the Full Emergency status would remain in force until the medical authorities were satisfied that none of the pax (or crew!) required treatment.
For some reason of ego, or whatever, some crews objected to the presence of the Emergency Services anywhere near their a/c. At my previous place of employment, the RFFS vehicles would turn out purely as an exercise and follow a random a/c to stand, to practice how to correctly deploy around different types.
Weather Standby is an SOP and can simply be triggered by the W/V going over certain pre-determined limits, regardless of actual aircraft types operating.

The Odd One

[mad_jock]

Yep pax and no rubber jungle fitted.

If I had got bleeding pax in the back I wouldn't cancel and certainly wouldn't fly past several diversion airports.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Where I'm based just reporting a problem gets Trumpton rushing out, and I'm really rather glad about it, having reported a generator failure I was taxiing in with AFS in attendance when the engine concerned decided to have a hysterical fit and catch fire. They are also there when we have hot brake problems, and at any time a pilot or controller thinks they might be needed, they also throw a great summer BBQ and a superb training course on fires for pilots where you get to don the kit and actually go, with them into a fire they set and put it out.

If the instructor in this thread has contacted the CAA then he may find himself being asked a lot of questions, by both the CAA and his employers. In an economy like ours p*#£ing off a pilot who may hire from you, or at least use your school for training is a bit like placing one foot over the other and shooting through both.

The controller/AFISO/AG operator, whatever was right. If there's going to be an uncomfortable incident then having the fire crew part way there is a bonus to my mind.

We've all read reports of aircraft crashes on airfields where pilots or pax were horribly burned before AFS could get there, it's not a way I want to end a days flying, either at work or in my own aeroplane.

SND