Originally Posted by
gulliBell
Quite often people hear what they expect to hear without comprehending what was actually said. Saying the magic word breaks the expectation and gets their full attention.
You're absolutely right. I've flown with many guys that are hesitant about using the M word. ATC is constantly dealing with multiple aircraft at a time, they don't have the time nor the interest to assess the situation for you, unless you clarify the nature of emergency. If you just said terms like "engine fire" or simply "emergency", they would at least get an idea of what to expect next and plan accordingly. Some guys like to get technical with ATC, saying things like "we have a warning message", "we're only showing two green" or "master caution". Not all controllers are pilots, even in the English-speaking world, they wouldn't understand know what you need until you officially declare an emergency. But many pilots are conservative about using it, even in bad situations.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this situation, but I've seen the incidents before where guys are not assertive with ATC. Although it's possible that the HK ATC was not on full alert about the situation, looking at how the news report is written, it almost seems like the writer is faulting the ATC. And at the end he states "While the emergency was in progress and emergency services were attending to the aircraft at the turn off tower kept runway 07L open, a number of aircraft landed." It makes a big difference if the aircraft was actually clear of the runway, or if it was still at the high-speed turn off. I'm certain that the tower would not keep the runway open unless the aircraft was totally clear of the runway. However, it would be a smart thing to at least inspect the runway for debris before clearing the next inbound aircraft.
I guess the only way to get a clear picture of the whole incident is to hear the actual ATC recording, and an official report of the investigation.