There! Topic edited. As for those posters who show their immaturity and lack of debating skills by resorting to personal abuse, Don't. Vigorous debate is fine, especially here where some of the parties to the incident under discussion are taking part but I won't accept posters descending to insults just because they can't provide a reasoned response to another posters point of view.
I edited the title originally from "Crash Imminent" to "Crash Imminent ...maybe (Air mauritius)" because I thought it reflected the content of the thread more accurately. Obviously it was misinterpreted and to try and avoid any further vehemence towards the topic starter I have edited it again. If anyone is not happy with something about a thread then please don't harp on about it in the thread. Use the "Report this post to a moderator" link that is available at the bottom of every post instead.
On the topic of ATC calling in Emergency services, I can understand the frustration that one persons perception of a situation can cause. In my case, I was on a freight flight from Coventry to Belfast in an HS748 when we started to experience some minor vibration from one of the props. It was a fairly common occurrence as the de-icing strips on the prop blades used to delaminate. As we were ahead of schedule and flying directly over our main (maintenance) base at Liverpool I decided to divert there so engineering could fix the problem, just in case it developed into something more troublesome later when away from base.
It was very early in the morning, about 0500L and I told Manchester ATC who were handling me at the time that I wished to divert to Liverpool. I was given a vector and handed off to Liverpool Approach who asked me why I was diverting there. I told them 'it was for technical reasons'. They then kept asking me for more details and I repeated my reason. They then asked what exactly was the 'technical' reason and I told them I had a minor vibration from one of the props and I wanted our engineers to check it out. We were based at Liverpool so it made sense to make a quick 'pit stop' and get the problem sorted.
Anyway, I was asked by ATC if I wanted to declare an emergency and I told them 'no, I just want our engineers to check something'. Eventually, I am lining up on final approach and I see all these blue flashing lights and emergency vehicles lined up by the runway. There were many more emergency vehicles waiting at the RVP's. After an uneventful landing we taxied to the ramp with a squadron of fire engines in front and behind us with more waiting by the ramp.
I shut down the engines, put the ladder out and immediately a fireman comes on board wanting to know the nature of our 'emergency' to which I responded that there wasn't one! After reassuring the fire services that they weren't needed they all buggered off and tranquility returned to the airport.
I got an engineer to stick the de-icing pad back on the prop so we could get on our way. Whilst waiting for the bond to take effect I a quick coffee in the crew room where I get a call from the MD wanting to know what the hell was going on. Apparently, whoever had decided that the emergency services should be called out or someone from within those services had also 'leaked' the news to the media who had already broadcast the 'news' about a full emergency with one of our a/c and using library footage had put together a 'package' showing our passenger aircraft and insinuating that somehow we had had a lucky escape from some sort of disaster.
I called the tower and asked why they had declared an emergency when I had specifically stated that there wasn't one. The response I got was that it was SOP for them to declare an emergency if an aircraft states they have a 'technical' problem. Go figure!
In the end, I got a bollocking for supposedly giving ATC the idea that I had an emergency and I gave them one for declaring it and having press hype it out of all proportion which could have caused damage to the reputation of the company.
It just goes to show why it's not always best to 'over react' to minor problems. In the case of the Air Mauritius A340 hydraulic
abnormal situation, I think the controller over reacted. The pilot requested the longer runway. It would be SOP to request the longer runway. To assume a more serious response was required based solely on that information and even though only a PAN was declared was, in my personal view, an over reaction. If the crew had asked for emergency services to be standing by as they were unsure of their ability to come to a stop within the confines of the runway or had declared that there was a possibility of a gear collapse then I could understand the decision to override the crews perception of the outcome. In this case, it was indeed an overreaction and as can be seen, the 'Chinese Whisper' syndrome can make it even worse.