ICAO “standards” exist because we recognise the importance of common international standards in aviation. Where a member state departs in matters not concerned with safety that may be questionable, where it is concerned with safety that is unacceptable. I make that comment as much as I would prefer to say we are right and everyone else is wrong or should be familiar with the way WE do things and in the assumption that it is indeed we who have departed from the standard.
However, the fact is we are entitled and have filed a difference so users of our airspace should be aware of this difference and should be “re-educated” if they are not.
DXW clearly used the frequency for the purpose it is intended in UK airspace. Other users were not entitled to suggest otherwise, or use the frequency for another purpose other than a pan or mayday. That said, since it would seem DXW had not declared a pan, priorities would have needed to have been established had another pilot been TUP.
Whether DXW and/or D and D should have kept the frequency in use for a diversion to destination is an interesting issue. In the first instance IMO that was DXWs call and his call alone - it was not up for debate in the air why he wanted to continue to destination. I guess he could have been transferred to a discrete frequency when it was realised that the “emergency” would occupy guard for some time?
IMO back on the ground this is not an unreasonable debate.
On the one hand we may not have any idea why DXW wanted to continue to destination (although in this case I suspect it was more a matter that was what was offered by D and D) and it is definitely not for us to second guess those facts without knowing what they were. A pilot with many 1,000 of hours might have been happy to divert to the most immediate, however given the visibility was clearly improving a low time pilot might have been far more comfortable going to where he had planned and rehearsed. Should the pilot have been able to divert any where that presented enough runway on which to land? - of course yes, but that is not the point.
Should D and D have suggested and offered vectors to a nearer alternative? Possibly. That would have been a reasonably gentle hint to the pilot that in perhaps other circumstances that might present a better solution than risking becoming TUP again in worsening viz. It might have even resulted in the pilot and D and D agreeing that own nav could be resumed, thus clearing the frequency with the proviso that the pilot was welcome to call back if he became TUP again. D and D may well have felt there was nothing else relevant on frequency so they may as well vector DXW to destination, but at the back of my mind I guess it is possible another pilot was becoming TUP, but was reluctant to make the call because the frequency was obviously busy. That would be a shame for another pilot to end up infringing when the first pilot had been / or could have been “sorted out” and cleared off frequency.
DXW a very interesting post however. I have fortunately never had to use D and D for real but have made practise calls more than a few times. The service is excellent. I have to admit I have never experienced the barrage you did and would not have been anywhere near so polite!
I have been “berated” for diverting with an engine failure in a twin. It taught me a vital lesson. The opinion of some on these forums or elsewhere (and it is usually those who have in fact have very little experience) really doesn’t matter when you are dealing with an emergency or “urgency” in the air - the buck stops with you, and you alone must prioritise your safety. Guess what - if you hadn’t made the call, or in other circumstances diverted, or not told those “interfering” with your urgency it would have been the same pilots who would have berated you for your lack of airmanship.
Just a different slant on a few things for what it is worth.