Other aviation hazards

[Friendly Pelican]

Oceanic Contingency Procedures

In substantial oversimplification:

1. If requisite deviation without clearance is Engine-failure-related, maneouvre to an appropriate level +/- 500.
2. If similar deviation is Weather-related, manoeuvre to an appropriate level +/- 300.

I know the reasoning behind both - but wouldn't it be simpler if the procedure was origin-independent?

[Semreh]

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

... in dense Condimental airspace , makes no difference where you go laterally as there is likely going to be someone in your way...

So what you are saying is that when the airspace is peppered with aircraft, an aviator worth his salt will not change heading in an emergency descent, simply squawk on 7700 and R/T calf sign + emergency descent to 10.000 ft, and that cuts the mustard.

(Sorry, I have an unfortunate predilection for puns. Mods are free to delete this before I do. (Well, they can anyway, but I formally don't mind))

[punkalouver]

Originally Posted by Semreh

So what you are saying is that when the airspace is peppered with aircraft, an aviator worth his salt will not change heading in an emergency descent, simply squawk on 7700 and R/T calf sign + emergency descent to 10.000 ft, and that cuts the mustard.

(Sorry, I have an unfortunate predilection for puns. Mods are free to delete this before I do. (Well, they can anyway, but I formally don't mind))

Well, if the TCAS shows traffic left and right and none ahead, what would you do. How about aiming for areas clear of terrain and aircraft instead of blanket planning on one particular option which frequently does not make sense. On a major enroute airway in central Asia or over the ocean, likely a turn. Crowded European or North American skies might suggest a different plan.

[alf5071h]

Uncertainty, unforeseen surprise

The greater hazard is in the unforeseen, and how we react.
With uncertainty, we, humans remain a hazard to ourselves - how we manage surprise.

This has always been so, but arguably reducing in line with safety tends.
Conversely where most of the easier situational hazards have been identified, those which might be encountered are more likely to be unseen, or discounted with erroneous reasoning, and thus a surprise.
There is increasing need to be prepared to be surprised and consider how we might respond.

Safety discussions (as in posts above) often overlook the urgency in situations which has been considered previously, which is reflected in procedures:
If - Then - Act. There is no need to double think situations, particularly where thinking might be in short supply when surprised.

An emergency descent is based on physiological needs, not traffic density. Beware false reasoning.

[MarkerInbound]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

The topic of “Mayday” vs “Emergency” comes up often on PPRune. I’ve been flying Jets since 1986 in the USAF and Commercially. All I can tell you is, in the U.S., we declare an “EMERGENCY” this phraseology has been hammered into US pilots since day one of PPL training.

The FAA AIM now says 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 communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.
It goes on to discuss Mayday and Pan Pan so change is slowly coming but old habits are hard to break.

[74757677]

Bit like position and hold and line up and wait, behind. Never had a problem with the former tbh. It’s the States, do what you have to do. Respect to the Kennedy ground, tower and area controllers. (from a foreigner)

[Chiefttp]

74757677,
My Son flies 777’s internationally. He says that in the UK tower will request a crew to “Line up and wait behind the landing BA 747 for ex. Or he says they’ll even issue a clearance to “
line up and wait behind the second 737 landing”.
Is this true? It would seem to me that could be problematic if a crew gets the sequence wrong?

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

74757677,
My Son flies 777’s internationally. He says that in the UK tower will request a crew to “Line up and wait behind the landing BA 747 for ex. Or he says they’ll even issue a clearance to “
line up and wait behind the second 737 landing”.
Is this true? It would seem to me that could be problematic if a crew gets the sequence wrong?

No, not correct. A uk controller can only use a conditional clearance for the first aircraft on approach. If a clearance is given to line up after the second/third landing aircraft, that is incorrect and should be challenged.

The phraseology is
Atc
ABC123 Behind the landing X, line up and wait behind.
Response
A/c
Behind the landing X line up and wait behind.

Behind is emphasised twice, and the stop bar only deselected as the landing aircraft passes the holding point.

This can only be used in appropriate weather conditions, and when used with landing traffic for the first aircraft to land only.

[421dog]

In the US, any sort of “MayDay or Pan Pan” elicits the same response: “Understand you are declaring an emergency, what is the nature of your emergency and what are your intentions”. It is not a graded response, and will get you a great deal of attention in even the most densely occupied airspace. ATC will accommodate you quickly, get you what you need and get everybody out of your way (and you to a more discreet frequency and, if practical, location, with sufficient alacrity to keep the system functioning safely and efficiently.)
Aviate, Navigate and Communicate (in that order) are the expected procedures.

Been there, Done that, Got the T-shirt…

[Chiefttp]

Jumpseater,
Thank You for your response. My Son said the clearance he was given to by Stanstead Tower was line a up and wait after the second landing traffic. I’ll pass on to him that that clearance is not correct and not to accept it.

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by Semreh

So what you are saying is that when the airspace is peppered with aircraft, an aviator worth his salt will not change heading in an emergency descent, simply squawk on 7700 and R/T calf sign + emergency descent to 10.000 ft, and that cuts the mustard.

(Sorry, I have an unfortunate predilection for puns. Mods are free to delete this before I do. (Well, they can anyway, but I formally don't mind))

I know you\re trying to score points but remember an emergency descent is an emergency., the goal you save your skin and that of the passengers behind you as soon as possible and there are no fixed rules that will guarantee a safe outcome. Years back I.ve been doing combined SIM sessions with one major European carrier to try to find solutions but there are none

The best we found is the 7700 squawk. and an initial call using your real call sign . What we found at the time is that in a real emergency , in stress pilots are often automatically reverting to the dummy call sign used in the SIM when practicing that emergency ..

[jumpseater]

Originally Posted by Chiefttp

Jumpseater,
Thank You for your response. My Son said the clearance he was given to by Stanstead Tower was line a up and wait after the second landing traffic. I’ll pass on to him that that clearance is not correct and not to accept it.

UK CAA Cap413, Chapter4 para 4.34 is the document to look at.
It is remotely possible that Stansted have a local procedure within their Mats Part2 that allows this variation, but I’d be very surprised.