EZY emergency @ BRS

[WATABENCH]

An EZY came in on full emergency yesterday i've been told, anybody know anything about this one?:confused:

[LTNman]

Quote from a Scottish newspaper

AN easyJet plane from Glasgow was forced to circle for an hour before
landing due to a mystery problem yesterday.

Problems started shortly before the easyJet EZY402 Boeing landed at Bristol
International Airport and a full emergency was declared on the ground.

The captain told the 118 passengers: 'Ladies and gentlemen, there is a minor
technical problem. Please remain calm.'

The plane was taken out of service for checks.

easyJet said last night: 'There was a suspected problem but the plane landed
safely and without incident.'

[jettesen]

Journos blowing a situation out of al proportion as usual

[NigelOnDraft]

WATABENCH

full emergency Please do educate me as to what a "full emergency" is? I have obviously missed something in my training or education? When do I declare a "full" emergency? And what are the other categories? "Empty"? "Half Full"? "Overflowing" :)

To my knowledge, at least in the UK, there are only 2 Emergency Categories for aircraft... which one was this?

NoD

[Vlad the Impaler]

Nigel,
whilst as a pilot you will only declare a mayday or a pan, as an ATCO I have a raft of categories into which I attempt to fit your problem. There are seven or eight and one of these is indeed a "Full Emergency" rather than for instance a local standby or aircraft accident imminent etc.
If you wish to declare an overflowing emergency then by all means feel free !!!
V the I

[This is a crisis]

NoD

Vlad is quite right - 'Full Emergency' definition is when an aircraft is known or suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident. This will normally bring the outside emergency services rushing in!!

We also have an 'Aircraft Ground Incident' which is when an aircraft on the ground is known to have an emergency situation, other than an accident, which requires the attendance of the emergency services. This also in most cases brings the outside services in.

Just to give you some idea - if you were airborne and declared a Mayday with an engine fire warning it would be a Full Emergency. If the same thing happened when you were taxying out, it would be an Aircraft Ground Incident.

Apart from the obvious 'Aircraft Accident' we also have a lower category called 'Local Standby' - when an aircraft is known or suspected to have developed some defect but one which would not normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing. This is also used if you ask for your aircraft to be inspected by the Airport Fire Service or if you are being searched following a Bomb Warning. This is normally dealt with 'in-house'

At my unit we also have an 'Aircraft Ditching' procedure!!

Note the words 'suspected'. In other words, even if you dont say anything, if we have that certain feeling in our water we can still hit the button. Hope that helps.
:ok:

[eastern wiseguy]

Readings NOD's posts over the past while ...he seems to jump on non professionals(journos ,kids) trying to sensationalise matters(rightly so ) .On this occasion he is wrong


Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1(cap 493)5.2.3

FULL EMERGENCY

When an aircraft is known or suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident.

[Paracab]

This will normally bring the outside emergency services rushing in!!

Absolutely, I have been involved in 'rushing in' in one way or another (Ambo) for almost ten years, to literally dozens of full emergencies, so its by no means a new term.

The term 'Full Emergency' does, however (IMHO) paint the wrong impression of an incident to those not 'in the know' when used in the more public setting.

[WATABENCH]

Oh dear,
Has Nigel got out the wrong side of bed or something, thanks chaps for backing me up there, and your right sarcasm can backfire!
Back to the subject though, i have since been told there were 12 ambulances called to the airport strait away with others alerted, the A38 was closed and it was a hydraulics problem.:ok:

[A and C]

Can't have been to much of a HYD problem or the crew would not have landed at BRS !

[Old King Coal]

A and C - A look in the B737 QRH(s) ‘Advisory Landing Distances - Non-normal Configuration’, show that the worst case landing distances are typically as follows:

B737-300
4,900 ft (dry runway)
5.080 ft (wet runway with good braking action)

B737-700
4,332 ft (dry runway)
4,825 ft (wet runway with good braking action)

Nb. The above figures also include the distance from 50ft above threshold, i.e. the aircraft is landing at the 1,000 ft point.

Bristol’s runway has an overall length of 6,598 ft - albeit that I’m not sure what is the precise Landing Distance Available (LDA) but do I seem to recall it's certainly more than 6000 ft – so the above figures show that Bristol is more than long-enough, even in the very worst cases of B737 configuration.

Nb. For the B737, a ‘Flaps Up’ landing would typically be the most limiting case, albeit that a loss of both Hydraulic systems A&B (Manual Reversion) is not far behind in terms of stopping distances required ( but is not, according to Mr.Boeing, the most limiting ).

Let’s stick to facts shall we ?! :E and I’m with NoD, i.e. the only two ( or maybe three ) phrases I know and will use are Mayday and Pan ( and possibly, rarely, Securité ) and which to me mean the following:

Mayday = Everybody out of my way, I need to land ASAP.
Pan = I’ve got a problem and I need some time and space to sort it out.

... and I can upgrade and downgrade these as I see fit.

Now ATC can interpret and / or further dissect these as they will, and that’s fine, just so long as the appropriate emergency services are there to meet me when I arrive at the airfield – and I would expect emergency services to be in attendance whenever I’m using Mayday or Pan.

[Old King Coal]

For the benefit of people who might not know better, and / or who don't hold an RT license, have a read of the CAA / CAP413 / Radio Telephony Manual (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF) in which I would suggest close attention to Chapter 8 / Emergency Phraseology and, in particular, Section 1.2 of that chapter, 'States of Emergency'.

As you can see, there is no such thing, in pilot speak, as a 'full' (or elsewise) emergency !

So, eal401, now tell me who's being clueless ?!

[aviator's_anonymous]

Hi, I'm fairly new at prrune, however i'd like to just add my comment about this post.
As far as Pilots are concerned, we have two phrases which are used during radio communications when declaring an emergency. (Pan pan and Mayday).
However, for ATC, when they hear our Pan pan or Mayday call, they have to determine the severity of our situation by our radio call. That is why it is advised to pilots that when they are transmitting their emergency call to ATC, and when "time permitting", we give ATC as much detail of our situation to them if we can and if the situation allows us at the time.
We can't expect ground personnel to have All local Emergencies services on standby everytime a small glitch happens on a plane. The term "Full Emergency" is used by those determining the severity of the emergency and so the appropriate emergency personnel can be contacted. Sometimes only a small checkup of the plane required, and othertimes, they need all the roads from the airport to the hospitals blocked, all available ambulances on standby, and all hospitals with backup staff in the local areas notified....(given the fact it doesn't happen very often), but that is why there are different "levels of emergencies" at different airports operations. Okay...that's enough of my knowledge *Braces for backfiring from other posts*

[eal401]

So, eal401, now tell me who's being clueless ?!
The one looking at it from the pilot's viewpoint and no other. (Hard to believe such an occurrence I know) The original post is from the point of view of those on the ground and does not refer to R/T comms between a/c and the ground.

Airside operations personnel routinely use the term "full emergency." I have heard those words coming out from the mouths of such people. I have heard the head of airside operations use the term.

So, I guess I am not being clueless.

[This is a crisis]

Oh dear oh dear,

Why is it that the vast majority of threds on prune at the moment turn into a slanging match.....surely as professionals we should be well above all that.

I may be a bit slow but I took NigelonDraft's post as a genuine enquiry, with a bit of wit thrown in at the end, as to the meanings of the various categories of emergency. He is quite right - most pilots will not be aware of the various categories of emergency that can be declared at an airfield - all based on his Pan or Mayday call and the amount of information the pilot passes to us.

One reason we often appear to badger you pilots for info is so that we can make an informed decision, based on fact, and therby declare an appropriate category of emergency. We are very conscious of the fact that hordes of emergency services rushing towards you is not the best thing in PR terms, but we are equally aware that if we make the wrong decision and it all goes 'tits up' we have to justify our actions to the man in the grey wig.

Worth mentioning as well that if in any doubt at all most ATCOs will over rather than under react ( as we are trained to do)

:ok:

[Viscount Sussex]

:confused:
Hi Gents

I thought the thread was about the EZY emergency at BRS.

This is a crisis,

You should call yourself: The diplomat.

Back to the topic. According to a colleague of mine (a commercial pilot) on board the flight, the reason for the hour's holding and delayed landing was a LE SLAT DISAGREE.

VS
:ok:

[flower]

We were advised it was a Stabiliser problem.
Does that make sense to pilots ?

( thats not being sarcastic i am just hoping I have got the phrase correct :O )

[Mister Geezer]

All in all it was a bit of a non event. I landed just on front of the aircraft in question. A pan was declared but everything looked normal on touchdown. Our dispatcher said to us that it had gear problems.

Not very much to get excited about really.

[Bengerman]

Seems to me that Nigel is right to question the use of the term "Full Emergency". What could be the difference between an emergency and a full emergency??? Do you have time for a smoke and a cup of tea when it iis a mere "emergency"

At a time when ATC encourage pilots to be as concise as possible with R/T they are the very ones who tend to be more verbose at times. Example............"Cathay xxx is ready to start"....."Cathay xxx, are you FULLY ready?" ...........(sighs) "Yes, Cathay xxx is FULLY ready".

What the **** is the difference between being ready and being FULLY ready???????????

What the **** is the difference between an emergency and a FULL emergency??????????

Perhaps we should start to transmit FULL Maydays, tell ATC that we are FULLY maintaining FL300..........

:mad:

[This is a crisis]

Bengerman

As said earlier a FULL EMERGENCY is just an ATC phrase that triggers a certain response from the emergency services. Theses I should add are universal UK ATC terms defined by both SRG in Mats Part 1 and also the CAA in the booklet 'Model Aerodrome Emergency Orders.

As for the term fully ready...well.......lets just say that certain of us have been caught out by aircraft calling for start when they are still loading pax/doors open etc etc. Hence we often confirm with the term fully ready - this is more important now we have the 15 minute rule whereby we are not allowed to let you start/pushback if your are 15 mins after your FPL EOBT.

Same for pushback really...have been caught loads of times by aircraft calling for push when they still have the doors open!! I am sure this is the exception rather than the rule but it can cause us problems at times. I know a certain Captain who actually uses the phrase himself!!

:ok:

[redfield]

Time for the facts then! It was a rudder problem which was resolved enough for the a/c to make a safe landing at BRS. The a/c was returned to service by about 1700.

[hangten]

sorry bengerman, going to have to agree with crisis here, having been caught out a few times if i ask if you're 'fully' ready i mean if i give you pushback are you going to push or are you going to sit for a couple of minutes and then push, putting a spanner in my plans..

this is a rare event but can be very frustrating and cause problems that compound for other airfield users.

a full emergency, as mentioned above is a particular grading of an emergency, hence to atc the difference between an emergency and a full emergency is more information on the exact nature of the problem, and also as mentioned above means that the outside services are notified and will attend. the definition as already mentioned is an aircraft in flight is known or suspected to be in such difficulty that there is the danger of an accident.

a local standby is also an emergency but one which would not normally prevent the aircraft from conducting a normal landing and as the name suggests the response is limited to the airport fire service.

an aircraft ground incident is also an emergency but the aircraft is on the ground and there is danger of an accident occuring. outside services will attend.

an aircraft accident imminent and aircraft accident are rather self explanatory and are unsurprisingly also emergencies...

there are many others that may or may not relate directly to aircraft. i won't bore with them all. i'm actually not sure i've added anything that hasn't already been said but i hope it sums up what we've been trying to say. any more questions..?

for completeness an aircraft accident is an incident in which and aircraft suffers structural damage, causes injury or death or causes significant damage to property. anybody still awake..?

[ManaAdaSystem]

A full emergency is when you try to land a 737 with the gear up, stabiliser jammed, LE slat disagree and the rudder inop.

This one must be heading for BREAKING NEWS on SKY and BBC!

FANTASTIC job by the crew!;)

[This is a crisis]

Actually, that would be an Aircraft Accident Imminent !!!:D :D :D

[blue up]

Perhaps it is time to change from the PAN-or-MAYDAY system to a more realistic and graded system?
How about (in order of severity)....

Damp shirt emergency
Damp trouser emergency
Wet wellie emergency
New seat cushion emergency
New seat emergency
Bucket and mop emergency
Jobs vacant emergency

It would also help the journos to get the right story.

[Biggles Flies Undone]

Maybe they should employ the PF scale.

'Cucumber' would be a very low pucker factor.
'Biro' would be medium.
'Needle' would need the foam and crash crews.

Lots of scope there for imagination in getting the true scenario across without unduly alarming the passengers....

[FlapsOne]

redfield

You're just no fun!

Was there not a a school in imminent danger from this rudder problem? Or an old folks home perhaps?

[Antigua]

Leave NoD alone, you lot!

He's a very nice chap and the anithesis of 'clueless'. He just learned his CRM in the RAF ... none the worse for that.

ATCO chap/esses deciding all by themselves what level of disability my aeroplane is suffering from really gets on my t*ts.

It's happened to me twice within living memory, both times at Sussex Int.

The first time was in a Classic when we had left a bit of one of the (18) tyres on the runway in Delhi. Because it says so in our book, and purely for info, I informed ATC on arrival in the UK and requested no further action. This was at about 04.30. First they tried to persuade me to go to an airport 'with more than one runway', then they declared a full emergency (my words) without telling me. The sort that has fire engines hammering up the A23 from Brighton.

It was still dark and the punters were really impressed (not) with all the blue lights and men in helmets surrounding the a/c on landing.

The second was recently on a (little) Airbus when we had lost the Blue system. A true non-problem. Trying to be helpful, I told Director we may have a very slightly reduced turning-onto-the-LOC capability and got the full blue light treatment again, were sent to a very remote parking spot and surrounded by the Red Hardware. Partial panic in the cabin. Much delay to the customers.

I wonder sometimes if we get used for 'practice' whenever possible, even if we don't want to be.

I'm staying STUMM next time to spare my passenger's heartbeats. Is this the result you want?

This in no way denigrates the ATCOs or the Services. Just the proceedures.

Where's me tin hat?

Antigua ;)

[Old King Coal]

Hear, hear Antigua - after all, isn't the official title 'ATC Service' - almost makes one wonder who's there for whom's benefit ?!

tin hat on.... ;)

[hobie]

There is no doubt that the subject of Emergency levels is a controversial one! ...... I remember an incident at LHR involving an A330 (Flaps?) with ATC declaring an emergency level that resulted in dozens of posts on PPRuNe, identical in theme to those above ......

I wonder if there is a way that this subject could be thrashed out at an official level, to the satisfaction of all concerned?

edit for sp.

[Turn It Off]

just a couple of questions.

1 - Whats the Blue System?
2 - Would you also complain if there was an insufficient turn out?


Loose - Loose situation me thinks.

[Antigua]

Turn It Off ...

1) Blue hydraulic system. 1 of 3. Built in redundancy.

2) Only if I'd asked for a 'turnout' in the first place ... i.e. actually declared a Mayday or Pan.

Antigua

[This is a crisis]

I don't ever think there will be a solution to this problem. You have an ATCO who is legally responsible for providing an Alerting service who has to make a decision in the very early stages of an incident often based on information from a third party. If he/she happens to be talking to the aircraft at the time it is often no better as you pilot chappies are too busy trying to sort the problem to actually explain to ATC what is going on.

There is a phrase in Mats Part 1 which says that if there is any doubt then the pilot is to be asked 'Do you wish to declare an emergency'. Even then you may still get a Local Standby.

There is another side to all this of course - those of us who have been caught out before by airlines who encourage their pilots not to tell ATC too much because of the resultant bad publicity of lots of blue lights. Just to give a personal example - an aircraft that having just got airborne asks to return. Usual question - do you wish to declare an emergency - answer came negative. Local standby put on anyway just in case (No big deal at my unit, no blue lights etc, they just sit in their vehicles outside the fire station. On final however it became obvious from the quality of the R/T that the crew were using masks. Then when the aircraft landed the crew announced they wished to evacuate the aircraft on the runway. It is this sort of deliberate mis-information that could cause ATCOs to over-react purely to cover themselves. Should add the subject airline has since been taken over by another lot!!

[NigelOnDraft]

Well - I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest there!

Thank you for those who enlightened me as to the ATC defined "full emergency" - something I was not aware of - and fortunately I clarified my post with:To my knowledge, at least in the UK, there are only 2 Emergency Categories for aircraft... which one was this? and apologies to anyone offended by my mild repost to the original post <G>

[5milesbaby]

I would like to point out that the many catergories of Emergency my ATC collegues speak of aren't JUST for ATC use, but are also understood by the Fire/Police/Ambulance and Airport Authorities so that the appropriate action can be taken by each. Trying to remove ANY of these will mean that certain events will not be correctly catered for and will lead to more lives endangered. Tower controllers are taught exactly what is in each catergory and make a decision which to use based on the info they and other controllers have been told or witnessed. A "just in case" turnout is makes far better sense rather than a "should have done more" one.

On a side, an A340 has shut down one engine, advises ATC, but does not declare an emergency saying it was just a high running temperature but all resolved, what would you expect for that? Our manual says anything less than 50% power loss is an immediate PAN call, 50%+ being MAYDAY, there is no mention of NO EMERGENCY. A state of emergency will be initiated by the landing aerodrome - blue lights may turn out, and the day it overruns you'll be glad some people were already prepared. Lets hope that day never comes.

[M609]

I think it's really simple, as long as some aircrew continue to put a spin on their situation (The kind that does not need assistance, but cannot take even 1 nm delay, and might block runway after landing), ATC will protect their @rse with at least some type of local standby.

(I'm not loosing my licence because some pilot forgot to declare, and the AAIB finds that "...the controller should have understood that there was an emergency...") :ouch: :ouch: :ouch:

[WATABENCH]

Blimey oh Riley.
Wish I hadn't said anything now, ha ha
Best call in the UN to sort this arguement out, i take on board what Nigel is saying regarding how an emergency is issued, but as I don't fly I was just going on how we hear it on the ground, Thats the good thing about this website, you can learn many things!
:ok:

[Blue heaven]

Bengerman ,

Interesting that you should bring up this issue of the use of the added term “FULL” into what is already (considered by most, I think) an overcrowded RTF environment. I spotted a Eurocontrol “Information Notice” in the crew room the other day, on use of Mode S and A-SMGCS, where they use the term “FULLY PARKED ON THE STAND”. Prompted me to think what other way of being parked was available! Now you would think that they at least would get it right!
But on a more serious note, is the end result of these added words to the already limited RTF time, and how individuals will respond. If we are to be questioned each time we ask for push back etc, then this will result in a repeat exchange between crew and ATC (e.g. ABC ready for push back stand 1; ABC confirm fully ready for push back?; ABC confirmed, fully ready for push back) and so it goes. End result – more RTF congestion, transmissions jumped on, readbacks incorrect and not corrected etc etc. Maybe what should be developed, is an ICAO standard on when an instruction or clearance should be reacted to (1 minute perhaps?)

BH
:confused:

[keithl]

Antigua - on the subject of ATC deciding you have an emergency, "Hear, Hear!"

I once arrived back in my home circuit to be requested, apologetically, to orbit "As there is another emergency aircraft inbound"

Me: "What do you mean, "another emergency"
ATC: "In addition to yours."
Me: "But I haven't got an emergency!?"
ATC:"But Buchan told us you had a nosewheel problem"
Me: "*!@!!**!"

I had simply had a conversation with my No2 about an intermittent nosewheel light, a common problem on the Canberra, and some Fighter Controller with an excess of initiative had made a whole drama out of it, without even consulting me!

How do you like that?

[Partly Achieved]

On the subject of aircraft being met by a sea of blue lights and thereby "scaring the horses" -

A much older & wiser ATCO than myself taught me to warn pilots before they land that they will be met by the emergency services "just as a precaution" giving them the chance to warn the pax.

PA

[Cahlibahn]

Where's BJCC when he's needed?

Met Police Aircraft Incident categories

C.4 Aircraft Incident Categories

C.4.1 In order for the emergency services and aerodrome authorities to understand the nature
of an emergency they have been defined using the following categories for use during
a prescribed incident. Slight local variations between aerodromes may exist though the
broad outline of the definition remains the same. Air Traffic Control (ATC) will usually
make the initial decision on the category of emergency. Subject to threat assessment
by the police and aerodrome authority there may be occasions when a response to
a bomb warning is required to an aircraft either in the air, on the ground or on the
aerodrome premises.

Full Emergency
C.4.2 When ATC know or suspect that an aircraft in flight is known or suspected to be in
difficulties which, if aggravated could result in an accident.

Aircraft Ground Incident
C.4.3 When ATC becomes aware of or suspects that an aircraft on the ground is involved in
an incident of a lesser nature than an aircraft accident. The incident may have caused
aircraft damage, have the potential to result in aircraft damage or put the passengers
and crew at risk.

Aircraft Accident Imminent
C.4.4 When ATC considers an aircraft accident is inevitable, either on or in the vicinity of
the airport.

Aircraft Accident
C.4.5 When ATC becomes aware that an aircraft accident has occurred on the airport or within
the airport boundary.

Aircraft Accident off Airport
C.4.6 When ATC becomes aware that an aircraft accident has occurred beyond the
airfield boundary.

Full Emergency Hijack
C.4.7 Where ATC become aware that a person on an aircraft who, by the use of force or threat of
any kind, intends to seize the aircraft or exercises control of it.

Act of aggression
C.4.8 An act of terrorism, armed attack, bomb attack, hostage situation (other than Hijack on an
aircraft) or other similar acts of terrorism is taking or has taken place on or adjacent to the
aerodrome boundary.

[toothpic]

Full Emergency...
Reminds me of the guidelines put on films...
contains scenes of Minor Peril.........:=

[fly bhoy]

we had left a bit of one of the (18) tyres on the runway in Delhi

I'm staying STUMM next time to spare my passenger's heartbeats.

Very irresponsible IMHO.

Are you 100% certain that the burst tyre hasn't caused any additional problems?!? Tell you what, IF you stay "stumm" and subsequently you end up in serious trouble, we've got no AFS turnout, see how many of your passengers have still got a heartbeat for you to spare!!

I would much rather overreact 999 times out of a thousand if on that 1000th time the fire services managed to save more lives compared to the number saved if only a local standby or even no emergency is put on, regardless of how bad it makes the "company" look!!!

I can't believe professional pilots would rather worry about the image of the company and not scaring the pax, than making 100% certain that they're going to be ok when they land!!

I know we don't have the full picture and some of the incidents seem trivial, but no-one (not even you pilots) can be 100% certain that everything will be ok on landing, until you touch down, so we err on the side of caution. Fingers crossed you'll never need it, but on the day you do, you'll be bloody glad I chose to put on a full emergency and not a local standby, so you have a much larger emergency service turnout!!

FB:ok:

[Antigua]

I would much rather overreact 999 times out of a thousand if on that 1000th time the fire services managed to save more lives compared to the number saved if only a local standby or even no emergency is put on, regardless of how bad it makes the "company" look!!!

Devils Advocate again, Fly Bhoy ....

It's the 'I' bit in the above I quarrel with. I'm the a/c Captain. The safety of the a/c is my responsibility alone. It's strapped to my a*se, not to your control tower. I was there when the problem occurred, and I had managed it and planned my arrival for nearly 9 hours. Exactly when did my responsibility pass to you? I specifically did not ask to declare an emergency ... how come you would know better?

If this sounds grudging, it's not meant to be. I know the help and assistance I will get in the UK is the best in the world. I have only to ask for it. If I have any doubt I will.

Have you ever had your mother-in-law telling you how you should have painted your sitting room when you're 95% of the way through it?

'Think on' ... as they say in the People's Republic of Yorkshire ...

Well .... I've found my tin hat.

Antigua :p

[Gonzo]

Interesting, this one.

1) Blue hydraulic system. 1 of 3. Built in redundancy.

Heathrow's (and I bet every other unit's) Manual of Air Traffic Services says that a 'Full Emergency' will be declared for any sort of hydraulic failure, be it full or partial.

What people who might complain about over-reaction should bear in mind is that these categories of emergencies, which every ATCO has to know off by heart, might be very conservative for a Boeing/Airbus with multiple hydraulic systems continually montired by three computers with more redundancy than a Yorkshire coal mine in the 1980s, but which are also designed for a thiry year old clapped out Piper Seneca.

[Antigua]

Interesting indeed, Gonzo!

The Airbus QRH (what used to be called the 'Emergency Checklist') has NO proceedure for any single (of 3) hydraulic system failure. It's a non-event.

The Frogbus merely 'informs' you that you have lost one, and which bits of the a/c might not be working, if any.

So how do we square this with 'institutionalised' panic on the ground?

Antigua :confused:

[rodan]

It's the 'I' bit in the above I quarrel with. I'm the a/c Captain. The safety of the a/c is my responsibility alone. It's strapped to my a*se, not to your control tower.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The safety of the a/c is certainly your responsibility. But from our (ATC's) point of view, the safe use of the runway/airport/airspace, and the safety of others on the ground and in the air nearby is OUR responsibility. If you wish to use an airport in an emergency, don't be surprised that the airport authority (through ATC) has a vested interest in making sure you don't create a crater in the runway. Add to that the fact that our licence (ie, our career) or even liberty is on the line if we under-react to an emergency, and you will surely appreciate why we sometimes over-react. There is no perfect system, we just have to exercise our jugement and common sense in the way we were trained to.

[bjcc]

Cahlibahn

Here now thank you....

All very interesting stuff. No us ground bound types don't have the plane strapped to our backsides, but then we are the ones who have to tidy up the mess in the unlikley event it all goes wrong.

Heathrow is fortunate in that there are lots of Red/White/Green emergency vehicles and people who work there, and therefore should it all go bent there is the capacity to get it all going.

Bristol and other regional airports have the fire cover there yes, but no ambulance or police stationed there, and they have therefore, along with the local authority fire service, to be imported.

That takes time, and reduces the fire/police and ambulance cover to the areas surrounding the airport.

The idea of having levels of call (eg full emergency, LSB etc) help to grade a response for those of us who have no idea what the B737 owners manual says about stopping distance in the event of hydraulic fail.

Surely it is better to have the big gang there and then stand down than to have nothing there and try and get reinforcements after the event when the local traffic has come to a complete stop.

[Jerricho]

Just to further from Rodan, we do have to tin plate out @sses as much as you guys. I've read many an accident/incident transcript where the old "sh*t" paperbag with a hole in it has been swung above everybody's head who was involved, and it has stuck far and wide.

You also have to be cognisant of the fact that (as was mentioned here (http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=154948) ) there may be carriers who don't understand "Pan-Pan" or are very reluctant to reveal the full extent of a situation. It's a level playing field to play from, and isn't done simply for fun.

[terrain safe]

Antigua Quote:
Because it says so in our book, and purely for info, I informed ATC on arrival in the UK and requested no further action. This was at about 04.30. First they tried to persuade me to go to an airport 'with more than one runway', then they declared a full emergency (my words) without telling me. The sort that has fire engines hammering up the A23 from Brighton.

In your book it tells you to tell us, and in our book it says possible big problem, we will put on a full emergency. If you tell us, but then say disregard it, you have done your bit, your backside is covered, but we have to ignore it i.e. not cover ours. Bit unfair to then whinge about it. If you're not bothered don't tell us. If you do, expect us to take whatever action is in the book, commensurate with the problem.

Either way tell us and live with the subsequent action, you may be glad one day!!!!;) ;)

[fly bhoy]

If you tell us, but then say disregard it, you have done your bit, your backside is covered, but we have to ignore it i.e. not cover ours.

I agree totally. Pilots may only have two possible emergencies, but we have to decide which one, from several possibilities, your "problem" falls into, and although you operate your aircraft according to your manual, we operate our airfields according to ours.

So please don't be surprised if you are met by emergency services after making what may be to you an offhand comment about some system or other. You need to remember that chances are the controller working you has no idea as to how severe the problem is to the operation of the aircraft (to qoute Turn it off "1 - Whats the Blue System?") so as i've already said, we'll err on the side of caution.

Surely if its important enough for your operation manual to tell you that you should tell ATC, its important enough for us to call out the AFS?!?

FB:ok:

[WATABENCH]

BJCC, Terrain, fly bhoy
Well said there i feel, it's all very well the CPT/FO declaring then disregarding, but the peeps on the ground have to call in services otherwise if it did go wrong at the last minute then we'd be up a certain creek without a paddle, especially in a regional airport like BRS or CWL!!
This is a great debate we have here, and i feel that it's opened my eyes to some very grey areas, I work on the ground for an airline and have been doing my job for 3.5 yrs but if someone rang me to say your I/B flight has declared a PAN PAN Emergency I would probably contact Gate Gourmet and ask them to take some french bread to the aircraft with the greatest urgency!!
All joking aside though I really wouldn't until now have had a clue what a PAN PAN is.:confused:

[hapzim]

Further to this thread a Question to the emergency services personnel who may be called to assist.
With reference to a 'Full Emergency' declared for of airfield backup, do the services get a time frame of the arrival of the aircraft. Or do the troops arrive full blues & two's and sit around for X mins whilst fuel is burnt off or drills followed. Do your management have in place a, not immediate proceed at normal speeds, or get there asap call.

Could save an incident on the way to the call out.

This comes from my personel observations at my local airfield where there have seen some v near misses on the roads.

Need you at my incident please not one enroute.:ooh:

[hangten]

whilst i can't comment on what the emergency services do with the information whenever an emergency is declared by atc an estimate for the arrival of the aircraft is given. if the estimate is more than 30 mins in the future then a preliminary information message is passed with all details 'to allow the services to plan their resourcing' and an emergency only declared at eta -30 mins.

antigua i find your stance on this rather surprising. as captain the safety of your passengers and aircraft (and yourself..) is obviously paramount, which i'm sure you'll agree. you seem to take offence at us second guessing your decisions (a normal reaction) but we're not your mother in law and this isn't about your living room. hundreds of people lives may be at stake.

if your book tells you to tell us, don't you think it does so for a reason?

[Right Way Up]

If I declare a "Pan", why should that then turned into a full emergency. If I believe there is a chance of an accident I will be declaring a "Mayday" and would then expect the full emergency turnout. On this thread and earlier ones I keep hearing the quote "surely it is better to be safe than sorry", but who then covers the resources being used to cover the "full emergency". What if there is a big emergency somewhere else, that doesn't get enough resources as half the emergency services in the area are watching an aircraft land with a minor problem. Between ATC and us on the flight deck we have a professional responsibility to effect good communication to avoid this misuse of important resources.

[Gonzo]

Right Way Up....

If I declare a "Pan", why should that then turned into a full emergency. If I believe there is a chance of an accident I will be declaring a "Mayday" and would then expect the full emergency turnout.

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the semantics of all this. If you declare a PAN, it doesn't get 'turned into' a full emergency. 'PAN and MAYDAY are terms used to highlight priority and seriousness in communication with ATC and perhaps other aircraft. They have nothing to do with the category of emergency that is declared by ATC to initiate the call out of emergency services. We wouldn't do anything if an aircraft called 'PAN' due to lack of fuel. Conversely, as has been noted, we will put on a full emergency if an a/c says he's got a partial hydraulic failure but doesn't delcare PAN or MAYDAY

If you...

believe there is a chance of an accident I will be declaring a "Mayday" and would then expect the full emergency turnout.

We would probably put on an 'Aircraft Accident Imminent' which is far more serious than a 'Full Emergency'

[bjcc]

hapzim
I can only talk about Heathrow as far as your question is concerned.

There were, when I was there, 400 or so Police stationed there, so a Full Emergency (and everything lower than that) does not reduce the cover to surrounding areas. There is an outside response, but it was only 3 cars when I was there, and they were for traffic reasons not a response as such.

As regards to warnings, depends when ATC get told, we have had 2 minute warnings, we did once have an hour warning.

The information used to (and I presume still does) come from ATC via an emergnecy line, in the case of Full Emergency, that was normaly 2 messages, first just giving brief details, the second giving everything else. How far apart those calls are depending, I presume on ATC.

The first call didn't normaly give an ETA, so on reciept of it, yes blues/twos and stops come out.

We had a Service Level Agreement with the airport that we would have an particular number of police on standby at an RVP within 7 minutes.

Yes, if nessesary, then the blues twos can be turned off and normal driving resumed and still be there in time. The same does not apply to the London Fire Brigade, who carry on regardless. Don't know about the Ambulance service.

The Police ambulance and to some extend non airpoert fire cover is deicided upon as the minimum numbers to cover the first stages of an accident, of course if it goes horrible, then more will be coming.

The point is though that even if you don't think of a minor problem as anything significent, how many times have these minor things gone even further wrong?

[Antigua]

antigua i find your stance on this rather surprising.

if your book tells you to tell us, don't you think it does so for a reason?

Just trying to stimulate an interesting debate, 'hangten'. A little levity upsets some people. So be it.

Pilots do get prickly at people on the ground second guessing them, especially when we get bollockings for going against the book.

Like when the book says ... 'Inform ATC' and in the same sentence says 'Do NOT declare an emergency'.

Pilots tend not to be committee people. I remember sitting in the canteen at LATCC a bit ago chatting with the likes of Don G & Co. about a very similar subject to this discussion. I was told then that I had to remember that NATS was still run as a full part of the Civil Service. By committee people with the full Civil Service mentality. This thread seems to indicate that this is still so. Pilots work in a commercial atmosphere and tend to the pragmatic. Get the job done safely but expeditiously using all your experience to tell you what is acceptable in the real (commercial) world, and what is not.

Civil Service mentality seems to me to be 'cover your own back at all times if you have to make a decision which can't be buried in the anonymity of a committee'.

I think something of that has been illustrated here.

The one thing our two systems do have in common is that both our middle management's raisons d'etre are to act as one-way sh*t valves. Making sure all the **** travels from above to below middle management. None must be allowed to travel in the reverse direction.

Maybe that's worth another thread ?

Antigua :D

[Gonzo]

Civil Service mentality seems to me to be 'cover your own back at all times if you have to make a decision which can't be buried in the anonymity of a committee'.

Speaking for myself, that's complete :mad: .

Yes, there is some 'CYA' aspect to it, but it's not down to saving face, it's about envisioning oneself in the dock answering questions from a prosecution lawyer; why didn't you do this? etc etc. And in the last few years it's got worse. Don't forget ATCOs have ended up in prison, and in the worst case one of our number was murdered for a 'mistake' .

I can assure you, at Heathrow a 'Civil Service Mentality' has nothing to do with it.

'Inform ATC' and in the same sentence says 'Do NOT declare an emergency'.

Again, this is true from your point of view. Many conditions and situations that require a response from the ground do not need any priority while you are in the air, so no point in declaring a PAN or MAYDAY.

[Right Way Up]

Gonzo,
This is the problem with the system as I see it at the moment. Take the situation such as this. I am flying a 747 from LGW to Barbados and after departure I have a sys 2 Hydraulic failure. Nothing major but the company because of lack of maintenance in BGI want me to return to LGW. I tell ATC we want to return, and when asked the reason I mention that we have had a partial hydraulic failure. When I land at LGW I am amazed to find that half of the south east emergency services have comes to watch my regular carrier landing. Why? A sys 2 hydraulic failure is a complete non-event. Why am I being second guessed by somebody on the ground who has as much idea about hydraulic systems as I have about the wiggly amps being thrown about in a ground radar system. At the end of the day if I am worried about meeting my maker, believe me I will be asking for as much help as possible.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Nothing major but the company because of lack of maintenance in BGI want me to return to LGW. I tell ATC we want to return, and when asked the reason I mention that we have had a partial hydraulic failure. When I land at LGW I am amazed to find that half of the south east emergency services have comes to watch my regular carrier landing. Why? A sys 2 hydraulic failure is a complete non-event.

If it's a non event, then why even bother to tell ATC about the reasons for it ?? Just advise them you are requesting a diversion back to departure point for company reasons. You'll get standard priority for arrival and no special treatment ... and no publicity :ok:

It seems to be what most pilots want for minor technical snags, so why give too much information which forces ATC's hand ??

[Right Way Up]

Pprune Radar,
Please re-read my post. If I am asked why I am returning, do I say its none of your business. That is not how I want the relationship between me and ATC to be. My post shows a regular situation where an innocent question and innocent answer leads to a full emergency. That is where I believe the judgement of a commander has to be respected. This thread suggests to me that there is conflicting information/rules regarding emergencies that should be tightened up so everybody understands the situation.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If you say it is due to company reasons, then the underlying cause is actually none of my business. It could be for any reason at all and since it does not affect the operation of the aircraft nor imply you need any priority, then that's all I need to know. You will be handled as any other aircraft.

You, as Captain, have made a judgement call, and decided that is the case. And you are the one in the position to make that call. 'Company reasons' is a perfectly acceptable term and known by ATC. It won't ellicit any further interrogation and it won't set any hares running.

The problem comes when you pass ATC information (innocent as it may be) which is actually a trigger for us to do something. Being told about a hydraulic failure will, as has been stated, result in some action being taken to instigate a Local Standby. That's because the procedures to do so have been agreed as the appropriate course of action between ATC, the airport authorities, the emergency services, aircraft operators, and the CAA. Rightly or wrongly, it's what the 'industry' has demanded as the level of service to be provided.

I guess what pilots need to ask themselves is whether the situation will affect the operation of their aircraft in any non standard way. If it will not and it will behave exactly as it would on any other flight then what is the reason for telling ATC at all ?? Our ethos is very much one of relating information passed to a need to do something with that information and take appropriate actions. This is reinforced by a long history of pilots only telling a little bit of the story and things then being a lot more critical than first expected. So it is natural that we will tend to go overboard if we are told something is wrong, even if it is in no way detrimental to the safe operation of the flight (something we may or may not know the answer to anyway).

What it really boils down to is telling ATC about things which are going to cause problems, in good time and with a full description of what the effects are going to be as far as your situation allows. And not telling us about things which have no effect whatsover and which you require no special treatment for. The latter is just superfluous, clogging up the RT as well as starting actions on the ground for which pilots don't seem to be grateful and believe are unecessary ;)

[jettesen]

ANTIGUA, How can you be 100% certain that nothing will go wrong? better to be safe than sorry. i for one know that I'd rather have them there than not, Just incase things go tits up at last minute. Hope i'm never on a flight with you and have a situation develop and you think it best not to have the services there. At the end of the day, they are only doing their job.

[Right Way Up]

Pprune Radar,
I certainly can understand the problem of people covering up serious problems. One would hope that the authorities deal with these companies harshly, but I won't hold my breath. I still believe the system could be tweaked so that pilots and ATC are playing off the same songsheet. It shows a good reason for more ATC visits and jumpseat rides. (do they still allow that?)

[Antigua]

ANTIGUA, How can you be 100% ..... Hope i'm never on a flight with you and have a situation develop and you think it best not to have the services there.

Oh dear ... I don't want to be rude jettesen, but do you have any professional connection with aviation?

They are there ... all the time ... !

Pprune Radar's solution seems sensible, but doesn't cover a lot of the cases. My company has now issued guidance. Paraphrasing, it says 'if you don't want an innappropriate response in terms of 'blue light' content, be careful of the words you use to ATC'.

As long as we all know what to expect that is fair enough, but I forsee a siuation arising where, indeed, an innocent looking situation does escalate a bit and the first question the Capt gets asked by a suit behind a desk, with arched eyebrow, is 'When did you first notice you had a problem Capt, and why did you not inform ATC at the time?'

I got a lot of flak a few years back for asking for a bit of extra spacing on finals at LHR when I wasn't exactly fat on fuel.

Am I alone in thinking this is similar? The system allows no room for any subtlety with ATC.

A bit short of fuel ... declare a PAN or take 2.5 miles.

A slight technical problem ... stay stumm or expect a sea of blue lights.

Ah well, plus ca change.

Antigua

[Jerricho]

Antigua while I sense a little tongue in cheek about a fuel situation, I have had drives use those very words when asking for a little more room form the one ahead. No drama there.

They system does allow for subtlely, but inheritant of the world today, it must also have a major component of tin plating.

[Yellow Snow]

Right way up
A sys 2 hydraulic failure is a complete non-event. Why am I being second guessed by somebody on the ground who has as much idea about hydraulic systems as I have about the wiggly amps being thrown about in a ground radar system

ATC are in no way second guessing pilots. We follow emergency orders laid down by the aerodrome authority who in turn are directed by the CAA.

If you declare any problem with a hydraulic system, our book says we must initiate full emergency action, we simply do not have a choice.

I and my colleagues know very little about your hydraulic systems, the CAA know this and therefore do the second guessing on our behalf:rolleyes:

[jettesen]

ANTIGUA

Yes i have 29 years in aviation and still in it.

[Right Way Up]

Yellow Snow,
Reading your post I realise my post did not reflect my direction of thought. (Would not be the first time!) I do not believe that ATC second-guess us just because they feel like but that they do because the authorities require them to. As you say any communication from us that mentions hydraulic failure will lead to a full emergency, which has to satisfy the regulations. This is what I feel should be addressed to be made more practical.

[terrier21]

I believe the difference between full emergency and aircraft incident plus the 15 other emergency catagories we have at BRS is the way they are dealt with.

A full emergency in NCL for example maybe called an aircraft incident at Sou. The important thing is that the staff on shift Know what they expecting when they hear the term.

[spekesoftly]

I forsee a situation arising where, indeed, an innocent looking situation does escalate a bit and the first question the Capt gets asked by a suit behind a desk, with arched eyebrow, is 'When did you first notice you had a problem Capt, and why did you not inform ATC at the time?'


And the other side of the coin:


I forsee a situation arising where, indeed, an innocent looking situation does escalate a bit and the first question the ATCO gets asked by a suit behind a desk, with arched eyebrow, is 'When did you first suspect the pilot had a problem, and why did you not inform the RFFS at the time?'

[Yellow Snow]

right way up

agree with you mate.

[Few Cloudy]

There are several reasons why a single hydraulic system may fail - one of which is a hydraulic leak.

Hydraulic fluid on the RW or TWY is very slippery and ATC should know about it so they can run a check. Returning for "company reasons" may be an elegant way to avoid unnecessary emergency service deployment but may also cause something to be missed.

FC

[aviator's_anonymous]

I was reading and stumbled across this....
For those who fly in Australia... if u look up the AIP's in Gen 3.6-6
Paragraph 6.3, it says
Full Emergency:
A full emergency is declared when activation of more than just airport-based responding agencies is advisable. A full emergency will be declared when an aircraft approaching the airport is known or suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident.........

If u read paragraph 5 before,
it goes on to explaining stuff like Uncertainty Phases, Alert Phases, and Distress Phases and all that stuff......anyways, if u guys really still are that uncertain about the phrases and ways to alert ATC of an emergency, stick to the Pan and Mayday, give as much info on your situation as possible, fly your aircraft, and let the ground staff take care of the rest =)P