When Declaring an ’Emergency’ Is Not Enough

[NickLappos]

From Aviation International News:


When Declaring an ’Emergency’ Is Not Enough
A 757 crew did not get the response they expected when they declared an “emergency” instead of “mayday.” According to an incident filed with NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System, the crew found that the word “emergency” didn’t get the desired results outside U.S. airspace. The crew diverted to an airport in South America and declared an emergency, but the non-English-speaking controllers didn’t recognize what that meant. Therefore, no emergency services such as priority handling, fire or rescue equipment were provided. “The root cause of the problem was that the crew was trained to use the word ’emergency’ rather than ’mayday,’” said ASRS, which noted that the official International Civil Aviation Organization word used to signify an aircraft in distress is “mayday.

[332mistress]

I would have thought that every professional aviator would know the meaning of "PAN" and "MAYDAY":confused:

332M

[SASless]

I would have thought anyone in aviation would understand what a pilot declaring an "emergency" meant!

Hakaracacas Tower....Seed Bird 233...declaring an emergency....request straight-in approach to Rwy 27....blah...blah...blah

Seed Bird 233....cleared number 43 to land....report airport in sight....blah...blah...blah...

Aw come on here!:eek:

[cl12pv2s]

“The root cause of the problem was that the crew was trained to use the word ’emergency’ rather than ’mayday,’”

Take this article with a pinch of salt. I have heard of this problem before a long time ago, but US has brought their 'Emergency Communications' into line with ICAO.

I just looked at all the relevant publications regarding US emergency communications. It is essentially the same as the ICAO guidelines.

It is true that in the past, there was a difference. Maybe these pilots are not up to date.

Before the changes, a controller needed to hear the words..."declare an emergency" in order to have authority to activate ground emergency services. Hence the reason why it was drilled into pilots. Even for a lady giving birth on th plane and needing an ambulance on arrival, the pilot would have to 'declare an emergency' to get that ambulance.

As I said though, the guidelines are now in line with ICAO and the actual text is almost exactly the same as in CAP 413 I think.

Here are some links.

AIM 6-3-1- Emergency Procedures (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0603.html#6-3-1)
Air Traffic Controllers Guidelines - 7110.65 - 10-1-1 (http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html)
Pilot Controller Glossary (https://www.americanflyers.net/library/Pilot-Controller%20Glossary/Glossary.htm)
CAP - 413 *Note: PDF File (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF)

I leave you all to make your own minds up.

cl12pv2s

[NickLappos]

Having had more than my share of "maydays" I was surprised at this report, and learned from it! I now consult the "mayday" procedures section of my flight manual, regularly. Which chapter is it?

cl12pv2s I think the idea is to question the small minds of the ATC wonderboys who didn't put their coffee cups down long enough to actually think. In the world I envision, an airliner that asks for a deviation to land at the nearest airport might trigger those Einsteins to ask a question or two like, "What eees zees eemeergeency that chu speek of?" or "Is something wrong?" or maybe even "Do you want me to do something more than just key my mike?"

As controllers, when they have to dig into procedures to see what they should be thinking, it is time to take that job drilling assholes in hobbyhorses, and quit ATC. And pilots who think those controllers actually did their job should be sentenced to have to work with those clowns for a few years.

[Oogle]

You know, this brings up an interesting point about the use of english in aviation. Sorry but it is relevant here.

Having flown over most of Europe (but not Sth America), it startles me how much english is NOT spoken over the radio by pilots (France & Italy especially).

Case in point - flying in Italy. I was told by ATC that a possible conflict may arise with a police helicopter nearby. I asked ATC what level he was at and they had to ask him in Italian then relay back to me in english (this was before I tried to call him myself).

I thought that ALL ATC and pilots must have a command of the english language to get their ticket.

If they did understand/speak english, then even a monkey who can speak english would understand the relative urgency that the word "EMERGENCY" commands. :hmm:

[NIMFLT]

"If they did understand/speak english, then even a monkey who can speak english would understand the relative urgency that the word "EMERGENCY" commands."

The reality is that many non english speaking nations have air traffic controllers and pilots who have a limited understanding of english. They will more likely understand standard ICAO phraselogy eg MAYDAY or PAN over 'emergency'.

You are correct that:

1. they should have a better understanding of English, however:

2. english speakers should use standard ICAO phraselogy especially when flying internationally.

If both these points were adhered to, then safety is greatly enhanced. Remember not every word in English is part of ICAO phraselogy.

[IHL]

I think as english speakers we may be a little confused by the topic.

English is the language of INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, not the international language of aviation.
Citizens of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or where ever, when conducting domestic flights, have every right to speak in their native tongue; whatever that may be.

[helmet fire]

Remembering that english is the second language is A step in understanding this miscommunication here, but NOT the only step.

Outside of the good ole US, "mayday" or "pan" are the universally accepted terminology. ICAO Ratified even. Inside the US, the culture of "declare an emergency" is still strong, and the reluctance to use pan and mayday calls is not at all unusual. As always in times of stress, pilots tend to "revert", in otherwords they revert to their most familiar training (and often to their first-learned reaction) However, like any cultural change, it will be a long time before US pilots automatically revert to pan/mayday.

Secondly, similar miscommunication and a lack of use of standard phraseology is not a problem isolated to US pilots with non US controllers. 2 cases spring immediately to mind:

1. The Everglades crash where a flight crew became fixated on a blown gear down light at night and allowed the aircraft to fly into the ground trying to work out if they could change the globe. The ATC noticed their descent and simply said words to the effect of "confirm ops normal" rather than "confirm altitude". They all died.

2. The Aloha (I think) airliner which ripped open the fuselage at a crack propagation(seen by a boarding passenger!!) resulting in the loss of a hostie out the hole, serious injuries to those sitting around the hole, and injuries to many other passengers throughout the aircraft. The rip and hole caused an emergency decompression, control issues and eventually and engine failure. At no time did the flight crew call mayday (or pan), but requested immediate descent and landing. As a result, the controllerts had no idea of the scope of the problem and failed to activate/notify emergency services until the aircraft was very close to the airport and the controllers took the intiative anyway. The result was a significant delay in medical response to the injured, but fortunately, due only to the great credit of the flight crew in landing the single engine, flapless and damaged aircraft, no further deaths.

Such miscommunication aspects have been done before INSIDE the USA, and will be done again. As it will be done outside the US. That is why mayday and pan were chosen over the ambiguous "declare an emergency" as the ICAO standard.

[Oogle]

Awww! C'mon guys. A bit of lateral thinking.

"EMERGENCY" in any flight manual is exactly that - an emergency. I think most avaition professionals would understand the term.

OK, OK. The pilot didn't say the recommended ICAO terminology (in the case that Nick mentioned) but let's get some idea of the situation. He was in some state of duress so if the word "emergency" is the only one that comes to mind - so be it!

Citizens of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or where ever, when conducting domestic flights, have every right to speak in their native tongue; whatever that may be.

They have every right of course but it is the ICAO standard? Can a fellow (French) pilot at a smaller airport understand me (if I say in english) that I have an emergency so please watch out? Don't think so. Maybe I should not be flying in his country?

I know in Australia that CASA requires all student pilots to have (or even demonstrate) a good command of the english language.

[Whirlybird]

Don't these ATCOs have a dictionary to hand? I would, if I were doing ATC in a foreign language. Come on now - the aircraft is diverting and giving you a very specific message; surely you'd ask for clarification, reach for your dictionary, or get on the phone to find someone who speaks better English.

[helmet fire]

Disagree Whirly. Lets say you are in the hotseat, busy/lazy/bored/whatever, and a bloke says he is diverting . Is it a major emergency? Is it a minor emergency? Is it a weather emergency? Did he say it's in emergency governor? Was he asking if the divert field has emergency services? He has not asked you for help. Maybe he doesn't need the interruption of you asking just yet. Maybe he will tell you what/why/when when he can. Maybe if it is serious he will say "mayday" and indicate that you need to give assistance NOW. Or maybe if he needs any assistance he will say "pan" soon.
What about those other 20 aircraft that are calling?

And oogle, you are right as an english-is-your-first language point of view. But it happened in the USA too!!!

[gadgetguru]

I know in Australia that CASA requires all student pilots to have (or even demonstrate) a good command of the english language.

yet even down under, where we all speek 'oztroin', & are statistically probably the least likely to learn a second language (beyond our version of 'english') we are also trained to use "MAYDAY-MAYDAY-MAYDAY" to prefix our distress messages & "PANPAN-PANPAN-PANPAN" for urgency messages.

seems good enough for everyone else.....? who not the U.S. too?

[cl12pv2s]

All very valid and very interesting points on both sides of the discussion.

A couple more:

re. Whether we can expect the ATC to make an inference when they heard the words, "I am declaring an emergency," rather than, "Mayday"....

Well, I partially agree with Nick; I would hope that most controllers around the world would have a bit of 'nouse' about them and enough English, to start questioning something when someone asks for a 'deviation'.

HOWEVER, I mostly disagree, as I can quite easily imagine how the controller might not be 'startled' into action. Particularly, when working in his second language. We mustn't underestimate how much comprehension is lost purely by the fact that someone is working in their second language. Remember even the subtleties of 'intonation' are different from langauge to language.

So if the ATC is trained to respond to the words 'Mayday' and 'Pan', then he might not twig that 'declaring an emergency', or 'requesting deviation' could mean the same thing. That is exactly the reason why there is 'Standard ICAO Phraselology'. It takes out the need to 'twig' and infer.

Helmet Fire makes some good points on this.

-----------------------------------------------------

re. Local language for local flights....I don't see there's anything wrong with this. Each ICAO member state is supposed to be able to offer English at ATC. Most member states require some English for their students. But, it is rediculous to expect M. Pilotte(a French pilot) and M. Controlleur (a French controller) to necessarily talk to each other in English. Surely this is asking for more 'miscommunication' and more accidents?

-----------------------------------------------------

It's easy for us to see things from a 'first-language-English' speaker's point of view. We've got it easy. However, imagine that the International Language was French (only because that's what I know).

You expect and are trained to hear," M'AIDEZ, M'AIDEZ". Instead you hear, "Je déclare une urgence !" or, "Je suis dans une tache de l'embêtement ici !," (Deliberately badly translated there!) Would you be able to put two and two together?

The bottom line...

The pilot did not use Standard Phraseology and should've! I guess it was an American magazine!

cl12pv2s

GadgetGuru,

As my earlier post points out, ICAO phraseology is now being trained in the US. This is a recent change, and I suppose there are still some old, bold pilots who haven't quite got used to it. (Not that I think this relieves them of responsibilty at all. When in Rome do as the Romans do, or do as the Romans expect you to do!)

[gadgetguru]

old (force of) habits die hard

[charliegolf]

It's a conceptual thing.

Americans have a problem visualising a 'world' outside the US.

They:

Don't 'do' currency, except dollars
Have a world championship in a game for american teams only
'Qualify' place names, eg Paris-France

They have a very parochial view.

Lovely folk though, the ones I know!

CG

[Matthew Parsons]

Let me get this straight:

- If we screw up and use non-standard terminology then every ATC in the world (ICAO) should be able to compensate for our lack of professionalism.

- We must all learn ICAO standard terminology but then should be able to say whatever we want wherever we are whilst ATC are busy flipping pages in a dictionary trying to figure out what we've said (oh yeah, they're also trying to maintain a safe and expeditious flow of traffic).

You must all be kidding!!!!

Learn the standard terminology and stick to it.

If you don't and ATC still provides you with what you've requested, you owe them a thank you.

If you don't and ATC doesn't provide you with what you've requested, you have yourself to blame.

If anyone doesn't agree with this, bring it up with your licence issuer and see what happens.

[212man]

Well said Mathew!

[Gerhardt]

Yes, well said. And I agree with everything cl12pv2s said in his last post.

As for expecting pilots across the world to speak English when flying in their own country...whew...sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

[SASless]

Standard ICAO phraseology.....in Nigeria 212man? Every time...all day long....the whole year?

That is not a Charlie, over.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I have personal experience, that others have confirmed, that there are places in the US - particulalry the south - where English"English" is not understood at all. The solution was to adopt a 'southern drawl' which worked perfectly. Also had the same problem in my youth when flying into Catania in Sicily. In the end the captain did a fine job

'allo Catania approach, this eeza naivy Sea King 051, weera feefty miles a too tha sowth. Requesta zee joining instrushons.'

Again worked perfectly after several minutes of

'aircrafta calling. pleasea say again'

My understanding was that ICAO require ATC at international airports to be conducted in English. As you are aware each nation has the right to opt out of certain parts of the ICAO regs and these 'opt-outs' are then listed in the ICAO books. I believe that only France and Russia have opted out of using English for ATC in this way.

[212man]

SASless,
I can assure you that I NEVER used the expression "Charlie" and cringed whenever I heard it (only slightly less than when I heard "charlie, charlie"!)

I would not claim to always use perfect RT on every transmission, but I endeavour to. I also endeavour to instil it amongst those whose standards I am responsible for. Below is an extract from a circular I put out a few years ago, which attempted to correct some bad habits that were creeping in:

Radio discipline.

It is important that we maintain high standards of RT discipline at all times, regardless of the inevitable frustrations we experience daily. Not specific to fleet type or operator, particular areas to watch are the following:

•Start clearance should always be obtained at XXX prior to start

•‘Back chat’ with the controller should be avoided (use the phone or pay him a visit). Similarly sarcasm or a condescending tone should not be used.

•Listen out for clues that someone else is talking or about to talk even if you can’t hear them; e.g “ABCD 462 go ahead with your message” would suggest a reply is likely. ‘Stepping on’ transmissions just adds to the time taken and causes irritation.


•Avoid non standard terminology e.g. “out of thirty five hundred”, “expecting runway twenty four”.

•The use of the word “take off” should only be used to acknowledge a clearance to do so. This will come following the announcement that you are “ready for departure”. Phrases such as “ready to line up and take off” should not be used.

•Use the correct sequence of departure information and think before transmitting. Speak clearly and slowly, avoiding non-words and verbiage.

[Aser]

•The use of the word “take off” should only be used to acknowledge a clearance to do so. This will come following the announcement that you are “ready for departure”. Phrases such as “ready to line up and take off” should not be used.

This is one of the most common RT errors I hear every day... , people declaring "ready for take off" are asking for problems for all of us flying around... :uhoh:
Also I hear a lot of acknowledges that are only "similar" to the ATC clearances, again asking for troubles, is it so difficult just to acknowledge just in the "exact" way?


I've been taught to say"Mayday,mayday,mayday, XXX declaring emergency... etc. etc." this will cover the entire world, no? :}

[Send Clowns]

It was still being taught in Embry Riddle University when I was in Ormond Beach in 2000. They would all say "ready for take off" or "lining up for take off".

Non-English air tragic will know standard RT, and a small amount of English they have heard in the job and elsewhere. Standard RT is all you can assume, and a word such as emergency might be connected to them with the word "lighting" for example. If you use the phrases they have learnt, then they'll sit up!

[IHL]

-Geoffersincornwall you Mentioned Russia and France.
Canada offers Bilingual (English/French) air traffic services in the Province of Quebec and also Ottawa (National Capital Region).

ICAO will be coming out with an English “Standard”-a basic level pilots will have to achieve when conducting international ops. I think the implemetation date is sometime around 2007.

Now, in Canada if you do a flight test conducted in English your license will be endorsed with an English classification i.e. expert.

There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.

[SASless]

212man....I was referrring to ATC types in Nigeria....sorry if I mislead you.

My recollection of ATC there was along the lines of ......"XXXX Tower, Seed Bird Umphdehumph....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday...Engine failure at Brass....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday!

To hear.....Seed Bird calling XXX tower...standby!:ok:

[cl12pv2s]

Aser / 212Man

This is one of the most common RT errors I hear every day...

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons...

Where does it actually say, anywhere officially, that 'Ready for Takeoff," must not be used?.

Before you flame me, I know the issues and have studied the accidents involved with miscommunication, and particularly the Tenerife, Canary islands, 1977 crash; all in detail for a research paper I'm working on.

This is why I ask, because I couldn't actually find much (any) 'official' guidance on this phraseology. I'm talking about an official (CAD / CASA / FAA etc..) policy change or advisory circular, rather than just an information website on good practice or an amateurs thoughts...I have seen most of those.

Of course, I strive to use standard RT, and employ any measures I can (including avoiding the word takeoff) to reduce the chance for miscommunication, a subject which I am very interested in.

Here's another issue (one of many):

How to report altitudes??

Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to four thousand feet.
Pilot: Roger, leaving FL 310, descending to FL24...
Approach: Huh?

Of course here, the homophones (to / two) are being confused. Solution...always insert the word Altitude or FL before any altitude. Four and For are also easily confused. i.e.

Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to altitude four thousand feet.

One last one for US pilots...(a real pet hate).

How many of you say, " Traffic not in sight"? THIS IS WRONG!

Only Negative Contact or Traffic in Sight are acceptable replies!

"Traffic not in sight", "I've got him on the fish-finder" are other commonly used errors. I don't consider the term "no joy" confusing but I don't see it in the book either. Ditto for "tally ho," "looking," "searching," and "radar contact."

Food for thought...


IHL

There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.

Interesting you say that. I am trained in TEFL, TESOL and have an education degree. I have done a lot of research about 'Aviation English' and ESL. So far all the courses by schools that I have looked at are taught by either....'Education experts with little or no aviation background', or 'pilots with little or no education background'.

In fact 'pilots with little or no education background' is a general problem in aviation training across the board.

cl12pv2s

[blave]

charliegolf scribbled:

It's a conceptual thing.

Americans have a problem visualising a 'world' outside the US.

They:

Don't 'do' currency, except dollars
Have a world championship in a game for american teams only
'Qualify' place names, eg Paris-France

They have a very parochial view.

Lovely folk though, the ones I know!

CG

Ah, there's nothing like stereotyping an entire country of pilots based on your limited exposure to a few. Thanks for that. Please feel free to post again, but please do fully engage the clutch on your brain and/or common courtesy next time.

Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA
(who has done currency more than once in f/w and r/w aircraft, has no idea about what sport you're talking about, and by the way there's a Paris in Texas, USA (didn't you see the movie???) so sometimes we have to make ourselves clear.)

[212man]

cl12pv2s,

the UK RT manual below has some more info on pages 51 and 52

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF

I'm sure there will be more in ICAO documents

[SASless]

Ameericuns....parochial view????

Surely not one presented by other "English" speakers I guess!

But then one would think we mere spams have a monopoly on that....that view in itself not being "parochial" by any means of course.:uhoh:

[Farmer 1]

So, to return to the original thread, are we all agreed?

If we have an emergency, and we are in need of diversion, priority, assistance etc, we use Mayday or Pan Pan in order to inform ATC and other traffic?

On the other hand, if we have an emergency, and we are not too bothered about any of the above, and have no particular desire to get our message across, we declare an emergency, or use some other non-standard phraseology?

[212man]

F1, correct :ok:

[niknak]

It would be interesting to know how many non European ATCOs whose first language is not English speak anything other than technical English, i.e. standard phaseology to get the job done.

I know that most people (except the Brit's :rolleyes: ) make an effort to learn a little more than the essentials if they have to use a second language for work, but even if they did, I wouldn't expect them to be fluent and understand everything when used in a technical environment.

Under the circumstances to which this thread pertains, the ATCOs concerned could not be blamed.
It was the failure of the B757 crew to use standard phraseology and their airline's training/standards departments failure to adhere to proper procedures, led to them not recieving the priority that they would otherwise have got.

[M609]

If you use non-standard RT, you can expect "a non-standard" response.

One commander once bitched like no tomorrow, because there was no fire/rescue in attendance when he landed.....after calling a pan-pan for a "minor tech problem".

Well, say mayday instead then!!!!!


And offcourse burnt child dreads the fire, so the next time I got a Pan-pan, I called a local standby, and got a bollocking because flashing lights would scare the passengers!

You cannot please the customers! :p

[NickLappos]

While I appreciate the mind-numbing precision with which you all decided that the controllers have no responsibility in this, you are dead wrong.

We all respond to situations with our brains, not our rule books. When we speak of a helo that ditches and the CP does not blow the floats, because he read the book and it says that he should beg permission to do anything from the Captain, that CP is WRONG, because his passengers hired him to have a brain. Similarly, the passengers of that airliner rely on the brains of ATC to be better than one word thick in regards to maintaining the safety of the operations they control. If you ppruners think that one word wrong allows this to happen, you deserve to live and work in such a system. You passengers deserve more, however.

The pilots erred, of course, but so did the controllers, and you have not said anything about that. How about you guys drop the books and pick up some common sense?

Lets transpose this tale. You daughter stops to ask a policeman directions to the nearest gas station. He gives them to her, and then watches her drive up the exit of a motorway the wrong direction, but does nothing because it is, after all, her fault. Does he get off free, and she dies of her own fault?

[goaround7]

Incidental to the real gist of the thread but:

captain I know recently got excreted upon from a disorientating altitude for declaring an emergency as she wasn't sure from the mess of warning lights whether it was a particular minor fault which was problematic but not essentially life threatening or another which indicated immediate likelihood of complete hydraulic and brake failure. It would have been extremely difficult under duress to determine which of these scenarios prevailed and she had a full pax load. So she responded in the affirmative to ATC's request as to whether she was declaring an emergency.

The reason 'management' was upset ? Cos now they would get a bill for calling out the emergency services...

[Farmer 1]

NickLappos

I agree 100% with part of what you said:
The pilots erred, of course If a pilot has an emergency, as a result of which he wants to get back onto terra cotta as quickly as possible, and have the whole shooting match of fire and ambulance services etc. waiting for him on arrival, then the first word of his next transmission should be Mayday.

That word is magic. All on its own, it informs all those who hear it that there is an aircraft IN DISTRESS. It wakes people up; it starts them pressing buttons, making telephone calls, and basically opening fire with the aforementioned shooting match. It also makes other pilots in the area start thinking about diversions, alternate fuel, and the many and varied other ways the recently-announced situation might affect them.

If the pilot does not say that magic word, I doubt very much if ATC will immediately jump to the conclusion that the aircraft is in distress and act accordingly. They are professionals, after all, and respond to situations with their brains, as you say. So I would expect them to ask for some details of the nature of the emergency. It will take some finite time for him to decide if it is a distress situation or not, but if that is the case, then all that time will be time wasted. And he should not have to waste that valuable time with asking unnecessary questions.

So, chaps, if you want to get your message across instantly, and avail yourselves of the services of all those professionals whose job it is to help you in your distress, then say the magic word. I'm sure just the word on its own, plus your callsign, will set the ball rolling. If, on the other hand, you want to risk the emergency services not being ready, willing and waiting for you on arrival, then say something else. Anything else will do.

[SASless]

212man,

A few years back, at night, rainy season....fixed wing aircraft....diverted due to weather...arrived overhead a dark airfield....closed airport....despite pleas by the Captain...Airport Manager refused to turn the lights on....aircraft crashed after as it attempted to land on an unlit airfield.

Remember which airport....which airline....how many dead? :(

[PPRuNe Radar]

Perhaps standard phraseology would have helped in the following example ... or would we expect the native English speaking ATC guy to pick up something required urgent attention ??


Avianca Flight 052 - New York


CAM = Cockpit Area Mic, RDO = Radio Transmissions from Avianca 052, TWR = JFK Tower, APPR = JFK Approach

2123:34 RDO-2: Executing a missed approach, Avianca zero five two heavy.

2123:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, roger, ah, climb and maintain two thousand, turn left, heading one eight zero.

2123:43 CAM-1: We don't have the fuel...

2123:45 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight zero on the heading.

2124:04 TWR: Avianca zero five two, you are making a left turn, correct sir?

2124:06 CAM-1: Tell them we are in emergency.

2124:08 RDO-2: Thats right to one eight zero on the heading, and, ah, we'll try once again. We're running out of fuel.

2124:15 TWR: Okay.

2124:17 CAM-1: What did he say?

2124:18 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight on the heading. I already advise him that we are going to attempt again, because we now can't.

2124:22 CAM-1: Advise him we are emergency!

2124:26 CAM-1: Did you tell him?

2124:28 CAM-2: Yes sir.

2124:29 CAM-2: I already advised him.

2124:32 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, continue the left turn, heading one five zero, maintain two thousand.

2124:36 RDO-?: One five zero, maintaining two thousand, Avianca zero five two heavy.

2124:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, contact approach on one one eight point four.

2124:42 RDO-?: One one eight point four.

2124:55 RDO-2: Approach, Avianca zero five, ah, two heavy, we just missed a missed approach, and ah, we're maintaining two thousand and five on the...

2125:07 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, New York, good evening, climb and maintain three thousand.

2125:08 CAM-1: Advise him we don't have fuel.

2125:10 RDO-2: Climb and maintain three thousand, and ah, we're running out of fuel, sir.

2125:12 APPR: Okay, fly heading zero eight zero.

2125:15 RDO-2: Flying heading zero eight zero, climb to three thousand.

2125:28 CAM-1: Did you already advise that we don't have fuel?

2125:29 CAM-2: Yes sir, I already advise him, hundred and eighty on the heading. We are going to maintain three thousand feet, and he's going to get us back.

2125:29 CAM-1: Okay.

2126:27 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading zero seven zero.

2126:31 RDO-?: Heading zero seven zero, Avianca zero five two heavy.

2126:35 APPR: And Avianca zero five two heavy, ah, I'm going to bring you about fifteen miles northeast, and then turn you back onto the approach, is that fine with you and your fuel?

2126:43 RDO-2: I guess so, that you very much.

2126:46 CAM-1: What did he say?

2126:46 CAM-3: The guy is angry.

2129:11 RDO-2: Ah, can you give us a final now? Avianca zero five two heavy.

2129:20 APPR: Avianca zero five two, affirmative sir, turn left, heading zero four zero.

2130:21 RDO-?: Avianca zero five two heavy, left turn two five zero, and ah, we're cleared for ILS.

2130:32 APPR: Avianca fifty two, climb and maintain three thousand.

2130:36 RDO-2: Ah, negative sir. We just running out of fuel. We okay three thousand. Now okay.

2130:44 APPR: Okay, turn left, heading three one zero sir.

2130:47 RDO-?: Three one zero, Avianca zero five two.

2130:55 APPR: Avianca fifty two, fly heading of three six zero please.

2130:58 RDO-?: Okay, we'll maintain three six zero now.

2131:01 APPR: Okay, and you're number two for the approach. I just have to give you enough room so you can make it without, ah, having to come out again.

2131:07 RDO-?: Okay, we're number two and flying three six zero now.

2131:10 APPR: thankyou sir.

2132:08 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading three three zero.

2132:11 RDO-?: Three three zero on the heading, Avianca zero five two.

2132:38 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR.)

2132:39 CAM-3: Flame out! Flame out on engine number four.

2132:41 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR)

2132:42 CAM-1: Flame out on it.

2132:43 CAM-3: Flame out on engine number three, essential on number two, one number one.

2132:49 RDO-2: Avianca zero five two, we just, ah, lost two engines and, ah, we need priority, please.

2132:54 APPR: Avianca zero five two, turn left, heading two five zero, intercept the localizer.

2132:56 (Sound of engine spooling down.)

2132:57 CAM-2: Two five zero.

2133:04 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, you're one five miles from the outer marker, maintain two thousand until established on the localizer. Cleared for ILS two two left.

2133:12 RDO-?: Roger, Avianca.

2133:24 (End of recording)

[BlenderPilot]

Written by IHL

English is the language of INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, not the international language of aviation.
Citizens of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or where ever, when conducting domestic flights, have every right to speak in their native tongue; whatever that may be.

My hangar is located at an airport where in any given afternoon you can simultaneously find a an airplane from almost every major airline in the world, Air France, KLM, Japan Air Lines, British Airways, Iberia, Varig, Aeroflot 6 or 7 different languages and I have never heard of a problem with language, all communications between them and ATC are in English and everything else is in Spanish.

ATC does a great job since even understanding a Cubana or Iberia pilot speaking spanish is difficult, now the Japan Air Lines pilots are almost impossible to understand! The Russians send pilots in their cargo planes that barely speak English.

Sure English speakers would love for the rest of the world to speak only their language but I just don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.

[SASless]

By my count....9:04 from calling missed approach....first engine flames out.

I would suggest the issue is not what was said....but when it was said. I would have been screaming fuel problems way back when I knew I was starting into my planned reserve. If the crew did not say anything until they began the missed approach....then they waited way, way, way, way too late to say something. They hoped to get in and no one would be the wiser.....that bit them squarely in the butt!

[Oogle]

Hear, hear Nick!

You guys need to think outside the square.

Of course, use standard phraseology as much as possible but sometimes that won't happen. ATC SHOULD recognise that an emergency exists and deal with it.

C'mon you guys, we are paid to use our judgement.;)

[jovica]

Oogle,
Last summer an AUA DH8D advised me to have left engin problem and wanted to divert. It took me some time, in very very busy afternoon, to find out that he was declaring emergency. And that happened only after I've asked him "Are you declaring emergency?" He sounded like he was not shured whether he should do it or not, but finaly said yes. The point is, I cannot know unless I'm told. How can I recognize that anyone is in problem? I can only assume and assumption can, and usually does, lead to mistake or misjudgment. What ever you need or have to say, say it! Do not expect me to read anybodys mind. I am sorry but I can't do it. I am neither trained to do it nor I have the powers of my own. However, if I'm told either Mayday or Pan, I know precisely what the procedure is, and what must be done, and, what is even more important, I haven't met a single controller that wouldn't do much more than requried by the book.

[IHL]

Blender Pilot that is exactly my point.

[Oogle]

Jovica

I fully agree with what you asked the pilot. You questioned him and that is great.

My point is that don't assume that someone will only say "PAN or "MAYDAY" only. You obviously had the wit to question them.:ok:

Hopefully most other pilots and controllers are able to do the same.

[helmet fire]

Nick,
I see that you are saying "we all blame the pilot and not the controller" but I think that is a bit unfair. What most were reacting to is the automatic assumption made that ATC will cope easily with non standard phraseology.

I think we can all agree that this was an error of communication in which both the message transmitter (pilots) and the message reciever (ATC) failed to gain the same mental model of the situation.

That is the reason for standard phraseology I guess, and possibly the reason hat the report, as quoted by Nick, said:
“The root cause of the problem was that the crew was trained to use the word ’emergency’ rather than ’mayday,’” said ASRS,

Farmer1 & 212man:
Farmer asks On the other hand, if we have an emergency, and we are not too bothered about any of the above, and have no particular desire to get our message across, we declare an emergency, or use some other non-standard phraseology?
NO is the answer I suggest.
Pan means you have a problem, request priority and assistance may be required.
Mayday means you have a problem that REQUIRES immediate aassistance and priority.
thus if you have "an emergency" you have these two to choose from. Simple. If you will not require any assistance or priority and judge that you will not have any need for them as you problem develops anytime between now and landing including getting diverted or held by ATC for other traffic, then do you have an emergency at all?

Example: a chip light, no secondaries. I suggest a Pan because it will get you priority to the landing (you wont get held circling endlessly waiting for other traffic). You will get assistance to the landing by ATC so you can concentrate on the cockpit issues. If you get secondaries, and have to land right here and now: upgrade to mayday and down you go. ATC are already on hieghtened alert due to your pan, thus react much faster to help you.

[Matthew Parsons]

The issue is not whether ATC should think and respond to all RT, but whether we can expect them to fully understand our requirements when we fail to use non-standard RT.

It's so easy to blame ATC for not providing the required assistance after declaring an emergency, but that blame doesn't help your dead passengers. What would have helped them is the use of standard RT that allows the system to respond the way it was intended.

In the case that started this thread the reason the pilots didn't get the services they needed was 100% due to their communications. The fact that ATC didn't respond should definitely be investigated, but I would not expect fault to be attached to their inaction.

Nick, you said "we all respond to situations with our brains, not our rule books". Following this discussion and ignoring the rule books for a moment, if you have to declare an emergency away from home is your brain going to respond with "Mayday" or "emergency"?

Matthew.

[Farmer 1]

Please allow me to look at the situation from what I imagine might be the perspective of ATC. I have never done the job - I'm not clever enough - so I will no doubt get it wrong, but please bear with me.

a. An aircraft calls me, and says he is declaring an emergency.

b. Ah, he has an emergency, says I to myself. Adrenalin begins to flow a wee bit. What is the nature of the emergency, I wonder, and I ask him the question. He duly proceeds to describe his problem(s), possibly in fine detail, and in technical terms. While he is doing this, I am trying to translate into terms I understand the severity of his situation. I have a problem here, in that although I am fully qualified ATC, with a few hours on my PPL, I am relatively new in the job, and I am the only controller on duty. I also have a couple of personal problems, but they're - well - personal. (There could be the problem with the common language as well, etc. etc. but let's not go OTT.) The point is, I know my job, and I assume he knows his, but I do not know his, and he does not know mine.

c. Anyway, I'm not absolutely sure I fully understand his situation, but there is one fact of which I am quite certain: it is not as serious as all that. How do I know that? Because the pilot has not used the word Mayday. Simple.

d. The conversation may or may not continue, and no doubt I would alert at least some of the emergency services at some stage or other.

e. It is even possible that eventually I will realise he is actually in distress, and go onto full alert with the Aircraft in Distress procedure, but this is by no means certain.

Even if paragraph e. occurs, everything from the start of paragraph b. has been time wasted, for the simple reason that the pilot did not say the word Mayday. I fail to understand the reluctance of so many pilots to use that word.

As to declaring Pan Pan first, and then perhaps upgrading to Mayday, I would suggest it is safer to do the reverse. If there is an emergency, ask yourself, "Is this a distress situation?" If the immediate answer is "NO," then perhaps declare Pan Pan. If the answer is "Yes", or "Well, maybe", or "Er..." or anything else, then I can see only one thing to do, and one word to say.

I am not advocating calling Mayday every time an amber light flashes. I advocate being professional, and acting in the best interests of your passengers and those on the ground. Life is difficult enough; why make it more so for no good reason?


With sincere apologies to all you ATC types. I am trying to get across to the pilots what I consider to be a very important message, understand?

[NickLappos]

I don't think anyone disagrees that Mayday should be called, and to fail to do so makes it more work for everyone.

What I find amazing here is that Some ppruners seem to say that if the one word is left out, all bets are off on ATC responsibility. If you don't say Mayday, ATC can just ignore you, I guess you believe. I don't agree!

ATC has a responsibility to help fill in the mistakes, gaps and errors of others, just as the pilots do, too.

If ATC clears you to land on a runway that has taxi traffic on it, you are WRONG to land. If ATC vectors you to run out of gas, and you run out of gas, you are WRONG.

The world is not a pile of rule books where we play hide the weenie to decide which person is 100% wrong, while all other occupants of the system get to stand by, lilly white.

If you fail to act in an intelligent manner to make someone else's situation better, even if it is not in your rulebook, you are wrong. Doubly so when it is in your rule book.

So, the pilots were wronger than ATC in this case, but ATC was WRONG.

[Farmer 1]

Nick,
What I find amazing here is that Some ppruners seem to say that if the one word is left out, all bets are off on ATC responsibility. If you don't say Mayday, ATC can just ignore you, I guess you believe. I don't agree! If you include me in that, then I am obviously not making myself clear, and I apologise.

If the word Mayday is not used, I am not saying ATC will ignore you, but they just might, for any number of reasons, some of them perhaps valid.

Despite all the replies on this thread, several from me, I think your initial post says it all. The pilot used non-standard phraseology, he did not receive the service he desired, and he complained. If he had done his job professionally, I'm sure he would have received the service he had every right to expect.

To paraphrase the title, "When is declaring an 'Emergency' not enough?"

Always.

[Matthew Parsons]

I absolutely agree that ATC does have a responsibility to act beyond their rule book, and in fact do so quite regularly. I just think it's wrong and potentially ineffective to demand that they operate outside their rule books due to our errors.

I was reading (perhaps between the lines) that some were advocating leniancy on non-standard RT.

When we look back on an incident, such as the one that started this thread, it becomes quite difficult to say whether ATC was wrong or irresponsible when the issue could have been miscommunication. If ATC said anything to imply that they understood a non-standard situation had arisen and then did not confirm the status of the aircraft, then I would lean towards irresponsibility. On the other hand, if all the ATC responses sounded like typical handling of routine traffic, then perhaps their lack of emergency response was limited to the communication problem and nothing else. The reason the aircraft diverted might have been an indication...or not, need more details.

The reason that I've investigated incidents like this in the past has almost always been to prevent further occurrences rather than to assign blame. What I learn from this is the value of standard RT and to not always expect others to do things for me.

Matthew.

[diethelm]

Let's look at the law in the U.S.

91.3 states the pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under this section shall upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.


The translation of this is there is no requirement to use any specific word or phrase in any manual, rule or law. The only requirement is that you are to handle the emergency period. Communicate in any manner necessary. If anything goes wrong it is your fault. Handle it. Mayday, Pan, Look you &%$hole, No, I am going to do the following, or whaterver phrase that is necessary is appropriate and supported by the law.

[salzkorn]

As a non native English speaker, I would add that it is important to pronounce clearly, to articulate, to speak slowly...
Don't hesitate to talk to us as if we were 6 years old...
Sounds are distorted by R/T, there may be background noise. In case of something going wrong, the radar room "wakes up", the people are like bees in a hive, other controllers talk to you, you talk to them etc... and it can be very difficult for a "non native English hearing ear" to catch all the sounds...
avoid the "we aren't" or "can't"... use "are not" etc... (most of all if you're American ;) )

I don't know if Asian pilots read this forum, but those are very difficult to understand for us French... (especially Chinese), even when they use standard phraseology... I also find the Spanish accent difficult to catch. (those are just examples ;) )

well, now, all the above is easy to say... when under pressure, the delivery can get quicker and it's "back to basics"...

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Once again the pages of PPRuNe prove educational. I recently heard a C17 crew call for a return to OKBK and that they were "declaring an emergency". It genuinely didn't trigger any useful response until they stated that they had smoke in the cockpit. I had never heard the expression used over the r/t before that, in 29 years of flying around all sorts of interesting places.

However, when I declared a "PAN" while returning with one engine on my 135 at idle, I got the full treatment even though it was 3 in the morning. I certainly didn't mind the controller asking me to confirm it wasn't a practice, after he'd carried out all the correct initial actions.

Nick and Oogle, just because you do things one particular way in N America doesn't mean it's right. It's not just about ATC having the wit/language skills to question a pilot, it's a system-failure in your training that YOU and your countrymen are going to have to address. If you want correct results first time, use the internationally-agreed terminology. Perhaps a useful topic for a Flight Safety push Stateside sometime, particularly for crews who are likely to spend time working with non-USA ATC?

[Matthew Parsons]

diethelm, you're correct that the emergency condition allows you to deviate from the rules, however you are still directly responsible for the operation of the aircraft and hence the safety. The rules for what you need to say to get a desired response remain. There still is the requirement. You have the option (at least in FAA airspace) to deviate, but you must think of what's best. What we've been discussing here is that what's best is standard R/T, especially when there is a communication barrier such as language.

[delta3]

A week ago in that bad weather hitting Switzerland, I had my part of that weather and had to put the Heli down several times, one even inside Lyon CRT.

I am not very proud the way I handled this at first, but some thoughts

- I looked several times at the aircraft disaster documentaries at Nat Geo, and feel that very many of them had to say the least -a communication- problem. (The DC-8 crashing without fuel in NY, the Swiss MD-11 etc). I think that some has to do with the pilots pride or ego call it the way you want, to keep up appearances as long as possible because he still is in charge and not meant to 'beg' for or rely on assistance. That attitude may skew the communication.

- I finally got straight with Lyon ATC and they helped me wonderfully, gave me a permanent code, so each time i could move they had me on radar before establishing communication (in fact they called me before I could, when they saw me move). Even at the ground via cell phone ATC give me latest doppler radar readings to get me out the storm. I am really greatfull to these guys.

So maybe it is not just semantics between 'emergency' and 'PAN' or 'MAYDAY', but being clear (in your own head) on what you are asking from and telling to ATC.

d3

[Farmer 1]

delta3,

Maybe, maybe not. Why risk it? What's the point?

[delta3]

Farmer 1,

I think the point I am making, is that instead of flying marginally by your self, you may inform ATC of it (they don't know) so that you safely get out the bad weather, using their information and improving a lot the communication, so reducing work load.

The fact that they were informed, also made me put down the heli faster, not pushing it. Probably it helped that weather was much worse than predicted, so ATC had some emphaty with my situation.

d3

[Farmer 1]

Delta3,

You are absolutely right. I apologise if I appeared to be a bit impatient, but my last post was directed more at others on this thread. Reading it now, I realise I could have been more diplomatic.

I had decided I had said enough on the subject, but it was your inclusion of the word "maybe" which made me change my mind. I think it encapsulates everything I have been trying to get across all this time.

Yours was a situation in which I have found myself on more than one occasion, and thankfully, ATC have always been there to save the day for me.

Safe flying.

That's all - fini - no more.

Farmer.

[N5528P]

As for expecting pilots across the world to speak English when flying in their own country...whew...sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

@ Gerhardt: WHY?

May not make very much sense at a small glider airfield, but still you might encounter some people not from the area. Especially in Europe where many different languages are spoken in a rather small area.

Why is it so diffcult to learn the ICAO-version of English? It is simply a part of what you should learn when being a pilot. You also shoukd know what the words XPDR means, even if you co not need one in your area.

Regards, Bernhard

That word is magic. All on its own, it informs all those who hear it that there is an aircraft IN DISTRESS. It wakes people up; it starts them pressing buttons, making telephone calls, and basically opening fire with the aforementioned shooting match. It also makes other pilots in the area start thinking about diversions, alternate fuel, and the many and varied other ways the recently-announced situation might affect them.

@ FARMER1

Thanks a lot for tis great example - by using English (no matter where you are) you allow other piots to listen in and if you are a real emergency, you can make live a ot easier for your colleagues without any work on your side.

On the other hand - as you pointed out - MAYDAY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND. The only reason there is a standard is, that not everybody in the world understands English perfectly, and even people who speak English very well, may have trouble understanding some panicked pilot when he speaks in a hurry with a heavy local touch, perhaps from the southern US.

Someone mentioned before, that Anericans do not think that there is a world outside the US. This is a very sensible subject, but generally I would agree that the majority of US citizens has never even thought about that. Not because they are stupid, but when one can travel thousands of miles in all directions without leaving your country (=your currency, your traffic signs, your units,...) you are simply not used to the situation. When you are from a small country like Austria (like I am from), you have 5 countires within a car ride of three hours - a totally different perspective.

On the other hand, there is a fraction of Americans who really think the whole world thinks in Dollars and miles and everyone who does not use the statute mile is an idiot because it is the best system - without being able to provide any reason why. But in the end, this is most often more a question of education and, since people from Germany, Austria or the UK do not behave that different when on mass - vacation in Spain.

Regards, Bernhard

That word is magic. All on its own, it informs all those who hear it that there is an aircraft IN DISTRESS. It wakes people up; it starts them pressing buttons, making telephone calls, and basically opening fire with the aforementioned shooting match. It also makes other pilots in the area start thinking about diversions, alternate fuel, and the many and varied other ways the recently-announced situation might affect them.

@ FARMER1

Thanks a lot for tis great example - by using English (no matter where you are) you allow other piots to listen in and if you are a real emergency, you can make live a ot easier for your colleagues without any work on your side.

On the other hand - as you pointed out - MAYDAY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND. The only reason there is a standard is, that not everybody in the world understands English perfectly, and even people who speak English very well, may have trouble understanding some panicked pilot when he speaks in a hurry with a heavy local touch, perhaps from the southern US.

Someone mentioned before, that Anericans do not think that there is a world outside the US. This is a very sensible subject, but generally I would agree that the majority of US citizens has never even thought about that. Not because they are stupid, but when one can travel thousands of miles in all directions without leaving your country (=your currency, your traffic signs, your units,...) you are simply not used to the situation. When you are from a small country like Austria (like I am from), you have 5 countires within a car ride of three hours - a totally different perspective.

On the other hand, there is a fraction of Americans who really think the whole world thinks in Dollars and miles and everyone who does not use the statute mile is an idiot because it is the best system - without being able to provide any reason why. But in the end, this is most often more a question of education and upbringing, since people from Germany, Austria or the UK do not behave that different when on mass - vacation in Spain.

Regards, Bernhard

[Pofman]

The 757, presumably N registered operating in South America, was operating" international air transportation" under ICAO Annex 6 Pt 1 and therefore Annex 10 Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume 2. This means that when operating in foreign airspace ICAO rules apply unless the relevant airspace has notified differences. It also means that the operator should have ' trained' his crews for the relevant procedures in that airspace, route famil.

AIM 6-3-1 is quite explicit on the procedures under ICAO.

Regardless, I cannot envisage any ATPL holder not being familiar with Distress or Urgency procedures. In amongst all the knowledge and experience he has gained from Private onwards surely he knows. Am I paying this man to fly me safely?

Anywhere in the world if he needs help or an expedited routing then 'Mayday(M'aidez = Help me) or PanPan will get a predictable and correct response regardless of the local language.

In the same way that we expect a pilot to respond immediately and precisely to an in flight emergency light by using the check list ( very precise) then a shortage of fuel is like an Amber alert which may become a Red alert.

Ask correctly, and all the help in the world is yours.
Don't, then others may not understand what you want.

[Simon853]

'Mayday(M'aidez = Help me) or PanPan


Always wondered where "Mayday" came from. How did it come to be adopted? (And doesn't that contravene the language of aviation being English thing? :D )

But what about Pan Pan? What's the origin of that?

Si

[cl12pv2s]

en Panne, is the French for 'broken' down. The word Pan has been adopted to mean you have a problem

There are a lot of French terms in Aviation today.

The Meterological codes for weather spring to mind as a prime example.

FU - Fume - Smoke
Br - Brume - Mist*
Gr - Grele - Hail

There are some others, but I'm in a rush now. More later possibly.

The French commercial aviation scene was pretty well organised compared to the rest of the world, back in the day. Although the Americans were first, they spent their time storming barns and showing off! Meanwhile the French were developing protocols and procedures and creating a real commercial industry. So they had a big say, when it came to standardising everything.

*Edited - thanks Nimbostratus

cl12pv2s

[nimbostratus]

Wouldn't it be more logical if 'BR' stood for 'brume'? That, (according to my French/English dictionary), is the word for mist.