Reluctance to declare emergency!!!

[fisbangwollop]

Today whilst providing a Beech Baron twin with a non radar Area flight information service, I offered him the destination weather. I was told to stand-by as he "had his hands full"...I asked if he had a problem and he told me he was having a problem with an engine......I asked do you wish to declare an emergency?? no he says we are trying to re start the engine!!! but am I ok for high ground?? ( dont forget the service was a non radr FIS) I suggested I would hand him off to a LARS unit close to destination. Advised the LARS of the problem and the flight details and as a precaution advised the Distress and Diversion cell!

I told the pilot what I had done and again confirmed if he wished to declare and emergency! To this he responded I may make a PAN call further down the line to assist in recovery to destination!!

I transfered to the LARS unit and phoned to make sure they had him good RT cover.

On contact with LARS the flight Still did not declare an emergency. It appears a few minutes later the 2nd engine stopped...now the aircraft a glider over a mountain range!!!

LARS now lose contact as decent below Radio and Radar cover!!!!!!

Another aircraft diverted to try R/T relay. Eventually around 2000ft one engine restarts and fligh carries out a diversion back to an airfield which it had passed 10 minutes ago when the first sign of trouble started!!!

Please in future could you guys on first signs of a problem ring the alarm and advise ATC of the problem.

This guy very lucky to be alive today!!!

[eyeinthesky]

In general I agree... declare and cancel is better than declare too late.

However, in the case you describe what would you have done differently to resolve the situation if he had said the magic words? The pilot was busy doing everything he could to recover the situation, and eventually did so. Would the fact he had declared an emergency have prevented him losing the othe engine, descending below cover or anything else you describe? No.

You did everything you could to ensure that the right warnings were passed,. and you could do no more. That is one of the things we sometimes forget in ATC: ultimately we cannot stop things happening as we do not have physial control of the aircraft. All we can do is pass instructions and information to give the pilots the best possible chance of surviving the experience.

[fisbangwollop]

How long does it take to say Pan or Mayday??...... If that had been done as the engine wound down immediately the aircraft would have been asked to sqk 7700 and a radar service offered from the military D and D cell. Within a few minutes all local airfield info would have been passed to the flight giving range/bearing and weather info and in this instance a diversion probably started to an airfield only 20 miles away. If subsequently the situation deteriorated which in this case it did at least the fact the aircraft was squaking 7700 a radar fix would be left on the radar in the last known position that the aircraft dissapeared below radar cover. Within minutes the SAR flight would have been scrambled and vectored to that last known position and hopefully the wreckage located sooner than later........

Always always let us ATC guys know the first sign trouble starts...we are here to help and not to hinder!!

[youngskywalker]

In an ideal world, yes it would have been prudent to squawk 7700 and go through a cap413/mats part1 perfect mayday/pan...But the chances are this guy was operating single Pilot, flying a piston twin on one engine, it requires a huge effort to keep the rudder in (unless you trim, the pedal forces can be around 150lbs) whilst trying to run through a check list to either re-start or shut down and feather the failing engine, these decisions have to be made quickly and accurately, to reach over and fiddle with 4 buttons on a transponder is not easy in these conditions! Not to mention the fear factor that would have been going through the Pilot's mind! I'm afraid talking to ATC is the lowest priority. Aviate, navigate then communicate.

I've seen too many ATC TRUCE exercises where the pilot was bombarded by far too many questions from the well meaning controller at times of intense cockpit pressure.

I'm sure however that the Pilot did appreciate all that you could do for him in this case.

[Check 6]

Don't UK regulations allow ATC to "declare an emergency?" FAA regulations allow controllers to declare the emergency if appropriate.

This would have been appropriate it seems.

[fisbangwollop]

Aircraft was crewed by two experianced pilots....no excuse not to advise of problem at onset.....to sqk "mayday" is a single button hit on any decent transponder.

I wonder in this instance what happened to the pre flight fuel contamination checks??? as this has been notified as to the reason for the double engine failure!!!!.

Yes in ATC we are fully aware that the pilot has his hands full and we will not talk unless spoken too, but that is only once we are aware that the emergency has started!!

I found out by accident that this problem was ongoing when I by chance offered some met info to the flight.

[inner]

Don't get me wrong but some pilots are afraid to declare an emergency because they think they would have troubles with the CAA afterwards etc. Many pilots wonder what will happen if they declare an emergency and what the consequences will be.

grtz

[eyeinthesky]

QUOTE
to sqk "mayday" is a single button hit on any decent transponder.
UNQUOTE

Not so, in the civil world at least. And so it should be. Can you imagine the number of times the alarms would ring if every transponder had this function and it got pressed in error?

There is a one-hit 'VFR' button on some transponders, which can be porgrammed to select 7000 or 1200 or whatever the relevant one is in the country of use.

[youngskywalker]

in 15 years of flying many different types Ive never seen a transponder with a mayday button on it.

However with 2 pilots then it should have been fairly easy!

I think rather than critisize this crew, we should congratulate them, they must have done alright to survive this situation and walk away from the aircraft. Lessons learned all around I'm sure...

[keepin it in trim]

I make no criticism of the crew in this incident as I do not know the full circumstances.

I would, however, make the following general observations, loss of 50% or more of available power (ie 1 engine out in a twin) would be a "mayday" in my company, such a situation would also require us to land at the nearest suitable airfield, even if that required an overweight landing. If we flew past a suitable airfield to continue to destination without VERY good reason (wx out of limits) we would have some serious explaining to do, to say the least!!

[PorcoRosso]

I've seen too many ATC TRUCE exercises where the pilot was bombarded by far too many questions from the well meaning controller at times of intense cockpit pressure.


Couldn't agree more
I recently experienced a problem after T/O , at night on a huge french airport. We decided to make a visual circuit to land on the A/F, while trying to sort out the problem.
We informed ATC of a "technical problem" and of our wish to perform the maneuver. This was immediately accepted and we stopped the climb and turn left to join the downwind.
We carried out the appropriate checlist, but this was permanently interrupted by the various questions we were asked by ATC : "how many souls on board" (which is on the FPL ) "Fuel Qty .. " wich I gave in Pounds .. then the next question was "How much is that in Ltrs " ..and plenty of other, gently asked, but totally annoying questions distracting us from ou Checklist .
In the end of the day, problem was solved, and we resumed the flight to destination .
So, although I know those ATC procedures are justified, I tend to think they can increase the workload of the crew trying to deal with a more serious situation.
Now, speaking about the Baron situation, I think the guys were clearly in a situation justifying a Mayday treatment .

[PPRuNeUser0215]

Pan Pan, Mayday Mayday and if you can't answer ATC questions because you are prioritising...
Standby ! Standby !
These calls take less than a second to say, get the ATC's attention to focus on the right things and cost nothing.
Doing it though, could reveal to be priceless and if it is how I practice in the Sim,this is what I intend to do should it be required in real life.
In my opinion it is a training issue rather than anything else.:cool:

[a4fly]

AMEX,

You're absolutely right. We are continually reminded by C.R.M. instructors to manage the resources available. A.T.C. (particularly in the U.K.) are extremely competent and are a huge asset in difficult situations, particularly since their stress levels are well below ours in such cases (remember the graph of stress vs. performance). We had an engine blow up over the Channel last month c/w fire warning etc. A.T.C. did what they always assured us that they would do, i.e. help get us back on the ground asap, safely. One simple phrase gets you your own controller, own frequency and a swings a very slick mechanism into action. In a worst case scenario, at least you know that the rescue services are on their way, so reducing the amount of time that recovery will take.

[Life's a Beech]

Sorry, skywalker, porco, my only response is "what a f'ing idiot".

I speak as a pilot who usually flies single-crew, has had almost total power loss on an engine, and decided to downgrade my mayday to a pan when I established that I would have no problem making the runway. OK I didn't squawk, but I was near the final approach anyway.

Youngskywalker should also note that the whole issue came to ATC attention when the pilot was telling ATC to standby. I have a controller sitting next to me, who often calls local standby for pilots who should have declared for themselves, and points out that the pilot should have done so in this case and that controllers are professional enough to leave the pilot to get on with it (my experience too). Also then all the controllers need is a "standby" to shut up, and they'll forgive you a lot more (as will the CAA if you get distracted and infringe)!

I have called pan several times, including once with a CAA examiner on board. Never been criticised for doing so, even though in most cases the problem turned out to be trivial.

As for passing a suitable airfield - they should be up before the CAA to explain themselves. If this was a commercial flight they should be sacked.

[youngskywalker]

yes, and if you tried reading my post you will see that I do think it would be a good idea to squawk 7700 and declare a mayday, but not if your going in like a dart and struggling to keep the thing the right way up, (I can't comment on the situation the crew suffered as I wasn't there, neither were you I suspect) in that case I'm afraid the ATCO 'probably' aint going to save you. As ever though the pprune expert aviators/atco's jump to the offensive!

[IRRenewal]

If we flew past a suitable airfield to continue to destination without VERY good reason (wx out of limits) we would have some serious explaining to do, to say the least!!
Definition of suitable airfield in my company's ops manual:
A suitable aerodrome is an adequate aerodrome which satisfies the required weather minima for one hour before and one hour after the expected time of arrival.
So that leads us to the definition of an adequate airfield:
An adequate aerodrome is an aerodrome which the operator considers to be satisfactory, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and runway characteristics. In addition it should be anticipated that at the expected time of use, the aerodrome will be available and equipped with necessary ancillary services such as ATS, sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids and emergency services.
A 'suitable' place to land is an 'adequate' place to land with the required weather minima. You cannot fly past a suitable place to land because 'the weather was out of limits', since it wasn't suitable to start with. Also, given the definition of an 'adequate' place to land, it is not necessarily the nearest either.

[Life's a Beech]

Sorry, Skywalker, but if they were that incompetent to deal with an engine problem in the cruise then they were f'ing idiots for being up there in the first place!

If you had read the first post in the thread, all they needed to do to declare an emergency was to say "yes" instead of "I may make a PAN call further down the line to assist in recovery to destination!!". To expand he might have said "Yes, a Pan" (most likely with an engine problem in the cruise and assuming able to maintain above MSA or VMC and visual terrain seperation) or "Yes, a Mayday"; not standard RT but easily understood.

[Il Duce]

Declare a PAN and say, "Stand by for details". Squawk emergency and transmit the details as soon as it's prudent to do so. The controller SHOULD pass all the relevant details to D&D. They, among other things, then alert the Rescue Coordination Centre that an emergency is in progress along with type, pob, nature of emergency, location, intentions etc. Should the situation get worse the SAR teams are, at least, aware of what they're looking for, where it's likely to be and how many people might need picking up (that's where the pob is important - one Sea King might not be enough).
A few seconds on the r/t and selection of 7700 at an early stage costs little but could save a huge amount of pain later.

[youngskywalker]

Ok, they f#@ked up! How many of you lot have never done that? Can I suggest that if you all feel so strongly about the airmanship decisions (or lack there of) made by the crew in this case then perhaps you ought to report them to 'Belgrano?' Last time I checked, pprune and it's abundance of 'chuck yeagers' was not the regulatory authority :)

If however the purpose of this thread is to discuss the reasons why a crew may be 'reluctant to declare an emergency', then all I was trying to do was give some reasons I can think of that may lead to that mind set:

Scared to admit they've screwed up.
Fear of losing job.
Emotional fear during emergency.
Simply too busy.
Don't want any fuss.

[Il Duce]

There would be one hell of a "fuss" if they stoofed in.

[Life's a Beech]

Youngskywalker

Yes, and all of those (with the exception of too busy, which we know didn't apply in this case because declaring would heave been less work than not declaring) are flight-safety hazards if they are allowed to get in the way of correct procedures! Therefore we need to discuss the correct preocedures before they happen, and know that if we have an engine problem that might conceivably lead to the in-flight shutting down of one of two power plants then that is an urgent situation.

We cannot just allow people to consider job security (who has job risk due to having an engine failure? Surely if well-handled it is a plus), embarrassment, fear or "not wanting to make a fuss" above flight safety without criticism.

No-one has said they have not made a mistake; I will even admit to having made one of the same mistakes, not declaring, although in a much more equivocal case with a much less serious problem. No-one here claimed regulatory authority (where did you get that one from :confused:). However these pilots made a common error of judgement that should be discouraged in not declaring an emergency, and an uncommon but very serious error of judgement in passing a suitable arifield with a serious engine problem.

[youngskywalker]

I'm not disputing that, but for reasons best known to them they didn't want to declare an emergency. All I'm trying to do is suggest reasons why they didn't, right or wrong! Nobody here can answer that except the individuals concerned. I'm not meaning to argue with anybody, I simply don't like seeing Pilot's critisised on a public forum, I'm far from perfect myself and would hate to see any mistakes I may make discussed on here. Anyway, I will leave you chaps to it, this is taking up too much of my time as it is!