Mayday Call; Correct Phraseology
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mayday Call; Correct Phraseology
The initial call is well known but how should you phrase things after that?
Once your mayday has been acknowledged do you need to prefix your callsign with the phrase each time you transmit? Should it be for example "Mayday Monarch123" or "Ryanair456 Mayday" or perhaps "Mayday789"? Is there a need to re-state the emergency with each frequency change?
I looked through the publications on the CAA website but couldn't find anything specific. Perhaps there isn't anything?
I'm fortunate to have never put out a mayday for real but I do find myself having to practice it every 6 months in the Sim and everyone seems to do things differently with this specific bit of R/T. Just wondering if there was a standard way of proceeding after the initial call?
Once your mayday has been acknowledged do you need to prefix your callsign with the phrase each time you transmit? Should it be for example "Mayday Monarch123" or "Ryanair456 Mayday" or perhaps "Mayday789"? Is there a need to re-state the emergency with each frequency change?
I looked through the publications on the CAA website but couldn't find anything specific. Perhaps there isn't anything?
I'm fortunate to have never put out a mayday for real but I do find myself having to practice it every 6 months in the Sim and everyone seems to do things differently with this specific bit of R/T. Just wondering if there was a standard way of proceeding after the initial call?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes all future transmissions after the initial Mayday call should be prefixed with the word Mayday. It's also a good way of letting other aircraft just joining the frequency since the original Mayday call to understand ATC are handling an emergency.
The below youtube clips shows the R/T of the Thomson bird strike at Manchester, not perfect as quite often ATC forget to use the pro word Mayday but the Thomson uses it nearly every time.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkZBR8...%3DRPkZBR89y_M
The below youtube clips shows the R/T of the Thomson bird strike at Manchester, not perfect as quite often ATC forget to use the pro word Mayday but the Thomson uses it nearly every time.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RPkZBR8...%3DRPkZBR89y_M
Last edited by fisbangwollop; 13th Dec 2013 at 18:13.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK from CAP413:-
1.4.6 Following the initial distress or urgency message, it is permissible for pilots and controllers to use 'MAYDAY' and 'PAN' as a callsign prefix at their discretion, where it is judged that this would have a beneficial effect on the outcome.
1.4.6 Following the initial distress or urgency message, it is permissible for pilots and controllers to use 'MAYDAY' and 'PAN' as a callsign prefix at their discretion, where it is judged that this would have a beneficial effect on the outcome.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,588
Received 444 Likes
on
236 Posts
dagowly, I'm so glad to read in your profile that you're an ATCO. I'd never want to be crewed up with any pilot who was an expert on Mayday calls.... 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: dark
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Video, but I don't understand why the FO (I presume) kept reiterating that they will need a visual inspection of the breaks, it should just be a normal landing, roll all the way to the end if needed, they had full priority.
No inspections of breakes necessary, no different (in terms of hot breaks) to that of normal landing being carried out.
I can only assume they were under pressure and perhaps were not thinking 100%
anyway any landing you walk away from.
Also for me that was a bit too much talking in the video, remember the phrase aviate, Navigate, communicate ?
They are a Mayday, they have full priority they can do what they like. no need to waste your energy talking about what radials you are flying just say we are going to this waypoint to hold, end of! when ready and NN checklist complete advise them you are coming in to land.
Only time a visual inspection of the breaks is necessary is if you carry out an RTO, or for some reason you have used a high break setting, but in this case its a normal landing, if not slightly over weight.
No inspections of breakes necessary, no different (in terms of hot breaks) to that of normal landing being carried out.
I can only assume they were under pressure and perhaps were not thinking 100%
anyway any landing you walk away from.
Also for me that was a bit too much talking in the video, remember the phrase aviate, Navigate, communicate ?
They are a Mayday, they have full priority they can do what they like. no need to waste your energy talking about what radials you are flying just say we are going to this waypoint to hold, end of! when ready and NN checklist complete advise them you are coming in to land.
Only time a visual inspection of the breaks is necessary is if you carry out an RTO, or for some reason you have used a high break setting, but in this case its a normal landing, if not slightly over weight.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<They are a Mayday, they have full priority they can do what they like. no need to waste your energy talking about what radials you are flying just say we are going to this waypoint to hold, end of! when ready and NN checklist complete advise them you are coming in to land.>>
In the real world it doesn't quite work like that. Pilots and controllers are highly trained professionals and behave in a calm manner. Pilots don't just fly off somewhere and do what they want, especially in a busy TMA. If a pilot wishes to hold, ATC will offer the safest place to hold for an expeditious return to the airfield, maybe holding the aircraft on radar if the pilot wishes. Safety is the main concern and ATC will do everything possible to assist but it's no good barging around assuming that the airspace is clear because there might be a loud bang.
By "breaks" I think you means "brakes"?
In the real world it doesn't quite work like that. Pilots and controllers are highly trained professionals and behave in a calm manner. Pilots don't just fly off somewhere and do what they want, especially in a busy TMA. If a pilot wishes to hold, ATC will offer the safest place to hold for an expeditious return to the airfield, maybe holding the aircraft on radar if the pilot wishes. Safety is the main concern and ATC will do everything possible to assist but it's no good barging around assuming that the airspace is clear because there might be a loud bang.
By "breaks" I think you means "brakes"?
Last edited by HEATHROW DIRECTOR; 30th Dec 2013 at 08:46.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I don't understand why the FO (I presume) kept reiterating that they will need a visual inspection of the breaks, it should just be a normal landing, roll all the way to the end if needed, they had full priority.
My situation is this, I am 52 years old male whom 2 years ago sold a successful franchise and took early retirement, it was always my wife & I dream to fly, so we both embarked on our PPL at Bourne airfield in Cambridgeshire using the C172, we have both had our PPL for well over a year now, but I decided I wanted to go all the way to commercial so carried out the additional training at Oxford.
The decision to get a CPL was more based on wanting the higher grade of license rather than wanting to go back in to employment, never the less I was successful with the CPL and I also got the instrument rating.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to purchase my own aircraft a 1999 B36 so have racked up almost 450 hours to date.
However I would love to fly the big metal just for the experience but only short term, this is why the 500 hours of line training appeals to me, I don't want to do to get ahead in the job market I have no interest to go back to work, I just want to do for the experience and to tick the box of the list of life long ambitions.
The decision to get a CPL was more based on wanting the higher grade of license rather than wanting to go back in to employment, never the less I was successful with the CPL and I also got the instrument rating.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to purchase my own aircraft a 1999 B36 so have racked up almost 450 hours to date.
However I would love to fly the big metal just for the experience but only short term, this is why the 500 hours of line training appeals to me, I don't want to do to get ahead in the job market I have no interest to go back to work, I just want to do for the experience and to tick the box of the list of life long ambitions.
This is a discussion forum, so points made should be politely accepted. The brakes in that incident were indeed the last priority. The answer that 131 was looking for is that the aircraft will be landing overweight and faster than normal. At Manchester there is a decent length runway, but the crew would want to check that they can taxi off the runway safely and not burst into flames after a successful landing. Cant remember whether the 75 has brake temp indicators but the 320 series usually has them.
@departures131:
You really don't have a clue, departures, do you? Being ignorant is fine - just be careful not to criticise professionals who are doing a really good job, when you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.
What about OEI landing flap setting?
What about considerably higher Vref?
What about lack of reverse thrust?
What about landing overweight, which you conveniently dismissed as totally irrelevant?
No. The only one doing too much talking is YOU!
Your assumptions are just that. And entirely incorrect. You are the only one not thinking 100%.
That you claim to be CPL / IR qualified is seriously worrying. You have so much to learn, particularly not to criticise professional pilots who clearly know FAR MORE than you. Learning to shut it until you know what the hell you're talking about would be a really good start.
More worrying, you claim to want to pay to fly 500 hours just for a 'life experience'. We have every right to be very scared.
Why not give us all a break (or 'brake' as you would probably call it) from your spouting of wisdom from the back seat?
...I don't understand why the FO (I presume) kept reiterating that they will need a visual inspection of the breaks, it should just be a normal landing....
No inspections of breakes necessary, no different (in terms of hot breaks) to that of normal landing being carried out.
Only time a visual inspection of the breaks is necessary is if you carry out an RTO... but in this case its a normal landing, if not slightly over weight.
No inspections of breakes necessary, no different (in terms of hot breaks) to that of normal landing being carried out.
Only time a visual inspection of the breaks is necessary is if you carry out an RTO... but in this case its a normal landing, if not slightly over weight.
What about OEI landing flap setting?
What about considerably higher Vref?
What about lack of reverse thrust?
What about landing overweight, which you conveniently dismissed as totally irrelevant?
Also for me that was a bit too much talking in the video
I can only assume they were under pressure and perhaps were not thinking 100%
That you claim to be CPL / IR qualified is seriously worrying. You have so much to learn, particularly not to criticise professional pilots who clearly know FAR MORE than you. Learning to shut it until you know what the hell you're talking about would be a really good start.
More worrying, you claim to want to pay to fly 500 hours just for a 'life experience'. We have every right to be very scared.
Why not give us all a break (or 'brake' as you would probably call it) from your spouting of wisdom from the back seat?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scribble.
Forgive me but I thought I was being polite. If our low hours wannabe had tried pontificating on the (for example) British Airways JNB thread he would have received very short shrift.
It seems to me that a newbee appearing on the board and criticising a professional crew and ATCO for their handling of an event deserves to have a little research carried out upon him.
My feeling here is that the chap has little experience in aviation but he is quite prepared to come on here and tell folks how it should be done.
In the words of one of my old mentors (WGH rip) his coat is "still swinging on the peg"
Perhaps he should observe more before leaping in with both feet?
Forgive me but I thought I was being polite. If our low hours wannabe had tried pontificating on the (for example) British Airways JNB thread he would have received very short shrift.
It seems to me that a newbee appearing on the board and criticising a professional crew and ATCO for their handling of an event deserves to have a little research carried out upon him.
My feeling here is that the chap has little experience in aviation but he is quite prepared to come on here and tell folks how it should be done.
In the words of one of my old mentors (WGH rip) his coat is "still swinging on the peg"
Perhaps he should observe more before leaping in with both feet?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departures131 is a troll. Beware.
He has never flown a Jet, except as a passenger.
He also appeared in other topics, making a fool out of himself but claiming he is knowledgeable. A little research in his posting history reveals all.
So please do not pay attention to this faker's advice.
He has never flown a Jet, except as a passenger.
He also appeared in other topics, making a fool out of himself but claiming he is knowledgeable. A little research in his posting history reveals all.
So please do not pay attention to this faker's advice.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: dark
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scratch what I said about a brake inspection not necessary, after some more consideration it turn out that an inspection may have been justified.
However after more research they have made a mistake declaring a mayday, the loss of 1 engine is only a pan pan call, look it up if you think im wrong.
757 sure never flown that or any thing other than MEP.
Also they claim they saw the bird coming so y was no action taken to try and avoid the bird, we birds see a plane they tend to dive, so increasing the ROC would have solved the problem. Anyway perhaps the reaction of the PF was not quick enough, i guess we will never know.
Bit disappointed at the negative remarks towards my good self being a fellow pilot, certainly don't get this at my aero club
However after more research they have made a mistake declaring a mayday, the loss of 1 engine is only a pan pan call, look it up if you think im wrong.
757 sure never flown that or any thing other than MEP.
Also they claim they saw the bird coming so y was no action taken to try and avoid the bird, we birds see a plane they tend to dive, so increasing the ROC would have solved the problem. Anyway perhaps the reaction of the PF was not quick enough, i guess we will never know.
Bit disappointed at the negative remarks towards my good self being a fellow pilot, certainly don't get this at my aero club
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However after more research they have made a mistake declaring a mayday, the loss of 1 engine is only a pan pan call, look it up if you think im wrong.
And surely you cannot be serious with this whole idea of increasing ROC to avoid a bird? What guarantees does the PIC have that this will 100% prevent the bird from entering the engine?
Surely you can figure out what would happen if the bird still went in the engine and the aircraft was now very close to V2 and slowing because the pilot decided to conduct a evasive maneuver for a bird at 50ft AGL...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, feeding the ,luckily banned, troll here, but I do want to get some things straight here for those on this forum willing to listen to flightcrew who actually fly a commercial jet
...
It is PURELY the decision of the crew wether or not to declare a pan pan or Mayday. You are NEVER wrong in declaring an emergency if you deem that the aircraft is in imminent danger. In all the companies i have worked, an engine failure, especially a severe damage is very much an emergency.
Departures131 has absolutely no idea about the consequences of a severe damage, and yes, an engine failure due to bird ingestion is not just a seizure.
Departures131, Birds tend to GO UP actually when facing a collision hazard. There have been several accidents as a result of go arounds combined with an upwards movement of the flock of birds they wanted to avoid. Examples are the belgian air force C130 and FR in ciampino.In reality, they go wherever they please. They can, we as pilots can NOT. So you would violently raise the nose did you ever hear about the word active STALL? Get back into your cellar and play your flightsim game please. You are a danger to anyone taking your words serious.
...It is PURELY the decision of the crew wether or not to declare a pan pan or Mayday. You are NEVER wrong in declaring an emergency if you deem that the aircraft is in imminent danger. In all the companies i have worked, an engine failure, especially a severe damage is very much an emergency.
Departures131 has absolutely no idea about the consequences of a severe damage, and yes, an engine failure due to bird ingestion is not just a seizure
.Departures131, Birds tend to GO UP actually when facing a collision hazard. There have been several accidents as a result of go arounds combined with an upwards movement of the flock of birds they wanted to avoid. Examples are the belgian air force C130 and FR in ciampino.In reality, they go wherever they please. They can, we as pilots can NOT. So you would violently raise the nose
did you ever hear about the word active STALL? Get back into your cellar and play your flightsim game please. You are a danger to anyone taking your words serious.
Such a sudden 'departure', after so brief a visit just to educate us with all so many pearls of wisdom, profound knowledge and experience...
How will airline pilots across the globe cope, deprived of that precious resource?
At least the aero club will still receive the full benefit - every club seems to have at least one!
How will airline pilots across the globe cope, deprived of that precious resource?
At least the aero club will still receive the full benefit - every club seems to have at least one!
Despegue,
"It is PURELY the decision of the crew whether or not to declare a pan pan or Mayday. You are NEVER wrong in declaring an emergency if you deem that the aircraft is in imminent danger."
You are absolutely right, Sir. As an ex D&Der I would much rather have the pilot declare the highest option and subsequently downgrade it as appropriate. It enables us to get all the beans in a row in a timely manner - we can always stand units down as required. That is much better than having to play 'catch-up' in a fast deteriorating situation!
"It is PURELY the decision of the crew whether or not to declare a pan pan or Mayday. You are NEVER wrong in declaring an emergency if you deem that the aircraft is in imminent danger."
You are absolutely right, Sir. As an ex D&Der I would much rather have the pilot declare the highest option and subsequently downgrade it as appropriate. It enables us to get all the beans in a row in a timely manner - we can always stand units down as required. That is much better than having to play 'catch-up' in a fast deteriorating situation!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Daansaaf
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bird strike, engine surging, severe vibration, flames out the back and 131 says don't declare a Mayday. I don't agree. The best course of action in the case of the TOM was to declare a Mayday - particularly in the first instance. This is a shared view between professional pilots and ATC as demonstrated in this thread.
131, there's a significant difference between private flying with only your good self aboard and flying around with 200+ behind you and in a large jet with the potential to do a remarkable amount of damage. This isn't pontificating; merely suggesting that if you were in command of "heavy metal" that you'd take it as seriously as those of us that do it for real. The TOM example was an excellent demonstration of how to do it well.
Anything other than a normal landing flap at below maximum landing weight is a special case. For single engine operation the 757 lands with reduced flap, has increased landing speed and distance and the brake energy is greater than normal. Remember that there is no fuel jettison system and the flight had just taken off and had a fuel load appropriate to its planned trip - i.e. heavier than normal landing weight. At commercial jet weights, that increase in energy and directly, brake energy, is significant. It is a sensible precaution to have the fire services check the landing gear, brakes and airframe for damage. Remember that in most cases, this will be the first opportunity for anyone to actually see the damage sustained since the view from the flightdeck and cabin will present very limited information. Most TOM 757s do not have brake temperature indications fitted. Fan blades have an enormous energy and if uncontained, can cause significant damage. An inspection is vital after a landing of this nature in order to determine what the safest option is in respect of whether to evacuate, disembark prior to stand or to continue to stand.
The reason for describing what radial they were flying is due to aircraft performance and obstacle clearance with an engine failure. Each operator determines their own engine failure procedure and these are not known to ATC since they rarely match the SID being flown owing to a significant decrease in climb gradient. The procedures also change from time to time. The aircraft must accurately fly this manoeuvre and with the traffic density in UK airspace, knowledge of the intended path of the aircraft is vital to ATC.
Markedly increasing rotation rate to miss a bird (when it will already have passed under the nose and will no longer be visible) is mistaken at best and at worst will lead to an over-rotation, tail-strike, and compromised initial climb performance and likely, an airspeed below V2, just when you most need it having, like in this case, lost an engine.
Passenger safety is the responsibility of the commander and as I've already stated, the importance of that must never be underestimated.
131, there's a significant difference between private flying with only your good self aboard and flying around with 200+ behind you and in a large jet with the potential to do a remarkable amount of damage. This isn't pontificating; merely suggesting that if you were in command of "heavy metal" that you'd take it as seriously as those of us that do it for real. The TOM example was an excellent demonstration of how to do it well.
Anything other than a normal landing flap at below maximum landing weight is a special case. For single engine operation the 757 lands with reduced flap, has increased landing speed and distance and the brake energy is greater than normal. Remember that there is no fuel jettison system and the flight had just taken off and had a fuel load appropriate to its planned trip - i.e. heavier than normal landing weight. At commercial jet weights, that increase in energy and directly, brake energy, is significant. It is a sensible precaution to have the fire services check the landing gear, brakes and airframe for damage. Remember that in most cases, this will be the first opportunity for anyone to actually see the damage sustained since the view from the flightdeck and cabin will present very limited information. Most TOM 757s do not have brake temperature indications fitted. Fan blades have an enormous energy and if uncontained, can cause significant damage. An inspection is vital after a landing of this nature in order to determine what the safest option is in respect of whether to evacuate, disembark prior to stand or to continue to stand.
The reason for describing what radial they were flying is due to aircraft performance and obstacle clearance with an engine failure. Each operator determines their own engine failure procedure and these are not known to ATC since they rarely match the SID being flown owing to a significant decrease in climb gradient. The procedures also change from time to time. The aircraft must accurately fly this manoeuvre and with the traffic density in UK airspace, knowledge of the intended path of the aircraft is vital to ATC.
Markedly increasing rotation rate to miss a bird (when it will already have passed under the nose and will no longer be visible) is mistaken at best and at worst will lead to an over-rotation, tail-strike, and compromised initial climb performance and likely, an airspeed below V2, just when you most need it having, like in this case, lost an engine.
Passenger safety is the responsibility of the commander and as I've already stated, the importance of that must never be underestimated.