Jet Engine Scare
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twaddle. It may be an emergency if the other one then fails, but if one is just shutdown or otherwise stops, that doesn't necessarily mean the subsequent landing will be any less-safe than normal
But no, maybe he is right. From now on, it should be SOP that all twins must shut an engine down on finals. Saves fuel, saves wear on the engine, and of course asymmetric landings are just as safe as ones with all engines operating, right?
I mean, who needs that extra generator... that extra hydraulic pump... just a waste, really. And the loss of reverse isn't even a consideration.
And, of course, single-engine go-arounds at heavy weights are just as safe as normal go-arounds, right?
And just because the QRH doesn't say "land as soon as possible", doesn't mean you shouldn't do so. The danger might not be as iminent as an engine fire or a loss of anti-icing (the usual reasons for a "land as soon as possible"), but it is still danger, n'est pas? Burning off fuel is fine, but I bet you wouldn't do it far away from a suitable runway.
And unless somebody can show me a checklist for a transport-category aircraft that doesn't include an engine failure as an "emergency", it IS one. The aircraft manufacturer thinks so, airlines think so, airports and their fire services think so, and the public think so.
The only group who don't think so are a minority of idiot pilots who have egos ten times the size of their seldom-used brains...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure where to start with your post Remoak.
1) dead right, too many ppls and non pilots on this forum, from ur comments you either r in that category or should be
2) Bloggs, as with the captain in question, has forgotten more about Jet flying ( inc military ) than u could ever hope to know, come to think of it, I probably have too. The reason I say that is that someone with our sort of experience would'nt make the comments that you have.
3) If memory serves me, there are no recall memeory items for an engine failure in a 717. Definitely none for A320, and a good buddy of mine currently doing 737 command tells me that Boeing consider an engine failure to be a non normal. Engine fire/severe damage is obviously an emergency, I cant recall anyone here saying otherwise ( correct me if i'm wrong )
4) I think you contradict yourself, you said sarcastically " of course, single-engine go-arounds at heavy weights are just as safe as normal go-arounds, right? "
Yet I beleive you would have landed straight away, putting you in a situation of a possible S/E G/A at high weight? have I missed something ?
5) Danger of engine fire or anti icing, you put thses 2 things in a similar catagory
Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagory 
6) QUOTE : And unless somebody can show me a checklist for a transport-category aircraft that doesn't include an engine failure as an "emergency", it IS one. The aircraft manufacturer thinks so, airlines think so, airports and their fire services think so, and the public think so.
Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them, or you are comparing it to your cessna 402. ( or your flight sim 2000 )
1) dead right, too many ppls and non pilots on this forum, from ur comments you either r in that category or should be
2) Bloggs, as with the captain in question, has forgotten more about Jet flying ( inc military ) than u could ever hope to know, come to think of it, I probably have too. The reason I say that is that someone with our sort of experience would'nt make the comments that you have.
3) If memory serves me, there are no recall memeory items for an engine failure in a 717. Definitely none for A320, and a good buddy of mine currently doing 737 command tells me that Boeing consider an engine failure to be a non normal. Engine fire/severe damage is obviously an emergency, I cant recall anyone here saying otherwise ( correct me if i'm wrong )
4) I think you contradict yourself, you said sarcastically " of course, single-engine go-arounds at heavy weights are just as safe as normal go-arounds, right? "
Yet I beleive you would have landed straight away, putting you in a situation of a possible S/E G/A at high weight? have I missed something ?
5) Danger of engine fire or anti icing, you put thses 2 things in a similar catagory
Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagory 6) QUOTE : And unless somebody can show me a checklist for a transport-category aircraft that doesn't include an engine failure as an "emergency", it IS one. The aircraft manufacturer thinks so, airlines think so, airports and their fire services think so, and the public think so.
Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them, or you are comparing it to your cessna 402. ( or your flight sim 2000 )
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where to start with YOUR post there, cunninglinguist.
As you have absolutely no idea what I know or what I have done, that is a somewhat foolish statement for someone claiming to be a cunninglinguist. Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest...
I don't recall mentioning memory items.
Indeed you have. No, I wouldn't necessarily have landed straight away. Every emergency/non-normal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it situation requires judgement, that is what captains get paid for. It depends on the particular circumstances. If I had time, no weather issues and no pressing need to land, I'd spend some time in the hold making sure I had everything covered, and getting rid of some fuel. But life isn't always that easy. The last time this happened to me, I was holding over an airport that was rapidly approaching landing minima (fog), with all alternates SNOCLO. Landing was the least dangerous thing to do, overweight or not. Bit of a long story, that one.
See, this what happens when you look at the problem from an Aussie perspective. There are many countries in the world where having no anti-icing will stop you flying for weeks. In Europe, and again I speak from experience, if you lose an engine anti-icing system, you may well lose the engine shortly thereafter (depending on the severity of the icing, and trust me, it can be pretty severe in Europe). Had that happen to me in a 146 once - lost an anti-icing valve (to the splitter), 3 mins later, engine ran down. Couldn't get out of the icing layer quickly enough.
Oh goody, let's play semantics...
Boeing used to call engine failures "emergencies" until it was decided to separate the checklists into "normal" and "non-normal". Non-normal has the same meaning as emergency - or would you announce an engine fire to ATC by saying "I wish to declare a non-normal"? It is interesting that Boeing does still have Emergency checklists (MD11, not sure about 717/MD80), and then of course there was the emergency procedure for that pesky rudder on the 737.
Not everybody puts an engine fire and an engine failure in the same category - they are both "non-normal" are they not? But hey, if you want to consider flying around on one engine as a perfectly normal, acceptable procedure with no particular risk or added danger over flying will all your engines operating, then be my guest. It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country...
As far as Airbus is concerned, I'm not sure that you can compare ECAM to the Boeing system as they have quite different philosophies.
Ah yes, the standard Aussie tactic of playing the man and not the ball. How very small of you.
Turns out you aren't so cunning after all.
Bloggs, as with the captain in question, has forgotten more about Jet flying ( inc military ) than u could ever hope to know
If memory serves me, there are no recall memeory items for an engine failure in a 717.
Yet I beleive you would have landed straight away, putting you in a situation of a possible S/E G/A at high weight? have I missed something ?
Danger of engine fire or anti icing, you put thses 2 things in a similar catagory Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagory
Engine antice can be MELd to fly around the country with for a week ( avoiding icing conditions of course ) I'm pretty sure an engine fire is in a slightly different MEL catagory
Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal
Boeing used to call engine failures "emergencies" until it was decided to separate the checklists into "normal" and "non-normal". Non-normal has the same meaning as emergency - or would you announce an engine fire to ATC by saying "I wish to declare a non-normal"? It is interesting that Boeing does still have Emergency checklists (MD11, not sure about 717/MD80), and then of course there was the emergency procedure for that pesky rudder on the 737.
Not everybody puts an engine fire and an engine failure in the same category - they are both "non-normal" are they not? But hey, if you want to consider flying around on one engine as a perfectly normal, acceptable procedure with no particular risk or added danger over flying will all your engines operating, then be my guest. It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country...
As far as Airbus is concerned, I'm not sure that you can compare ECAM to the Boeing system as they have quite different philosophies.
you obviously think you know better than them, or you are comparing it to your cessna 402. ( or your flight sim 2000 )
Turns out you aren't so cunning after all.
Last edited by remoak; 23rd Jul 2007 at 15:01.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote cunning......."Again, you show ur ignorance, the 2 major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus ( not too mention McD douglas ) do not consider a straight engine failure to b in the same class as engine fire
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them,"
Cunning ...not sure what you fly but I currently FLY the A-321....but have flown the Boeings....I really dont care what Airbus or Boeing call it.....when Im
flying as Captain....I call it, what I want to call it!!!..and whether its an engine failure or fire,it nows becomes an abnormal problem that makes it an emergency and I want priority.....in the 12yrs of flying the bus Ive had 3 shutdowns(initiated by me) and 2 due to fuel and oil.......let me make it clear,they have all been emergencies....if you want to play mind games,this is the wrong subject
remoak....he,lost the plot and spit the dummy for sure....ditto
As I pointed out above, Boeing and Airbus consider an engine failure an abnormal, you obviously think you know better than them,"
Cunning ...not sure what you fly but I currently FLY the A-321....but have flown the Boeings....I really dont care what Airbus or Boeing call it.....when Im
flying as Captain....I call it, what I want to call it!!!..and whether its an engine failure or fire,it nows becomes an abnormal problem that makes it an emergency and I want priority.....in the 12yrs of flying the bus Ive had 3 shutdowns(initiated by me) and 2 due to fuel and oil.......let me make it clear,they have all been emergencies....if you want to play mind games,this is the wrong subject
remoak....he,lost the plot and spit the dummy for sure
....ditto
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak and anors should take some time to reflect!
After these, "there I was" situations, Remoak did you just state the plain facts and go home for a good nights sleep with the comfort of knowing that you did the right thing, considering all the circumstances of the day?
Or, are you so twisted up in knots over god know's what that you need to fight on the internet over what somebody should have done in a remote area of a big country.
After these, "there I was" situations, Remoak did you just state the plain facts and go home for a good nights sleep with the comfort of knowing that you did the right thing, considering all the circumstances of the day?
Or, are you so twisted up in knots over god know's what that you need to fight on the internet over what somebody should have done in a remote area of a big country.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, I agreed with remoak.
Then I agreed with the cunnilinguist.
Then I agreed with remoak.
Finally, I laughed my guts out at:
The Lord has it!
Then I agreed with the cunnilinguist.
Then I agreed with remoak.
Finally, I laughed my guts out at:
LMAO military types in a civilian setting. Funny
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey I got nothing better to do..................................
quote: " Way too many PPLs on this forum... "
and then this gem
quote " As you have absolutely no idea what I know or what I have done, that is a somewhat foolish statement for someone claiming to be a cunninglinguist. Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest... "
So its alright for you to assume peoples experience etc, eh mr.hipocrit
You've flown one OR two military types, what, your memory that bad? You cant remember if its 1 or 2 ?
I have flown precisely 3 military types and Bloggs atleast that inc the Mirage.
So frigging what ?
Quote " See, this what happens when you look at the problem from an Aussie perspective. There are many countries in the world where having no anti-icing will stop you flying for weeks "
Oh really, thankyou for telling me captain obvious, because no Aussie has ever flown overseas for another airline and there are no Aussie airlines that fly longhaul, inc the one I work for.
Quote: " Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest...'
Really, so why'd you mention all that then ?
quote : " It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country..."
Yeh, and its one thats killed no pax in a jet, hows yours ? ( oops, playing the man again )
I fly The 320, fudgepakeha boy, but i am just in awe of you guys ( especially since ur not getting into a pissing contest ), after 20 years of jet flying I have had a miniscule amount of failures/incidents/ emergencies, compared to you guys, I'm obviously not trying hard enough.
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!
quote: " Way too many PPLs on this forum... "
and then this gem
quote " As you have absolutely no idea what I know or what I have done, that is a somewhat foolish statement for someone claiming to be a cunninglinguist. Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest... "
So its alright for you to assume peoples experience etc, eh mr.hipocrit
You've flown one OR two military types, what, your memory that bad? You cant remember if its 1 or 2 ?
I have flown precisely 3 military types and Bloggs atleast that inc the Mirage.
So frigging what ?
Quote " See, this what happens when you look at the problem from an Aussie perspective. There are many countries in the world where having no anti-icing will stop you flying for weeks "
Oh really, thankyou for telling me captain obvious, because no Aussie has ever flown overseas for another airline and there are no Aussie airlines that fly longhaul, inc the one I work for.
Quote: " Let's just say that my cockpit experience goes from Tridents to Boeings, and includes one or two military types in a civilian setting. Not that I really want to get into a pissing contest...'
Really, so why'd you mention all that then ?
quote : " It is a particularly scary viewpoint, but hey, it's a free country..."
Yeh, and its one thats killed no pax in a jet, hows yours ? ( oops, playing the man again
)I fly The 320, fudgepakeha boy, but i am just in awe of you guys ( especially since ur not getting into a pissing contest ), after 20 years of jet flying I have had a miniscule amount of failures/incidents/ emergencies, compared to you guys, I'm obviously not trying hard enough.
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
qUOTE cunning...."I fly The 320, fudgepakeha boy, but i am just in awe of you guys ( especially since ur not getting into a pissing contest ), after 20 years of jet flying I have had a miniscule amount of failures/incidents/ emergencies, compared to you guys, I'm obviously not trying hard enough.
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!"
.....words spoken from a very professional pilot!!!!
...and cunning...that would be ...SIR fudgepackerpakeha-boy...if you please
get it right mate,if your going to start namecalling.... just trying to have a decent discussion
Keep up the good work chaps, and just remember the common enemy....damn Jerrys !!!"
.....words spoken from a very professional pilot!!!!
...and cunning...that would be ...SIR fudgepackerpakeha-boy...if you please
get it right mate,if your going to start namecalling.... just trying to have a decent discussion
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not-particularly-cunninglinguist
As any real cunninglinguist would know, there is a big difference between a general comment (me) and a specific attack (you). You really should use the spellchecker old bean.
It's an EXPRESSION... like "I've had one or two beers"... but if you must know, it's two. One doesn't like to brag.
Dunno. You started the "my mate is better than you" stupidity, not me. Your guy Bloggs flew a Mirage? Wow. I am stupefied with envy and admiration... (well no not really...)
See above.
Spotlight
I think I had a beer before bed (sometimes a whisky), but, basically, yes.
Lol you are MUCH funnier than not-so-cunninglinguist. No, not really interested in what some 717 driver did or didn't do. However, it is quite fun to come home from a long days flying and do some halfwit-baiting on the topic of emergencies...
Lord Flash
No (thank God). Wanna see some big egos, hang around at your local officers mess...
So its alright for you to assume peoples experience etc, eh mr.hipocrit
You've flown one OR two military types, what, your memory that bad?
I have flown precisely 3 military types and Bloggs atleast that inc the Mirage.
So frigging what ?
So frigging what ?
Really, so why'd you mention all that then ?
Spotlight
After these, "there I was" situations, Remoak did you just state the plain facts and go home for a good nights sleep with the comfort of knowing that you did the right thing, considering all the circumstances of the day?
Or, are you so twisted up in knots over god know's what that you need to fight on the internet over what somebody should have done in a remote area of a big country.
Lord Flash
Ha, so you are not ex military then
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just came in here for a quick read....
Cunning......stop with the ego trip and accept that there are more ways than one to skin a cat for gawds sake.
Would all the other spotters...PPL's...and those with too much cheiftain and baron time, please limit your comments to what you ACTUALLY have some relevant experience with?
And to the subject at hand........on a Boeing an engine failure is considered a "non normal", in the same sense that electrical/air-con smoke is, various instrument mode failures, along with half a hundred other non-normals. In the case of an engine failure/rundown/severe damage/fire/surge etc etc etc....a Boeing QRH SPECIFICALLY STATES "Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport" which to any competant commander means sort the problem and then land with no delay.
It is an emergency, no ifs, no buts
It therefore requires a commensurate amount of urgency.
If anyone else feels the need to minimise the loss of 50% of the aircrafts ability to generate thrust...may I suggest you are in need of a course in basic airmanship
Cunning......stop with the ego trip and accept that there are more ways than one to skin a cat for gawds sake.
Would all the other spotters...PPL's...and those with too much cheiftain and baron time, please limit your comments to what you ACTUALLY have some relevant experience with?
And to the subject at hand........on a Boeing an engine failure is considered a "non normal", in the same sense that electrical/air-con smoke is, various instrument mode failures, along with half a hundred other non-normals. In the case of an engine failure/rundown/severe damage/fire/surge etc etc etc....a Boeing QRH SPECIFICALLY STATES "Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport" which to any competant commander means sort the problem and then land with no delay.
It is an emergency, no ifs, no buts
It therefore requires a commensurate amount of urgency.If anyone else feels the need to minimise the loss of 50% of the aircrafts ability to generate thrust...may I suggest you are in need of a course in basic airmanship
stop with the ego trip and accept that there are more ways than one to skin a cat for gawds sake.
The central point is the declaration of whatever that would require the attendance of full emergency services. It's got little to do with the colour of the page or the naming of the a FCOM procedure.
Those of you who say a engine failure demands full services every time just because it's in the red section are taking a simplistic view, IMO. How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness sake? Would you automatically declare a full emergency after a Cabin Hi Alt just because it's in the red section? Of course not.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
There certainly are a lot of non expert experts out there.
Reading from a current QRH, and sorting my old mind out as to what from all the C$ap written before as well as some good guts, the following seems to be the situation.
Engine failure-complete the required presented actions from the electronic and written checklists, and the statement usually says "land as soon as PRACTICAL
Engine failure with DAMAGE-complete the checklists which usually(type specific) contain the instruction to pull the fire shut off and fire ONE of the bottles as a PRECAUTION.
The manufactures and the relevent approving authority make this part of the certification of the type.
Then the phrase is LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Quite a different set of rules.
The local Airport Authority may have an emergency plan which requires the attendance of all or some of the equipment to be in place for such a situation, regardless of the call from the crew that it is so called "not needed", bearing in mind the crew have the call to ask for ALL and ANYTHING they consider needed above and beyond what the locals may consider adequate. Newman will take 30 mins to get it all out and organised, simple logistics, if you have an UNPLANNED emegency, they will also take 30 mins to get there while it bubbles and possibly burns.
If you want Airport Stand-by, pay the fees and the airfare to support the process.
The rescue of the Aircraft is a long and logistical process in Australia as there are very limited facilities in most of our RPT ports for engine changes, not like Europe etc.
Cheers
Reading from a current QRH, and sorting my old mind out as to what from all the C$ap written before as well as some good guts, the following seems to be the situation.
Engine failure-complete the required presented actions from the electronic and written checklists, and the statement usually says "land as soon as PRACTICAL
Engine failure with DAMAGE-complete the checklists which usually(type specific) contain the instruction to pull the fire shut off and fire ONE of the bottles as a PRECAUTION.
The manufactures and the relevent approving authority make this part of the certification of the type.
Then the phrase is LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Quite a different set of rules.
The local Airport Authority may have an emergency plan which requires the attendance of all or some of the equipment to be in place for such a situation, regardless of the call from the crew that it is so called "not needed", bearing in mind the crew have the call to ask for ALL and ANYTHING they consider needed above and beyond what the locals may consider adequate. Newman will take 30 mins to get it all out and organised, simple logistics, if you have an UNPLANNED emegency, they will also take 30 mins to get there while it bubbles and possibly burns.
If you want Airport Stand-by, pay the fees and the airfare to support the process.
The rescue of the Aircraft is a long and logistical process in Australia as there are very limited facilities in most of our RPT ports for engine changes, not like Europe etc.
Cheers
Bloggs,
The decision rests with the airport operator to dispatch the services, and the crew as to whether they are declaring an emergency. Regardless, it's far better to get the services there and then downgrade once a/c safely on ground, than have something go wrong and have to upgrade the response. Particularly in places like Newman where the airport is a reasonable distance from town and volunteer services can take up to 30 minutes to fully respond, once they leave their main jobs etc.
In any case I guess 3 ambulances and a couple of fire tenders wouldn't be much good to a fuilly loaded B717 crashed and burnt off the runway end but at least we could say we tried...!!!
The decision rests with the airport operator to dispatch the services, and the crew as to whether they are declaring an emergency. Regardless, it's far better to get the services there and then downgrade once a/c safely on ground, than have something go wrong and have to upgrade the response. Particularly in places like Newman where the airport is a reasonable distance from town and volunteer services can take up to 30 minutes to fully respond, once they leave their main jobs etc.
In any case I guess 3 ambulances and a couple of fire tenders wouldn't be much good to a fuilly loaded B717 crashed and burnt off the runway end but at least we could say we tried...!!!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE...."Those of you who say a engine failure demands full services every time just because it's in the red section are taking a simplistic view, IMO. How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness"
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.....its not,you make a valid point for sure and I dont argue it.....the fact is .....many on that A/C will see it very differently and so it becomes a CYA...."cover your arse"...so the point is ......call everyone you can..no one in there right mind is going to argue it ,for the very fact that you took every precaution...it may be overkill..I dont argure that...in fact I agree.....but people are people...and we live in a world where you must CYA......
is it right? ..maybe not...but you cant in a court of law(and that is another discussion) argue the fact that those involved tried to do there very best...I,m not trying to degend every action ...I,m trying to defend whats best or right at the time
...for those of us that have been in those situations,it has a good and bad side...it tells you how you are able to handle those situations and it shows you your weakneses.....in the quiet moments,you certainly reflect...cant be a bad thing.......there is no perfect pilot..there are those that do there best..
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.....its not,you make a valid point for sure and I dont argue it.....the fact is .....many on that A/C will see it very differently and so it becomes a CYA...."cover your arse"...so the point is ......call everyone you can..no one in there right mind is going to argue it ,for the very fact that you took every precaution...it may be overkill..I dont argure that...in fact I agree.....but people are people...and we live in a world where you must CYA......
is it right? ..maybe not...but you cant in a court of law(and that is another discussion) argue the fact that those involved tried to do there very best...I,m not trying to degend every action ...I,m trying to defend whats best or right at the time
...for those of us that have been in those situations,it has a good and bad side...it tells you how you are able to handle those situations and it shows you your weakneses.....in the quiet moments,you certainly reflect...cant be a bad thing.......there is no perfect pilot..there are those that do there best..
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How dangerous or hard is it to do a single engine landing for goodness sake?
I don't think anybody is saying that you should ALWAYS call the emergency services for every little thing. The thinking that I was challenging, is the idea that you always avoid calling them if you possibly can, on the basis that pilots are god-like and don't require any assistance from external services; that to ask for the emergency services is somehow an admission of failure; and that is somehow an assault on one's man/womanhood if you ask for help. All ideas that have long since been put to bed in professional circles, but which are still rampant in the GA/wannabe/charter pilot/instructor world.
Just read some of the earlier posts...