I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to......I guess.

Nutty, the question is answered by the aviators mantra - aviate, navigate, communicate. There is also the somewhat facetious "am I up here because you're down there, or are you down there because I'm up here?"

Tallyho and no joy... I've heard both a few times on frequency, from what I think were civilian planes

NutLoose - a MAYDAY doesn't quite guarantee radio silence as there will be other aircraft on frequency which the controller needs to keep apart until handed over to someone else. What it should do is stop other pilots initiating non-essential comms like requests for re-routing or weather updates. It also doesn't stop ATC talking to the distressed aircraft: the way to achieve that is for the pilot to transmit STANDBY (which is still only a temporary request).

I think MAYDAY and PAN-PAN serve a very useful purpose in an ATC environment in that they make it immediately obvious whether you are likely to comply with clearances. MAYDAY for those occasions when you do what you need to do and tell someone about it later; PAN-PAN when you can fly 'normally' if given priority. A MAYDAY should therefore get everyone else on frequency listening carefully to ensure their own safety and prepare for possible avoiding action. Achieving the same clarity with an IFE just takes more radio time.

Thanks all for explaining :)

Apologies for perpetuating the MAYDAY discussion, but until we get more info on the F-35/KC-130 incident it’s the the only show in town!

I spent a total of some 7 years at Eastern Radar, controlling USAF traffic in UK ... and a couple more doing it from London Centre. Ignoring the regulatory aspects, as a Brit Mil controller you just learned to accept and understand their way of doing things differently. And even understand the implications of some of the emergencies ... I recall the F-100 had something that was sort of 5 minutes to ejection time, so get me home quick!! What REALLY matters, for an ATCO is handling the overall traffic situation for the exclusive benefit of the emergency aircraft.

Story. I was doing Centralised Approach Control for Alconbury/Wyton one day. I had 4 x F4 from 10 TRW on frequency as singletons heading for the Final Approach Fix (FL180+, IIRC), and due to the airspace I was busy. Four aircraft was the tech limit for our T82 store-dot tracking system, and I was being watched by the visiting CO of Midland Radar, who also used the T82 radar. He asked, “What happens when you run out of tracking store dots?” At that moment, I got a handover of another F-4 who had called MAYDAY. Simples ... identify and control #5 for a Diverse Recovery, tell #1 to #4 to proceed to the IAF and hold at their mercifully already assigned FLs. And eventually hand over #1 to ALC Rapcon and resume processing the other 4 in the stack. “Err, that’s what we do, Sir.” ... Terry Mac was not amused! BUT ... MAYDAY gets you in front of the queue!

Way back in the day, the USN’s Approach Safety magazine had a great story about an uncoordinated hurricane evac where every USN base in southeast decided beddown base would be NAS Memphis. Suddenly, a couple hundred planes are inbound. At one point, an F-8 declared “minimum fuel”; ATCO said, “you’re number 10 (or something large) in min fuel GCA pattern”. F-8 pilots responds with, were now flamed out, “you’re number 3 in flame-out pattern”. The whole story was hilarious if not so serious. About five or six ejections and lots of saves.

Knucklehead, trying to be smart:
"Ace from space,
turning base,
wheels in place,
reserve a space!"

ATC, a lot smarter:
"Ace from space, go around, we have Superman on GCA finals with minimum fuel."

As previously stated, I'm 110% behind standardized RT and procedures; they reduce confusion and promote safety which is essential when dealing with critical situations. However, picking up on some of the comments on here, yes, there is scope for initiative and creative action especially from ATCOs who need to be aware of the prevailing circumstances. My example went something like this:

2 x F111s climbing out of low-level near a North Yorkshire MEDA airfield:

"Ratch 21, check"

"2. It appears to have gone out! Still a lot of smoke though and bits falling off" ( 😯 )

"(EG**) Ratch 21 flight climbing out of low-level requesting FL (whatever) direct track to Lakenheath for a diverse recovery, GCA to land."

"Ratch 21 Flt, squawk (xyz) - do you have a problem?"

"Ratch 21 has lost an engine and has a double utility failure."

"Ratch 21 Flt, identified, radar advisory. EG** is 225, 21 miles, runway 34/16, 7500 ft with cables and barriers and used to handling your type."

"Ratch 21, Ratch 22 - seems like a good move. You're still smoking!"

"EG**, Ratch 21 flt, can you accept us?"

"Affirm - we are an Emergency Diversion Aerodrome, squawk 7700, turn right (etc etc)' (On the landline to D&D, who promptly delegated Op control to me)

He made an approach-end cable arresstment. The aircraft was a MESS! Most of the TF-30 had departed company from the rest of the airframe with substantial fire damage too. I seriously doubt he would have made it back to LKH. At no time was Mayday or Emergency mentioned but we were all - by then - all on the same page.

I've no experience of communications in aviation but plenty in noisy environments. I dare say that some of the issues that result in someone 'declaring an emergency' might also result in additional noise. Noise cancelling technology can only do so much. The reduced bandwidth that you're left with will transmit some vowel and consonant sounds better than others.

The repeated vowel sounds in PAN, PAN and MAYDAY will have a clarity that I'm sure couldn't be achieved by 'I am declaring an emergency', even if the latter was uttered by Wallace Greenslade or an alumnus of Seagoon's school for announcers.

All I used to deal with was:
"Standby, LX cue 15"
"LX standing by"
"LX cue 15...go"

Zero peril, even if pyro was involved.

I'm not sure why you would choose to complicate what is, in essence, just a sound to gain attention for a very specific reason. If I've missed the point (other than contributing to thread drift), I do apologise.

abstract, out of the box thinking.

long ago, far far away, around a bar.

FO coming up to command, around the table with a bunch of senior standards and training captains. Over a beer, bright FO relates a story about his deciding not to do SOP's following the beer-soaked topic.

Mangler standards holding his beer replies, "noted..., and what other standard procedures and rules do you deliberately disregard?"

SOP's and standard phraseology are not made to make your life more difficult, they are there to ensure that lessons hard-learned in the past do not get played out again needlessly. Standard phraseology may be the only thing going when you encounter a major language gap, like a Californian talking to JFK Approach, or anyone talking to SYD.

IT is a "head of the pin" issue at the same time, but confusion at high TAS tends to get more entertaining than it needs to be, and a multilingual environment doesn't make it much easier, like the Marines talking to the Airforce.

Wings and engines removed, presumably fuselage to follow.

Marines have started to remove parts of KC-130J that crash landed in Thermal ? Alert 5

Marines have started to remove parts of KC-130J that crash landed in Thermal

The wings and engines of the KC-130J, BuNo. 16-6765, that crash landed on a field in Thermal on Sept. 29 have been removed last week.

According to NBC, the wings were removed on Oct. 9 and the engines were taken off a day earlier.

https://nbcpalmsprings.com/2020/10/0...ng-in-thermal/

Ohh dear, have you listened to that, the Herc pilot had 8 passengers eject and land by parachute while the pilot and co pilot landed the aircraft

Probably makes sense Nutty, from my time on Herc , the lapstraps and canvas seats provided for ' economy class' passengers down the back were unlikely to prevent injury.

Ttfn

I think he’s mocking the possible confusion between “eject” and “”bail-out”.

Do thry regularly carry chutes for all supernumery crew and train them in the use thereof?

Not a single report over the last 10 days or so has mentioned anyone parachuting out ... IMHO it would have been at the top of the press reports .... so I think this is total load of rubbish by media that actually knows nothing .. and the use of the term "eject" from a Herc just confirms it to me.

When this first happened there were reports of "eight parachutes" being seen. I haven't heard anything else reported about this since, though.

As an Air Force pilot flying C-141’s, we carried parachutes for all crew members only during combat airdrop missions (low level flying) . Our loadmasters wore them or harnesses, anytime the doors were opened in flightI. I’m not familiar with the Marines, but if they have the same policies, this would have been a good time to bail out if parachutes were aboard and available to crew members.

Unless the autopilot can fly the plane with that much damage and two engines out on one side, I’d think going to the chutes would be a very bad idea. Yes, the enlisted crew could get out, but the pilots would be stuck in an out of control situation trying to chutes on and out the door to an uncertain safe escape from the airframe.

That said, many moons a go a friend on a C-123 with a wing fire took to the chute when he no longer could talk to the pilots on intercom. Survived the landing only to be bit by a dog.

If you listen to the news item, it says the rest of the crew bailed out and the Pilot and Co Pilot belly landed it into the field.

however, the shots on the ground, the ramp appears to be up and the rear para door on the port side is closed, so possibly they went out the stb side para door as you can’t see it, the front door I take is open due to the pilot egress.