Declaring an emergency

[GTOTO]

I have declared a Mayday on an engine failure, sump plug fell out was 6 hours after service. Was at 750 ft at the time, 5 miles out, was on the ground 60 seconds and 1.5 mile later.

Paper work was tied up with why the engine stopped rather than calling a Mayday.

The only thing I have noticed with calling a Mayday is, every one goes quiet, I think from experience the controling ATC should run through crash procedures and checks as standard. Your brain is runing flat out and some reminders help.

The main one was keep the air speed up, this kill a friend a couple of years later. Lost te engine on climb out tried a 180 and stalled it in from 100 feet, gentle reminders would have save he's life.

[ATCbabe]

the controling ATC should run through crash procedures and checks as standard.

GTOTO I have absoloutely NO idea what your procedures and checks are. I am not a pilot.

As to why everyone goes quiet, thats so you have time to think and do whatever checks you need to do. Noone wants to put more pressure on you than is already there.

And whilst you think everyone has gone quiet, let me assure you ATC are working their butts off with phone calls, not only alerting the emergency services at the airfield and outside emergency services (incase you dont make it to the field), but also phoning ajacent units trying to sort out traffic so that nothing will get in your way. And thats inbetween working our own traffic and clearing it away from you so you dont have to think about it.

[bookworm]

The main one was keep the air speed up, this kill a friend a couple of years later.

What was the registration of the aircraft, GTOTO? (Or type/date/location?) It would be instructive to be able to look at the AAIB report?

[david viewing]

Anyone who is curious about what assistance ATC can offer in an emergency could do worse than to listen to the recording at NAATS under the heading MAYDAY. You might need broadband though.

[gasax]

IO-540, I'm sure you are very proud of your IMC.

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view) and if you read a couple of the AAIB reports you will see it soundly condemned as giving people the impression of having skills that short changed them.

In the real world you also find the vast majority of people who get it, do not renew it. Yes there is a huge PPL dropout rate - there is even in the US where an IR is attainable, I very much doubt theIMC rating is anything much to do with it.

What keeps you safe if you insist on venturing out of sight of the horizon and the ground? Well the nearest to it is an FAA IR. But even that is going to be pretty useless unless you practise very regularly. IFR needs currency.

I completely agree that the situation with the JAA version is little short of disgraceful. I'm sure EASA will sort it out!!!!!

[A and C]

missing the piont ?

It would seem to me that all this talk of IMC ratings vs FAA/IR is rather off topic.

The time for declaring an emergency is when you think that it will help the situation , if the guy on the other end of the radio cant be of asistance then the chances are that the extra workload of the emergency radio procedures will be of more hiderance than help.

Once you have contained the situation then it may be time for a "mayday" call , I am left to wonder how meny forced landings have ended if disaster because the low time pilot was trying to talk on the radio rather than watching the airspeed and the field he was trying to put the aircraft into.

The emergency call is a good way of getting you the priority that your situation requires.

I once had a landing gear problem going into a large london airport , the drill on the aircraft was NOT to cycle the gear , this limmited the diverson options to an even larger london airport.
As I was going round the hold trying to sort this problem out I get a call from ATC to say that the airport manager had been on the phone and asked us "not to land at his airport" ( probably woried about the effect of a blocked runway on his duty free sales ) The ATC controlled reminded me that if I declaring an emergency would take the airport manager out of the loop , so that is just what I did.

Fortunatly the nose wheel locked as it touched the ground !.

I have to say that it was my veiw that the extra pressure that was put on me by the airport manager was not helpfull and I should have raised an MOR about that alone but the ATC attitude of "declare an emergency and get this idiot out of the loop" was most helpfull !.

[IO540]

gasax

It's not a matter of being proud of it; it is a matter of it being genuinely useful.

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view)

Do you have a reference for the above? I know it is propagated in some sectors of the PPL training business but I believe that as a statement in isolation it is nonsense. You could say that a PPL is inadequate for flight in VMC, and for the UK airspace you would be right - for the 12hr/2yrs pilot which make up a chunk of the ex-PPL crowd. A PPL is certainly inadequate for flight down the PPL minima, 3k horiz. viz. and is not really adequate for night flying except in very bright conditions. Does that mean the PPL is no good?

You are only as good as your recent currency on type etc, and there is no reason why a pilot with the currency, flying a suitable plane (which is NOT easy to get on self fly hire) should be any less safe than an IR flying the same route etc. If the IMCR is taught as it has been by some; an NDB hold or two and in 15 hrs, that's not good enough but if it is taught by an instructor who knows better then it is every bit good enough.

True about the IMCR dropout rate (most I know have lapsed), but IMHO that only reflects the ridiculous PPL dropout rate. And what causes that? I have a pretty good idea but it's another very long story. But there are plenty of expired IRs around too; half the old instructors I know have lapsed IRs but can teach the IMCR because of grandfather rights. A lot of the younger ones have lapsed IRs too, because they have been waiting for the airline jobs for too many years, but they can teach the IMCR because they got one. Apart from currency, are these people somehow better?

The sad thing, which few instructors will tell you, is that you also need to get a decent plane, which means either getting into a decent group (NOT mostly VFR pilots; such groups tend to disagree when it comes to "nonessential" maintenance like getting the ADF fixed) or buy something yourself. I fly about 150hrs/year in a new £200k plane, IFR or IMC whenever necessary or desirable, and do instrument approaches regularly. I believe that's good enough.

A couple of AAIB reports tell you no more than someone flying with a GPS, flying into a hill in on very straight track, is an example of why GPS should not be used.....

The issues have little to do with the IMC Rating itself; more to do with lack of currency, poor training, and lack of available planes on which the DI doesn't drift a degree per minute and the horizon isn't about to fall out of the dashboard

[Wrong Stuff]

But the official view is that it is insufficent for flight in IMC (CAA's view)

Do you have a reference for the above?

General Aviation Safety Sense 23 - see page 9 "Loss of Control in IMC"

[Lowtimer]

There's something I don't understand about that particular Safety Sense leaflet. It's a study of "166 fatal accidents" from all causes in GA from 1985 to 1994. So that's all of the fatals in GA, those involving raw PPLs and student pilots as well as IR holders, IMC holders, instructors, CPLs, etc. Weather was "a major factor" in fatals, but not the only one - yes, well, we know there are other kinds of accident e.g. aerobatic incidents, structural failures etc. In fact it talks elsewhere about young inexperienced PPLs crashing showing off to friends, etc. Then it says that "all but one of the pilots killed" losing control in IMC did not hold the IR and then uses this as a stick to beat the IMC rating. However, it does not say how many of those cases were IMC holders. Surely there were basic PPL holders involved as well? If only IMC holders crash in IMC, then the document should have made its case by saying so. Without knowing the proportion of raw PPLs in the mix, the logic of the subequent statements about the inadequacy of the IMC rating for IMC flight is not made. (As a purely VMC pilot I make no judgement about the substantive issue - I simply point out that the CAA document does not actually provide the case for the conclusion it draws.)
(edited for spelling)

[FlyingForFun]

Lowtimer's analysis of the leaflet is very good - this is one of the worst documents (or at least the worst paragraph of a document) I've ever seen come out of the CAA. I'm not saying it's wrong, without seeing the underlying numbers I don't know (although I know where my suspicions would lie).

One point Lowtimer misses is that it says that the IMC rating is useful for getting out of trouble. It then goes on to say that currency is vital. But it makes no suggestion as to how an IMC-rated pilot is to stay current enough to be able to get out of trouble safely if he is not to intentionally fly in IMC. (I would add quotes, but although my browser let me read the document earlier today, it crashes when I try to read it again now!)

FFF
-----------------

[gasax]

From memory the number of PPLs is around 30,000.

The CAA issue approximately 500 IMCs per year - so that would suggest there are around 1000 current at any time.

(They also issue around 40 IRs per year -presumably to dedicated PPLs or those going on to do an ATPL).

If you check the CAA's reports on progress against AAIB recommendations you will see something like 7 years worth of 'well there are going to be new European licencing rules.....' etc. This was followed up in 2001 or 2 by the CAA meeting with GAAC, reviewing the situation and then stating there was not a problem with the IMC rating content. Unfortunately it did not address the issues raised by the AAIB on accidents that occurred to PPLs with IMCs crashing in IMC.

Hence you now get the policy on IMC ratings that it is not intended for serious use in IMC, it is simply to allow a PPL to make an approach to airfields in conditions that they might otherwise not be able to (????????).

The AAIB's recommendation was for the IMC rating flying content to more closely approach that of the full IR, which largely makes some sense (but only if you leave out all the nonsense theoretical content from JAR and actually make it look like an FAA IR). But it isn't going to happen because of NIH and JAR and now EASA.

If you work at it there is no reason that with good experience built on an IMC you should be safe enough.

But the vast majority of PPLs do not fly IFR from one month to the next. It's expensive and often unnecessary, so they don't get that experience or the currency and that is what makes it a rating to get you into trouble. If the initial skill level were higher that might help - but somehow I doubt it.

As for a PPL not being a high enough standard for flying in the UK. Well that is another issue and a can of worms I would prefer not to open very far. But it stems from the same route - flying is expensive, most people have to ration the amount they do. If the amount they do does n't interest them or is very restricted - yes they give up - much like virtually all the IMC holders.

[bookworm]

Lowtimer's analysis of the leaflet is very good - this is one of the worst documents (or at least the worst paragraph of a document) I've ever seen come out of the CAA. I'm not saying it's wrong, without seeing the underlying numbers I don't know (although I know where my suspicions would lie).

I would concur. The underlying numbers are available in CAP667. There were 13 accidents of the total of 166 that involved loss of control in IMC. "More than 3/4 had no IR or IMC rating (one had an IR)". I would suggest that the most likely distribution would be:

1 IR
2 IMC rating
10 no IR or IMC rating

It's not possible to determine from CAP667 which accidents involved the IMC rated pilots and, even if it were, the reports are not available online.

But the claimed inference in SSL23 is, in scientific terminology, utter bollocks.

[englishal]

Isn't it more important the number of accidents AVOIDED becasue the holder had an IMC rating? Any sort of instrument training is a good thing. It teaches far more accurate flying as well as flight by sole reference to the instruments.

Now I don't think that a 15 hr IMC course is enough for someone to tackle hard IMC head on, unless they've got a death wish, however I do believe that it is a licence to learn. You start of with marginal VFR, progress to transiting cloud layers, then you start bashing about the frontal stuff, and in my opinion someone who takes this attitude to instrument flight will become a far better instrument pilot than say an fATPL holder who got the ticket, then a year later lets it lapse [becasue they're working as an FI teaching VFR PPL's and never use it....which is what I've seen a lot of people do].

IFR flight is not expensive, in the UK we have a very "free" system that lets a pilot on a jolly switch from VFR to IFR without formality during the flight. I often fly IFR and file an IFR flight plan using the IMC rating, doesn't normally cost me any more than a VFR flight. I would suggest that inexperienced IMC holders go up with a more experienced person and practice......

Cheers
EA

[IO540]

The "Loss of control in IMC" in that CAA leaflet does not make any sense at all given the IMCR syllabus and the fact that the CAA evidently approves of the IMCR being taught! You are already taught to "get out of trouble" in the PPL (a 180 on instruments).

I suspect it was produced by someone who lives well behind the times and probably does not fly much beyond short local trips. One clue to this is the bit about not fiddling with a GPS. However it is OK to fiddle with the throttle, the fuel valve, the carb heat, numerous things that need to be watched.... While I have absolutely no wish to detract from the safety messages in these leaflets, they are occassionally written in a very patronising and not useful manner.

Re the stats, very very few current PPL pilots have an IR. You can see the data at

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fc...es_2002_03.pdf

Out of 2233 PPL/A licenses issued, only TWO had an IR; 337 had the IMCR. Previous years' figures show a much higher proportion of PPLs with an IR; presumably these were a hangover from the CAA PPL / CAA IR days and this shows how JAA has practically killed off the PPL/IR option.

So.... the bottom line is that the IMCR is the only realistic option for a UK pilot who wants to fly seriously, unless he can go the FAA PPL/IR route but that in turn needs an N-reg plane which is not an option for most pilots...

[bookworm]

Out of 2233 PPL/A licenses issued, only TWO had an IR; 337 had the IMCR

I think you're misinterpreting the table. While just 2 IRs were added to JAR PPL(A)s, 37 were added to UK PPL(A)s. Most pilots who go for an IR have been around a few years, so they have the older flavour of licence.

[GroundBound]

I would dearly like to get an IR for my PPL, but it is completely impractical and financially crippling.

The IMC rating would be great, financially possible, but it won't let me fly outside the UK, and I can't keep it current - no good there then!

So, the only thing left is take some instrument flying lessons with a local instructor for the "just in case" situation. Which comes back to the emergency situations. Supposing the weather has closed around you, some high-ish ground around but you can't see it, and there are tall aerials too! Now what?

• precautionary landing in a field?
• climb into the clouds, knowing you've done some IMC training, but haven't got an official rating, call a PAN and get some assistance to an airfield were you can make a cloud break and land on something proper?

Which is safer, and how do the JAA rules on IR for PPL's help to make flying safer for us, then?

[RodgerF]

Quote:

precautionary landing in a field?


Why not? Glider pilots do it all the time. Its part of the PPL syllabus. Better to be on the ground somewhere than trying to bumble around in cloud.

[Evo]

climb into the clouds, knowing you've done some IMC training, but haven't got an official rating, call a PAN and get some assistance to an airfield were you can make a cloud break and land on something proper?

Even with an IMC i'd seriously consider a PAN call in this situation. Things have obviously started to go wrong if you have to make an unplanned trip in IMC, so you might as well have all the help you can get. Without an IMC it's a MAYDAY.

[englishal]

Things have obviously started to go wrong if you have to make an unplanned trip in IMC

Nah, someone with an IMC rating should be able to handle a few coulds...at least I hope so, or else the training DOES need some modification. True you should know the weather before you go, but in the UK there is no real problem bumbling into IMC, I've done it a few times, and the saftest thing to do is climb to a safe height and either continue or turn back [in the IMC]. The most important thing to remember is don't let emotion take control and stay calm, and remember that aeroplanes don't just fall out of the sky in cloud unless you let them. Nail the AI, and make small gentle control inputs while keeping the scan going. I would think that a panicy cautionary landing would be far more dangerous, in fact I remember reading on the AAIB website a case where a bloke stuffed his plane trying to make the landing....

Cheers
EA

[Southern Cross]

Going back to scenario #3 in the original post (mechanical problem safely resolved eventually eg rough running engine), my humble offering is that a Pan call is the height of common sense, having had to do this twice in the last coupe of days. It just gets the correct amount of care and attention that takes a little of the stress out of what can be a difficult situation. No one should be considering what happens thereafter, just ask for and get the most assistance that you can. What happens afterwards, if anything, is utterly irrelevant to getting help at the time you need it.