As the saying goes: 'it is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.' Many pilots have a reluctance to declare a 'pan' or a 'mayday' and then find themselves in a worsening situation. There is a catch 22 situation. Pilots don't declare emergency situations because they feel that the dispatch of emergency services isn't justified for thier particular problem. Most Atco's dispatch the emergency services due to the knowledge that pilots are often reluctant to declare a formal emergency. The sistuation could be solved if pilots would declare formal emergencies or just admit that they were getting into difficulty, then controllers wouldnt have to 'second guess' the pilots and the true servicability of their aircraft in flight.


TS

I find that PPLs are just as bad as Mil pilots when it comes to declaring Mayday etc, and I can see some of the reasons.
Reports etc....... ;)

However, I don't think that will stop the AAIB from nailing my fat ass to the wall if the brown stuff hits the fan.

".....the controller should have understood that it was an emergency and acted accordingly...."

I find that it is poor airmanship to NOT declare if you have some sort of problem that means you cannot get down without priority, or have to make a forced landing.
To bitch if you are met by blue lights beside the runway are plain rude!

It is catch 22.

But as chilli says how can ATCO's second guess the state of the aircraft when the new ones have next to no experence in the air.

By second guessing you are removing the PIC from the loop.

But getting met by the Fire chief, OPerations Manager and Local police man is not the way to get Pilots to admit to ATC that they have a small problem. If anything through rumour control it will only make it worse. And maybe why its getting worse.

Its up to the PIC to decide if its an emergency. If you want to put a local standby on fine. But tell them and don't have the full fire service charging down the runway after them unless they know.
The first time it happend I nearly went around because i thought I had missed a call or I was trying to land at the wrong airport because it looked like an emergency on going.

Local standbys are good. Not full blown responces unrequested

MJ

Hmmm Good Topic, but more on the ATC view.....

Putting the emergency services on alert is not "Back side covering" by ATC. It is good practice. Unless specifically told that there is no (serious) problem ATC always expect the worst and plan / alert accordingly. No-one, Pilot, ATC or Emergency services are caught out, that way. It is not second guessing.

ATC is primarily a SAFETY service (Safe. Orderly. Expeditious. In THAT order). ATCOs are trained thus.

So, as a PPL you have what you consider to be a minor problem and end up being chased down the asphalt by the Fire Section, all Blue Lights and sirens because ATC put on a Full Emergency. So what? The Fire Section don't mind. It's what they're there for, and they like the practice. ATC don't mind, 'cos they acted out their responsibilties (Duty of Care et al). AND you didn't even PAY for it, so why are you so upset?

You get a little miffed (at the time) at all the song and dance that appears to be happening. THINK. What if? What if your percieved little problem wasn't so little after all? What if it lead to a bigger, more serious problem that you were so busy sorting out you didn't have time to tell ATC? Perhaps then you might be extremely grateful for the appearance of the emergency services?

Commercial Pilots sometimes have a different set of reasons for not telling ATC that there might be a problem. PUBLICITY. Of the unwanted kind. That is a different can of worms and not really the province of the Private Flying Forum. (By all means raise it on the ATC forum)

Back to PPLs (of which I am One). One more reason for not getting too upset at the attendance of the emergency services. I know from experience that they would very much rather go to lots of "false alarms", than "Fatally Injured" incidents. Particularly when their early attendance might have made a difference. How do I know? My father was a FireFighter for 30+years. I've heard LOTS of stories and been around Firemen and Fire Stations for a LONG time.

One last "Story" of my own. One very wet and very windy day at a large airfield in Hampshire I happened to be the Tower Controller. Inbound was a VC10 to pick up some VIPs. The wind was very gusty, across the RWY and there were lots of squally showers. Not fun. In view of this I put the Fire Section on "Local Standby", which got them in their appliances, outside the station and ready to Roll, should it be neccessary.

As the inbound VC10 reaches 5 miles on a challenging PAR, Wing Commander xxxxx appears in the Tower. He spies the Fire Section, all blue lights etc and asks what "they think they're up to?". I explain. "Oh" says he "But don't you know it's only a VIP flight on the way out?". I was appalled that anyone could think like that,but bit my tongue, ignored the WingCo and continued watching the VC10 lurching down the final approach track. The joys of being civilian on an RAE Station:rolleyes:

Rgds BEX:O

Its not a case of 'how can atco's second guess?'. But WHY the ATCO's have to second guess. experience 'in the air' has little to do with an ATCO declaring an emergency or not. How does the ATCO know what experience a pilot has??? it isnt often mentioned as a pre-requisite to a mayday, how many hours the pilot has on type. Something which is not so serious for a senior Flying instructor may be an absolute crisis for a low hours ppl. That isnt for the ATCO to judge.
Secondly which is the better scenario? An ATCO deploying RFFS for a relatively minor situation? Or the ATCO sitting back, thinking 'oh he'll be alright' and finding that the plane digs its nose 100m short of the runway????

As another point:

It is not neccesarily removing the pilot from the loop, If the pilot has failed to declare a situation which: A) may prevent safe and effective flight. B) upon landing may affect the servicability of the runway, then the ATCO has to make a decision to also protect other aircraft in the 'bigger picture'.

;)

Fair comment, I may be putting my commercial pilot views on a PPL license holder. But the legalitys of me operating as PIC in a commercial situation are no different to that of me operating in a Private capacity in a SEP all the same rules of the air etc I am PIC the buck stops at me.

But i still think that by declaring a full emergency you are removing the rights of the PIC of the aircraft to decide the state of their aircraft and what service they require from ATC. There is only one person that can declare a mayday for an aircraft thats the PIC ( who can of course deligate this task), they are qualified to do it and only they can make that decision. It is in fact unlawful for any one else to issue a mayday on your behalf. From memory an ATCO can declare if they witness the crash or they can start alerting action if the aircraft is over due.

So the more times ATC remove the rights of the PIC to decide. The less information pilots are going to give in case they get the works when they don't want it. Its a double edged blade, yes you can declare a full emergency when your told about a problem and feel great I did them a favour. But in reality its another pilot who is going to battle on not declaring problems because they don't want the full works.

The airport I used to instruct at had it sussed. Tell them what was wrong. They asked if you needed any help. You got what you asked for or nothing if you didn't want anything. If the fire brigade were put on standby you didn't know about it. First solo the fire brigade were again put on standby but the students didn't know about it.

The point I am making is ask the commander what they want, tell the commander what you are doing, and don't take the command away from the commander ( you wouldn't do it to a commercial flight). Then maybe more PPL pilots will be more willing to fess up when they do have problems.

I have constantly tried to teach students to spill there guts the first sign of trouble. Practise using 121.5 if they get a reaction which they arn't expecting they think sod that for a game well i won't be telling them that.

MJ

.Correct its for the PIC to judge.

What you SEE as an ATCO is your call especially if its to do with your bit of tarmac. I am sure when you know the local FI is on board you will just look away when you see the hairyest arsed approach you have ever seen. Your hand will be on the crash button if its a local PPL. Thats not the issue. Its over reaction to calls without consulting the pilot.

"It is for the pilot to decide when it is an emergency,"

Firstly I have to say that probably a touch of gratitiude rather than what the hell are you doing here would be better when greeting those who have come to make sure you are all right.

Ask any of the guys at AAIB departments about the world how pilots cope in times of stress. Your minor problem which you have reported and is not serious can possibly be more serious than you think for a few reasons.

Maybe the sympton you are seeing is not due to what you think but a more serious problem about to get worse before your safe arrival on the ground. While you carry on happy that nothing major is happening everything inside your machine is prepared to fall apart in a big way.

While dealing with your problem you may fail to notice other things going wrong...fuel, weather flight path etc. And before you think this is rubbish remember a certain commercial flight in the USA where all the crew were so busy worrying about trying to get the three greens to come on (in the end it turned out to only be a blown bulb) that they managed to circle so long thinking about it they ran out of fuel bringing their Boeing down with obvious results to all on board. The same three lights caused another to distraction to a crew they flew straight into the ground trying to work out what to do with the problem.

Both these were large public transport craft with highly trained crews who were supposed to know what they were doing. It is very easy to become distracted when faced with unexpected problems. For this reason if an atc upgrades the response to your "small" problem just to be safe in the event of something worse occuring do not blame him just be gratefull that they are there to help in the event of the brown stuff hitting the spinning thing.

That is of course unless you think you are a perfect pilot who can never make any form of error be it in flying or mechanical analysis of your crafts state. If you do see you self as such a pilot then I suggest for your sake give up flying or for heavily insure yourself so your familly can at least have some fun spending the money.

Madjock

My post about being ungrateful was directed at the originator of the thread and not at you. I had no disagreement with your statement that PIC decides whether it's an emergency and no-one else.

JAFO

Not quite. From MATS 1:

'When a pilot has given certain items of information normally associated with an emergency message but has not prefixed the transmission with 'MAYDAY' or 'PAN', the controller is to ask the pilot if he wishes to declare an emergency. If the pilot declines to do so, the controller may, if he thinks it appropriate, carry out the necessary actions as if the pilot had declared an emergency.'


There is also the catch-all, on the first page of the manual, that says:

'Nothing in this Manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.'

That particular line is the one that haunts controllers in our nightmares. :ooh:


The level of emergency response on the airfield is the domain of the tower controller, not the pilot. We are not there just to annoy you, we also have a duty to ensure the airport is used safely, and a duty of care to the other aircraft, as well as a duty of care to do what we believe is best for you. Yes, I hate the phrase 'Duty of Care' too.

Personally, if you tell me your vacuum pump has failed or whatever, and you don't want to declare an emergency but want to return to the airfield as a precaution, I'll call a Local Standby. The fire crews will get in their vehicles, but no blue lights, and no ambulances. If you have a rough running engine and a note of urgency in your voice, in a SEP, it'll probably be a full emergency. In a twin, local standby again. I don't think any of that is unreasonable, is it? However:

I agree, full emergency is an over-reaction in these cases, unless the controller has reason to suspect the situation is worse than it appears on the surface.

We are talking here of PPL SEP's flying VFR with knackard vacum pumps, popped doors, giro's upside down. Not airliners with 100's of bods on board.

The whole point is that you are given the service without requesting it and without telling you what to expect and not allowing the PIC to say its not required. Surely its not unfair to be asked?

From the debate here if you don't want a full reponce your best to not tell ATC. Then we come back to the whole moan that pilots don't tell ATC when they have a problem. I can now see why my CPL examiner told me not to bother telling ATC when we had a none critical problem. I concidered it a sufficent problem to tell them he vito it and said a flapless landing wasn't abnormal.

Would you guys pull a full emergency for jammed flaps on a light twin if you knew about it unrequested?

These sort of things are happening all the time. Do you want to know about them or not?

Whats the solution?

Upgrade as ATC wish, pilots don't tell you about developing problems so when they do call its always a full emergency.

Or ask the pilots what they want and tell them what you are doing and what to expect and give them the option. And the pilots tell you as soon as there is an issue.

MJ

Sorry again someone posted while i was writing

I never see it as annoy. Its working together to get a job done with the least work done by both parties.

And it does seem that the pilot training syllabus is different to to the ATC training. Because that is not what we are taught even at commercial level.

Perfect.

I think that I would say the same, but maybe phrase it differently.

Why tell ATC you have a problem if you don't want them to do anything about it?

If it's a question of "a problem shared is a problem halved" then remember that you have given them half a problem to worry about.

If your situation is grave enough for you to warrant a priority landing, then it is grave enough to warrant blues and twos.

If, on the other hand, it doesn't, then keep quiet about it and taxi to the maintenance hangar on arrival.

Some very good points so far.

My surprise, and the reason I posted, was the scale of the response. What did 16 Police officers expect to do and why would they not leave until the aircraft had taken off again?

The call was made to D&D and I can fully understand why they would call in the emergency services. The fact that they were called makes the event serious enough to call for a full response.

The pilots in question (the crew were two shareholders of the microlight) had checked their instruments before crossing the Thames from Essex to Kent and noticed that the fuel pressure was below normal. They elected to land in a 50 acre grass field and check it out. The passenger decided to call D&D to let them know what they were doing. Out landing a microlight is no big deal, as PFLs are drummed into you in the training.

What follows is all in the wording and I'm sure that a call to Southend to let them know that they were making a precautionary landing would have had a less dramatic result.

As has been said, the response will largely depend on the info given by the PIC. "I am making a precautionary landing in a 50 acre grass field, to check my fuel pump", would generate a different response to "PAN, PAN, PAN we are making an emergency landing as we have fuel supply problems.

I have no criticism of the actions of D&D and the response time of the emergency services sounds admirable. The scale of the response may have been excessive, but as Kolibear said, recent events in Herts may well have affected this especially as it was two Police officers that were killed.

If I have any concerns, its that we are likely to see "Pilot crash lands only 2 miles from Benfleet housing estate" headlines in the weekend's papers. "Local resident, Sharon Bloggs, said 'They are always flying over here. I'm scared to let my Johnnie play in the back garden after this'"

Just a thought, isn't a PAN an distress situation not requiring immediate assistance?

Bar Shaker, I agree partly with what you are saying. Yes, for a microlight pilot a short field landing is more of a possibility than for a pilot in a PA28. And yes rightly so they practise them a great deal at the training stage, so they should be proficient, as A) a microlights' unpowered glide distance is greatly reduced compared to fixed wing aircraft. B) they have a small, single engine that (arguably) may be less reliable. Its true that to stop and check a fuel pump is not a big deal. However I have two points that I would like to possibly mention. First if a fuel pump is no big deal, then why did they stop to check it??? Secondly even if the discrepancy with the fuel pump contained no danger whatsoever, the forced landing is a dangerous procedure when not taking place as a practise on an airfield. Yes the pilot could have flown at 500' 300' and 100' to check the ground. But if my life depended on it I know I wouldn't enjoy trying to differentiate bricks and tree stumps from cow pats whilst doing 60kts. What would have happened if the pilot had struck a barbed wire fence which was not visible from the air, would you expect the controller to sit there and presume everything was ok til he read on the news that a microlight pilot had died of his injuries after 2 days??? If you think what I am saying is work of fiction try reading a few AAIB reports. see how many 'forced landings', for problems which are relatively minor, end up with the aircraft inverted and the pilot having to be dug out of the mud by either a passer by or the local policeman.

TS;)

bar shaker,

Shouldn't that be "PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN"?

Does anybody else want to curl up and die of embarassment when they say that whilst running through RT procedures in their head? :oh:

TPK:ok:

I must admit that on the occasions I have made a Pan call, I have said "Pan Pan, Pan Pan" because that seems quite enough to get the message through.

I have always heard others making the same abbreviation and I am quite sure ATC understand it.

However, I repeat Mayday the requisite number of times (on the rare occasions I have used it.)

Page 111 of CAP 413 answers the whole thing really.

Mayday = Immediate assistance required
Pan = Immediate assistance not required

Tinsparrow, it was a flat 50 acre field of 10" silage (grass) but I take your point, bearing in mind the above terminology definitions.

This is also my main concern, I in fact had this after a forced landing after my engine stopped in a Tiger Moth during aeros - I had picked my area with this in mind and had an ideal field straight away - police arrived just before I got my engine going again and the details I gave them were broadcast on local radio that evening -with of course the medias usual exageration- I SHOULD have made a complaint but did not, what it did do was put me off calling in if I should have a problem again (in fact I will probably call it in but make the point to the police that I WILL officially complain if it gets in the press).

Well thats it Timothy

We are incouraged all the time to tell ATC. GASCO and all the other Instructor rags we get throught the post want us to.

I believe ATC want us to. Do you?


Bloody right it does, you should be on a PAN at least.

And why is it in MATS pt1 its always "ATCO may" and "pilots will"
And there is a hell of alot of stuff "pilots will" that I have never heard of before in my IR or after and there is no mention in the ANO. Seems wierd we don't get taught it.

MJ

I read the newspaper report last night. Front page, main item, big colour photo of aircraft sitting in a massive grass field.

It included the words:
"emergency"
"engine failure"
"plummeting"
"narrowly missing"

I'll see if I can get a mate to put the transcript up.

Do jornos all go on the same "aircraft incident" writing course?

Just studying for my R/T written at the mo. I'd love to slot 'plummeting' into the nature of emergency bit...:D