MyTravel Mayday
 

Heading north over Barcelona this morning (11th March) at abot 0940 I hear the following conversation:

Kestrel 203: "Mayday Mayday Mayday, Kestrel 203 engine failure, descending to FL 100"

Manuel (for it is he): "Say again?"

Kestrel 203: "Mayday Mayday Mayday, Kestrel 203, engine failure, descending to FL 220 (wise move that!) turning on to heading 145"

Manuel: "Roger"

I 'followed' Kestrl 203 through all the frequencies (on box 2) until he went to BCN tower on 118.1 when he was blotted out by (I think) Toulouse tower. Hope all went well despite [apparent] lack of assistance or even interest by the Spanish controllers.

Boeing or Airbus?

sources say it was a A320

All is well, aircraft landed safely

Does that matter? What is more interresting is who made the engine.

Oh! come on, TCAS - how on earth are we going to get ANOTHER Boeing v Airbus thread going with an attitude like that? :rolleyes:

LOL BOAC.:D

Glad to see it ended without misshap. Well done to the people at the front :cool: Poshbird any other info?

Not wishing to start an Airbus vs Boeing thread, but it seems hard to imagine a Mayday call that doesn't involve an issue with the airframe.

Oh dear! I hope I haven't opened up another Boeing v Airbus argument! It was just that I used to work for the company concerned and was curious, that's all!

> Hope all went well despite [apparent] lack of assistance or even interest by the Spanish controllers.

I was the first person to hear that and I must admit it makes me sad to hear what you say.
As you can imagine, when there are so many lifes at stake, the last thing one wants to do (both proffessionally and personally speaking) is to ignore such an emergency.
Nonetheless, just in case anyone is not aware, strict set emergency procedures have to be followed in these cases, both in the cockpit and in the control room.

There was everything except lack of interest and I should tell you that as a controller the last thing you can do is to disturb the pilot when he is facing an emergency like this.

These comments do not do anything good but alarm and missinform people and just to put your mind at rest, YES, everything went allright because everybody did what they had to do at all times despite what you call a lack of interest.

Why should it not be a Mayday call?? The aircraft lost 50% of its power and I was taught that situation = Mayday. On top of which the aircraft was UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HEIGHT and wasn't requesting descent, but telling ATC they were descending regardless, and that is 100% a Mayday.

As for my Spanish comrades, probably more a lack of experience with handling emergencies than anything else. UK ATC was one of the first to get a full and compulsary emergency training course going and now its a yearly session, however I know many others do it much different.

Technically, a MAYDAY is declared when the aircraft is threatened by "grave and imminent danger" and requires "immediate assistance".

PAN is appropriate to an aircraft being in a state of "urgency".

However, in the real world I would not blame any aircraft commander who declares a MAYDAY should this be deemed necessary.

I see to recall a thread a long while ago which implied that Spain and several other states did not recognise the PAN status.

A few points here from a Controllers point of view.
Firstly.as has been previously state a 50% percent loss of power controllers are taught should lead to a "Mayday" call (just typing the word makes my blood freeze!).
Secondly, as has been previously stated, a controllers first response to a "mayday" calll will be simply "Roger Mayday". this is not disinterest on the part of the controller but what is taught because it is understood that the cockpit workload has just gone through the roof.
Finally, what appear to be periods of silence on the R/T,are actually the controller phoning everyone around to clue them into the situation and the possible repurcussions.
Sometimes what pilots fail to realise about the job of ATC is that only about 30% of the job is talking on the R/T, the rest is co-ordination between different units and agencies. This percentage increases dramatically on the co-ordination side in the event of an emergency situation.
A classic situation for this is a (fingers crossed) incident at an airfield, where the controller may be too busy to talk to you because he is phoning the fire service, ambulances ,police, d+d and airfield operations. it is not to say that the incident has been trivialised, indeed it is to say that it is being treated with the upmost urgency.

Very good repplies from the ATC guys....:ok:

Interesting comments about PAN v Mayday...

A few weeks back I would have agreed with the thoughts about a Mayday being OTT for an Engine Failure in the cruise.

Whilst covering "Discussion Points", during a course with a TC, the issue arose, and I now agree a Mayday is more appropriate. As has been stated above "requires immediate assistance" is 100% the case. We ARE coming down NOW - no choice - we NEED IMMEDIATE ATC assistance to clear the decks below.

In fact, the need for assistance is more compelling here than an Engine Failure at rotation. The moment ATC have cleared you to descend to a FL at or below SE MAx Alt, the urgency is over, and a downgrade to PAN appropriate.

Personally, most of my (sim) PAN / Mayday calls tend to follow with the word "Standby". I am glad to see Spanish ATC did not follow up with 20 questions...

And as for <<Boeing or Airbus? >> shouldn't it be <<CFM or IAE>> !!

NoD

I have been thinking about this, and have to agree that with todays crowded skies, descending without clearance could put you in "grave and imminent danger".
-You don't really have any way of assessing that danger in advance (you don't have the traffic picture below you).
-You can't respond to the TCAS god when he commands "climb, climb now". That will definately upset the other guy descending, descending now.

Maybe some companies need to update their SOPs?

Having passed through BCN last night I assme it was the A320 that is now sitting on a relatively remote stand.

Very well done to all concerned.

WRT Mayday or not, an engine failure at any stage is definitely a very serious occurence and requires immediate assistance, therefore it is most definitely a Mayday call, you want anything and everything shifted out of your way immediately, and a dedicated freq if you can get it.

Our SOP (not MYT) is engine failure ---> MAYDAY.

Simple.

Ferris
Update SOPs??
If you cant maintain altitude, then you cant maintain...! What do you want the guy to do? Update the SOPs to read: Dont descend even though the aircraft is unable to maintain!!
We had a CRJ2 lose an engine and he immediatly lost 3000ft until he managed to hold FL254. He didnt bother descending any further to make it a round flight level, because I guess every foot of altitude proves its worth if the other engine should decide to give up too....

Just to clarify that ATC considers it Mayday when 50%+ power has been lost. Its not that we aren't overly concerned by a 747 using only 3, there is always that 'if one's gone, so could the rest' so priority will still be given, but its not exactly going to affect a safe landing somewhere suitable, so a Pan is more appropriate.

On a point of ATC interfering at the wrong time, what would you prefer, a couple of questions every few mins, all the questions at once for you to answer when able, or for us to just say we have questions, and wait for you to come back?? Bear in mind, for some pieces of info we need to know immediately, ie FL needed, and diversion adme if its close so they can get all services present. For instances of engine failure, knowing if it was a routine shutdown, or due fire, and if fire still burning etc is needed, and this also prompts which way do you wanna turn (hear that fire determines this now) all the things we need to know to be able to give you the safest a/c free path possible. As has been said so many phone calls take place to organise this our time is crutial too, not forgetting the recall of staff to man a discrete frequency. We may have many bodies around to help, doesn't mean its any easier :)

Reading the thread title, I wondered if it referred to one of their aircraft or the company itself.

I must admit I am glad to read the last replies.
Considering it was the first real "Mayday" I had to face everything went fine despite all the unseen coordinations and work we had to carry out (the pilots, controllers and everybody else involved) to solve the problem.
I certainly hope not to experience the same situation again but if I do, I hope evertyhing will work as smoothly and proffessionally as it did yesterday.

As an ex blip driver at LATCC for a short time, and now on line pilot, I can really appreciate what's going on as we used to do the recurrent emergency training. There's considerable activity off RT because of course the first thing that happens is to give a one to one service for the aircraft in question for a start. There is a better appreciation of the workload / stress going on in the cockpit, and the last thing is to start pressurising the pilot before he has had time to sort things out eg Kegworth.
Mayday it must always be because accidents are often a combination of 4/5 problems which can be interconnected, and although the first instance is loss of 50% power, until stablised at a FL who knows other consequential effects that may turn up. And don't forget that a bogie can wreak havok with other aircrafts planned flights. You can rehearse all you like for incidents but the reality of human behaviour can be very different when faced with crises. I was CRM instructor for a while with Airtours and had the privilege of knowing 2 captains involved in incidents. It's easy in a Sim............
Very well done to controllers and crew

Considering the lack of impact a PanPan has in some countries as they do not recognise at all the time I would always go for the mayday as soon as I am unable to hold altitude, period.

The best line I was ever taught was: if you have two options use the safest! Thus Mayday will always cover any doubt you might have.. (this is a 73 perspective though... 74 or A340 is differant of course)

126.7
I'll type slowly so that you can keep up. Some co's may need to update their SOPs as it appears that from some comments made by drivers earlier in the thread that they don't consider it a Mayday call to lose an engine and make an emergency descent. I was pointing out that maybe they need to rethink that position, for the reasons given. I sort of realise that they can't maintain height dahhh. But thanks for your input. The adults are talking at the moment. You can have a turn later.

I had an engine failure on t/o out of LHR a couple of years ago. All I transmitted was "Mayday (Callsign) engine failure". ATC acknowledged and kept quiet. My colleague and I were left to carry out the drills in peace. To my lasting embarrassment I never said "thanks" to the controller afterwards.

Just because nothing is heard on the R/T, it doesn't mean nothing is happening on the aircraft, nor (I'm sure) on the ground. Quite the reverse in fact.

An engine failure may, or may not, be an emergency. It's not wrong to call Mayday, and it's not wrong not to. It depends on the situation. Your call, and you get paid to make that decision.

What of the MyTravel A-330 that landed single engine in ARN a few days ago? Any info on that one? Heard the crew just informed ATC they where coming in on single engine (no Mayday), and ATC made the decision to push the big button.

Even in a non-event like you say ManaAdaSystem, some (most) ATC agencies have further procedures themselves as directed by the overall Airport Authority. Captain calls only on one engine, no emergency, ATC have to put on a local standby at the least, possible Full Emergency so the Airport Crews are fully prepared for duty should the a/c on much reduced braking action fail to stop in time. So its not just what the aircrew perceive, we can and often do put on emergency action because we have SOP's of sorts too.

<<An engine failure may, or may not, be an emergency. It's not wrong to call Mayday, and it's not wrong not to. It depends on the situation. Your call, and you get paid to make that decision>>

Exactly...

In fact, in the above thread, it is NOT the Engine Failure that warrants the Mayday. It is the immediate, unavoidable descent (if required). As was pointed out, Mayday implies "immediate assistance required", and ATC are unable to assist with the failed engine! They are however, able to immediately assist with the descent, and in slower time (hence maybe downgrade to PAN), with the diversion...

NoD

In a very similar event in my company the other week, a PAN PAN was called with no acknowledgement, it took a MAYDAY, re-enforces the point that PAN's don't seem to be picked up on as quickly.

I agree with most of the above

in nats air traffic we are encouraged to go for the higher emergency state just in case as it would be easier to downgrade than update the state of emergency and is a way of covering our backs

Hence as was said sort of above you may say no emergency and find a blue flashing light at every runway exit

Bagheera,

Good stuff;)

very enlightening - it sometimes needs pointing out before you realise whats involved !

Ferris,

Assuming you nice ATC chaps can't get the other traffic out of the way. If an aircraft is descending due to an engine failure, it is very unlikely that the TCAS would issue a 'climb' command during coordinated action.

If the aircraft was descending towards another aircraft the level/climbing aircraft would get a 'climb' advisory. If both aircraft were descending the most likely response from the system would be monitor vertical speed!

This should be a moot point though as in any event, aircraft SOPs dictate that the TCAS system is selected to Traffic Advisories only if the aircraft's performance is degraded. This means you would only get traffic information rather than resolution advice to enable you to decide the best way to avoid the threat.

When an engine is lost in the cruise the jet doesn't just plummet to earth, its kinetic energy is used to delay the descent for 30 secs or so whilst you decelerate to min clean. This delay should give the controllers time to clear the area or in procedural airspace the crew time to get onto a 90 away from the threats!

Hope that helps. By the way I thought you were a bit rude to 126.7. Even adults need the facts before they speak; just the other day I asked my 7 year old why she was behaving like a little girl....

Ghost;)

I'm not sure I agree with some of your points there, Ghost.

The TCAS fitted to our aircraft (757/767) is not fully 'performance aware', i.e the TCAS assumes full a/c performance (at current weight ?) available at all times and is not fed any data on engine failures or shutdowns.

It is therefore perfectly possible for an aircraft on one engine to be issued a Climb RA which cannot be actioned. Thus, as you rightly point out, TCAS boxes should be selected to TA in the event of an engine failure. I also don't see why, in your scenario, the climbing/level aircraft would, de facto, be issued a Climb RA. As I'm sure you are aware, there are a complex series of interactions between two RA-enabled TCAS boxes, and the results, though always safe, are not necessarily predictable, are they ?

An RA issued simultaneously to a descending engine-out 757/A321 and a climbing ATR would, as far as I understand it, be more likely to ask the jet to climb or monitor vertical speed, as the boxes would have agreed the jet has better performance available.

With your box selected to TA, the ATR would get a more appropriate RA as the ATR system would be aware that no resolution would be issued to the jet.

Very interesting topic this, and this is only my understanding of how the kit works. Wonder if anyone knows any better !

Ghost, if you think all ATC need is 30 seconds to clear a safe path in this day and age, then its time to cash in your next Centre Visit ticket. Fair enough we can start the avoiding action rolling, but in a stack system?????????? Remember that avoiding the emergency a/c has EXACTLY the same priority as getting the others to still avoid each other too, even if reduced separation has to be used :)

Ghost
ref 126.7 ;if he is going to treat me like a 5yo, I'll do the same for him. Honestly, it doesn't take too much effort to read the thread thru and be able to follow the discussion.

Re TCAS; I looked at as much info as I could on the subject after Bodensee, and I learned a lot. One of the most important things I learned is that a lot of the participants (pilots and ATCers) don't have a good grasp of the various systems. (not everyone agrees on whether an RA supersedes an ATC instruction- ask a Russian (and there are plenty of them flying around)). You seem to believe that you wouldn't get a climb RA when descending one engine. I believe your chances are 50/50, but I'm willing to hear any arguments:cool: . I didn't know that it's your SOP to switch to TA (but how would I?- another failing in {recurrent} atc training, knowing what sort of things are in the checklists). Is that common?
Another misconception; do you expect me to notice you in unauthorised descent? I may, or I may not (the older equipment I work on doesn't have automated alarms for things like track-keeping, altitude-keeping etc). So you better rely on your call to me to alert me to the fact. When will that call come? Not amongst the first few items I would guess. How many 000's of feet would you be down before it happened? What about the traffic 1000' below? What if you can't call immediately/get stepped on?
Lots of things to think about- not the least of which is the (yet another) TCAS issue.

You would be surprised how many ATCers dont know didly about a/c. Plenty dont know that a twin cant maintain cruising level with one engine out.
Its mostly due to a lack of interest and virtually no contact with the flying types. Sad but true...

I declared a 'MayDay' last year (flying a parachute aircraft) It wasn't a engine failure (that would have been less frightening than the situation, and I was flying a single!) Once on the gorund safely and when one has calmed down it is easy to then think a 'mayday' wasn't required. However, I reported the problem initially and had to repeat it twice without much understanding. So I declared a MayDay. The aircraft was in danger, even if not 'immediate'. I did get assistance that helped me resolve the problem but there really wasn't a lot they could actually do for me and when they said "Roger, ....., what assistance do you require?" I thought..Good question, what the hell can they do for me?"
However, without the help they gave it might have turned out a lot worse."
Thanks guys! (Lakenheath Radar!)

On the subject of the incident being discussed, I would have thought a 'pan' would suffice if the aeroplane can maintain hieght and a 'mayday' would be definetely required if it was descending regardless off what was underneath.
I don't understand why a aircraft underneath would be get a TCAS 'Climb' resolution to avoid an aircraft descending from above?

Nigelondraft good summary

There is an awful lot of discussion and opinions here, so I'm just doing a double check on what I've got so far.

In the event of an engine failure

1) A Mayday call is the captains call, complemented by operator SOP's

His considerations are based on

a) Annuciated effects (fire, decompression etc.)

b) Aircraft performance vs commanded thrust (ability to hold altitude)

in this case he probably didn't lose 50% of available thrust, since he is not at max performance conditions

c) Potential ATC issues affected by reduced performance

Comments?

I suggest "MAYDAY" every time if in any doubt, then details, then "STANDBY" (very useful word, STANDBY) if all you (the pilots) want in response is brief acknowledgement and then silence.

The point I'd mainly like to emphasise here is that dealing with an ATC query is only a small part of the problem -- the biggest side effect is a break in one's train of thought and a breakdown in pilot-to-pilot communication and co-ordination. One often has to start a task all over again, or one forgets to return to the task in hand before the call, probably because another task is by then demanding one's attention. A snowball effect can soon be established, from which there is no recovery, all set in motion by an apparently simple r/t call !

The pilots are also potentially under verbal assault, to a variable degree, from cabin crew of VASTLY varying ability/common sense (IMHO). That aspect bothers me, sometimes.

It's all about workload and giving the pilots a chance of coping with it.

Which is precisely why when you do call, you will just get an acknowledgement. We are trained not to ask or do anything to you. We realise that your workload is now very high. Rest assured, if you're dropping straight into someone else, I will be talking. We also have a lot of things to do off R/T.

Couldn't agree more about calling it a mayday first, then downgrading if warranted. It may be that call which makes someone in another cockpit sit up and pay attention (and get out of the way/stop talking over the top of you/ etc)

Frightening, the faith people have in TCAS.