Land ASAP vs Land ANSA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Land ASAP vs Land ANSA
Simple question:
What o you understand by land ASAP and land ANSA?
Does land ASAP mean that you find an airport or airstrip with sufficient runway length to slow down your aircraft and take the risk of an overrun or in a land ASAP procedure, you still require to have a full runway length to stop your aircraft.
Similarly for a land ANSA, do you only consider the runway length, in that case you make sure you have sufficient length to stop your aircraft, or doyou also consider airport other facilities such as maintenance/servicing (company) facilities?
Thx
What o you understand by land ASAP and land ANSA?
Does land ASAP mean that you find an airport or airstrip with sufficient runway length to slow down your aircraft and take the risk of an overrun or in a land ASAP procedure, you still require to have a full runway length to stop your aircraft.
Similarly for a land ANSA, do you only consider the runway length, in that case you make sure you have sufficient length to stop your aircraft, or doyou also consider airport other facilities such as maintenance/servicing (company) facilities?
Thx
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Age: 56
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASAP
Basically, yes. If I am on fire, I will take the risk of over run. ASAP implies that you are in more danger by staying in the air. I have been in helicopter emergencies that included the decision to land on a roof top. The risk of collapsing through the roof also has to be weighed against burning to death. Fire is a ASAP situation. Certain flight control issues are ASAP also.
ANSA means that we have a problem, but it is not life threatening at this moment. It may become critical if we have developing issues. We have some time to consider airfield suitability, and we should make a reasonable choice.
Airplanes usually buy you more time to decide based on altitude, etc. Most helicopter ASAP emergencies mean RIGHT NOW!!! Altitude can work for or against you depending on how you look at it.
It is sad that we have to worry about what the lawyers are going to do to us if we make the slightest mistake during the heat of battle.
ANSA means that we have a problem, but it is not life threatening at this moment. It may become critical if we have developing issues. We have some time to consider airfield suitability, and we should make a reasonable choice.
Airplanes usually buy you more time to decide based on altitude, etc. Most helicopter ASAP emergencies mean RIGHT NOW!!! Altitude can work for or against you depending on how you look at it.
It is sad that we have to worry about what the lawyers are going to do to us if we make the slightest mistake during the heat of battle.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: KDEN
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if this is helpful, but in the US the FAA has made it clear through precedent that in the single-engine context, the Nearest Suitable Airport does NOT consider whether an operator has a company presence at a cetain field.
Company presence at an airport should not be part of the 'suitable' selection criteria for a diversion due to system failure requiring land at nearest suitable airport. For scheduled operations where a particular alternate is part of the planning process it is usual at least to have agreements in place with handling agents etc to cover the diversion case. However even if those arrangements are not in place - for the system failure case - the rest of the 'suitable' definitions like fuel, ground support, runway and taxiway strength etc apply in the decision-making process.
My reading of 'land as soon as possible' is just that - depending on the severity of the situation, the Captain must decide where to land even if it is not on an airport at all. Example being uncontrollable fire or severe smoke in cockpit could require ditching or off-airport. Lesser but still serious situations could be any runway where the aeroplane can be brought to a stop without incurring further risk to life and limb or airframe damage.
My reading of 'land as soon as possible' is just that - depending on the severity of the situation, the Captain must decide where to land even if it is not on an airport at all. Example being uncontrollable fire or severe smoke in cockpit could require ditching or off-airport. Lesser but still serious situations could be any runway where the aeroplane can be brought to a stop without incurring further risk to life and limb or airframe damage.
Land ASAP - "The clock is running and the life of those on board is in immediate danger by staying in the air. Put the aircraft onto the ground (or water, if necessary) as soon as you can find a place where you expect everyone can survive the landing."
Land ANSA - "While the aircraft is not in immediate danger, sufficient failures have occurred so that a further failure will place the passengers in immediate danger. As such, the aircraft cannot continue to destination with a sufficient guarantee of safety. Land at the nearest airport, where you fully expect you can land with no further risk to aircraft or passengers. This means take full account of weather, approach aids, terrain, runway size, ATC and RFFS etc., but no account of engineering or company support - these considerations are only of importance after the passenger's safety is assured (i.e. on the ground)."
Land ANSA - "While the aircraft is not in immediate danger, sufficient failures have occurred so that a further failure will place the passengers in immediate danger. As such, the aircraft cannot continue to destination with a sufficient guarantee of safety. Land at the nearest airport, where you fully expect you can land with no further risk to aircraft or passengers. This means take full account of weather, approach aids, terrain, runway size, ATC and RFFS etc., but no account of engineering or company support - these considerations are only of importance after the passenger's safety is assured (i.e. on the ground)."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: high right
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombaridier have the following definitions in the FCOM for a CRJ-200. IT refers to the following statements in the Emergency and Abnormal chapters which are repeated in the QRH.
‘Suitable airport’ -- Suitable airport is defined as the airport where a safe approach and landing is assured.
‘Land at the nearest suitable airport’ -- Landing airport and duration of the flight are at the discretion of the pilot-in-command. Extended flight beyond the nearest suitable airport is not recommended.
‘Land immediately at the nearest suitable airport’ -- Land without delay at the nearest suitable airport.
"Safe approach and landing is assured" opens itself up to a number of things, eg: The closest airfield from your present position could have a weather issue, etc. and thus not be the "safest" place to land. There are I'm sure a whole lot of case scenarios that could be discussed.
There is no mention of any operator requirement at the airfield. Most of the time pushing on to your destination that has maintenance support will be no problem and the company will thank you for saving the schedule but that will all change if something else goes wrong and you didn't land at the "suitable" airport. Remember that law is practiced in court, not justice and the FCOM is a pretty thick book to have thrown at you.
‘Suitable airport’ -- Suitable airport is defined as the airport where a safe approach and landing is assured.
‘Land at the nearest suitable airport’ -- Landing airport and duration of the flight are at the discretion of the pilot-in-command. Extended flight beyond the nearest suitable airport is not recommended.
‘Land immediately at the nearest suitable airport’ -- Land without delay at the nearest suitable airport.
"Safe approach and landing is assured" opens itself up to a number of things, eg: The closest airfield from your present position could have a weather issue, etc. and thus not be the "safest" place to land. There are I'm sure a whole lot of case scenarios that could be discussed.
There is no mention of any operator requirement at the airfield. Most of the time pushing on to your destination that has maintenance support will be no problem and the company will thank you for saving the schedule but that will all change if something else goes wrong and you didn't land at the "suitable" airport. Remember that law is practiced in court, not justice and the FCOM is a pretty thick book to have thrown at you.
I'm worried that too much emphasis (posted words) are being placed on legal aspects in this thread. In the commercial operations (you work for a company) the legal stuff looks at the FCOM and training and rarely charges the pilot for a discretionary decision
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My criteria is as follows:
If the QRH tells you to land at ANSA, for twins it should have been in the flight plan, for others it is not as time related as for a twin. Your choice should make the situation better not worse.
The case ASAP means basically things are of such a nature that you can not make them worse than they already are.
Just reason as a doctor would, only in this case you are the patient.
If the QRH tells you to land at ANSA, for twins it should have been in the flight plan, for others it is not as time related as for a twin. Your choice should make the situation better not worse.
The case ASAP means basically things are of such a nature that you can not make them worse than they already are.
Just reason as a doctor would, only in this case you are the patient.
Last edited by Pitch Up Authority; 8th Dec 2009 at 15:34.
