No land unless you declare an emergency

[ElNull]

I heard an aircraft over London requested a diversion to Manchester Airport due to a suspected crew oxygen leak at approximately 00:30 UTC. Initially, London provided a direct routing to a waypoint over Manchester, but a few minutes later, they informed the crew that 'unfortunately, Manchester doesn’t accept you, so what’s your intention?' Apparently, the pilots did not want to declare an emergency, stating that the situation was not an immediate emergency, and they likely proceeded to another alternate.

I found it frustrating how rigid the 'declare an emergency or you’re not landing' stance can be in situations like this. Safety should always come first, and forcing crews into a declaration just to secure a diversion doesn’t seem like the right approach.

Wondering what you guys think?

[FlyingStone]

Large UK airports have a limited capacity to receive diversions, when the aircraft is operating under normal status, because it's expected you'll need a parking stand, handling capacity to get passengers off, through customs, etc. The alternative is to everyone land where they want, anytime they want, block taxiways and bring that airports scheduled traffic to a standstill. Now if you have emergency, this is out the window, because safety takes priority over on time performance or other commercial factors.

It's not that complicated, is it? Either you don't have a problem warranting a declaration of pan/mayday, and you can fly a bit further to a less busy airport, or you do, and you'll just declare it to the ATC, who will facilitate your requests?

Is it more of a problem people being afraid of declaring a pan or a mayday, because they don't want to "get in trouble"?

[PENKO]

Sure, but this is a very unaccommodating and inherently unstable way to conduct business. What if more airports start acting this way? There are many reasons for a precautionary landing, no one diverts for fun. Safety first as we so proudly say. This goes against the very fundamentals on which modern aviation is built: no mate, can't help ya unless you're on fire.

Pilots should not be put in this what's-your-intention situation. I understand the capacity issues in certain airports, but surely that can be dealt with in a safer way for a single diversion. If things are that bad on the ground in a certain airport then the authorities must come up with a better plan. At the very least the pilots should be given some options: MAN is short staffed, but LPL is willing to accept you, and if you need a longer runway, EMA is right around the corner in CAVOK.

Either that or NOTAM the airport closed for diversions.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by PENKO

Either that or NOTAM the airport closed for diversions.

I think it is...or was, fairly recently.

[OvertHawk]

Many airports are subject to strict planning and noise limitations around movements at night

it may well be that they were not allowed to accept the diversion unless it was an emergency

[wof]

Originally Posted by PENKO

Sure, but this is a very unaccommodating and inherently unstable way to conduct business. What if more airports start acting this way? There are many reasons for a precautionary landing, no one diverts for fun. Safety first as we so proudly say. This goes against the very fundamentals on which modern aviation is built: no mate, can't help ya unless you're on fire.

Pilots should not be put in this what's-your-intention situation. I understand the capacity issues in certain airports, but surely that can be dealt with in a safer way for a single diversion. If things are that bad on the ground in a certain airport then the authorities must come up with a better plan. At the very least the pilots should be given some options: MAN is short staffed, but LPL is willing to accept you, and if you need a longer runway, EMA is right around the corner in CAVOK.

Either that or NOTAM the airport closed for diversions.

I completely agree. Denying a precautionary diversion just because it’s not an emergency undermines the entire concept of proactive safety. A diversion isn't done lightly, and as you said, no one does it for fun. I believe MAN was neither closed nor overloaded at the time mentioned by the OP, suggesting that this policy is more about rigid procedure than actual capacity issues.

[DaveReidUK]

Out of interest, what was the flight and where did it end up ?

[Angle of Attack]

I don’t see a problem just declare an emergency then land, paperwork will always favour the victors.

[rudestuff]

You could safely descend to FL100 anywhere in the the UK so (fuel permitting) you could go anywhere without needing oxygen.

[wof]

Originally Posted by Angle of Attack

I don’t see a problem just declare an emergency then land, paperwork will always favour the victors.

Would you really declare an emergency for something that’s just a precautionary technical diversion, not an “actual emergency” just because ATC requires it for landing?

An emergency should mean exactly that, an ACTUAL emergency, not just a box to tick for landing clearance. It’s not just about saying the words; declaring an emergency comes with consequences, extra paperwork, etc. and unnecessary drama. Forcing this when it’s not needed just puts an extra burden on pilots. And if this becomes the norm, some might start second-guessing a diversion unless things are already critical. So yeah thats the exact opposite of how proactive safety should work.

[excrab]

If you need to land then declare an emergency and land, and then file an MOR. Lack of crew oxygen probably isn’t an emergency. Descend to 10,000 ft and go to somewhere that will accept you. This is common in the UK, as has been said. If you have a significant problem be it technical or medical or anything else that’s urgent enough for a mayday call they’ll accept you.

[sycamore]

A lot depends on the aircrafts original destination,not stated here..ie if en route trans-Atlantic,not a UK destination, with a long flight ahead, one may well (the crew) have decided,or been advised by their Operator,to divert,and that their Operator would have knowledge/contact about the best option to take...remembering `tis better to be down here,wishing,you were up there,than being up there,wishing you were down here`!!

[PENKO]

Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan

I think it is...or was, fairly recently.

Could be. But it appears these refusals are popping up more and more without prior NOTAM. Wasn’t it Stansted who recently refused a diversion because the airport didn’t think the airline in question had a handling contract?

Anyway. The mere suggestion that ‘XXX will not accept you unless you declare an emergency’ should be a big no-no. Again, pilots should not be put in this position without prior notice.

[oceancrosser]

This appears to be very much a UK airports issue. Hence when southern England wx is bad, I choose alternates on the European mainland.

[oceancrosser]

Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan

I think it is...or was, fairly recently.

Can´t find any such NOTAM. Diverted to MAN years ago due wx at a mid England airport. Fortunately on a freighter, as we did neither get a stair or GPU for 3-4 hrs (certainly a handling issue, but we do have a contactor there). A s**thole airport I will do my best to avoid.

[Cough]

I think the big issue is knowing where the oxygen is leaking and does that endanger the aircraft? Oxygen is friendly stuff to us humans, but also has an ability to make something hot a lot hotter.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by PENKO

Could be. But it appears these refusals are popping up more and more without prior NOTAM. Wasn’t it Stansted who recently refused a diversion because the airport didn’t think the airline in question had a handling contract?

Anyway. The mere suggestion that ‘XXX will not accept you unless you declare an emergency’ should be a big no-no. Again, pilots should not be put in this position without prior notice.

You're preaching to the choir here. Just pointing out that MAN did have a "don't go here" NOTAM at some point in recent history.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by oceancrosser

Can´t find any such NOTAM. Diverted to MAN years ago due wx at a mid England airport. Fortunately on a freighter, as we did neither get a stair or GPU for 3-4 hrs (certainly a handling issue, but we do have a contactor there). A s**thole airport I will do my best to avoid.

Probably a 'was' then.

[nonsense]

This is distinctly reminiscent of the discussion late last year of the common American practice of "declaring an emergency" rather than transmitting "mayday" or "pan-pan".
The thread title was "Roll the Trucks" ATC verbiage in the USA

The choice is not

• "declare an emergency" OR
• "there is no emergency".

The choice is

• "mayday" OR
• "pan-pan" OR
• "we've got a problem we'd really prefer to take to Manchester if that's at all possible please".

A suspected oxygen leak surely isn't a "mayday" emergency, but it might be something closer to a "pan-pan" problem.
You're not about to fall out of the sky, but all is not well and it could get uglier.

[punkalouver]

Originally Posted by ElNull

I heard an aircraft over London requested a diversion to Manchester Airport due to a suspected crew oxygen leak at approximately 00:30 UTC. Initially, London provided a direct routing to a waypoint over Manchester, but a few minutes later, they informed the crew that 'unfortunately, Manchester doesn’t accept you, so what’s your intention?' Apparently, the pilots did not want to declare an emergency, stating that the situation was not an immediate emergency, and they likely proceeded to another alternate.

I found it frustrating how rigid the 'declare an emergency or you’re not landing' stance can be in situations like this. Safety should always come first, and forcing crews into a declaration just to secure a diversion doesn’t seem like the right approach.

Wondering what you guys think?

That seems to have been the situation in Singapore when the SIA 777 landed on fumes at its alternate which was only available after they declared the emergency. But declaring an emergency can lead to news headlines from the ravenous media leading to uninformed passengers becoming hesitant to fly which can lead to a company to put subtle pressure on pilots to not declare emergencies if not necessary.

An example of the news media feeding on public fears for their own income.
(1) Flair passengers had a scare when Montreal landing was aborted before D.C. crash | Globalnews.ca