Flysmart EOSID legal status
 

Dear colleagues, I have a little doubt here. Is ATC aware about Special Engine Out SIDs published by Airbus Flysmart? I don't see them on Jeppesen Charts. So, are we supposed to fly it without a prior coordination with ATC or we have to inform ATC that we have this procedure and are about to execute it?
Thank you.

ATC has no access to company EOSID therefore once you declare a pan pan/mayday you should say your intentions or at least initial routing.

Best regards!

Correct, but a PAN does not allow You to deviate from the acknowledged clearance, hence a MAYDAY is required.

I have seen many times in the sim before "mayday engine failure climbing 4000ft to <waypoint used for EOSID>" ... only problem is the waypoint was created by the airline for the MCDU/FMC.

As for sonicbum, if I need a change in heading, speed or altitude, for whatever safety reason, I am going for it with or without the support of ATC.

Yes but in real life You are not the only traffic flying in busy terminal areas, so you need the support of ATC to clear closely spaced traffic from your routings whilst you are flying your EOSID which is unknown to everyone, ATC included. So fly whatever you need to, but shout a mayday so other people (ATC included) know you are in troubles and will stay clear of you.

In my outift , a Pan Pan call out with our intention to ATC ( heading/ target altitude) is good enough. We only call mayday for engine fire.

I’m pretty sure ATC’s job is to figure all that stuff out…. It’s why you are there in the first place. A Mayday/Pan is obviously useful but I’ll stick to flying the aircraft/avoiding terrain over chatting with someone on the ground who can’t do anything to help in the initial seconds/minutes.

Your job in that rare scenario is to get everyone out of our way and to REDUCE our workload. I hear so many scenarios in the US when ATC only complicates the problem and refuses to listen to the words that are being spoken. It’s sort of embarrassing/shameful for people who are supposed to be “professionals”.

And don’t get me started on French/Spanish atc….

Depends on the operator policy, we use a mayday for engine fire and for a failure just a pan pan. Of course commander has final authority and can use a mayday if he thinks it is a safe course of action.

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate. It's served us well for over 100 years

- I'm executing an unpublished missed approach procedure from low altutude with a sharp turn because the aircraft on takeoff roll is still on the runway.
- I'm reducing speed from M 0.85 to M 0.78 due to unexpected turbulence.
- I'm following TCAS RA.
These are all deviations from the acknowledged clearance. Shall I declare emergency with MAYDAY?

Thanks! I was hoping there was some connection ... Like, for example, once Flysmart developes the procedure for the particular airport they notify this airport authority and ATC, that airbus pilots have this in their minds.
It would also be interesting to know whether other aircrft manufactures have the same in their takeoff performance or not.

I would suggest to review the meaning of MAYDAY and PAN PAN.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_3.html

Flysmart just displays the EOSIDs that your operator uses, no idea if Airbus actually develops them, but in the last airlines i've flown they are actually from another third party provider developed according to the EOSID policy of that airline. In one they were done by Jeppesen, in another by LIDO.

So even if we use Flysmart, it will in all likelyhood spit out completely different EOSIDs between different airlines.

Now it makes more sence to me. Thanks!

Those examples are quite irrelevant.

When You are on an IFR flight plan, You are required by the Regulations to comply with Your departure and route clearance. In case of an engine failure during takeoff you will most likely fly an EOSID or EFP which no-one is aware of, except yourself and your colleague. So, Fly-Navigate-Communicate. I do appreciate that some Operators do not specifically demand for a Mayday call during an engine failure on departure, however it is to be noted that flying "straight ahead 25NM - climb MSA" when taking-off in a busy (flat) terminal area when you were expected to start a left/right turn at DER as per your SID will very quickly attract more than a few questions from ATC which you don't really want at that stage, because you are busy dealing with more important matters.

Having an airplane in a state of "urgency" deviating from any clearance previously received and necessitating to have other traffic cleared from the surrounding is not exactly "routine" operations for ATCOS and other traffic around you.
Put into the equation also that primary ECAM actions related to engine failure do not ask you to switch immediately your TCAS mode to TA only (that will come later), hence you might very well find yourself at a height where RAs can start to be triggered (post inhibition below 1000 ft AGL) whilst flying on a single engine. You definitely do not want conflicting traffic around you, but hey you are crossing the departure/arrival axes of a couple of major international airports in the Paris TMA at 9AM LT during your "straight ahead MSA", why bother with a MAYDAY after all?

Regarding your "examples":

If an aircraft is still on the runway on takeoff roll and you are ordered/decide to go around you will fly your published missed approach procedure. ATC will give you an amended routing to avoid conflicting with the departing traffic that has been cleared for a departure that you are not aware of, so you have no idea where the guy will be turning next. The solution to visually separate yourself as you describe can work in non-radar and non-controlled areas, but you would have briefed it in advance as an additional threat.

The TCAS RA is a well documented procedure which you are required to follow and required to declare to ATC as TCAS-RA. All accounted for.

Reducing speed due to turbulence is a short-term action which does not bother anyone. If you need to maintain a significantly different MACH number for quite some time though, you will need A) to tell ATC and that's about it in radar environments or B) get a revised clearance in non-radar environments.

When we do stuff in the SIM that looks good in the SIM we are all happy. But this stuff must work in real life too because that's why we pay the big bucks to the ATOs for leasing the SIMs or the Manufacturers' to buy them.

Paris is a pretty bad example. Just following your standard SID clearance can and will put you in a loss of separation situation, as will the subsequent vectors by ATC. Had it several times this year alone. Quite inept ATC in that area, just topped by spanish ATCOs (who do not even know what PAN is).

In the real world i would agree, just call MAYDAY and switch TCAS to TA only ASAP.

Operators will vary their EO SIDs for many reasons.
Jepp (and probably Navblue) do publish generic ones that should work for all (or most) types, but a good performance engineer can make one that’s simpler, or tweak it to gain more performance (= payload) on eg a limiting second segment.
I always work on the assumption that ATC don’t know what I’m about to do and be prepared to tell em.

It's drilled into us in the sim where I am that ATC have no idea what you're going to do, so if you plan on using the EOSID, make sure you tell them what your plan is in your first radio call once you've got the aircraft sorted out direction and safety wise.

Visit an ATC unit and they will tell you the same thing. When I look through our company ETs just for the type I’m on, there’s sometimes several pages at a given airport with terrain issues. Multiply that by the number of airlines and each type they operate and you’d need a stack of ring binders to document them all.

Some of our ETs are pretty complex and take some time to brief; I sometimes wonder how I would describe in a short time to ATC what we’re doing and what we’re about to do when the workload is high on the flight deck, especially when the ET is referenced to navaids and/or waypoints that are not specific to that aerodrome’s normal approaches and departures. The point of the exercise is your own personal terrain clearance, which can be marginal OEI even if everything goes right, so FNC/ANC makes a lot of sense here as the clear and present danger is hitting the ground, not other aircraft, especially in a ATC and TCAS environment where you are likely below where traffic would normally be.

To be honest I have never had any issues in over 30 years with either French or Spanish ATC. Actually I would say with 90% of the worldwide ATC... as long as we both clarify what do we want from each other.
The only issues I have experienced, say for example in Paris TMA, were related to other traffic on departure being unable to accelerate to 300 kt below FL100 "due to company restrictions" or being at Vtgt/Vref at 8NM from touchdown whilst being cleared to 160kt till 4NM "due to company restrictions". Again it is all a matter of being clear with what we can or cannot do and letting other parties know about it in advance.

The text in the flysmart app has nothing to do with Airbus, it is an operator defined field. The procedure comes from your airline. Airbus has little or no knowledge of company specific EO SIDs.

As to calling mayday or pan, are you departing from a single runway airport, or a 2/3/4 runway configuration. If im going to cross the departure of another runway, it would be a mayday for me, there is a potential imminent danger of collision.

They are relevant. Whats wrong with making a Pan call followed by “Require XYZ”. ATC will not deny it. If they do, then upgrade it to Mayday. No need to jump straight into mayday simply because you are unable to comply with ATC instructions.

That would be one poorly designed EOSID, I would very strongly consider all other options before turning into known traffic, with or without a mayday! Either way, an EOSID that places you in imminent danger far greater than the original failure, is worthy of an ASR to the regulator.

Having said that, following all EOSIDS I have come across, I would call a mayday for the engine failure to begin with. That should alert ATC. Thereafter I will TELL them of my intentions. In that order.

I think every rulebook every written regarding aviation contains a version of the following:

Quote:

---

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

---

Aviate, navigate, communicate. It’s the nature of the emergency in itself that allows you to deviate from your clearance, not the words mayday in itself. Don’t get me wrong, I have no hesitation to declare an emergency, especially at the early stages of an engine failure after takeoff. I just want to make sure we don’t put the cart before the horse. The controller is not in command, we are.

Really? I thought controllers were in charge. Good to know.

We are not obviously talking about the safest course of action, which we are going to implement regardless of the phraseology being used (so your comment about putting the cart before the horse is irrelevant).
We are discussing the fact that you are not alone in the sky, and that a distress message will allow the necessary actions from ATC and other aircrafts to keep you clear of other traffic whilst maneuvering in the interest of safety.
With that being said, are you starting your EOSID before declaring a mayday? Of course you do (fly navigate communicate as you kindly taught us all) but as soon as the situation allows proper communication is required. Is the failure so catastrophic that there’s no chance to speak a single word to ATC? Fair enough.

We are also discussing the legality of an EOSID, see the question in the title. So I commented on the notion that a PAN does not allow you to deviate from the route.

I fully agree with you, as you can read in my prior posts, that your intentions should be made clear as soon and as urgently as required, but I question the assertion that a MAYDAY would allow you to do more than a PAN. PAN and MAYDAYs are (very effective) attention getters, not legal vehicles.

If, like in your ‘Paris at 9AM’ scenario you think a MAYDAY is the best way to get the necessary attention from sub standard controllers, then by all means. But isn’t that subject to your trust in the Paris controllers, and not per se the legality of a MAYDAY call? Exactly the same legal outcome can be achieved with a PAN call: PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN, engine failure, flying straight ahead for twenty miles, standby for further intentions.

I only have 2 engines, and if I lost one I'd definitely make it a 'Mayday'. I'd also adjust my EO routing according to the conditions of the day (weight/weather), which may include flying the SID, staying over water or flying straight ahead.

Some people seem to have preference of pan-pan over mayday. Is there some extra ”costs” (paperwork, etc…) involved in their operational envioroment? Or what’s the reason to restrain from mayday?

I ask this, because in my enviroment it’s either mayday, if I want something from the ATC, or if not, then ”For your information we have… and request…”). Only time I would use pan- pan is if I didn’t have emergency onboard but needed to cut in between transimissions.

ICAO ANNEX 10

5.3.1.1 Distress and urgency traffic shall comprise all radiotelephony messages relative to the distress and urgency conditions respectively.
Distress and urgency conditions are defined as: a) Distress: a condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.
b) Urgency: a condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight, but which does not require immediate assistance.

Pan and mayday are well-defined distress and urgency signals with a specific meaning, hence legality is a factor when opting for one or the other.


What has the trust in Paris controllers to do with the subject?! Paris controllers, like any controller in the world, expect pilots to comply with clearances in order to organize a smooth traffic flow, so communicating intentions is important for Your safety and the safety of other airplanes in the area.
If You deviate from your clearance (SID) to fly your EOSID it means you require immediate assistance, otherwise you would just keep flying your SID or coordinate other routings with ATC. You can't just start turning all over the airspace and pretend people will read your mind on what your intentions are.

-No one on this thread suggests that you should 'just start turning all over the airspace'.
-Deviating from an SID is not an emergency in itself.
-Turn the question around, do you have less legal authority as a captain if you fail to call MAYDAY after an engine failure but otherwise communicate your intentions and situation?

I guess it depends on your definition of distress and urgency. I have no hesitation to call MAYDAY after a sudden engine failure on takeoff. But neither do I have any hesitation to 'downgrade' this MAYDAY to a PAN once the situation is under control, everyone is aware of our situation, and we are flying back for a controlled single engine landing.

I have once used PAN to convey to the controller the urgency we had on board and it worked a charm (as it should). I would have used MAYDAY if he remained unconvinced and the situation deteriorated.

As someone who over the course of 25 years has had more than their fair share of situations that required the emergency checklist, both operating/registered in the EU and the US, this is what I did and how it worked out:
I declared an emergency (Mayday x 3, or in the US "declaring an emergency").
We did what we needed to do.
We told ATC what we did/needed.
We landed safely.
We filed a report.
Never had any questions about doing it that way. I know it is only a sample of just over 10, but still...

You cannot -from a regulations perspective- deviate from a cleared routing (SID in this case) unless You coordinate an alternative routing (eg. wx avoidance headings or rerouting) or declare at the very least a state of urgency or distress. You are confusing the authority of the PIC which is always to act in the interest of safety even if this goes against rules and regulations with compliance with said rules and regulations.

If You declare nothing in terms of Urgency or Distress with an engine failure, in terms of ATC you will always have the same priority as any other traffic and will be expected to behave as any other traffic, i.e. comply with your clearance. This is what happens on a Quad where you will be able to keep flying the cleared routing but it’s a completely different story on twin.

Did exactly the same, mayday declared following an engine shutdown due to bird strike in approach and unrecoverable engine stall. Lots of paperwork and that was it.

Agreed with the above, loosing all of a sudden one engine on a twin, for me, its a Mayday, spoken at the earliest opportunity to ATC. Gives me full access to all emergency equipment and priority to do whatever my airline wants me to fly (EO-SID). With a Mayday, now it is ATC's job to empty the airspace for me (I would telling them what my intentions are).
Now, EO-SID is very particular to every airline. I´ve seen 2 different ones when comparing to a friend's flying for another major, same aircraft type, same RWY and airfield. ATC does not have a clue about EO-SIDS as they are, as written at ICAO 8168, the operator's responsibility to check a convenient departure path if something goes wrong.
And then, some airlines will prefer the flight crew fly an easy, straight EO-SID while others prefer to maximise the allowable take off mass and then propose to fly a complicated one. Depends on each airline.

So then you do agree that a PAN call would more than cover you legally when you deviate from the SID?

The main thing is that you communicate your intentions clearly, I think we all agree on that. Simply calling mayday will just illicit more distracting questions from ATC. Give them something to work with, enough so they can formulate their own plan, and to give them (and all the other traffic around you) a sense of your level of immediate danger.

Also think of the bigger picture. Calling MAYDAY during the initial confusion of an engine failure? Absolutely. Causing mass diversion whilst you are subsequently in the EOSID hold briefing the minutiae of your single engine ILS, still on a MAYDAY, well…subject for discussion!

No. You are in a state of urgency, hence no immediate assistance is required. You are expected to comply with ATC clearances and will get priority upon coordination with ATC.

It is actually quite the opposite. ATC is trained for Mayday scenarios. “Mayday, Mayday, Mayday - PpruneAir 123 engine failure, flying straight ahead 3 NM then left turn. STANDBY”. ATC puts in place their protocols for airspace clearance, radio-frequencies management and so on. They’ll tell You “Roger - when able souls on board, endurance and assistance required”. Period. They know that if you declare a mayday you’re not reading the newspaper.

If taking off from an airport with multiple runways ATC will allow other runways to be used. If it’s a single runway they’ll keep it sterile for You. We don’t want to divert because someone else had a brake failure on landing (bad day, I know) and is now blocking the only available runway, do we?

Sorry sonicbum, I do not agree with this reasoning.

Anyway, regarding the multiple runways, what you say is not always correct. Just recently I and all other inbound traffic have been put in the hold on arrival to a major European airport because they had inbound MAYDAY traffic. None of the six runways were available to us, ALL arrivals were suspended until the MAYDAY aircraft had landed safely. And probably for the same reason you mention for a single runway airport: ‘what if someone else messes up’.

Things are not always that black and white.

This is just one example, I can name a few others, but the main point is, calling a mayday will have an effect on everyone else around you, and rightly so. Just don’t forget that if the situation allows, you can always downgrade to a PAN, or at least accurately inform everyone around you of your real level of urgency so that they can assess their own priorities more accurately.

Of course, it’s a big world we live in. Local procedures and protocols may vary.

Yes, well what to do?

Very true. I don’t want to seem rude, but what You have mentioned above is probably ground school Day 1 of a Private Pilot License. So hopefully people are aware of that.

I confess that i've not read all the posts in this thread so i may be covering ground already covered...

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate.

Absolutely.

In busy IFR controlled airspace "communicate" is an intrinsic part of "aviate".

Certainly you don't want to be waffling on the radio as the ASI slows below stall speed, but there is no point in pulling off the save of the century if you then fly into someone else afterwards.

It was what was called Airmanship when I learned to fly.