MAYDAY vs PAN
 

Here we go again…

At my previous operator (2-engine medium jet), we had an engine failure in the sim. I called “Mayday.” The instructor stopped me: “No, that’s a Pan call.” His reasoning? “You’re flying perfectly safely on the remaining engine.” (debatable) — even though our manuals never specified which call to use.

Now at a new operator (4-engine large jet), I lose one in the sim and call “Pan,” thinking: no big deal, three engines left. During the debrief, the instructor tells me: “Always make it a Mayday — you can downgrade later if needed.” (a logic I’m more aligned with, and what I would’ve done if I hadn’t been steered the other way at the previous operator).

This is my 8th employer, and I kid you not — the “preferred” distress call even amongst instructors at the same operator has been split 50/50, with only two operators ever prescribing it clearly in their manuals. If it’s prescribed, easy: I’ll follow the company line. But otherwise, it’s getting ridiculous. The inconsistency and personal preferences between instructors and examiners have to stop. Unless the company specifically lays it out, they shouldn’t be dictating which distress call to use. That’s a commander’s judgment.

In reality, whether you say Mayday or Pan makes no difference to the safe conduct of the flight — yes, it affects how ATC and emergency services respond, but that’s procedural, not a measure of correctness especially for a straightforward engine failure.

Thoughts?

It's just a remark that makes you feel uncomfortable... and you're asking for more remarks? Did you ever fail a check or get a written remark because of this? It's just an ongoing discussion. Nothing is black and white in the end. Aviation uses rules & regulations to try to create safety for good reasons, but the rules & regulations don't stop the world from being complicated grey. That's just life.

My remark? It all depends on the situation. Take engine failure:

The ICAO definitions (copy-paste):

* distress call (situation where the aircraft requires immediate assistance) is prefixed: MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY.
* urgency message (situation not requiring immediate assistance) is prefixed: PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN

You received a clearance and ATC expects you to follow that clearance.
* engine failure just prior to rotation: mayday. You probably have an engine out procedure ATC is not aware of and you immediately need to follow that procedure, so you need ATC to keep people away from you. You decide, they follow.
* engine failure ie at higher altitude on the SID with flaps already in: panpan as you probably route-wise can continue on the SID, but later on you are unable to give "normal" performance as ATC would expect, everybody needs to "re-think" or we might get in danger and you will certainly not continue to climb to your cruising levels.

Plus you can always downgrade a Mayday.

In reality the only people who really care are the trainers who are trying to prove something...

That's instructor talk. You can always upscale a panpan (never heard an instructor say that... :-))

Just call "emergency aircraft" like our friends in the far west do :)

Hat, coat, ...

One of the ways to look at these kind of things is a) does every trainer/pilot agree on just one way of approaching a certain scenario or b) do opinions differ and the manuals leave room for interpretation? In the second case you can’t really be wrong to a great degree so follow your instincts. I had to change from a PAN to a MAYDAY in the U*A once as the controller didn’t know what a PAN was...

Mayday.
When we loose and engine close to the ground on takeoff, we will use our emergency authority to immediately deviate from the ATC clearance to follow the EOSID. Any other clearance will probably be met by ‘unable’ due to emergency. The emergency call is mayday. Not pan.

If we loose an engine at 5000 feet, then I would consider a PAN.

How very dare you...:p

[QUOTE]In reality, whether you say Mayday or Pan makes no difference to the safe conduct of the flight — yes, it affects how ATC and emergency services respond, but that’s procedural, not a measure of correctness especially for a straightforward engine failure.[/QUOTE]

Any ATC out there please correct me if I'm wrong but I would imagine the response for a PAN or MAYDAY would be identical given the aircraft has just rotated, it's not solely the pilots choice of words that dictate the response level.

Cracked my screen hitting like so hard.

"oh, where is that in the manual?".

Speaking as a trainer it's "proving" that we're not alone in the sky, especially in busy TMAs and lots of people are very interested about our future routing and intentions, such as ATCOs, other airplanes, etc..
A Mayday call given when workload permits allows other people around us to realize we're having a problem, that we didn't make that turn left at 1.3D for a reason and we're going straight instead as per our engine failure procedure, yes right in the middle of this next door major international airport approach axis. A Mayday call given when workload permits allows you not being bothered by 20 questions from ATCOs of freq. changes, why are you not following the SIDs, any problems on board, etc.. right when you are holding this master switch in your hand and confirming with the other pilot whether it's the correct engine to be shutdown. "Standby" works indeed very well, as long as people around us are aware we're having major issues, which happens when a Mayday is launched.

As loads of people have said, it’s a grey area which one to use. For me it partly depends where I am. In the UK I would use PAN unless it’s an uncontrollable fire requiring an immediate re-land. In some other countries with poor English and where I might not get the same level
of assistance I want then might just use MAYDAY and argue about it later.

Yes, my point, which you seem to have missed, is just call an effing Mayday.

Then yes by all means I have definitely missed the point.

Ex-controller airport here and in my experience I would agree that the level of distress declared by the pilot in the example is not really important - the ATC response will be based on any other information provided by the pilot (or other source such as what the controller can see or whether the aircraft left a trail of debris along the runway.....ok, this bit is tongue-in-cheek). In reality an engine failure on take-off of a PT aircraft is likely to trigger the maximum ground response (typically referred to as a full emergency).

If find the topic an interesting discussion point. I recently got a post about an engine shutdown/relight relegated to the depths of the ATC forum for querying whether this event was really a mayday (as declared in that example). The truth is, the only people that can decide whether a MAYDAY or PAN call is appropriate are those that are involved in managing the event and that decision may be guided by procedures or the environment - and there isn't a definitive answer. As an aside, many years ago when working as a controller on a beautiful English summer afternoon I had a calm discussion with a pilot of an inbound twin turbo-prop that was entering the downwind leg for a visual approach- pilot advised that he was making a precautionary engine shutdown due to an oil pressure or temperature problem and that there was no other problem. I think he mentioned it because it would be obvious when the aircraft arrived. I put on a 'local standby' - firemen in the vehicles but staying in the station - which seemed appropriate and fitted the description of the level of emergency involved. Aircraft landed safely, firemen went back to playing cards and I filled in the details in the log book. Next day I arrived at work and was summoned to the airport director's office and asked to explain why I had acted so irresponsibly - no biscuits were available......or tea, as I recall - and no explanation of my decision-making was considered acceptable. After being dismissed by the big boss I went up to the tower and found the procedure manual had been amended to say that an aircraft using the airport and experiencing the loss of 50% or more of its power must have a full emergency response at all times. I sometimes think it is a shame that we no longer seem to train people to be professional and to apply professional judgement but simply to apply the procedures. Sorry for the ramble.

Surprise
 

Perhaps others could relate their experiences in the actuality of surprising, unexpected situations where most mental resource is being applied to managing the immediate and subsequent situation.

At best not the desk-top or simulator evaluation as above.

My several recollections are that reality isn't like that. Not a M or P uttered, no time, thought, or possibly judged unnecessary as events unfolded (no conscious awareness at the time or after); not even the most serious warranting Ms around, nothing was declared.

Be prepared to be surprised; you will be surprised, even with training, and probably not behave as expected.

As an ATCO in the UK I think I would respond exactly the same whether you told me you'd had an engine failure, called PAN or called MAYDAY and you'd get the fire trucks in attendance if my rules say so regardless of whether you wanted them or not. Some issues like fuel or medical really require a PAN to gain any extra priority, but as human beings we'd do our best to help anyway. Squawking emergency does get attention - you may not think the controller receiving a MAYDAY call needs to see that on the radar too, but it also breaks through to adjacent sectors' radars (often filtered out), who will then do their best not to bother your controller or to clear the sky around you. Bottom line is still aviate, navigate, communicate and it's is far preferable to get down safely (as in BAW38) rather worry about niff-naff like correct radio call (as in BAW38).

I have two experiences that may be worth adding here. In the late 1980s, I carried out a three-engine ferry flight in a Boeing 747 from Trinidad to JFK. It was planned as such, together with the appropriate remarks on the ATC flight plan. On nearing New York, the controllers asked whether I was declaring an emergency. I replied, no, because it was a normal three-engine ferry being done in accordance with company procedures and UK CAA rules. Nevertheless, they insisted on declaring an emergency for me and so, after a normal landing, when we left the runway, we were surrounded by emergency vehicles.

Some months later, I received a rather peremptory letter from the FAA asking why I had entered US airspace with an engine out, why had I not declared an emergency, and saying that I had broken FAA rules. I wrote a polite letter back saying we had filed the flight plan correctly and it had been accepted, there was no emergency, everything had been done in accordance with UK CAA and company rules - and aplogised for any inconvenience we may have caused. I never heard anything more.

On the other hand, many years before, in 1966, I had been involved as the co-pilot in a rather nasty experience on the climb out from JFK. We were at around 20,000ft, when the aircraft, within seconds, rapidly filled with dense smoke which reduced the internal visibility to only 6 inches. At the time, we thought we were on fire and the captain started an emergency descent during which, for a short time, we lost control and all radio comms - we were convinced we had a major fire on board. When were able to re-establish R/T communications, the controller asked the nature of our problem. My first words on the R/T were totally non-standard, "We are full of smoke and can't see a bloody thing."

Bless New York ATC! They reacted perfectly, having cleared all other aircraft off the frequency and then gave us vectors back to JFK that were neither too fast nor too slow for an over-weight landing. After landing, we were surrounded by emergency vehicles and, as by then there were no signs of fire, they escorted us to the ramp.

It turned out that one of the cabin airconditioning compressors had lost a seal, emptying all its oil into the hot air stream where it was instantly vapourised into thick white smoke.

Despite my non-standard R/T in the stress of the moment, I was so very grateful to those controllers!

Pan and Mayday are procedural calls which have the power to take away quite a bit of ambiguity in our complex operational environment. I remember a rather unfruitful discussion once with a controller regarding our diversion options after a weather go around, to such an extent that our fuel reserves became an issue. A subsequent PAN call (as prescribed in our manuals when fuel reserves are threatened) instantly ended the discussion from the controllers side and we were cleared to do whatever we needed.

Between us there were three different nationalities, multiple jurisdictions, none of us spoke our mother tongue, and I’m sure the controller was working within set constraints, but the PAN call set a process in motion which put the authority squarely where it needed to be.

PAN an MAYDAY are tools, use them to your advantage, once you can spare the brain capacity.