Another Holding Out Question

[Andy Neill]

The Man has posted 4 times as of now and each posting has promoted the book.

Question for The Man:
Are you The Author?

 

[JimNtexas]

“123T understand—are you declaring an emergency?”
“You can call it anything you like—but we need to get it on the ground RIGHT NOW —
We need “PRIORITY” — please give us that heading.”

He's dumb. These two transmissions resulted because he was too macho (i.e. stupid) to say "emergency" or "mayday" when he first keyed the mic. JUST SAY "EMERGENCY" in the U.S. or Mayday overseas.

He is like the 11,000 hour Captain of the South American B707 that ran of gas trying to get into JFK because he was too proud to use standard phraseology. The America controllers couldn't read his mind and so didn't give him priority handling.

And it's apparent that this author never flown overseas, because he clearly doesn't realize that controllers in non-English speaking countries may have an English vocabulary consisting of only a numbers, local place names, the ICAO alphabet, and ICAO standard words. It is critical that a pilot needing traffic priority overseas who needs traffic priority use the word "MAYDAY".

Babbling about "call it what you will" is very unprofessional and dangerous.

 

[DiscoDuck]

JimNtexas,

I actually bought this book a while back and grabbed it off the bookcase when I saw this discussion.

I think you have missed the point the guy was trying to make, ie: in an emergency you are authorized to do what ever you need to do to safely get the aircraft on the ground. This authorization includes bypassing any FAR's that may stand between you and a safe landing (and there is no FAR that obligates a pilot to "declare" an emergency).

What he is trying to convey, in my opinion, is the old " Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" rule we all learned in private pilot ground school. Is that dumb?

If ATC receives a call from a pilot stating " We are turning back to the airport and need to land ASAP!!!", do you really think that the controller is going to think nothing is wrong because he didn't use the word "EMERGENCY" ? No, the controller is going to clear the way because the controller has already "declared" the emergency. Is that dumb?

ATC will declare your emergency for you. My own experience: I was having radio problems one day over Charlie West ( nothing big, cutting in and out, but I was heading for Class B and needed to get it checked), told center I was landing to have our comms checked. No emergency, but when I entered base three firetrucks were waiting. They had declared it themselves. Better safe than sorry, but not really dumb.

The point is, get the airplane on the ground, don't worry about the radio terminology. Tell them what your doing, don't ask them if you can do something. Too many pilots have crashed waiting for a "clearance" after they've declared rather than just doing what they should have done. You already have a built- in "clearance" in an emergency, it's called FAR 91.3. Read it. Is it dumb?

The fact that you call the suggestion dumb only proves you've never really had an emergency. Let us know how you handle your first.

I bought this book to help get ready for an interview ( it was perfect for the task, I got the job, and highly recommend it) but must admit I really had'nt read the whole thing. But after this discussion I will because I definetely agree with Mr. Lengel on this subject.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Unless your dumb.

 

[JimNtexas]

If ATC receives a call from a pilot stating " We are turning back to the airport and need to land ASAP!!!", do you really think that the controller is going to think nothing is wrong because he didn't use the word "EMERGENCY" ? No, the controller is going to clear the way because the controller has already "declared" the emergency. Is that dumb?

ATC will declare your emergency for you.

Disco, you contradict yourself. You're all puffed up about being too manly to use the eword because you assume the controller will do it for you.

Do you want to take control of the situation or just assume the controller is going to do the right thing?

You can't claim to be taking charge of the situation if you assume that the controller will correctly interpret your non-standard language.

Perhaps you tend to panic when you have an emergency, I suppose a panicked voice is sort of a universal mayday.

he point is, get the airplane on the ground, don't worry about the radio terminology.

That takes the cake for dumbest post of the day.

When things are fine you can say whatever you please, if it takes a while for ATC to figure out what you mean it probably isn't a problem.

But when you in the mist of an emergency and are using your PIC emergency authority to deviate from what ATC expects, that is when radio discipline is most important

" We are turning back to the airport and need to land ASAP!!!", do you really think that the controller is going to think nothing is wrong because he didn't use the word "EMERGENCY" ?

If you are not in an English speaking country the controller will almost certainly have no idea of what you just said. And even if you are in the U.S., the controller may have a different notion of "ASAP" than you do.

WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WILL FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES THAT ARE SPELLED OUT IN THE AIM AND ICAO PROCEDURES!!!!!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!! WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO USE THE CORRECT WORDS??????

This may be a good book, but the author and Disco are dead wrong on this point.

Edited to add the follow quote from the AIM:

A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.

Empahsis added

 

[Andy Neill]

For what it's worth, I'm betting DiscoDuck, The Man, and Richard Lengel are the same guy. On a previous post, DiscoDuck talks about having 1600 in DC-3s yet now lists only 2100TTand no mention of his DC-3. If 75% of my time were in one aircraft, I would list that under aircraft flown.

I guess it's like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway - it really doesn't matter.

 

[A Squared]

For what it's worth, I'm betting DiscoDuck, The Man, and Richard Lengel are the same guy.

Yeah, it's always pretty obvious when authors (and I use that term loosely) come on a forum and pretend to be readers of thier book and rave about how good it is. Remember that fool who kept doing that with his book "squawk 7700" ??? It always amazes me that these misguided souls think that no-one will see through such a transparent ploy. The thread always progresses in exactly the same manner: Fool/author pops up under a nom-de-plume pretends to *not* be author and raves in supurlatives about book, provides link to purchase said book. Forum members follow link, read excerpts, and comment on what trash the book really is. Fool/author returns under same assumed name, or maybe a different assumed name and angrilly rants in third person about his "qualifications" ie: "The author" is very experienced/educated/qualified.....X thousand hours, such and such a degree, very knowledgable... yadda yadda..... , Forum readers say look it's obvious you are the author. Fool/author is amazed that anyone could see through his clever subterfuge and suddenly shuts up. In a variation on this theme, the fool/author posts angry insults directed at the forum members who aren't fooled.

Look, Lengel/the man/disco duck. It is incredibly obvious to everyone here exactly what you're doing. We've seen this before, ad nasueum. Nobody is buying it (your deception or your book) so go away. Incidentally, you are incorrect about the continuing with an engine failure thingy in your book, it is perfectly legal to continue with a feathered engine on e 3 or 4 engine airplane. I've done it personally on a number of occasions. You can read about it in 121.565(b)

 

[jergar999]

Back to the original question - it would appear I was being a bit paranoid when I posted. I have compiled a list of companies that I am at or near the minimums for, and intend to send a mailing out to these companies offering contract services.

Does anyone have any advice on the structuring/body of the letter?

 

[The Man]

Well, for what it’s worth, I guess I’m busted.

Yes, The Man IS the author that has fallen victim to some bad advice (although I take full responsibility).

I should not have tried to use a [third person] deception in order to promote my new book no matter how proud I am of it.

Sorry, I honestly don’t know who DiscoDuck is, other than that he did buy one of my books from the web site. However, I do thank him for jumping in there to help try to clarify my point to JimNtexas.

Just one more time for the record JimNtexas:

The fact is I do NOT have ANY irrational fear of using the word “EMERGENCY” and was not trying to convey ANY irrational fear of using that word.

Once again, the page is taken out of context.

I am simply trying to further emphasize the point (from the previous page) that you should “FLY the airplane FIRST — TALK about it LATER.”

“In an EMERGENCY, you are allowed to IMMEDIATELY deviate from any clearance and do what ever needs to be done in order to deal with that emergency. You ARE required to notify ATC of that deviation As Soon As Possible. Do what you have to do FIRST to prevent any possibility of endangering your life.”

I agree 100% that the words EMERGENCY, PRIORITY, MAYDAY, PAN PAN PAN, and PIZZA PAN all have their important place and should ALWAYS be used when necessary and when time permits. I do NOT mean to imply that you should NOT use them or that you should ever be afraid of using them.

The 1/25/90 Avianca B-707 crash, that had 73 fatalities, is just one case of where lousy communication led to fatalities. The aircraft had gone missed on their first approach to JFK and was put into a holding pattern (how do you manage to miss an approach when you’re running on fumes?). The crew reported “minimum fuel” but DID NOT USE THE WORD EMERGENCY. The FAA listed the cause of this fatal crash as pilot error. Was it pilot error? Of course. They should have used ALL those EMERGENCY WORDS – AND – they should have demanded priority for an immediate landing. Were they stupid? Yes. Were they dumb? Yes. Were they total idiots? Absolutely. Why? Because they did not take charge of the situation.

The 9/2/98 Swissair, MD-11, flight 111 crash that killed 229 people is one of the most high profile crashes involving lousy communications and extremely poor decision-making by the crew. The plane left JFK and headed over the Atlantic towards Geneva, Switzerland. The cockpit filled with smoke and the pilot calmly made a "PAN PAN PAN" call (Pan Pan Pan is less serious than a mayday but I’m sure you know that) telling the controllers that there was "smoke in the cockpit" and asking for a landing deviation "to a convenient place, I guess Boston." The controllers suggested Halifax (much closer). In order to accomplish this the aircraft had to descend steeply. Although the aircraft was quite capable of the steep descent the pilot decided to pass Halifax and circle back while “REQUESTING” various altitudes/headings and “REQUESTING” permission for a convenient place to dump fuel [which was finally granted after many minutes]. The crew eventually did declare an emergency, but after passing Halifax, while circling back, the plane went out of control and crashed at a high speed into the ocean. These pilots were also stupid, dumb, idiots. Did they use the words PAN PAN PAN? Yes. Did they [finally] use the word EMERGENCY? Yes. Did they die? Yes. But not because the used the proper or improper verbiage, but because they were IDIOTS. They should have taken charge of the situation, told ATC what they had to do, and then pulled the plug to head straight for the airport and commenced with the fuel dump immediately.

They should not have wasted time “REQUESTING” a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing!

THAT IS MY POINT.


For “JimNtexas” — sorry you didn’t get it, but I hope I’ve at least clarified my position a slight bit further for you.

For “jergar999” — I apologize for interrupting your important thread with this ridiculous fistfight. I [mistakenly and misguidedly] thought that you might like the answers to ALL of your questions.

For “Andy Neill” — I obviously was a fool falling for your “friendly” e-mail inquiring about the book. It came in like countless other inquires and I quickly responded with the same respect. Don’t know which side of the communications squabble you fall on but I don’t suppose it really matters.

For “A Squared” — I’m especially apologetic for getting you riled up. I had no idea this simple (and I thought harmless) ploy would escalate into World War III. I’ve read many, many of your posts through the years and you’re obviously a very smart fellow with a lot of good advice for everybody. I appreciate your comment about 121.565 concerning engine failures on 3 and 4 engine aircraft. There was just no way to squeeze it in on an already very crowded page (although I did reference the reg at the top of the page). I will consider it for inclusion in the second edition.

As you may know, it’s very difficult to get a book off the ground these days no matter how good it is. The obviously misguided suggestion of a friend led me to the third person ruse as a playful way to help boost sales… and I fell for it. It sounded great over a couple of beers, but it was obviously not a very smart move.

You are absolutely correct A Squared. For the moment anyway, I guess I am the fool/author. But, from this point forward I will continue with more traditional sales techniques and hopefully regain my [just] author status someday.


Now, out of respect for A Squared, I will respectively “go away.”

 

[A Squared]

well, that's a new one on me. I've never seen the author come clean to his deception before. OK, I'll give you credit for 'fessing up. Sorry, if I was harsh, it's just that I tend to resent people trying to bull$hit me. Look, good luck with your book project, I've done some writing, and I know the work that goes into it. Hope that you're rewarded for your efforts.

regards

 

[Batfish]

That's right

That 98 Swissair flight was actually the first thing I thought of in reading this exchange. I get what the author/ The Man is saying. Do what you need to do to stay alive and TELL atc what you are doing insted of asking for anything. Those Swissair guys would still be Skiing down the Alps in their Lederhosen sp if they had followed that line of thinking.