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.”
