Compass today lost the cabin

[glasspilot]

Why won't pilots declare the emergency???

So I'm flying along today in NY airspace and compass comes on and says he's lost "cabin pressurisation". He seemed calm and not like he was wearing a mask so I figure he's okay and he means his cabin is starting to climb.

He asks for 10,000 but ATC can only give him 15k. A few minuets later compass comes back and says now he has a cabin pressure warning going off and would like 10,000. At this point ATC says, "compass, I'm declaring an emergency for you, turn right (some heading) and descend 10,000" and the discussion turns on where to divert.

My point of posting this is this:

Why are pilots so freaking hesitant to declare a freaking emergency?

Here is the criteria for those who may not know;

A. The safe outcome of the flight is at all uncertain, or

B. You need to excecute a maneuver right now without ATC clearance.

This one is clearly B. You lose or start to lose the cabin and can't get control then you need down...now. You are about to fly into magenta on your radar? You need a turn and if ATC says unable you say "I am declaring an emergency and turning to xxx heading"

There seems to be a common thought with many pilots that it's bad, or wrong, or weak, or who knows what to declare an emergency. And if ATC ever has to declare an emergency for you then odds are pretty strong that you're not doing your job of declaring yourself and you let the situation go way too far.

Remember "Flagship" and their little adventure from FL410? More guys refusing to just declare it and get the help they needed. And for no reason.

 

[BoilerUP]

Remember "Flagship" and their little adventure from FL410? More guys refusing to just declare it and get the help they needed. And for no reason.

Declaring an emergency after they had stalled the plane & core-locked their engines wouldn't have really changed the outcome much...

 

[ackattacker]

Declaring an emergency after they had stalled the plane & core-locked their engines wouldn't have really changed the outcome much...

I disagree. It might have gotten them vectors to an airport within gliding distance. That was a 20 minute emergency and it wasn't until the last few minutes that they even considered where they were going to put it down.

 

[BoilerUP]

...that's a good point I hadn't considered; they were just a couple miles short of Jeff City, right?

 

[ackattacker]

...that's a good point I hadn't considered; they were just a couple miles short of Jeff City, right?

Yes. But at the time of the stall incident, there were at least 6 suitable airports within gliding distance.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I think the Compass issue and the other are just too different to compare. Maybe the Compass pilot didn't think he needed to declare an emergency. He was there, why second guess his judgment? I certainly dont want to cry the sky is falling everytime something happens that is outside the norm.

 

[Draginass]

If you're losing cabin pressurization and are unable to fix it right away, that's an emergency. Declaring an emergency doesn't cost a dime and gets you rock-star status in the ATC system. If in doubt, declare.

 

[mesaba13]

I had this happen at 250 empty and did not declare an emergency. We descended to 10000 and the cabin never got higher than around 7000 feet. We don't even get a cabin warning until 8500 feet. Why declare in my case? Now if they wouldn't give us 10 right away then I would have declared.

 

[BOHICAgain]

So I'm flying along today in NY airspace and compass comes on and says he's lost "cabin pressurisation". He seemed calm and not like he was wearing a mask so I figure he's okay and he means his cabin is starting to climb.

He asks for 10,000 but ATC can only give him 15k. A few minuets later compass comes back and says now he has a cabin pressure warning going off and would like 10,000. At this point ATC says, "compass, I'm declaring an emergency for you, turn right (some heading) and descend 10,000" and the discussion turns on where to divert.

My point of posting this is this:

Why are pilots so freaking hesitant to declare a freaking emergency?

Here is the criteria for those who may not know;

A. The safe outcome of the flight is at all uncertain, or

B. You need to excecute a maneuver right now without ATC clearance.

This one is clearly B. You lose or start to lose the cabin and can't get control then you need down...now. You are about to fly into magenta on your radar? You need a turn and if ATC says unable you say "I am declaring an emergency and turning to xxx heading"

There seems to be a common thought with many pilots that it's bad, or wrong, or weak, or who knows what to declare an emergency. And if ATC ever has to declare an emergency for you then odds are pretty strong that you're not doing your job of declaring yourself and you let the situation go way too far.

Remember "Flagship" and their little adventure from FL410? More guys refusing to just declare it and get the help they needed. And for no reason.

They had a deferred bleed and the other one failed. I am sure they were trouble shooting the problem. No need to declare an emergency if you think you can fix the bleed by running the QRH. They diverted to DTW and they fixed the bleed and kept going.

I would not declare an emergency as soon as we have a failure I would try to trouble shoot the problem unless I was on fire or had an explosive decompression.

Im sure ATC could not give the cpz plane 10k without reason.

 

[ultrarunner]

I disagree. It might have gotten them vectors to an airport within gliding distance....

You think those two jokers deserved that?

They deserved what happened to them!

 

[Mr Wu]

No need to declare an emergency if you think you can fix the bleed by running the QRH.

Declare it. It's free. If the QRH fixes the problem you can always "undeclare" "de-declare" or whatever terminology you want to use and then continue.

 

[Dubya]

It's the underlying threat of FAA action and the contentious relationship between pilots and FAA inspectors/enforcement. I'm not arguing against the declaration, that's is and should be a no brainer. However, these guys will answer to anything that happened in that cockpit from push to block in, regardless of what it had to do with the events that required the emergency. Guaranteed. It's as close as the FAA can get to monitoring the cockpit 24/7/365.

In lieu of obvious infractions, they dig and press and threaten. It sounds like this crew did their job, but they will probably get a letter because of some innocuous bullsh!t that happened during taxi.

Rant off.

 

[cale42]

It's the underlying threat of FAA action and the contentious relationship between pilots and FAA inspectors/enforcement. I'm not arguing against the declaration, that's is and should be a no brainer. However, these guys will answer to anything that happened in that cockpit from push to block in, regardless of what it had to do with the events that required the emergency. Guaranteed. It's as close as the FAA can get to monitoring the cockpit 24/7/365.

In lieu of obvious infractions, they dig and press and threaten. It sounds like this crew did their job, but they will probably get a letter because of some innocuous bullsh!t that happened during taxi.

Rant off.

This couldn't have hit it on the head better. Declaring an emergency is not "free" as one poster mentioned. It guarantees you the feds snooping the whole flight, probably pulling the CVR's and asking a lot of freaking questions. Are you positive you didn't make a comment about someones taxi speed an hour ago or you didn't bitch about your schedule while sitting 17th in line for takeoff with the brake on? Because your likely going to hear about it if you did.

I'll declare an emergency when I feel I need additional assistance but not one second before. I need the trucks.. emergency, ATC won't give me what I need... emergency, smoke, rapid decompress, engine out.. emergency. Short of those three things it's not happening in this day and age of overly litigious license violating happy Feds.

cale

 

[Metro752]

nevermind....

 

[JAFI]

Read subpart (b) a couple times…..
91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.


Notice the regulation says “to meet” an emergency. No where does it say you have to “DECLARE” and emergency. (Even if you are 121/125/135 this basic regulation can apply). How do you declare and emergency in an aircraft that doesn’t have a radio???

But you always have the option to MEET that emergency.


That said, you will get “rock star” status by ATC if you use the word “Emergency” over the radio. It is up to the PIC to decide what an emergency is. However if you overfly a dozen airports when you should of landed an NTSB Judge (not the FAA, the FAA just presents the case) may decide you were outside of the regulation. And the Judge may not agree that only having cold coffee onboard is an emergency…….

A couple years ago I did a search on court appeals to and legal interpitations of CFR 91.3. I found very few. That tells me very few cases go to court for an airman meeting or declaring an emergency. I don’t know of a case where a pilot declared an emergency, followed procedures (QRH/checklist/company procedures), and were taken to court. I know of several pilots who did or did not declare, or did not follow procedures and became very familiar with the court system. There is the concept “What would a rational person do” in a court case. Many factors do come into play in a court case. If you do not do what a rational person would do, you may be considered “irrational” and the Judge would treat you as such.

I was on a flight (where we almost died) that should of “deviated from the CFR’s” and I asked the Captain why he did not. He said “because you were here”. I asked “so you would rather die than get a violation”? Or one can ask about the “written report” of 91.3 – Would you rather die than fill out a possible report?

I bet if ask your passengers they would not go for the “die” part of the question……

As PIC you are the ultimate authority of the flight. If you can’t answer a question to your boss and the NTSB judge’s satisfaction, at the same time – you may not be PIC anymore.

To the comment that using the word "emergency" brings the FED's in. I do ask WHY you did not use the word..... And if you don't want to explain it to me, the NTSB Judge can and will ask the question.