Compass today lost the cabin

[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.

 

[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.

*that

 

[cale42]

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.

The answer is simple.. because to me an emergency occurs when the safety of flight is in question. So if the safety is not in question I didn't use the word. End of explanation. As PIC of an individual flight I am the only one at that point in time that can determine when the safety of flight is in question.

As to the OP that says if ATC declares an emergency for you you are not doing your job let me present you with this scenario.

5 mile final I put the gear down. No right main gear indication. Well I know one of two things has happened, my right main isn't safely down and locked OR the two light bulbs have burned out. One is a clear emergency situation and one clearly is not. At this point in time I'm not sure which. So I choose to go around and hold while I troubleshoot and run the QRH. First words out of ATC's mouth without question are "why did you go around"(don't even get me started on the lunacy of telling pilots go arounds are a recommended pre-cautionary maneuver, yet requiring every major tower to keep logs of why planes went around) I answer I have a gear disagreement. Without question the next words are, do you require assistance and are you declaring an emergency. My answer is no to both until I know what the problem is. However for all I know at that point ATC declares an emergency for me just based on my term "gear disagreement". Any time they ask I just assume they might be doing it anyway.

Anyway.. long story short, I'm lucky to fly a plane that has secondary and tertiary gear indication systems. I run the QRH, discover the light bulbs are out, land uneventfully and head to the gate. Luckily ATC did not declare an emergency for me in this case, but they easily could have. They are not pilots and they are not in the cockpit at the time, just because they second guess a pilots decision doesn't make that decision wrong.

And in this particular example there is a big difference between "lost cabin pressure" and "losing cabin pressure". If you lose the bleeds at 20'000 feet and everything else is working fine it is going to take quite a while to get to an unsafe cabin altitude. It is wise to start descending while you troubleshoot, but I don't consider the cabin slowly climbing to be an immediate threat to safety of flight. Also you don't know what altitudes the aircraft was at when he made his requests. If he got assigned 15,000 maybe he was still descending through 18,000 when he again asked for lower. Maybe the next word out of his mouth after he asked for 10,000 were going to be "we are declaring an emergency".

cale

 

[fugghedabowdit]

I've declared three times, never heard a thing about it. Trucks followed me to the gate, someone from CFR took my name, that's it.

Can anyone tell me when a crew got violated for declaring an emergency? That seems like a slippery slope to me. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just curious.

 

[Long Time Gone]

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

Did they know this at the time of the situation? Absolutely not. What they did know is that they had a dual engine failure, and that the safety of the flight was in jeopardy. They also knew that they screwed up royally and had probably hoped to get both engines running again as to avoid the paperwork and interviews that would be forthcoming. Curiosity kills cats, and arrogance kills pilots.

 

[crj567]

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.

This bozo will probably show up on DAL's seniority list soon-Congrats!