declaring an emergency

[Rolling-Thunder]

Avbug; well said !

Completely understand your reasoning on the declaring an emergency vs. dealing with the situation issue.

I have been doing fire/rescue/ems for 25 years, and always get a chuckle at the scene of a working fire.

You can always tell the rookies from the seasoned guys, as the rookies will be running around in panic mode.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Rolling Thunder

No one is saying not to fly the airplane and deal with the situation first and always.

Declaring an emercency is not being in "panic mode".

When you aren't 50 feet agl in the middle of nowhere chances are there will be time and at least some benefit derived from declaring. End of story.

 

[Rolling-Thunder]

You mis-interpretted what I posted.

My first comment applies to what AVbug posted about emergencies.

My last two comments were relating to Avbugs comments about firefighting on the ground.


Having said that, everything Avbug said about dealing with in-flight situations makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Back to the original point, however, again...a formal declaration of an emergency by a pilot is not necessary to receive priority, and never has been.

I am not worried about Avbug, he can take care of himself. But I worry about what kind of influence this kind of advice has on a low time pilot.

What he says is true. But if you are in a situation where you need priority handling (don't want to be stuck #2 behind that c-150), the easiest, clearest way to assure that handling is to declare.

Frankly what I am worried about is that an impressionable pilot may come away from listening to Avbug and figure that declaring is for wimps and a major sign of weakness. And then hesitate to declare if and when appropriate.

 

[JediNein]

Frankly what I am worried about is that an impressionable pilot may come away from listening to Avbug and figure that declaring is for wimps and a major sign of weakness. And then hesitate to declare if and when appropriate.

Which is why I posted.

The most paperwork required for any emergency was proving currency for myself and the airplane, and the mechanic's report on what was repaired. I filled out a NASA report because I thought it was a good idea.

In those emergencies where every decision was reviewed by the FAA, it was done verbally. I am still amazed at how many and by how much regulations in part 91 can be broken to meet the emergency. I am still amazed at how many regulations needed to be bent and broken to meet one particular emergency.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[flyifrvfr]

Actually AVBUG, the points and questions that I have brought up are not only valid, but the response you give is not only garbage, but unsafe as well. I read the entire thread on this issue and I can say with glee that this is poetic justice at its best. In more than one post, you have tried to make me look like I don't know what I'am talking about.

In a post on page six I believe, you tell a member that you would like to meet him at the flag pole and kick his butt. I think this thread, your responses, and attitude reduces your credibility. I hope that pilots who read your posts take each one with a grain of salt. I also would like the moderators to know that I'am not personally attacking you. I was, however, patiently waiting for you to open yourself up to the kind of treatment you have given me.

 

[Flibmeister]

Which is why I posted.

In the situation I described, you do have a minimum fuel situation.

Jedi Nein

No, you don't. You have a situation which requires you to reevaluate your options, in exactly the same manner you would if you ran into higher-than-expected headwinds.


If I were the controller involved in your scenario, and you invoked that "minimum fuel" argument in response to a rerouting you didn't like, I'd simply chuckle and reiterate that the new routing is your new clearance. There's nothing that says I have to give you what you want just because you use the "E" word-- it just gives you the option to not do what I want.

So, you would then have two options:

One, you can reevaluate the situation and choose a more reasonable course of action, such as requesting clearance to your new fuel stop.

Two, you can invoke your PIC emergency authority, operate contrary to the new ATC clearance, and begin preparations to defend your decision to the feds that will be investigating it.

If you honestly think they're gonna see it your way, hey, go for it. You can always find a new career.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I've had critical patients on board when flying ambulance, many times. Knowing that use of the term "lifegaurd" will already grant priority, using the magic "e" word seems superfluous. Priority is priority, and you don't get more simply because you use the "e" word.

Priority is not priority. I have flown life gaurd flights too. Most of the time atc clears a path for you, sometimes they don't. I used to do a bunch of organ bank flights. Some of the organs have a longer shelf life than others. Some flights were not time critical, some were.

If I had a heart onboard thats only good for 4 hours from the time it was harvested and I started getting vectors around Boston or NY airspace I would tell ATC about that heart and how long it had before it was mush. They already knew about our life gaurd status but the level of priority went way up and the vectors turned into direct.

This probably goes hand in hand with your idea of simply informing atc of the situation without having to use the "e" word. But it does illustrate just the little point of not all priority handling being created equal.

Jedinein, sorry dude but don't take my posts as support for your ideas. That whole 4hrs 20mins fuel being a min fuel situation is just dumb.

 

[A Squared]

In the situation I described, you do have a minimum fuel situation.

No you don't. You obviously didn't read the NTSB decision I posted. I didn't post it because I have some fetish for posting irrelevant links. I posted it because it had the court transcript of the hearing of a pilot who had his certificate *revoked* (not suspended) for doing what you suggest.

 

[avbug]

Frankly what I am worried about is that an impressionable pilot may come away from listening to Avbug and figure that declaring is for wimps and a major sign of weakness. And then hesitate to declare if and when appropriate.

At no time have I suggested anything else. I have always stated that if one should do whatever one feels one must do to meet the demands of the situation. That may involve feathering a propeller. It may involve making an immediate descent. It may involve shutting down an engine, isolating a bus, restraining a passenger, carrying extra speed, slowing down considerably, and yes, formally stating that one has an emergency.

My point and my comments have always been exact, and consistent on this topic. Do what you must do, period.

State your case, and your intentions.

How you choose to do that, is up to you. Fly the airplane. State your intentions, and then act. There is no arguing with that. None. It's dirt-basic. And it leaves no room for contention. Fly the airplane. Take action. Period.

If making a formal declaration is part of your action, then take it. There's no anatomy measuring to be done, here. If you want to count dead friends on one hand, and inflight emergencies on the other, there's a very good chance that most posters here still wouldn't add up to what I can list. So what? This topic has nothing to do with who has had the scariest ride, or who can tell the best story, or who is afraid to "declare" to avoid not being macho enough. Not at all. No hair on fire, no golden bb's. That's all crap.

Do what you must to meet the demands of the situation, bar nothing. Period.

But understand that you don't need to formally "declare" in order to get the priority handling you desire, or need. I have never stated that it is wrong to do so.

In more than one post, you have tried to make me look like I don't know what I'am talking about.

No great challenge there, mate. I merely quoted you.