declaring an emergency

[TWA Dude]

Re: oh yeah, I almost forgot

The first time I used the "E" word was on my ATP checkride in a Seminole. We were on downwind vectors for an ILS, weather was cool and CAVU. One engine sputtered and lost most power but was still running. I started to troubleshoot it when the DE said "feather it!" I feathered, declared emergency, and told them no need to roll the equipment but just to have them on standby. (A superfluous statement since the equipment is always on standby!) The landing was uneventful.

Did a true emergency exist for me? No. Everything was under control and I was calm. Was it appropriate to use the "E" word? Yes! It was free and there was zero paperwork or phone calls involved. Call it CYA or being cautious but it certainly wasn't crying wolf. I think it's better to use the "E" word and wonder later whether you needed to than to not use when you might've.

A few years back a TWA flight on a transcon (a 757 or 767) lost an engine around two hours out from it's destination. After completing the checklists the captain elected to continue on to his destination. The FAA nailed him and we got a new policy that an engine shutdown requires an emergency declaration and a landing at the nearest suitable airport. (The nearest suitable airport need not be the closest slab of concrete, subject to captain's discretion.) Sometimes it's amusing what pilots do.

As far as Avbug, I don't agree with a lot of the criticism he's receiving. Flying passengers for hire is a lot different than operating in an inherently dangerous environment. Avoiding use of the "E" word may be silly at times (see above example) but isn't necessarily a dangerous action. Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate is still the priority in my book.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I'm beginning to understand.

Avbug, you've been flying in situations that were emergencies from beginning to end. I don't know if you've ever read my favorite book, The Caine Mutiny...I'm reminded of a passage from it:

"Sure, the book way is the right way," spoke up the first lieutenant, "for the right ship. By the book, though, the Caine should be in the boneyard. Maybe this ship has to be run screwy because it's screwy for her to be afloat at all--"

Whether the rest of us like it or not, there are places on this world where you can't fly "by the book" and survive...or at least stay in business. (I don't have any first-hand experience with these kinds of flight operations--outside of the military--but I imagine they would include bush flying, air ambulance, fire-fighting, third-world freight operations, etc.) And I suspect that if the F.A.A. stepped into these areas and clamped down, they would be almost unable to function.

Here's the key: the "rules" of these two types of flying are not interchangable! If I declared an emergency in Avbug's ship because we hit a tree with #4, I'd be fired. If Avbug refused to declare an emergency (and at least try to notify his dispatcher) in my ship after someone discovered a fire in the lavatory, he'd be fired.

EMERGENCY - A distress or urgency condition. (From the Pilot/Controller Glossary)

An "emergency" is not a "young buck" running around like a chicken with its head cut off. It's not a prima donna airline captain with a coffee stain on his shirt. An emergency is a situation where decisions and action are required right now, and the declaration itself establishes the legal and procedural framework within which those decisions can be made and action can be taken.

A fire-bomber is probably in an "urgency condition" from the moment he shows up at work. It's just like the military: the rules that apply to a B-1 crew flying a training mission in Nevada just don't work for a Sea Stallion crew being shot at in the Persian Gulf. But, that Stallion driver can not jump back into his 767 after the war is over and operate the same way he did when he was being shot at!

Furthermore, if the guy in the Sea Stallion screws up, chances are he won't be around to worry about it. If he screws up in the 767, he has to brace himself for (1) official inquiries where everything he did will be questioned, (2) the F.A.A.'s disciplinary action, and (3) possible termination by his employer. Many airline pilots have survived accidents only to be fired afterward.

Why make it easier for the feds and your company to prosecute you by neglecting the simple step of declaring an emergency?

In Avbug's line of work, he has to be effective.

In my line of work, I have to be effective, safe, and legal.

It depends on the individual's personality which transition is easier, throwing the book away versus strictly adhering to the F.A.A.'s and company's policies.

So, Avbug, I can't agree with everything you've said, but at least I understand where you're coming from, and I've got a lot of respect for the flying you've apparently done. But if you can't agree that you have to operate an airliner differently from the way you operate a fire-bomber, you're a fool.

For those of you who are still learning, what I said before still stands: if you're in a situation that is significantly different from normal operations, and you thionk there's a chance that someone in or around your airplane could get hurt...or that the airplane could be damaged...fly the airplane, deal with the problem, and then, when you have time, declare an emergency!

One last thing: remember what kind of flying Avbug does and remember his attitude about fire. Then ask anyone who flys for Air Canada or AirTran how critical they think fire is. If you've got a fire anywhere on your airplane, it's an emergency! Declare it!

 

[rumpletumbler]

Quote:

You may not have occasion to be flying on instruments in close proximity to the ground in high winds and severe to extreme turbulence while your engines ingest burning objects that vary in size from a 2X4 to a whole tree. That doesn't mean that those who do fly into those conditions are unprofessional.

End Quote.

Avbug,

I've always enjoyed your posts. Is it possible that this particular comment could be somewhat exaggerated? I'm not sure what engines you run but don't you think the manufacturer would boast of it being able to ingest a whole tree and still run etc? I mean that would be a great selling point and something they would probably want to demonstrate at airshows. Who could resist an engine that tough?

RT

 

[avbug]

It's not an exaggeration. Anybody who has been in a large fire knows this, too.

I needn't defend or prove myself; I get paid to fly airplanes into fires. I set out toward this end when I began flying at age fifteen, and have done the jobs and the flying over the years that got me into the position. I am not a pilot wannabe, or a mental patient, and I resent the implication. Nothing I have described or stated is made up, fake, or imagined. This is based one experience on the job.

Presently I am assigned to a single engine air tanker (SEAT), a Dromader M18T. I have until September 1 remaining on fire contract before I return to my regular job, or longer if extended.

Go tell the NYFD firefighters that lost friends and did their job that they're full of crap. You probably won't, because they're doing their job, taking the risks, and getting **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** little thanks. Don't tell me I'm full of it, either; I have a background doing fire in the air and on the ground, and weather some of the brightsparks that responded like it or not, that's where I have come from. I have done a number of different types of flying over the years, and hold all the perepherial certificates such as FE and Mechanic (A&P). However, fire is my first love and that's why I'm doing it right now. You don't have to appreciate what I do; I don't ask for that and don't expect it. You're pushing it a bit by telling me I'm a mental case.

I've lost five friends and associates in the past couple of months, and they died in airplanes I formerly piloted. That may be so much fantasy to you, but it's very real to me, and I assure you it's **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** real to them, and to their families. In the past year, I've lost 19 friends and associates, and this season is NOT over yet.

Before you go criticising "old crap" equipment, bear in mind that it's much younger in terms of total hours than most of what's flying the line under Part 121 right now. Many tankers have less than six or eight thousand hours total time; age is not relevant. Don't squawk about old equipment until you have experience with it and know what it can do. Recently we have seen several cases of new modern airline aricraft experiencing fatal structural inflight failures, one involving modern composite construction. So before you knock the DC-4 and other excellent aircraft, rethink your stance. It makes no sense. Aside from that, what do you suggest gets used to replace these aircraft?

Do large pieces of wood fly around in the fire? You bet. On large fires in ponderosa and lodgepole, often flame lengths exceed 300' above the canopy. These fires normally exceed 1,100 to 1,500 degrees, and can be much hotter. A great deal of lifting action occurs, and with it go tree branches, and sometimes an entire tree. I have had a number of wing and engine strikes on smaller objects which approximate the diameter of a 2X4, and larger objects up to tree size. The largest size was a moderate to large piece of Juniper I took on the right wing.

On a radial engine, these things seldom present a big problem. In a turbine engine, it's a very big problem. In either case, dense smoke can cause power loss; I've had it stick bleed valves on the T-56A9 on the C-130, causing compressor stalls and power loss/engine failure. Most of the engine failures on the round engines (R-2600, R-3450, R-4360) have been lifted heads or other cylinder failures, or propeller/governor malfunctions.

Do I operate an airplane with passengers aboard the same as a tanker? No, of course not. However, I do temper my actions somewhat based on my overall experience. One carries over to the other. When flying a crewed tanker, I run full checklists, and execute proceedures just as I would in an airplane with passengers aboard. The maneuvering is just a little different, a little lower, and a little more violent. When flying with passengers, I approach every moment of the flight fully expecting something to go wrong, and anticipating what to do about it. Habit from flying fire, and other types of flying. When something does go wrong, I deal with it as I judge to be appropriate at the time, based on the situation.

I had not flown fire for two years prior to taking a leave of absence this season. I took it to fill in for a pilot on very short notice. I have not flown SEAT ops before, but was granted a Level 1 (initial attack) card based on prior experience in fire and ag and carding. The OAS has no problem with what I'm doing right now, or my experience and background, nor does the BLM, to whom I am contracted. It seems the only expert in my environment who finds me to be in a fantasy world and dillousional is gsrcrsx68. In his/her case it really doesn't matter; he or she isn't providing my paycheck nor signing my OAS 23's at the end of the week.

But hey, thanks for questioning my integrity. I'm sure I did something terrible to deserve it, right? You don't need to be grateful one day when your property gets threatened, but the least you can do is back off and let me do my job. As it is, I am sitting under the wing of an airplane for 11-14 hours daily, waiting to go. There is no running water, no electricity, and there are no indoor toilets. There is no air conditioning. I am flying a heavy load into conditions that quite frankly would likely cause most folks to have second thoughts. I'm doing it for a fraction of the pay that those folks are getting for doing a fraction of the work I do. Nobody does this for money; we all have our own reasons, and I do have mine.

We're referred to as "tanker trash," and we're sometimes considered to be a disposable assett. There aren't even death benifits when we get killed on a public fire. Each of the five recent deaths in the heavies (T-130, T-123) will receive nothing; their families no compensation, unlike the firefighters on the ground. We see high fatality rates; it's not a safe environment. Some environments will NEVER be safe; this is one of them. Since 1969, 135% of the pilots have been killed on the job. That's everybody and a third of the origonal number. You don't have to give a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, but kindly don't belittle us, or me, or our experience on the job.

I am doing a public service, and in a very real sense, I am serving my country. Don't knock it. I have removed my white shirt and shiny shoes to wear dingy nomex and scuffed boots, and white seat stains mixed with oil and grease. I am not living in a comfortable or glamorous world. And to boot, I get to put up with garbage from people like gsrcrsx68 or Clownpilot. I enjoy what I'm doing now; I thought I would never do it again. I don't enjoy reading the garbage posts by people who obviously haven't been there, and certainly haven't done that.

Fellas, when you can post from experience instead of shooting off your mouth about subjects about which you know nothing, let's have an intelligent conversation. Until then, bug off.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Well I wasn't trying to belittle what you do I just find it hard to believe that one could get whacked with those size objects and continue to remain aloft. I guess its not so much that it couldn't be done but that I've never flown anything that I believe could withstand that kind of abuse. In any case I hope that I haven't come across as thinking you were nuts etc. because I don't.

RT

 

[avbug]

RT,

Sorry; those comments weren't directed at you, but were a general reply to those who feel it is better to make personal assaults rather than answer the origional poster's questions.

 

[TurboS7]

it is the way they wrote it

I declare an emergency to cover my legal butt.The lawyers put that little out in the regulations so use it. If you are a guru and can predict the future then great, but the day I don't declare an emergency something will happen that I can't control and I will be SOL>.

 

[cdj]

Avbug:

As someone who has followed your posts, both on this board and on ipilot, I've always found them to be very helpful in making me think through whatever topic is being discussed. I thank you for that.

cdj

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by cdj
Avbug: As someone who has followed your posts, both on this board and on ipilot, I've always found them to be very helpful in making me think through whatever topic is being discussed. I thank you for that.

CDJ, consider. You're in a light twin going into a fair-size metroport, someplace like Ft. Lauderdale. You're about ten minutes from landing when the right prop runs away. You immediately go through the memory itmes/checklist, but although the engine shuts down, the prop won't feather. You could try stalling the airplane and see if the prop will stop, but your fairly new to this type and don't want to chance it. You need to get on the ground.

You: "Lauderdale Approach, Queenair Four-One-Victor, I've got a prop that's oversped and I need a visual to nine-right."

APP: "Roger Four-One-Victor, do you need assistance?" [In other words, 'are you declaring an emergency?']

You: [Remembering that Avbug said declaring is usually unnecessary.] "Uh, negative, just need a visual approach as soon as possible."

APP: "Roger Four-One-Victor. Turn left heading zero-eight-zero, vectors for the visual to nine-right. Right now you're number four for the runway."

Good luck.

Think I'm exaggerating? I've heard almost this exact conversation on three separate occasions. The whole time I was saying to myself, "just declare, dude!" Usually after a couple of minutes, the distressed pilot will finally come up with something like, "approach, things have gotten a little worse, I guess I'm declaring an emergency." Suddenly, they get service much faster.

Yes, most controllers are savvy enough not to let somebody get into a situation like this. But there are places--New York, Los Angelas, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, etc.--where controllers are way to busy to deal with someone who can't make a decision.

Now, to continue the above scenario, suppose you finally drag your airplane into Ft. Lauderdale, and on rollout, that right engine finally melts right off the airplane. (It's been windmilling without oil for quite a while now.) You come to a very sudden stop, and the fire trucks roll about thirty seconds later.

What's the first thing the F.A.A. is going to ask you when they show up, after they find out you're uninjured. "Why the f___ didn't you declare an emergency?"

Declaring has nothing whatsoever to do with flying the airplane, dealing with a situation, and saving the day. It's a "code word," if you will, that creates an environment where you can do whatever it takes in the cockpit and with A.T.C. to solve problems safely and legally.

Avbug can get away with it--in a tanker--because he's practically in wartime conditions. I wouldn't recommend refusing to declare in most other operations, especially airline operations. I'd be out of work if I tried to get away with that. (Bear in mind that in most Part 121 operations, you can't even divert to a different airport without talking to a dispatcher...unless you--guess what?--declare an emergency!)

Like I said, why make it easier for the feds to bust you later when declaring doesn't cost you anything?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Avbug, I never meant this to be personal, and I apologize if I ever offended you. I had no intention of doing that. Now that I understand where you're coming from, I understand your agrument. I do think, though, that its dangerous to give this kind of advice to someone who doesn't have a fraction of your experience. A student with fifty hours will get himself into deep trouble if he tries to operate the way you do.

Yes, I'm younger than you are and have less time...but I don't have to have flown through a burning forest to know that failing to declare an emergency in a jetliner when it's necessary is serious.

 

[cdj]

Typhoon:

Being one of limited experience, I never took Avbug's original post to be one of "never declare an emergency". What that post said to me was do what you feel is most comfortable and mirrored in part the way that I've been taught. (Fly the airplane first, troubleshoot and/or fix the problem, with talking given the lowest priority).

My understanding of Avbug's original post is one of declare an emergency if it will help you, so in your above example of the light twin, then that would indeed be a very attractive option.

The reason for my first post was to lend some support to Avbug. It should be obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read more than a few of his posts, that this guy isn't macho, a cowboy, or unprofessional but does indeed have a wealth of information to share in many areas of GA. I appreciate him taking the time to share that knowledge.


cdj

 

[Typhoon1244]

Fly the airplane first, troubleshoot and/or fix the problem, with talking given the lowest priority.

Ah, you gain wisdom grasshopper.

Seriously, though, a lot of people take the "aviate, navigate, communicate" maxim to an extreme, where talking on the radio is given not low priority, but no priority. The V1 cut Avbug describes is a perfect example. At a fire base, you can get away with bringing a crippled ship back around in the pattern and landing without a clearance because everyone is paying a lot of attention to every ship that takes off. Why? Because a fire base exists in a constant state of urgency.

If I tried that at D.F.W. on any particular day around 6 p.m., I'd be lucky not to have six midair collisions. And even if the feds excused my lack of communication as understandable, which isn't likely, my chief pilot would have my b_lls on a platter!

If Avbug had come back to my inquiry about his employment with, "I'm a 777 captain for TransGalactic Airlines," I'd have labeld him a fool. The fact is that he's a tanker pilot, a member of an elite crowd that has to make up the rules as they go along. I just want everyone to understand that their way of operating often isn't compatible with Part 121 airline operations. (Don't forget, a lot of companies require you to declare an emergency if an engine fails for any reason.)

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I have one more example. In 1960 a United DC-8 did a good job of trying to fly through a T.W.A. Constellation over Brooklyn, N.Y. No survivors, and many casualties on the ground. The '8 had suffered a partial radio system failure and was down to one VOR...and they were entering a hold at an intersection back before maximum holding speeds had been established. They never tod anyone in A.T.C. that they were having trouble with their NAV radios.

Did they need to declare an emergency? No, probably not, but if they had just told somebody what they were dealing with, A.T.C. might have handled or separated them very differently...and the accident might not have happened.

It is possible to encounter situations where you simply have your hands too full to talk on the radio...a violent windshear on takeoff or landing, for example, but these situations are rare. When the sh_t hits the fan, you'll often find that after you've dealt with the problem and taken a few deep breaths, there's a lot of time to spare. Officially declaring the emergency will usually lead A.T.C. to offer you things they wouldn't otherwise...especially in a busy sector.

When you've got a problem, you can't go wrong by keeping everyone informed, and I do mean everyone: your first officer or captain, your flight attendant, A.T.C., your dispatcher...sometimes even your passengers. And if there's even a chance that somebody might get hurt or the airplane might get bent...declare an emergency!

 

[cdj]

Typhoon:

I don't mind long-winded, it's how folks like me learn. One of the things I've enjoyed most while lurking on this board has been the point / counterpoint with contentious issues.

I tend to agree with your points concerning declaring emergencies. But I also agree with some of the points Avbug made. (That being comfort level and situation you're in).


cdj

 

[dogman]

I don't know where the mis-conception of declaring an emergency every came from. First of all, if you have any problem, declare! Why do people think it's such a big deal? I have never been able to figure out why people are afraid to do it. I've done it three times, and it's no big deal!

 

[A Squared]

I'm going to weigh in as believing that an engine failure isn't necessarily an emergency. It all depends on the circumstances. Like Avbug, I probably have a little more experience in this area than most of the rest of you. At last count, I've feathered an engine for real 30 times. Frankly, after you get over the novelty of the first couple of times, it's kind of a yawn. The airplane flies just fine with one shut down. If we declared an emergency every time we shut one down, it would be like the boy who cried wolf. Besides, what is ATC going to do for us that we can't do ourselves? We're not going to suddenly drop out of the sky, even if we were, the controller can't reach through the microphone and fix our engine. Where I fly, the nearest suitable airport is almost always the one we're filed for anyway, so we're probably not going to divert. We're required to notify ATC that we've shut one down, but not to declare an emergency. Sometimes if they're bored, ATC will roll the trucks for us anyway. I appreciate the thought, but it's not necessary. The airplane lands just fine with one shut down .... carry a little more power, and give it just a little bit of rudder as you bring the power back in the flare ... otherwise it's just like landing with all 4 turning. If you're going to run it off the runway on three, you're probably gonna run it off with 4, so you might as well have them roll the trucks every time you land.

So tell me, what is this magic that ATC is going to do to make it all better? I picture this scenario:

Captain: so, how about those Mariners?

Me: Is it football season already?

#4 engine: suddenly starts barking like a bad dog

(actually it doesn't happen suddenly, if the crew is paying attention at all, it's no surprise when it happens)

Flight engineer: (scanning ignition analyzer) Double shorted secondary, #4 engine, #17 cylinder.

Captain: hmmmmmmm...... better punch off #4.

Entire Crew: runs engine shutdown checklist.

Me: (on the radio, with panic rising in my voice) MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY, Oilspot flight 666 has just experienced a precautionary shutdown of our number 4 engine, we are declaring an emergency!!!!

ATC: Ummmmmm....... roger Oilspot 666, you are cleared to your present destination, at your present altitude and by your present route, at a slightly diminished airspeed.

Entire Crew: (in unison, heaving a huge sigh of relief) Thank god, we've been saved!!!!

Me: Good thing I declared an emergencey

Captain: (Smacks me upside the head with the sports pages)

Pet Monkey: throws feces at the crew (apologies to Avbug)

Anyway, do you see my point? How's declaring an emergency going to improve a routine engine shutdown? Certainly if there's unusual circumstances and we need an immediate different altitude, or we need to be vectored clear of terrain, or we need something else that ATC *can* do for us, declaring an emergency might be a good idea. Otherwise, why get them wound up when we're not? The thing is, if we're outbound from one of our maintainence bases when we shut one down, you know what we're going to do when we get to our destination? We're going to drop our load, and fly back home on 3 engines. So, should we declare an emergency before we take off on a 3 engine ferry? Obviously no, so why must we declare an emergency if the engine is feathered in the air.


regards

 

[Typhoon1244]

Argh!

Okay. Fine. For the 1% of you students out there who have your hearts set on flying four-engine recip. freighters when you finish training, an engine failure is only an emergency if it takes a wing with it.

For the rest of you:

In airline operations, failing to declare an emergency after almost any unexplained engine failure is like laying your d__k on a chopping block. Good luck.

In G.A. operations, yes, your Seminole will probably make it all the way from here-to-there on one engine. Yes, down low, a Seminole flies almost as well on one engine as it does with two. If your crystal ball is flawless, and you know perfectly well that nothing else is going to go wrong from the time the engine failed all the way to the chocks, then fine, don't declare an emergency.

I have not met one pilot who was disciplined for declaring an emergency. Not one. For the third time, why make it easier for the F.A.A. to come after you when declaring is absolutely free?!?

There are only two of you on this thread that don't support this line of reasoning. You keep saying, "declaring won't affect the outcome of most failures." Okay, if it doesn't make any difference, then why not do it and cover your a__? You've got nothing at all to lose and everything to gain. The only reason I can think of for refusing to declare is the fear of looking weak. Like Dogman, I just can't think of any other explanation.

(If I spend much more time on this, I'm going to declare an emergency!)

 

[A Squared]

>>>>Okay. Fine. For the 1% of you students out there who have your hearts set on flying four-engine recip. freighters when you finish training, an engine failure is only an emergency if it takes a wing with it.

What? you mean not everyone wants to fly soda pop and disposable diapers around in a 50 year-old airplane?


>>>>>The only reason I can think of for refusing to declare is the fear of looking weak. Like Dogman, I just can't think of any other explanation.

I dunno about you, but I get paid by the Block hour. If we declare, ATC is going to give us priority, if we get priority, we get less block time, less block time=less beer money. It's economics, not pride.

regards

 

[banned username 2]

Example: flaps jammed up. I declared. Sure, we practice no-flap landings in the sim and we had lots of runway (MCO)...but landing flaps up is still an abnormal situation in most Part 121 jets.

What's a "Part 121 Jet"??? I have heard of FAR Part 23 & FAR Part 25 aircraft... I didn't know Part 121 included Aircraft Certification....

Things that make you say "Hhhmmm......."

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by A Squared
What? you mean not everyone wants to fly soda pop and disposable diapers around in a 50 year-old airplane?

Hey, don't get me wrong. When I was instructing, I'd have killed for a job like that! Anything with more than one engine...I even applied to a "737 operator in Malaysia." Yikes!

I get paid by the Block hour. If we declare, ATC is going to give us priority, if we get priority, we get less block time, less block time=less beer money. It's economics, not pride.

I'm going to assume that's a joke and ignore it. (The day I start making decisions in a passenger jet during an emergency based on economics, it's time for me to find a new hobby.)

Originally posted by Falcon Capt
I have heard of FAR Part 23 & FAR Part 25 aircraft...I didn't know Part 121 included Aircraft Certification.

How about a jet operated by a company operating under Part 121?

Picky, picky, picky. Can't refute the argument, so you have to nag me about my lousy choice of words, huh?

 

[charley varrick]

Avbug,

Let me start by stating that I find your posts to be some of the most refreshing, instructional and entertaining on this board. You clearly have a love for prose, as well as flying.

I have flown with many pilots who came from flying DC-4s, DC-6s and the like, and invariably they bring up the subject of how many times they have feathered number one, two, three or four. (Often, they have pictures on hand to illustrate.) I don't know you personally, but from reading your posts, it seems that you are one of those who would should have lived in the Golden Era of aviation. You have brought up how you personally known friends and fellow pilots who have died in the line of duty, a declaration which is reminiscent of the first few pages of Gann's "Fate is the Hunter." You have chosen to pursue a noble path in aviation. I hope that your fortune continues to be good.

Most of us, however, do not currently fly in the Golden Era. We operate in the drudgery of modern times where communication is essential to the fluid operation of the ATC system. Like it or not, the controller is part of the world in which most of us fly, and, more than likely, they haven't a clue that Chuck Yeager, who can handle any situation thrown at him with decor and aplomb, is flying that blip on their screen. The words "declare and emergency" effectively communicate a rather unambiguous idea. Upon hearing those succint words, the controller at the other end of that radio is quickly made aware that non-routine events are occuring in your aircraft. The controller, as you have brought up, may not be able to DO anything to help you, but this is not mean that they should not be made aware. Declaring an emergency allows the controller to do the things that they need to do. If they roll the trucks without me asking, more power to them--that's their perogative. Who knows, they may have experiences that I don't.

Clearly you have not stated that you should never declare an emergency. You merely cited several scenarios that you have had the fortune or misforture (depends on your point-of-view, I suppose) to experience. I would venture to say that, assuming that one was flying in controlled airspace and not incommunicado, nine out of ten of the pilots on this board would have declared an emergency for any of those situations. Reading your experiences, I ask myself, "when WOULD Avbug declare?" Seems to me, when you finally declare, we're talking about a disaster, not an emergency.

I have never flown into a fire, nor do I desire to. This does not make me a lesser pilot than those who do. I am of the opinion that, even though I have experienced (insert number here) engine failures, etc., it does not follow that I should be inured to them.