Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Giant Emergency in Spain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Schwartz
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Is this really true? If a flight contacts ATC and tells them they have a technical failure and need to stop the climb and orbit somewhere to sort it out, is that treated as an emergency? I define emergency as something that is very time-compressed and requiring an urgent remedy, as in an immediate return. I would term this scenario a manageable failure situation but not an emergency.

    On the other hand, if the crew suspected more extensive damage that could potentially impact the safety of the flight, that would qualify as an emergency. The fact that they requested an F-18 for aerial inspection makes me think they might have declared emergency to expedite their situational awareness.
    Out of curiosity, do we know they requested a fighter flyby? I can just imagine a conversation with the tower.

    "Hey, we're not sure what the condition of the landing gear is, so we want to ...."

    "No problemo, we've got some bored air force types just hanging around, we'll just send one up there to take a look. It would make their day..."



    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    You are now comparing apples to oranges.
    R 2800 to a jet engine.
    Two R2800's but yes, compared to the CF-6 they were candles in the wind.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    So, the loss of half of your engines is a valid emergency on the DC-6 but not on the 767? In the case of the DC-6, you still have one left to give.
    You are now comparing apples to oranges.
    R 2800 to a jet engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Dual hydraulic system failure ( 1 & 4 ) in Dubai in a 200. 2 engines shut down in Miami in a DC-6. Single engine in Miami in a C-46, oil temp. rising on the remaining engine.
    So, the loss of half of your engines is a valid emergency on the DC-6 but not on the 767? In the case of the DC-6, you still have one left to give.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

    That was the world's 2nd most-successful three-engine airplane (Connie was the first).
    I probably have 30 hours of three engine time in DC-6's. Another 10 to 15 on two.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    2 engines shut down in Miami in a DC-6.
    That was the world's 2nd most-successful three-engine airplane (Connie was the first).

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    Very curious to know where you drew that line.
    Dual hydraulic system failure ( 1 & 4 ) in Dubai in a 200. 2 engines shut down in Miami in a DC-6. Single engine in Miami in a C-46, oil temp. rising on the remaining engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarolW
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    ....
    By the way, I think the horse is dead, but I'm taking bets on how far we go...got a beer we hit 8 pages.
    Neeeeeeiiiiiiiiggggghhhh; Neigh, Neeeeeiiiggghhhhhhhh! (This horse ain't quite dead yet )

    I'll bet 7 pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Funny, the couple of times I have declared an emergency there WAS paperwork for the feds. Not to mention the company and the airports emergency response department. But I guess when you looked it up on wiki, or in your thousands of hours PIC in a large jet airplane they didn't do that for you.
    Very fuzzy memories from 1978 PPL flight school was that the FAA might not ask for paperwork, so Gabiee could TECHNICALLY be right. Conversely, in this litigious day and age its hard to imagine the FAA NOT wanting a moderately thorough explanation, so Bobby is probably right for PRACTICAL purposes.

    I guess its an interesting legal twist if ATC declares the emergency...if things are uneventful, can you tell the FAA that YOU didn't declare an emergency and therefore not obligated to visit with the FAA. teevee?

    By the way, I think the horse is dead, but I'm taking bets on how far we go...got a beer we hit 8 pages.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    the couple of times I have declared an emergency...
    Very curious to know where you drew that line.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    [/B][/U]By the way, do you know what is the paperwork with eh FAA required for declaring an emergency? Many times. nada. And when there is something, again it will not depend so much on the word you used.
    By the way, do YOU know that even if you do a precautionary shut-down of a jet engine there is paperwork? Funny, the couple of times I have declared an emergency there WAS paperwork for the feds. Not to mention the company and the airports emergency response department. But I guess when you looked it up on wiki, or in your thousands of hours PIC in a large jet airplane they didn't do that for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel
    While the use of mayday or pan-pan is preferable to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, ATC doesn't care if you say mayday, pan-pan, emergency, or oh my god I am going to die. The moment that they suspect that the safety of a flight is compromised they treat it as an emergency.
    Is this really true? If a flight contacts ATC and tells them they have a technical failure and need to stop the climb and orbit somewhere to sort it out, is that treated as an emergency? I define emergency as something that is very time-compressed and requiring an urgent remedy, as in an immediate return. I would term this scenario a manageable failure situation but not an emergency.

    On the other hand, if the crew suspected more extensive damage that could potentially impact the safety of the flight, that would qualify as an emergency. The fact that they requested an F-18 for aerial inspection makes me think they might have declared emergency to expedite their situational awareness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Have you ever heard this sort of exchange?:

    ATC: "Belchfire 123, do you wish to declare an Emergency"
    Bechlfire 123: "Not if we don't have to, can we please return to land now".

    ATC: Belchfire 123, heading 060, descend to 2500, cleared for ILS 09R, when able please say souls on board and fuel remaining.
    ATC: Poorsob 456, cancel your approach, turn right heading 180, maintain 4000 ft, I have an emergency incoming.


    And have you ever heard something like that? Because...

    While the use of mayday or pan-pan is preferable to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, ATC doesn't care if you say mayday, pan-pan, emergency, or oh my god I am going to die. The moment that they suspect that the safety of a flight is compromised they treat it as an emergency.
    Can we please 'cancel our route' and go back and land ASAP- No paperwork for the FAA. Probably SOME company paperwork.

    We are declaring an emergency- FAA will require follow up and there may be ADDITIONAL company paperwork.

    Bobby is waking the fine line of not FORMALLY declaring an emergency, to make an important legal (and logistical) distinction. It's not about "the words" but the formal legal implications.
    You've blown a tire and an engine got damaged and was shut down, they had to close and inspect the runway, they send an air force fighter to visually check the damage, you hold for 4 hours, emergency personnel and equipment is dispatched to the runway, you land and the emergency team meets you on the runway, they have to address and extremely hot break, the plane is disabled on the runway, runway closed again until the plane can be towed away and inspected again... Not to mention hundreds of passenger enjoying flying in circle during 4 hours to finally reach not the destination but the departure point, luggage chaos, pax accommodations and rescheduling chaos, they will get to a hotel probably 4 to 5 hours after landing...

    And you care about paperwork? And you think that the wording used during the "situation" will make any difference on the paperwork?

    And if he gets to do essentially everything he wants without being an emergency (ATC doesn't have to have an emergency to address a request, nor to give some special consideration)...why not go that way?
    I agree, but ATC and hence the FAA will still consider it an emergency even if you didn't use any of the official phraseology to declare one.

    By the way, do you know what is the paperwork with eh FAA required for declaring an emergency? Many times. nada. And when there is something, again it will not depend so much on the word you used.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Re-read my post #29
    I interpret that valid questions bother you. Thanks for playing.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    So let me ask you something- I have watched a few preflight briefings where the pilots said, if we lose an engine/have a fire, we will turn around and shoot the ILS to runway X...THE KEY ISSUE THOUGH WAS THAT THE WEATHER WAS SEVERE VMC.

    What I'm getting at here is that I've witnessed stuff that is arguably stupid (Pulling/Briefing up an ILS approach plate in VMC) but hey, SAFETY FIRST.

    Using this logic (SAFETY FIRST), shouldn't you declare an emergency if there's a significant departure from normality...tire problem, engine problem? (Rhetorical question, NOT a recommendation).

    In one instance you are sparing NOTHING to be safe. In the other situation, there's at least a little elevated risk if there's an engine out...

    This "double standard" is why we are being a pain and telling you you should declare an emergency. Apologies for that (and I get your point), but can you understand why we are thinking that way?
    Re-read my post #29

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X