seriously..!!!

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
twincomanche
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:35 pm

seriously..!!!

Post by twincomanche »

What's with airlines declaring a 'pan pan pan' or 'mayday mayday mayday' lately?!?!?
I just recently heard an atc recording of an A380 declaring a pan pan pan as a result of an engine failure. I understand that they do have 3 more engines, but nobody knows why that engine failed and what could happen next. So my point being that if you declare an emergency, ATC will clear the airspace for you. That, in my opinion, is the best option.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Jim la Jungle
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:11 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by Jim la Jungle »

Hi,

Generally: If your ECAM status after the failure says "Land ASAP" in amber; it should be considered as a PAN PAN. If written in red, then, MAYDAY.

Also, your engine's FADEC will pretty much tell you what's wrong with the engine. So there's no point in loosing your sh*te. What if you're in the middle of the Atlantic? You're pretty much on your own anyway. Good thing is: you still have three!

Pull down your pants, and slide on the ice! It's not like a Twin comanche!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Tim
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1026
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 6:16 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by Tim »

i find in general pilots are very hesitant to declare emergencies in any situation...i never got it to be honest. so what if after its all said and done it turned out to be not required, why chance it? ive even had a pilot tell me once never to declare a mayday or say what was wrong on the radio in case someone from the media hears it on a scanner, then there will be 'cameras and stuff'. hey, guess what im not thinking about when im flying home on one engine? im not thinking about ANYTHING about other than flying that plane safely to the runway. i dont care who they have to move, i dont care whos watching me land, i care about going home later that day. if i have some paper work to fill out and a phone call to make, thats fine with me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lostaviator
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by lostaviator »

One of the many reasons to consider declaring is " do I really want to go around with less power?" The answer for me is no. So i want atc to know, dont vector me in close o someone else. You don't ruin anyone's day by declaring.
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by 2R »

Not that long ago,smoke in the cockpit was considered by some airlines as no big deal.
Some pilots even refuse help from CFR and it cost them their lives.
It all depends on a pilots situational awareness.If a pilot fails to recognize a danger the chances of recovery are very slim.
Most pilots have very good situational awareness, so most non-normal events are no problem problems.
I feel no shame in asking for help.I will ask for help from anyone who will help me and help me minimize any threat to my pax and aircraft in any non-normal event.
Clear explicit language in any emergency will save your life,do not be coy about a threat to your life or threat to your passengers.Get priority, sooner rather than later or too late.
ATC will always help you and are a great ally in any emergency.
At the end of the day you will be able to look your pax in the eyes and tell them that you did everything you possibly and used all available resources to keep them safe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sidebar
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Winterpeg

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by Sidebar »

twincomanche wrote:What's with airlines declaring a 'pan pan pan' or 'mayday mayday mayday' lately?!?!?
"Pan pan pan' or 'mayday mayday mayday' are actually the correct phrases, rather than the 'declaring an emergency' so frequently misused in North America.

TC AIM 18 Oct 2012 SAR 4.1:

"An emergency condition is classified in accordance with the
degree of danger or hazard being experienced, as follows:

Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or
imminent danger and requiring immediate assistance.

Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or
other vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight,
which does not require immediate assistance.

The radiotelephone distress signal MAYDAY and the
radiotelephone urgency signal PAN PAN must be used
at the commencement of the first distress and urgency
communication, respectively, and, if considered necessary, at
the commencement of any subsequent communication."
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
tripleseven
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 9:56 am

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by tripleseven »

Part of the reason airlines declare a "pan pan" or a "mayday" is because they fly to parts of the world where english is not ATC's native language. They don't understand "We've got a bit of an engine problem that we are running the checklist for and we'll need a few minutes then we would like to return for a landing." However, they would likely understand: "mayday, mayday, mayday engine fire" or whatever. There was a case somewhere in Asia where a North American flight did a rejected take off and advised ATC, who proceeded to clear another N. American airline to land. The second did a go around because they were the only ones to understand that the runway was occupied.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
TTJJ
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:19 am
Location: SBSP, Where Beer is .35 a can

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by TTJJ »

While some very worthwhile opinions have been aired here about pilots not declaring an emergency when they should, the circumstances in the OP’s post did not warrant a “Mayday” call.

A single engine failure on an aircraft with three or more engines is not considered the same as for an aircraft with only two engines. It is not an emergency by regulations. It is not even treated as an “Emergency” by the manufacturer’s check-list. It is an “Abnormal” checklist.

Also, this A-380 flight did not need to declare an emergency to clear the airspace. As they have IFR separation, their airspace is already clear. (Sorry, that sounded a wee bit condescending. I understood your intent.)

I shall use the US FARs for reference here as they are easier to search. The rules are essentially the same around the world.
FAR 121.565 states that after an engine failure/shutdown of a two engine aircraft, it needs to land at the nearest airport in terms of time of flight. E.G. They have an emergency.
An aircraft with 3 or more engines may continue past this airport.

121.565 Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an airplane engine fails or whenever an engine is shutdown to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command must land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or is shut down to prevent possible damage, the pilot-in-command may proceed to an airport that the pilot selects if, after considering the following, the pilot makes a reasonable decision that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport... ( my text: followed by considerations for the PIC to continue the flight.)

Taken from PPRUNE referencing this company’s Ops.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-po ... ure-3.html

“From the EK Ops manual- Continuation policy of Four Engine Aircraft

After failure of one engine on a four engine aircraft, the Commander may continue the flight to destination or any suitable alternate, having considered the potential consequences and/or further failures en-route.

For flights in excess of 12 hours, consideration shall be given to returning to the departure airfield if less than two hours away, after consultation with VPNC.
-------------------

Granted, we are not debating here the wisdom of continuing a flight with an engine out, only if the PIC should have declared an emergency or not.
While the comments on this thread are indeed valid about declaring emergencies in general, I believe they do not apply in this particular situation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
lilflyboy262
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:35 am

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by lilflyboy262 »

Pretty sure they give you priority if you declare a Pan Pan anyway? Unless of course a Mayday is coming in.

The way I have been taught is that a Pan Pan is an urgency situation where you have had something go wrong but you are not falling out of the sky. Example, an engine failure on a 4 engined aircraft or a passenger in the back is having a heart attack and at deaths door.

Mayday is for distress situations when you are heading for the earth.

So yeah, in an A380, I would declare a Pan Pan as something is not normal and want to get down on the ground ASAP.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sidestick stirrer
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by sidestick stirrer »

Researching the "logic" behind the criteria that the software uses to decide whether to display " LAND ASAP" is red or amber can help us decide between PANPAN or MAYDAY.

In an abnormal situation, there are two states that the airplane can be in:static or dynamic

Static would be when something has happened that affects the capability of the aircraft but is now contained and no further deterioration is expected. I used to think that the airplane was telling me, "Hey, I'm hurt but I'm alright, I can carry on but I'm not fully capable anymore." This would be the amber display and I used it as the reason to call a PANPAN as I wanted ATC to know we were okay but might not be as capable as they usually expect us to be.

The red display is for the dynamic case. Here, the situation is not static but still changing and never for the better. Some examples would be a continuing fire, overheat or smoke indication, leaks of oil or fuel or hydraulic fluid that did not stop. It's the equivalent of the airplane telling us, "Hey, I'm dying here, get me on the ground!" MAYDAY, of course...
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by 2R »

[quote="TTJJ"]While some very worthwhile opinions have been aired here about pilots not declaring an emergency when they should, the circumstances in the OP’s post did not warrant a “Mayday” call.

A single engine failure on an aircraft with three or more engines is not considered the same as for an aircraft with only two engines. It is not an emergency by regulations. It is not even treated as an “Emergency” by the manufacturer’s check-list.


Good points,BUT:

Depends on what the cause of the failure is.If it is an uncontained catastrophe ,you might not have much time left to operate in the non-normal mode as a fire or serious fuel leak may change whatever plans you had for the day.An engine shut down for abnormal readings or unusual surges may not be considered dangerous to you but the pax might be a little nervous and it is the pax perception of how you and you company handle the emergency, non-normal operation,or happy event(or whatever non disturbing pc phase the corporate speaks use to describe events, that will determine if they fly with you again.
Utilize all the eyes,ears and brains of the crew make sure someone has eyes on that engine after the shutdown to look for any anomaly that the magic boxes might miss.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5683
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by altiplano »

Also, this A-380 flight did not need to declare an emergency to clear the airspace. As they have IFR separation, their airspace is already clear. (Sorry, that sounded a wee bit condescending. I understood your intent.)
Yeah, because you never get a short gate behind a dash 8 with a ref speed 50+ knots slower than you that ends up rolling past the 2 high speeds they should have taken, or have an aircraft drag ass around the corner lining up for an "immediate" takeoff while you are 3 final.

Proper phraseology gets everyone's attention, especially in other (non native english) parts of the world, leaves no doubt in ATC's mind that you are having an issue and ensures that you get the handling you need. For many airlines it's SOP and I'd consider it accepted as a good decision by most aircrews in a similar situation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
TTJJ
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:19 am
Location: SBSP, Where Beer is .35 a can

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by TTJJ »

True enough 2R.
However, an “uncontained catastrophe…fire or serious fuel leak” are hardly the simple engine failure/shutdown scenarios that the regulations and I were referring to. These situations would necessitate an emergency landing with the requisite mayday call no matter how many engines you may have.

I opined here as the thread seemed to be progressing along the lines of reasoning reserved for two engine operations; that is declaring an emergency and presumably landing ASAP.

It has been my experience that operations of aircraft with more than two engines are not widely understood. This is undoubtedly due to having direct contact with these types of aircraft is relatively rare. As I have been in three engine aircraft for quite some time, I offered an explanation as to why the pilot in question did not need to declare an emergency.

I never said to not inform ATC that you had a problem. Actually, you should due to loss of performance.

Also, you may remember I mentioned that we were not debating the wisdom of continuing the flight with a failure, merely the necessity of declaring an emergency or not in this specific situation.

Your comments about the passengers are valid and correct. Their perceptions are dealt with by one's company policies. In this case, (passengers) it would be a commercial policy as opposed to an operational policy. Commercial policy is usually mandated by one's marketing and legal departments, and is beyond the scope of my post.

The policy clipping I pasted from Pprune is operational and refers to a simple engine failure/shutdown. I included it to show that this company’s policy and the regulations were harmonious.

Nothing precludes any pilot from declaring an emergency as they see fit. In this situation he did not see fit to do so, and I happen to agree.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by Eric Janson »

I do fly 4 engine aircraft for a living.

I fly the A340-300.

Same manufacturer so same operating philosophy.

There is no land asap on the ECAM after the loss of 1 engine. There is no restriction on 3 engine operations. We will need to descend and may not be able to continue to our destination. There is a 25% loss of thrust as opposed to a 50% loss on a twin.

Even losing an engine on take-off we are allowed 2 hours or 900 miles in the event we are using a take-off alternate.

Loss of 1 engine is a PAN call at my Airline.

There is no loss of electrical power - all busses remain fully powered.

No changes to the control laws.

Both packs work normally.

Depending on the engine that failed one hydraulic system may be lost. In this case there is a small increase in landing distance. Autoland capability may be downgraded to fail passive (Cat 3 single) but remains available.

As has been stated several times the loss of an engine is a very different situation than in a twin.
---------- ADS -----------
 
sidestick stirrer
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by sidestick stirrer »

I concur with Eric and that is what I was told when I checked out in the left seat of the 340: the fourth engine is used to loft the thing to altitude. Lose an engine once up there, even on a Trans-Con, drop down a couple of thousand feet and let Vancouver know you'll be fifteen minutes later than planned...
---------- ADS -----------
 
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by niss »

lilflyboy262 wrote: The way I have been taught is that a Pan Pan is an urgency situation where you have had something go wrong but you are not falling out of the sky. Example, an engine failure on a 4 engined aircraft or a passenger in the back is having a heart attack and at deaths door.
Can I double check this? I understood that a Mayday was for immediate danger or risk of life. I always figured that unless it was expected someone was dying (MEDEVAC) a Mayday for such a thing would be appropriate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Elliot Moose
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:53 am
Location: CYYC

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by Elliot Moose »

Pretty well anywhere but North America there is no "declaring and emergency". You declare a "mayday". Anything that will or may require priority handling requires a "pan pan". We have somehow gotten ourselves away from that philosophy here and now treat a mayday as something only to be used as we spiral into a smoking hole, and a pan pan is an anachronism like an astro compass.

If AF has a problem like this, you can bet that they will use the world standard and declare one or the other.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: seriously..!!!

Post by ahramin »

niss wrote:
lilflyboy262 wrote: The way I have been taught is that a Pan Pan is an urgency situation where you have had something go wrong but you are not falling out of the sky. Example, an engine failure on a 4 engined aircraft or a passenger in the back is having a heart attack and at deaths door.
Can I double check this? I understood that a Mayday was for immediate danger or risk of life. I always figured that unless it was expected someone was dying (MEDEVAC) a Mayday for such a thing would be appropriate.
A distress call (situation where the aircraft requires immediate assistance) is prefixed: MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY.
An urgency message (situation not requiring immediate assistance) is prefixed: PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN.
In marine terms you would be correct niss. When you are broadcasting from a boat hoping that someone will hear you and rescue you because someone has had a heart attack, you call mayday. In an aircraft, it's more about getting resources than rescue. Resources like rapid atc clearances and airport fire fighting equipment. If you need those resources immediately, it's a mayday. If not, it's a pan-pan.

One question for the four engine drivers though: If you shut down a stove in cruise, are you going to be able to maintain your cleared flight level and speed?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”