What I'm more concerned about is whether there is any history of enforcing this interpretation (and the previous interpretations that it affirms).I agree completely, but there is a recent troublesome Chief Counsel interpretation (referred to earlier) which very strictly construes 91.185. It's the one which seems to say, even if you don't have the equipment to navigate direct to the airport, you have to go there anyway
Dunno. There would likely have to be an uncommon "pure" lost comm plus a separation problem for ATC before any enforcement action would be considered.
I think the likelihood of that is also reduced by the fact that, based on what controllers have said online, the vast majority of them would find the Chief Counsel's version of what pilots should do quite unpalatable. Doing things the way ATC apparently wants them done seems unlikely to motivate them to ask for a FSDO to get involved.
I don't see any of that in 91.185 nor in the amplification of 91.185 in the AIM.
That is not supposed to be used except when the provisions of 91.185 cannot be applied. 14CFR 91.3 (b) is a double-edge sword. So long as 91.185 can be complied with, the pilot does not have an in-flight emergency.
I don't think that's true. First, an emergency is in the eye of the beholder. The FAA of course, reserves the ability to take the position to take the position that "emergency" is an after-the-fact excuse or created by the pilot, but the cases in which it has been done have, for the most part, have two out of three components: (1) pretty obvious as an excuse or (2) failure to take timely corrective action; and (3) caused a problem.
I agree but that isn't the hypothetical set forth by the other poster. You know you will probably have to justify your action to an aviation inspector.
Speaking of the AIM:
Assuming the failure didn't affect your transponder, of course.
Non-specific. That does nothing that other than place the pilot on notice that his circumstances will be subject to Monday-morning quarterbacking. As always, those circumstances will vary with the level of issues created by the declaration and subsequent actions, such as landing on a taxiway.
Skin, tin, ticket.
I'd be the first to say there are many, many cases in GA where the pilot's failure to declare had a bad outcome. The relatively recent crash of a Cessna (340?) into a parking lot while approaching KSNA comes to mind.
If it's not an emergency it's not an emergency. But there is a long, long history of posts since the early days of AvSIG on CompuServ with pilots telling pilot to avoid declaring an emergency for fear of the FAA smiting them, and worse, other pilots believing it happens all the time. The most similar threads are those telling pilots not to report ice accumulation with the message, better to crash with a load of ice than report the need to get out of it.
I didn't know that!
Nothing says you need to "Declare" in 91.3. To emphasize the need for it, in my opinion, puts an undo pressure on the PIC. My advice is to be in charge and meet the situation as best you can. Argue about what it was later. I'd let ATC know what you're doing, squawk 7700, ask for any help you need, but don't dwell on "declaring". Get er done. If ATC asks, tell 'em call it what you want, but I need to do this (whatever it is) now. You can't train somebody to "declare" when the very utterance of the word is an admission of weakness at a time when they need to be strong. Forget it. Fly the damn plane. Ask for (no, demand) the help you need. If ATC wants to know if you're declaring an emergency, go ahead if that's what they need to hear, but don't put yourself through the mental anguish of deciding whether you need to "declare" or not. In My Opinion.
Horse hockey. Plain and simple. (I said it was a rant topic)
Yes, but you don't have to enunciate the words. And you don't have to squawk 7700 at all if you aren't breaking rules and maybe not even if you're too busy to think of it.
That makes my point. Prior to "declaring", you were fraught with a decision to "declare" or not to, thus the wind change after you did. I'm saying not to stress out over whether to "declare" or not, just notify ATC what you're doing.
That's a huge assumption of what was in his mind, isn't it? Personally, my two emergency declarations were not fraught with anything except how to handle the situation. It wasn't even a "decision" in the sense of any contemplation. Lost power, quick troubleshoot, didn't work, declared. It was almost automatic.
See? They couldn't bring themselves to "declare". It's a psychological thing. Screw it, forget "declaring", just take charge and demand priority. Make ATC say the words if they need to. I never saw so much discussion over a formal verbalization that changes nothing--you're still on fire, losing pressurization or lost 90% of your climb performance, etc. You are dealing with it either way. It seems like your worst fear is you might have to hire a lawyer after the situation is over.
I'm saying you don't NEED the phrase to do the latter. Why erect a hurdle that needs to be jumped in the first place.
No my worst fear is that I won't have ATC understand the seriousness of the situation. It's partly about getting people out of my way and perhaps even not getting some good resource management help. I can guarantee that in my bigger emergency, the consequences if we lived were the very last things on my mind.
I'm saying we need to educate people that there is no hurdle, except for the one you are arguing should be there. You really think someone who is afraid of saying the 'E" word is or even has the ability to take charge?
I suppose a double engine flameout right after takeoff would be pretty obvious, but then you'd be too busy trying to light one off to say the magic words. Almost everything else can be somewhere on a graduated scale from white through gray to black. You're running low on fuel, but you think you know where you are. Emergency? Your door seal is leaking, but hasn't yet dumped the cabin. Emergency? Your captain locked himself in the loo. Emergency? I could go on. In all those situations you can do the same things whether or not you "declare", so why make a big deal out of saying the words.
That's very similar to what happened with my one-and-only total power loss. I tried carb heat, and when that didn't work, I noticed that I was about 1400 AGL on downwind (in a Skycatcher), and that my one-and-only focus from that point on should be to not screw up a perfect forced-landing setup. From that point on, it was an immediate "mayday, mayday, mayday," followed by a brief description of where I was and the nature of the emergency.
Oh, you'll get help alright, "Say souls onboard," and "How many minutes of fuel do have remaining." I think ATC can understand the seriousness if your engine quit, you're low on fuel and lost or there's smoke in the cabin. Punting the problem to them, though, isn't what we should be teaching, we should be teaching how to handle those problems and securing assistance from ATC in the degree we need.
"Afraid"? Not at all. I'm saying, by definition "declaring an emergency" means you have a serious problem. So, now you have to decide when, exactly, you've crossed the Rubicon. My way, you don't have to think about it.
Ok.
The important thing is to assess the seriousness of the situation. THAT's a big deal, and needs to be done whether you declare or not. Once that assessment is done, whether it warrants an emergency declaration has always seemed pretty obvious to me.
The FAA definition of emergency (distress or urgency condition) is pretty broad, so it appears to me that hair-splitting is not needed. My attitude: "Worry less, declare more," but also, "Your mileage may vary."
If you find that declaring causes a net detriment to dealing with the situation, then obviously you should do whatever works best for you. The fact that it doesn't seem to work that way for me doesn't mean that others' experience can't differ from mine.
Absolutely correct. That's not the problem. The potential problem is when ATC doesn't understand an emergency condition exists. Read NTSB reports, especially more recent ones, where ATC re-vectors aircraft reporting "vacuum failure" right back into the clouds after the pilot enters visual conditions, and there is no pilot to interview later.