Discussions with ATC

[Speed]

Flew into LIT late last night, and ATIS has taxiway J closed, and taxiway F is closed between H to M. Landing on 4L, that leaves exiting the runway at M and taxiing through the cargo ramp as the quickest taxi option.

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20050609/airport_diagrams/00233AD.PDF

My captain and I discuss this a bit, throwing ideas around. For my part, I had been through the cargo ramp during the day only, and there are no center/taxi lines or taxi lights in the area. My captain had seen it once at night, and said it was not well lit and full of trucks and planes. We decided to then to plan on exiting the runway left at M, and wiggle around the taxiways to come back up F and H to parking.

After landing, the controller tells us to exit right on M through the cargo ramp to parking. I quickly tell him we'd prefer not to use the cargo ramp and instead take M left, C, P, F, and H or a backtaxi. He came back with I don't understand, you are saying you can't go through the cargo ramp? Is that a new company policy? I said no, just a preference. He queried again, and I insisted, and he finally agreed to let us backtaxi on the runway and get off at P then F and H to parking. As we are turning, he comes back a bit antagonistic and demands a proper answer as to why we are refusing his cargo ramp option. I just said standby, waited until we cleared the runway, and asked the captain to explain. Captain goes into our pre-landing discussion of our whys', and the controller then said he understood and sounded a tad friendlier, and expressed his opinion that the airport ops were cramping his style by closing J.

So obviously, I would prefer to avoid discussions like this on the runway. One way might have been to bring this up prior to landing, which I did ponder, but he was busy at that point working an emergency at a close by uncontrolled airport that had had an airplane just land and the gear collapse; he was coordinating CFR and trying to find out if the pilot was okay. Didn't think he'd appreciate an interruption at that point; he was also working approach, tower, ground and clearance all at once.

Gave us some amusement for the night, anway.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

All or us have probably had something like this occur. It's great if you can explain to the controller--may have had several folks comply before you (in your well reasoned fashon) didn't.

Had a friend lose an engine on a P-baron; he reported and was near a good emergency field. Just need to circle down and make the single engine approach. The controller wanted circles toward the dead engine; the pilot preferred into the operating engine. There was a little back and forth until the pilot had a chance to explain. It might have worked out either way, but he was ready to declare an emergency if the quick explaination wasn't sufficient for the controller.

Many controllers aren't pilots--as you know. Fumbling through an unlit area without lines with moving ground vehicles around wouldn't be my first choice. Sounds like you made a great decision and made the controller aware it could be a safety issue.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[Richard]

I'd send in an ASRS report. I see a problem with a single controller working all the freqs at a busy aprt (Airnav, 500 ops/day w/ pretty healthy mix of GA, cargo, commuters, mil, etc). Granted, the controller sees the closure of J as a problem, but his perception of that problem is limited because it seems it does not include the flight crew's perspective. Also, he didn't seem inclined to work outside of some method of accommodation he may had already decided. Too, perhaps previous flight crews had gone along with his plan, thereby reinforcing his idea that his plan was a workable plan at all times.

I think you made the right decision in several different ways:

1) you had already formed a plan based on your known information. And you had an alternate plan (back taxi)
2) you waited until you were off the rwy before further discussion.
3) you insisted on your plan for taxi, even when queiried/challenged multiple times.
4) you informed the controller of a potential problem which it sounds like he wasn't aware of.

Good job.

 

[wsuffa]

Had a friend lose an engine on a P-baron; he reported and was near a good emergency field. Just need to circle down and make the single engine approach. The controller wanted circles toward the dead engine; the pilot preferred into the operating engine. There was a little back and forth until the pilot had a chance to explain. It might have worked out either way, but he was ready to declare an emergency if the quick explaination wasn't sufficient for the controller.

Dave,

I think I would already have declared an emergency if I had one engine out.

Why risk it?

bill

 

[Richard]

Dave,

I think I would already have declared an emergency if I had one engine out.

Why risk it?

bill

May I? The concern in this matter can be expressed as a question. Does losing an engine in a light twin constitute an emergency?

Obviously, the answer, nay, the correct answer, depends upon factors and conditions such as pilot proficiency, meteorological conditions, suitable terrain, proximity to suitable aprt, type of wx at the time, and on and on. Losing one while at altitude within glide distance of a suitable aprt in day VMC in the flatlands does not sound like an emergency.

Also, there are other human factors which influence the answer. Not Dave's friend, but all pilots in general; how many of us have decided all the immediate action items in advance? Sure, there is the mantra repeated when launching in a light twin, but how many of us repeat it while in cruise at altitude? Or, what is your min alt which you must attain before you even think about making a 180? But that decision can be influenced or delayed by our conflicting thought of wanting to be a good sport and not clog the system.

I had heard several stories of losing an engine while in flight. One of those stories involved a lot of disbelief which continued a might too far into the situation. I thought, I'll not do that, I'll not let my mind be muddled by disbelief and the indecision which may follow. Yeah, right.

Bottom line, at least for me; even having considered my response before the situation occurs does not necessarily predetermine my reaction when the situation should occur. Heck, I may decide to supercede that pre-decision with a more viable decision. This is not a reflection on anyone but myself. That is, I can easily see several reasons why losing an engine in a light twin would not constitute an emergency.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think I would already have declared an emergency if I had one engine out.

Me, too. I once declared an emergency just because one (of two) nose baggage door latch opened. No way I'm not declaring in an OEI situation.

This kind of exhibits one of the things about declaring an emergency. A lot of folks seem to feel that it's either an admission of failure or an invitation for a lot of FAA hassle, and neither is even remotely true. The FAA Flight Standards folks don't even hear about a declaration of an emergency unless the controller involved files a Pilot Deviation form (which ain't likely unless you really screw up their day over nothing) or there's an accident. Since failing to declare might, as seen in the example, lead to an accident, the declaration is a good way to avoid "imperial entanglements. Unless the FAA specifically asks for it, there's not even a report to be filed by the pilot. So when in doubt, shout it out.

 

[EdFred]

When he first asked why do you not want to go through the cargo ramp why not just say "We dont feel comfortable dodging unlit equipment at night" ? Seems it would have saved a lot of time and antagonism.

 

[wsuffa]

May I?

Bottom line, at least for me; even having considered my response before the situation occurs does not necessarily predetermine my reaction when the situation should occur. Heck, I may decide to supercede that pre-decision with a more viable decision. This is not a reflection on anyone but myself. That is, I can easily see several reasons why losing an engine in a light twin would not constitute an emergency.

Richard,

Choose wisely.

If you have an actual engine outage, there is no harm done in declaring. At the very least, you will be in communication with folks who can help should it be necessary.

Since I primarily fly single-pilot, I'd rather not have to sort through a lot of "do I declare" factors while I'm sorting out the situation and flying the plane. The earlier ATC knows, the better they can work with you. The specific situation Dave described is a perfect example of why.

However, in the end it's your choice. Choose wisely.

 

[bbchien]

If you had gone through the cargo area and hit something, that would have been the end of career. Good discussion.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Can't say why an emergency wasn't declared. In the couple of circumstances I've found myself in where I needed priority handling, Center gave it to me without declaring. Discribed the problem; got what I requested in spades; didn't see any advantage. Sure would have declared it that wasn't the case.

Seemed he had everything under control, field close by, VMC conditions and was just circling down to make the approach. I might have done the same thing and not even have thought of using the emergency word unless I wasn't getting 'xactly what I needed.

Can't see the need to go to DEFCON one if it's not needed, but wouldn't fault anyone that did. The first time a request was declined or not complied with, I wouldn't be bashful Said he did what he'd practiced over and over and did it without a hitch, except when he requested left turns, the controller didn't want to grant those. He was pretty high and almost over his intended landing field. Got all set up, debated just a little and the controller granting his request. He said if the controller wouldn't have; he'd have turned left anyway and declared.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[gismo]

Can't say why an emergency wasn't declared. In the couple of circumstances I've found myself in where I needed priority handling, Center gave it to me without declaring. Discribed the problem; got what I requested in spades; didn't see any advantage. Sure would have declared it that wasn't the case.

Seemed he had everything under control, field close by, VMC conditions and was just circling down to make the approach. I might have done the same thing and not even have thought of using the emergency word unless I wasn't getting 'xactly what I needed.

Can't see the need to go to DEFCON one if it's not needed, but wouldn't fault anyone that did. The first time a request was declined or not complied with, I wouldn't be bashful Said he did what he'd practiced over and over and did it without a hitch, except when he requested left turns, the controller didn't want to grant those. He was pretty high and almost over his intended landing field. Got all set up, debated just a little and the controller granting his request. He said if the controller wouldn't have; he'd have turned left anyway and declared.

I tend to agree with Ron on this one. Declaring brings a lot of options to the table, but doesn't obligate you to use it all. It also gives the controller more options as well. At the very least it should eliminate an argument with ATC about which way to turn during a stressful, high workload situation.

 

[Brian Austin]

Aside from the immediate SAR functions that would be available, what would be the advantage of declaring an emergency if nothing really changes due to those magic words? The airport doesn't get any closer, the engine won't restart, the controller can't give him anything extra since it's just him on the way to an airport and the one conflict (turn direction) was worked out without declaring.

I'm all for declaring an emergency if one is warranted but it's a judgement call. To my inexperienced ears, this doesn't sound like the pilot felt it was an emergency. Isn't it HIS call to make and not anyone else's (except for the controller in some circumstances)?

 

[wsuffa]

Aside from the immediate SAR functions that would be available, what would be the advantage of declaring an emergency if nothing really changes due to those magic words? The airport doesn't get any closer, the engine won't restart, the controller can't give him anything extra since it's just him on the way to an airport and the one conflict (turn direction) was worked out without declaring.

I'm all for declaring an emergency if one is warranted but it's a judgement call. To my inexperienced ears, this doesn't sound like the pilot felt it was an emergency. Isn't it HIS call to make and not anyone else's (except for the controller in some circumstances)?

It's the pilot's call (usually).

SAR functions, alerting the authorities/crash response, clearing other traffic from the area, priority handling, reading approach charts (heard that done), winds and weather... a lot of things that I'd rather not have to look up while I'm dealing with a problem.

 

[Brian Austin]

It's the pilot's call (usually).

SAR functions, alerting the authorities/crash response, clearing other traffic from the area, priority handling, reading approach charts (heard that done), winds and weather... a lot of things that I'd rather not have to look up while I'm dealing with a problem.

I said ASIDE from SAR functions (which I would consider alerting authorities/crash response, too). I'm also referring to this particular incident, not a general ideal.

In this incident, everything else was handled yet some are saying he should have declared an emergency. Again...why?

 

[SkyHog]

Brian, I think a better question is why not?

What would happen if he thought everything was in control, so he didn't declare an emergency. While coming in for a landing, ATC screws up and clears someone to takeoff in front of him and he has to go around. Everything was fine until then. While I have no multiengine experience, I wouldn't want to have to go around and try again with one engine out.

You declare an emegency in case something gets worse and you don't have the option to declare an emergency.

 

[sshekels]

I was always taught that declaring an emergency if you even _think_ you are in trouble was a good plan. There are usually no ramifications (unless used flippantly), and it brings a lot of resources and help/task offloading to the table that a normally busy controller would not consider doing.

Once can always "cancel" it if things appear to be working out ok.

Nick is right, if you wait, it may be too late.

 

[Arnold]

I said ASIDE from SAR functions (which I would consider alerting authorities/crash response, too). I'm also referring to this particular incident, not a general ideal.

In this incident, everything else was handled yet some are saying he should have declared an emergency. Again...why?

Should have/could have/would have

Should have's are not useful as they are a way of placing blame - blame is unhelpful.
Could have's are an analysis and learning tool.
Would have's are an expression of the end product of the analysis.

Perhaps the confusion is this:

SAR - Search and Rescue - The folks who go looking for missing aircraft.
CFR - Crash/Fire/Rescue - the folks who respond to emergencies in progress.

Now to your question - Why should the pilot of a light twin (or any twin) declare an emergency when 1 of the engines is caged? Because the loss of an engine is an emergency, even in an airliner with four engines.

I look at it this way - you have an aircraft which has lost significant - in most cases - performance. Light twins are not required to perform well with one engine inoperative (OEI) and worse yet, not required to have performance charts telling you what your newly degraded performance will be. They generally have two engines because they need two engines. You lose 50% of your power, you lose controllability, especially when you are low and slow, you often lose critical systems - electrical loads need shedding, hydraulics may not be available (Aztecs only have one hydraulic pump), you lose performance - will a missed or go around be possible? Maybe, maybe not and you can bet it won't be easy.

But you say, the controller can do nothing about those things, so why declare an emergency. CRM - cockpit resource management. At this point in the flight your best strategy for survival is to reduce your workload as much as possible, ideally so that you only need to aviate, and let someone else handle navigate, and communicate.

So that is why I would declare an emergency when one quits.

 

[Arnold]

So obviously, I would prefer to avoid discussions like this on the runway. One way might have been to bring this up prior to landing, which I did ponder, but he was busy at that point working an emergency at a close by uncontrolled airport that had had an airplane just land and the gear collapse; he was coordinating CFR and trying to find out if the pilot was okay. Didn't think he'd appreciate an interruption at that point; he was also working approach, tower, ground and clearance all at once.

Gave us some amusement for the night, anway.

I found that it was often enough for the f/o to tell the controller "because the captain said so and its his aircraft" After we were in a position to dicsuss it I would always go back and clean it up with the controller. If we were stopped I would explain it there and then, but the roll out is no time to be having an extended discussion about the pros and cons of any particular taxi route.

Story comes to mind: One night at O'Hare they cleared me down a taxiway opposite direction to a 747 cargo ship being towed (I was in an ATR). I could not get a word in edgewise and I didn't know what that aircraft was up to so I just stopped and waited. It only took about 30 seconds to get the controller's complete and undivided attention. He dealt with the 747 an I did not need to explain the the chief pilot why it was I got stuck nose to nose with a 747 on the taxiway - since there was no incident, there was no chat wit the chief.

You guys made the correct decision. Why anyone in their right mind would taxi through an unlit, unmarked cargo ramp when other alternatives were available is beyond me.

 

[lsimonds]

I'd send in an ASRS report. I see a problem with a single controller working all the freqs at a busy aprt (Airnav, 500 ops/day w/ pretty healthy mix of GA, cargo, commuters, mil, etc). Granted, the controller sees the closure of J as a problem, but his perception of that problem is limited because it seems it does not include the flight crew's perspective. Also, he didn't seem inclined to work outside of some method of accommodation he may had already decided. Too, perhaps previous flight crews had gone along with his plan, thereby reinforcing his idea that his plan was a workable plan at all times.

I think you made the right decision in several different ways:

1) you had already formed a plan based on your known information. And you had an alternate plan (back taxi)
2) you waited until you were off the rwy before further discussion.
3) you insisted on your plan for taxi, even when queiried/challenged multiple times.
4) you informed the controller of a potential problem which it sounds like he wasn't aware of.

Good job.

Amen and amen. The FAA is focused on fostering a Safety culture throughout the ATO. These ASRS reports are in important source of information (leading indicators) of where problems are BEFORE they result in incidents/accidents. Pilot feedback is (really has always been) a huge part of quality control.

 

[gismo]

In this incident, everything else was handled yet some are saying he should have declared an emergency. Again...why?

At the very least because an Aztec on one engine is a very lousy airplane. One leg is going to be cramping from pushing on the rudder, the thing won't be going where it's pointed, turning into the dead engine can be hazardous, and once the gear is down the chances of a successful go-around are dicey at best. Under those circumstances you want all the advantages you can get and declaring definitely provides some. First you are likely to get your own controller as soon as he can dump the rest of his traffic on a sub. Second you won't be getting any arguments about which way to turn or what runway to land on, nor will you be given vectors for the convenience of ATC. Finally as I said in a prior post, once an emergency is delcared ATC is allowed more flexability in dealing with you. Often a controller will declare an emergency for you just for that reason.

IMO the only time you should avoid declaring is when it is simply for your convenience. That could bring on a heap of trouble after it's over.

 

[Brian Austin]

At the very least because an Aztec on one engine is a very lousy airplane. One leg is going to be cramping from pushing on the rudder, the thing won't be going where it's pointed, turning into the dead engine can be hazardous, and once the gear is down the chances of a successful go-around are dicey at best. Under those circumstances you want all the advantages you can get and declaring definitely provides some.

It was a P-Baron, not an Aztec. Does that change things?

IMO the only time you should avoid declaring is when it is simply for your convenience. That could bring on a heap of trouble after it's over.

Who's to say it wasn't for his convenience?

I'm just curious about all of this because we have a thirdhand report of a single engine approach for a twin that the pilot appears to have been comfortable with the situation. Yet everyone is second guessing the situation with no details, no FAA/NTSB report, and no direct evidence of any weather conditions, plane condition, pilot time, or more. Seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking without actually seeing the game. My $.02.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Who's to say it wasn't for his convenience?

I'm just curious about all of this because we have a thirdhand report of a single engine approach for a twin that the pilot appears to have been comfortable with the situation. Yet everyone is second guessing the situation with no details, no FAA/NTSB report, and no direct evidence of any weather conditions, plane condition, pilot time, or more. Seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking without actually seeing the game. My $.02.

Brian, any time something goes wrong with the airplane that the pilot isn't real comfortable with, is grounds for declaring an emergency. He is not required to, but generally speaking, it would probably be a good idea. Convenience had very little, if anything, to do with it. It will all get sorted out after it is over.

I'm not so sure this discussion is about Monday Morning Quarterbacking this particular incident. I think it is more about when to declare an emergency in general.

One man's emergency is another man's inconvenience. I don't think there is a set answer here. What I do know is that I have been in at least 2 declared emergencies and have heard nothing more about it when it was over.

Keep in mind that the controller can also declare an emergency on your behalf if he thinks it is warrented. What I don't know for sure is if he is required to tell you when he does.

 

[poadeleted3]

It was a P-Baron, not an Aztec. Does that change things?


Who's to say it wasn't for his convenience?

I'm just curious about all of this because we have a thirdhand report of a single engine approach for a twin that the pilot appears to have been comfortable with the situation. Yet everyone is second guessing the situation with no details, no FAA/NTSB report, and no direct evidence of any weather conditions, plane condition, pilot time, or more. Seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking without actually seeing the game. My $.02.

There is nothing wrong with the "Monday morning quarter backing" that I can see. The pilot isn't being vilified. Instead, their predicament has generated most useful discussion of various options and various ways of handling emergencies. These are things that simply MUST be thought through ahead of time. It's part of training, and your mind and body will react in an emergency as you've trained them to. These after action critiques are good exercises for everybody, including the pilots involved.

 

[sere]

It was a P-Baron, not an Aztec. Does that change things?


Who's to say it wasn't for his convenience?

I'm just curious about all of this because we have a thirdhand report of a single engine approach for a twin that the pilot appears to have been comfortable with the situation. Yet everyone is second guessing the situation with no details, no FAA/NTSB report, and no direct evidence of any weather conditions, plane condition, pilot time, or more. Seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking without actually seeing the game. My $.02.

Is there a difference between a P-Baron and an Aztec. Yes, but it still is not a good aircraft with an engine out. And if it is the left you then it is very bad. And just for my 2 cents worth I declared an emergency for having a single engine aircraft go from full power on takeoff climb down to 1800 RPM. I was departing on a 45 degree heading as directed by the tower when I reached 800 AGL is when it happened. Went trough emergency procedures no change then declared an emergency. ATC cleared me to do anything I need at that time. Came around and landed on the diagonal runway at max crosswind conponit. Could of come all the way around for an landing into the wind but choose not to pass up a great bid runway in the hopes to get to the best one. Landing was exciting to say the least but airplane and pilot lived to fly another day. Reason for loss of power was two spark plug lead came into contact with manifold and burned through thus started shorting out.

Bottom line is in a single or a twin I will always declare and emergency when I have engine problems/loose or flight control problems. That is my pre-determined plan. And I agree that it is better to declare and explain later than wish you had later on.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm with Lance. After more than 1500 hours in light twins, including a good bit of ME instructing, there is no question that OEI in a light twin is an automatic declaration of an emergency because in that situation, I want to be #1 on ATC's priority list even if all I want is an altimeter setting. The Air Force standard was any time you referred to an emergency procedure in the pocket checklist, you declared, and I think that's a good policy.

The only exception was in Europe, where "PAN" is used routinely to announce a serious problem but not imminent crash/ejection. Thus, an engine fire or dual engine failure (we only had two in the 'Vark) was a "MAYDAY" but a single hydraulic failure or an oil pressure loss on one engine was a "PAN" -- we didn't use the term "declaring an emergency" at all as that's not in the international lexicon of non-EFL speakers. Here in the USA, folks don't use "PAN" hardly at all, and you can't count on the controller really understanding what it means.

 

[Speed]

I found that it was often enough for the f/o to tell the controller "because the captain said so and its his aircraft" After we were in a position to dicsuss it I would always go back and clean it up with the controller. If we were stopped I would explain it there and then, but the roll out is no time to be having an extended discussion about the pros and cons of any particular taxi route.

Story comes to mind: One night at O'Hare they cleared me down a taxiway opposite direction to a 747 cargo ship being towed (I was in an ATR). I could not get a word in edgewise and I didn't know what that aircraft was up to so I just stopped and waited. It only took about 30 seconds to get the controller's complete and undivided attention. He dealt with the 747 an I did not need to explain the the chief pilot why it was I got stuck nose to nose with a 747 on the taxiway - since there was no incident, there was no chat wit the chief.

You guys made the correct decision. Why anyone in their right mind would taxi through an unlit, unmarked cargo ramp when other alternatives were available is beyond me.

that's one way to get their attention! I've found they don't like you stopping on the taxiways... Did that once myself, when we decided we wanted to go back to the gate and couldn't get a break on the freq to talk. Not 5 seconds after we stopped he was asking us what the @#$! were we doing.

I had thought about saying "the captain told me so" but wasn't sure if that would get my captain mad at me... Thanks for the ideas, and I'll be filling in an ASRS form when I get home.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

But you say, the controller can do nothing about those things, so why declare an emergency. CRM - cockpit resource management. At this point in the flight your best strategy for survival is to reduce your workload as much as possible, ideally so that you only need to aviate, and let someone else handle navigate, and communicate.

So that is why I would declare an emergency when one quits.

Arnold summed it up perfectly. Unless you've done it once, you have no idea how much workload ATC can pick up--truly amazing to experience.

Flying south through the central valley of California one IFR/IMC day I had an AirLifeLine patient start hemorrhaging in the back seat. I declared an emergency and requested immediate landing at Bakersfield with an ambulance on the ramp. ATC told me they were landing on the ILS from the south (I was north), which runway & approach did I want.

I get a choice?

After opting to land from the north ATC asked if I had the approach chart. "In the aircraft, but not out at this time." ATC replied, "Turn left heading xxx, maintain x thousand. The LOC BC 36 frequency is xxx.xx, final course is xxx, FAF altitude is x,xxx. Let me know when you have the plate."

You folks are allowed to read me this stuff?

ATC then canceled approach clearance for the United commuter already established on the ILS from the south and issued the United flight some holding instructions. When I told them I'd get to the runway long after the United flight, the controller replied, "My luck he closes the runway. I prefer one emergency at a time."

Take the help, it really does ease the load.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

This is all very interesting.

Actually, in the circumstances I faced in my singe (alternator loss IMC and gear failing to lock down) it never occurred to me to declare and emergency because I actually was being bothered by Center repeatedly asking me if I needed more help and vectoring me direct when I didn't really need it (after informing them of the problem.) In the case of the gear problem, I had plenty of fuel and wanted to trouble shoot the problem; center was trying to immediately vector me to an airport. With the alternator, I had plenty of time on the battery, caught it quickly and turned almost everything electrical off. Had a hand held radio that worked fine and a back up GPS. I did want priority but didn't see the need to clear everyone else in the area out. (IMC wasn't low ceilings below).

I agree, losing an engine in a P-Baron takes away capacity, but with one person and less than 1/2 tank of fuel, it wasn't an issue to come down and land. However, problems don't usually come alone. If one lost an engine, what's next? He may have just gotten very busy, and if everything was going fine, not thought of actually declaring. As I said before, I wouldn't take issue with anyone that did.

Sitting here now, I would agree with Lance and Ron and would agree to declare. However, if actually dealing with the situation, I don't know that I'd think of formally declaring an emergency unless I wasn't getting what I needed immediately; then, it would probably occur to me that Center didn't understand the urgency of my situation. In the instant case, he did tell Center he'd lost an engine and needed to land immediately.

Don't agree that everything on the emergency checklist in a Bonanza is an emergency that should be declared. The landing gear is a good example. When it occurred, I had plenty of fuel, VMC and I was near a very large airport. Eventually, it certainly could have escalated to that level if I wouldn't have solved the problem. Unlatched door in flight is another. I've made normal landing several times in one plane for this. Other item on the Bo emergency checklist; I agree, declare and get down.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

It was a P-Baron, not an Aztec. Does that change things?

Not really. Up high (above about 6000 MSL) the P-Baron could maintain altitude on one when a non-turbo Aztec (some have turbos) couldn't but that's about it. Either one is a handful on one especially at pattern speeds. You wouldn't believe how many enroute engine failures in light twins end up pranged at the airport because pilots don't respect that.

Who's to say it wasn't for his convenience?

Convenience would be declaring when you need to empty your bladder, because you might be late for an appointment, or you're just in a hurry. An engine failure is way, way beyond that. Would you consider it a "convenience" if you lost an engine in a single but happened to be within gliding range of an airport? Losing one in a twin under the right circumstances isn't quite as dire, but it's close enough that no ATC type in his right mind would question the need.

I'm just curious about all of this because we have a thirdhand report of a single engine approach for a twin that the pilot appears to have been comfortable with the situation. Yet everyone is second guessing the situation with no details, no FAA/NTSB report, and no direct evidence of any weather conditions, plane condition, pilot time, or more. Seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking without actually seeing the game. My $.02.

The only specific information I have about the incident that causes me to say declaring would have been a good idea is the fact that there was a "discussion" about which way to turn. The pilot obviously was uncomfortable turning into the dead engine (this can be done safely but it's easy to screw up) yet the controller didn't appreciate the problem with such a turn. Had that pilot declared, not only would the question never gone beyond a "I don't want any right turns" from the pilot, but the controller probably wouldn't have been making plans based on the assumtion that he could send the twin wherever it suited him.

Then again, as you say, we weren't there so I can't really chastize the pilot for not declaring, rather I'm trying to advance the idea that declaring in such a situation is good for all concerned.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The only specific information I have about the incident that causes me to say declaring would have been a good idea is the fact that there was a "discussion" about which way to turn. The pilot obviously was uncomfortable turning into the dead engine (this can be done safely but it's easy to screw up) yet the controller didn't appreciate the problem with such a turn. Had that pilot declared, not only would the question never gone beyond a "I don't want any right turns" from the pilot, but the controller probably wouldn't have been making plans based on the assumption that he could send the twin wherever it suited him.

=======================================================

Lance:
Certainly not disagreeing with you, but this pilot seems to have a lot of discussions You would probably consider him a little argumentative and doesn't always do things in the easiest way -- if you get my drift.
I'm with you, as soon as the controller said right turns; I stated I needed left and he said he couldn't do it, I'd dial 911. This pilot is of Sicilian ancestory and what you might called a full fledged confrontation, he might see as normal familiar conversation

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS

 

[Richard]

Dave, now we know how you got your surname.

 

[Anthony]

This pilot is of Sicilian ancestory and what you might called a full fledged confrontation, he might see as normal familiar conversation

Sir are you implying Italians are argumentative and/or confrontational? Not only do I totally disagree, I'd be willing to confront you on that one.

Oh, you said Sicilians? Never mind.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Sir are you implying Italians are argumentative and/or confrontational? Not only do I totally disagree, I'd be willing to confront you on that one.

Oh, you said Sicilians? Never mind.

===============================================

uh awww, what kind of a can of pasta have I opened up here B)

Was just pointing out that what one person may see as Center being upcooperative might not seem like that big a deal to another circling down from FL180 to a field at 600 feet MSL.

Actually Anthony, my uncle John never lost an argument. He just kept raising his voice and talking until everyone else gave up. There was no such thing as a two way conversation in his household; wonderful man if you agreed with everything he said. Not much fun to be around if you didn't. Wasn't a master of grasping facts.

Will never forget the time I came home from the service after many years driving a 1984 BMW. Got a whole tiraid of remarks about how terrible Brittish cars were and how I should buy American. I asked why he thought my car was Brittish; he spit back BMW---Brittish Motor Works!!! No matter what I said, I was drivin a Brittish car. Even tried to show him the owner's manual--wouldn't look. Wonderful man, bless his soul. Perotta was his last name.

As a matter of fact, there were many debates in my family amoungt uncles at Christmas and family get togethers. Don't recall much in the way of facts being stated.

Best,

Dave
Baron 322KS