Emergency Declarartion Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Palmpilot said:
I certainly agree that pilots need to put safety above fear of bureaucratic hassles and possible enforcement action, and declare when needed. However, I think it's important for FSDOs to recognize that pilots are human beings, and that putting pilots and/or owners of private aircraft under a microscope for things as minor as a failed alternator is not wise public policy, because it will tempt some pilots to keep ATC in the dark about problems.
Click to expand...
I agree, and so do the folks at the top in Flight Standards. Any FSDO Inspector "putting pilots and/or owners of private aircraft under a microscope for things as minor as a failed alternator" is not following FAA policy. Of course, the story you hear from the pilot/owner involved may not have a whole lot of commonality with what actually happened, so when you hear someone claiming that happened, make sure you know the facts as well as the story.
 
Here's the reality of how a "PD" ( pilot deviation) works:

For whatever reason the controller files a -17 in ATQA. His facility may have a policy on what to file, but it gets filed.

Now it goes to the FSDO for completion of the form. The FSDO FLM (front line manager) assigns the file to an Inspector.

Now guess the thrill the Inspector gets when these files are dropped on his desk, with a deadline to complete. The Inspector already has a full work program and now he gets to work this, which if it's simple is 2 to 3 hours to complete.

Most Inspectors want this off their desk and complete. As my old supervisor use to say "Don't go kicking that rock to see what's underneath." Get the basic info, complete the form and move on.

Flight Standards was not thrilled when ATC stepped up this program.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

I didn't realize that it was an ATC initiative. :eek:
 
I had a complete engine failure in southern Mississippi in 2004 and didn't declare an emergency. I was at 6,500' on FF and talking with Houston Center. Wiggins (M24 IIRC) was five miles behind me when the engine quit. No problem...plenty of altitude to make it. We glided there and landed. I got a call the next day from an FAA guy. Why he called? I don't know, there wasn't an issue. Why does everything have to be an emergency? I don't understand it.

:rolleyes:

Okay, now for the no BS story...

No, I didn't declare but it's not because there wasn't an emergency but rather that I really didn't think to do so. I really couldn't tell you if the controller asked me "the series of questions" or not (souls on board, fuel on board, etc.) but I don't think she did.

I flew the airplane, went through the checklist and landed. There wasn't a lot of time for "communicate" and it was quite obvious that I was experiencing an emergency so I'm sure the controller declared one for me. She never asked if I wanted to declare...I think she also knew it was obvious that I had one and that I had better things to do with my time.

I did indeed get a call from an FAA guy the next day and it was just a bunch of routine questions. He had come out to the airport that day but we had the plane fixed and were already gone by the time he arrived.

Should I have declared? Certainly! But it didn't make it to the top of my list that day.
 
Flying with a friend, we had a complete glass panel failure along with the autopilot and transponder. We had just popped out of actual, so we ended up not declaring. If it had failed 30 seconds earlier you bet my butt I would have.
 
Upon reading this, it occurred to me that the last two times I changed my intended destination (while using Flight Following) mid-flight, ATC somewhat sternly asked me "Reason for the change?"

At the time, I thought nothing of it, but now I wonder if they were fishing to see if I was having some sort of problem? Why else would they care?
 
Jay Honeck said:
Upon reading this, it occurred to me that the last two times I changed my intended destination (while using Flight Following) mid-flight, ATC somewhat sternly asked me "Reason for the change?"

At the time, I thought nothing of it, but now I wonder if they were fishing to see if I was having some sort of problem? Why else would they care?
Click to expand...

ATC doesn't care about your change of destination while VFR. They don't even care about changing your destination while IFR. The DEN cares though and that's why they're required to report it while on an IFR flight plan. It's not the controllers choice.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Upon reading this, it occurred to me that the last two times I changed my intended destination (while using Flight Following) mid-flight, ATC somewhat sternly asked me "Reason for the change?"

At the time, I thought nothing of it, but now I wonder if they were fishing to see if I was having some sort of problem? Why else would they care?
Click to expand...

That's a new procedure brought to you by 9/11.

BTW, "operational preference" works quite well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Velocity173 said:
ATC doesn't care about your change of destination while VFR. They don't even care about changing your destination while IFR. The DEN cares though and that's why they're required to report it while on an IFR flight plan. It's not the controllers choice.
Click to expand...

What "the DEN"? Google doesn't seem to be helping me here.
 
Last edited:
Jay Honeck said:
Losing an alternator in a GA plane is an "emergency" now? lol

If you're in solid IMC, perhaps -- but that doesn't sound like the case here. (At least, its not mentioned. Anyone know?)
Click to expand...

How about this scenario Jay:

Night flight, sudden smoke in cockpit and literally 10 seconds before total electrical loss. I was like you and thought I'd have 30-45 minutes battery time. My alternator separated front to back (bolt shear), the pulley froze, somewhere in that sequence a large spike occurred blowing out my battery. Not all alternator failures are the benign TU events.

The nice thought is that if things escalate worse and you buy the farm, no one will know of the electrical problem that started the chain of events. Blue/Red boards will pontificate how the pilot was a dummy flying at night resulting in CFIT (change to daytime and call it a stall spin).
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Domestic events network. Security folks.
Click to expand...
IOW, they want to know if the destination change is because you want to, or because the person holding a knife to your throat wants you to. As stated above, this is a post-9/11 thing, and controllers have no choice about whether or not to ask. No doubt the controllers are as thrilled as we pilots are with the requirement. :(
 
JimNtexas said:
I'm probably missing it, but those documents discuss investigation of accidents and pilot deviations. I don't see them as being much on point with respect to use of the E word.

I don't think declaring an emergency equals accident, nor does use of the E word constitute a pilot deviation.
Click to expand...

I've not seen a pilot declaring an emergency come through ATQA yet. However, anytime an emergency is declared, the respective FSDO is notified through the Emergency Operations Network (EON). This system then transmits a Daily Report Application (DRA) to the FSDO. DRAs come across for anything ATC reports through their Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs): Aircraft turnbacks, aborted takeoffs, passenger medical emergencies, pilot or ATC declared emergencies, etc.

We LOVE acronyms at the FAA by the way...

The primary usage of ATQA is for accidents, incidents, or pilot deviations. Normally, an Inspector will make a phone call as a result of a DRA to determine what happened and that's the end of the story. However, you can bet that if the pilot or aircraft listed in the DRA is a "repeat offender", the Inspector will probably become more involved than just a phone call.

Contrary to popular belief, we're not out to get you (although there's always the 10% factor). As was mentioned earlier in this thread, our plates are already too full.
 
Well, I'm a proud member of AAA (Americans Against Acronyms).
 
Captain said:
Well, I'm a proud member of AAA (Americans Against Acronyms).
Click to expand...

They got into a dispute last year with the AAA (Association for Acronym Advancement). It was a BFD and had to be settled PDQ before the ICC got the FTC to issue a C&D.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

kmox29 said:
I've not seen a pilot declaring an emergency come through ATQA yet. However, anytime an emergency is declared, the respective FSDO is notified through the Emergency Operations Network (EON). This system then transmits a Daily Report Application (DRA) to the FSDO. DRAs come across for anything ATC reports through their Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs): Aircraft turnbacks, aborted takeoffs, passenger medical emergencies, pilot or ATC declared emergencies, etc.

We LOVE acronyms at the FAA by the way...

The primary usage of ATQA is for accidents, incidents, or pilot deviations. Normally, an Inspector will make a phone call as a result of a DRA to determine what happened and that's the end of the story. However, you can bet that if the pilot or aircraft listed in the DRA is a "repeat offender", the Inspector will probably become more involved than just a phone call.

Contrary to popular belief, we're not out to get you (although there's always the 10% factor). As was mentioned earlier in this thread, our plates are already too full.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

What do you think about the claim that some FSDOs go overboard in their follow up of emergencies?
 
JeffDG said:
They got into a dispute last year with the AAA (Association for Acronym Advancement). It was a BFD and had to be settled PDQ before the ICC got the FTC to issue a C&D.
Click to expand...


Now, that's funny right there.....:rofl:......:lol:.....:thumbsup:
 
Emergency 1. IFR, Emergency declared, Landing uncontrolled field. FSDO follows up, what happened, what's wrong with plane, requests info on time on airframe and date of last annual. Basic follow up.

Emergency 2. VFR, emergency declared, fire trucks ect at class C airport. No FSDO follow up at all. Surprised not to get a call.

Really guys, the FAA isn't out to get you.
 
Clip4 said:
Emergency 1. IFR, Emergency declared, Landing uncontrolled field. FSDO follows up, what happened, what's wrong with plane, requests info on time on airframe and date of last annual. Basic follow up.

Emergency 2. VFR, emergency declared, fire trucks ect at class C airport. No FSDO follow up at all. Surprised not to get a call.

Really guys, the FAA isn't out to get you.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
kmox29 said:
Emergencies are NOT treated as Pilot Deviations.
Click to expand...
Interesting. And your bona fides would be... ?

And I agree with the other poster, in that R&W's links only give the details of how PDs are handled, NOT whether emergencies are treated as PDs, or under what circumstances in-flight events are considered emergencies.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Flight Standards was not thrilled when ATC stepped up this program.
Click to expand...

It gets incredibly old hearing about all this internal infighting at an organization that ostensibly is all one team. Definitely not interested in paying idiots to sit around and not know how work out how their different departments interact.

I'm still quite ashamed I got convinced FAA needed a permanent budget and not continuing resolutions, and rah-rah'd for it like a dumb schoolgirl cheerleader. What a waste of money on dolts arguing amongst themselves, with no real leadership.

Other than the Chief Counsel, that is. LOL
 
Jay Honeck said:
Upon reading this, it occurred to me that the last two times I changed my intended destination (while using Flight Following) mid-flight, ATC somewhat sternly asked me "Reason for the change?"

At the time, I thought nothing of it, but now I wonder if they were fishing to see if I was having some sort of problem? Why else would they care?
Click to expand...

They've been doing it ever since 9/11, part of the new procedures implemented to protect civilization from a terrorist in a 152. They ask me all the time, I just tell them "need fuel", except one time I diverted to Charleston I told them there was a really good whorehouse I want to visit. That got a chuckle, I'm sure he enjoyed filling that one in on whatever reporting they have to do.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

I wonder what the security folks would do if you said "None of your business."
 
Palmpilot said:
I wonder what the security folks would do if you said "None of your business."
Click to expand...
That's one of those questions I'd put in the "if you can't stand the answer, don't ask the question" category. No doubt some folks here would love the opportunity to go "Earl Weaver" with the various law enforcement or aviation security personnel they might get to meet upon landing, but I'm not one of them.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
It gets incredibly old hearing about all this internal infighting at an organization that ostensibly is all one team.
Click to expand...

I will tell you this in all seriousness: The FAA has pretty much never acted as "one" organization. It's actually better than it used to be.

There's a reason that there are a pile of MOUs within the agency.
 
Henning said:
They've been doing it ever since 9/11, part of the new procedures implemented to protect civilization from a terrorist in a 152. They ask me all the time, I just tell them "need fuel", except one time I diverted to Charleston I told them there was a really good whorehouse I want to visit. That got a chuckle, I'm sure he enjoyed filling that one in on whatever reporting they have to do.
Click to expand...
In both cases we diverted because Mary was in the back seat scrolling through the AOPA directory (in Garmin Pilot), and found something cool to go see.

This last diversion was especially cool. We were on our way back from Marfa, TX, thinking we would stop in Fredericksburg for brunch. We've been fairly unimpressed with the on-field restaurant there (their attitude always seems to be "You're glad we're here" ) so she found "on-field restaurant" listed for Uvalde, TX -- a place we had never visited.

Imagine our surprise to find this fine fellow behind the desk, drinking coffee from one of our mugs!

adajy8y4.jpg


Turned out he was a long-time fan, former guest, and all-around great guy who gave us a tour of the warbirds collection on the field. He also let us use his Jeep to get lunch at the best Mexican restaurant we've found in Texas, yet.

So, when ATC asks "Reason for diversion?" my answer is always the same: "Fud!". :)
 
'Passenger Request' also works very well. Matter of fact, I think anything other than, "because the guy with a gun wants to' would be fine.

I try not to get worked up over it. It's part of security theater and there's nothing I can do about it. As much as I want to say, 'because I want to and didn't know I needed big brothers permission!', I don't. Cooperate and graduate...I'm too small a cog in too big a machine to make a difference.
 
I had no idea when I lost my generator a while back and just turned around and flew back to home field on the mags in VMC that I was supposed to declare an emergency....

I'm glad there was no control tower to declare one for me ..

I think if the FAA wanted to investigate my books on such a minor occasion, I'd have to say the L word first. Government and it's media nowadays have shifted towards 'getting the eye of Mordor on you'. So I don't trust officials officiating their jobs like a wide eyed kid anymore.
 
txflyer said:
I think if the FAA wanted to investigate my books on such a minor occasion, I'd have to say the L word first.
Click to expand...
Which "L word" is that? "Lawyer"? Because if you do, you'd be told by that attorney that the FAA has the absolute legal authority to examine your aircraft logbooks at any time and for any reason, or even just because they feel like it. And yes, this has been well tested all the way to the US Court of Appeals. The only legal protection you have in this area is that they must give you a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable location to produce them if you do not have them with you at the time of the request.
 
Henning said:
They've been doing it ever since 9/11, part of the new procedures implemented to protect civilization from a terrorist in a 152. They ask me all the time, I just tell them "need fuel", except one time I diverted to Charleston I told them there was a really good whorehouse I want to visit. That got a chuckle, I'm sure he enjoyed filling that one in on whatever reporting they have to do.
Click to expand...

It's a conference call with ATC & DEN. DEN decides whether to investigate it or not.

If your VFR they shouldn't be calling at all. It's not required.
 
txflyer said:
I had no idea when I lost my generator a while back and just turned around and flew back to home field on the mags in VMC that I was supposed to declare an emergency....

I'm glad there was no control tower to declare one for me ..

I think if the FAA wanted to investigate my books on such a minor occasion, I'd have to say the L word first. Government and it's media nowadays have shifted towards 'getting the eye of Mordor on you'. So I don't trust officials officiating their jobs like a wide eyed kid anymore.
Click to expand...

You are never 'supposed' to declare an emergency. Again, ask yourself, "Is the safe outcome of this flight in doubt." If the answer is 'no' then carry on.

With that said there are some pilots who think losing an engine inflight doesn't qualify and if you're that guy don't be surprised if a friendly rep from the FAA decides to discuss it with you.
 
Velocity173 said:
It's a conference call with ATC & DEN. DEN decides whether to investigate it or not.



If your VFR they shouldn't be calling at all. It's not required.
Click to expand...


Correct, except that the ATC manager doesn't have a conference call. They just notify the DEN.
 
Re: Emergency Declaration Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

Palmpilot said:
Thanks for posting.

What do you think about the claim that some FSDOs go overboard in their follow up of emergencies?
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

I can't really answer your second question. There are far too many variables in a particular event to make a blanket comment. Also, since "overboard" is subjective, what might seem reasonable for one may seem egregious to another.

For example, ATC sent us a report of a blown tire on a Cessna 310 during landing. We did our customary follow up and discovered that the blown tire was the result of an improperly installed bearing. In that case, the "simple" blown tire turned out be the result and not the root cause.

We were able to help the maintenance facility modify their procedures so the mistake wouldn't be repeated. In this case, it paid to conduct a follow up.
 
azure said:
Interesting. And your bona fides would be... ?

And I agree with the other poster, in that R&W's links only give the details of how PDs are handled, NOT whether emergencies are treated as PDs, or under what circumstances in-flight events are considered emergencies.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again: Emergencies are NOT pilot deviations. They are two very different events.

I'm not sure what you are asking with your question. Please clarify.
 
Henning said:
They've been doing it ever since 9/11, part of the new procedures implemented to protect civilization from a terrorist in a 152. They ask me all the time, I just tell them "need fuel", except one time I diverted to Charleston I told them there was a really good whorehouse I want to visit. That got a chuckle, I'm sure he enjoyed filling that one in on whatever reporting they have to do.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top