Why would a CFI not declare in this situation?

WannFly

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name
Display name:
Priyo
Intro flight for the student, wind screen getting covered in oil, CFI didnt declare. start at 25:42
27:33 when the CFI first notices, i think it started before that, hard to see with the sun


Why on earth would you do something like that? what messege is being sent to the student (who i hope continued to become a pilot, donno).
 
That is nuts I would have declared as soon as I realized the oil on the window. I want to be on the ground before I can't see anymore.

I almost wonder since he mentioned the oil cap if he thought that was the issue and didn't want to go through the hassle of declaring over that but still.
 
"You're a little nervous" I probably would be too if on an intro flight the instructor can't see out.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
DFH65 said:
That is nuts I would have declared as soon as I realized the oil on the window. I want to be on the ground before I can't see anymore.

I almost wonder since he mentioned the oil cap if he thought that was the issue and didn't want to go through the hassle of declaring over that but still.
Click to expand...

Probably oil cap, donno, which means he didn’t verify if the student actually put it in right. Either ways number 2 for landing in that situation is just and dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A little bit of oil goes a long way and there is substantial reserve in the sump. When I was in a similar situation I just told the tower I had oil on the windscreen and was going to be downwind for landing. The tower did ask if I needed priority.

Pretty bad that tower made them wait for CFR to show up before going to parking.
 
I wouldn’t have declared an emergency, but I would have confessed the reason for the return.
 
Ok but why not declare? U get priority handling and all attention from ATC. At that point in flight you don’t know how much oil is in the sump, how much is outside and what else is happening under the cowling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
Probably oil cap, donno, which means he didn’t verify if the student actually put it in right. Either ways number 2 for landing in that situation is just and dumb
Click to expand...

In the YouTube comments he indicated that the front main seal "Cracked and broke off". His screen name is "CaptainDoron". I think CaptainMoron would be more appropriate. Here's one of his replies (I guess he yells a lot):

PIC IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR THE FLIGHT...DECISIONS ARE MADE AS FOLLOWS...AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE...FLY THE AIRCRAFT...NAVIGATE TO THE AIRPORT...WHEN THE TOWER CLEARED US TO LAND....IT WAS LIKE ANY OTHER LANDING...SO PRESSURE WAS OFF....AFTER WATCHING THE TAPE FOR SO MANY TIMES....NO ONE WAS HURT AND NO DAMAGE WAS MADE....SO THE EMERGENCY CALL WAS NOT NECESSARY...THANKS AGAIN....AND FLY SAFE...
 
WannFly said:
Ok but why not declare? U get priority handling and all attention from ATC. At that point in flight you don’t know how much oil is in the sump, how much is outside and what else is happening under the cowling.
Click to expand...

In my case I intended to fly the downwind and land. No priority needed. If it turned into a glider plenty of fields to land in. As for knowing how much oil was in the sump, in my case I was 99% certain of the cause and that oil supply was not a problem and there lots of other indications of what is happening under the cowl. If all the CHTs, EGTs, and TIT are green then the engine is fine.

Now if ya hear a 'bang' and get oil on the windscreen then it's time to declare...
 
We can argue all day whether declaring was "necessary," but IMO that is all subject to the result. Don't declare and successful or a smoking hole ATC couldn't help with, ok, I guess you didn't need to declare. Don't declare and unsuccessful in a way that declaring would have helped, bad decision. Strictly 20/20 hindsight based on a crystal ball or ego-driven prediction of success.

OTOH, there's no good reason not to declare.
 
I think this is bad ADM and missing a good teaching moment got student. This was an emergency. Period. Maybe it was oil cap maybe it wasn't. PIC didn't know. The only responsible action in my mind would have been to inform tower of problem. Whether you use the word emergency, mayday or plain English to let them know the problem, it doesn't matter. You need to go straight to runway with no delay. You MUST communicate this to tower.

Give me one good reason not to declare (prospectively, not retrospectively). Just because it worked out okay, does not mean you did the right thing. I've done a lot of boneheaded things that it worked out just fine.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
donjohnston said:
In the YouTube comments he indicated that the front main seal "Cracked and broke off". His screen name is "CaptainDoron". I think CaptainMoron would be more appropriate. Here's one of his replies (I guess he yells a lot):

PIC IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR THE FLIGHT...DECISIONS ARE MADE AS FOLLOWS...AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE...FLY THE AIRCRAFT...NAVIGATE TO THE AIRPORT...WHEN THE TOWER CLEARED US TO LAND....IT WAS LIKE ANY OTHER LANDING...SO PRESSURE WAS OFF....AFTER WATCHING THE TAPE FOR SO MANY TIMES....NO ONE WAS HURT AND NO DAMAGE WAS MADE....SO THE EMERGENCY CALL WAS NOT NECESSARY...THANKS AGAIN....AND FLY SAFE...
Click to expand...

Yah moron is the right name for him. No was hurt, good, but at that time you didn’t know that. I hope the student found a new CFI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Clark1961 said:
In my case I intended to fly the downwind and land. No priority needed. If it turned into a glider plenty of fields to land in. As for knowing how much oil was in the sump, in my case I was 99% certain of the cause and that oil supply was not a problem and there lots of other indications of what is happening under the cowl. If all the CHTs, EGTs, and TIT are green then the engine is fine.

Now if ya hear a 'bang' and get oil on the windscreen then it's time to declare...
Click to expand...

I guess in your case, but if we’re number 2 to land, would u stick to not declaring?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midlifeflyer said:
We can argue all day whether declaring was "necessary," but IMO that is all subject to the result. Don't declare and successful or a smoking hole ATC couldn't help with, ok, I guess you didn't need to declare. Don't declare and unsuccessful in a way that declaring would have helped, bad decision. Strictly 20/20 hindsight based on a crystal ball or ego-driven prediction of success.

OTOH, there's no good reason not to declare.
Click to expand...

The reason to not declare if you don't need priority is to avoid a conflict with someone who truly needs priority. Single with oil on the windscreen or a light twin on approach with OEI at a Denver airport. What's the call? Whoever got in a bind first?
 
I think we could legitimately argue about whether an expeditious downwind landing would have been prudent with a 5, 10 or 15kt tailwind . I don't think there's any question that the pilot should have informed tower of his situation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
I guess in your case, but if we’re number 2 to land, would u stick to not declaring?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I was happy as long as the oil pressure gauge was steady. If it had wavered I would have declared with words like "landing now". At an uncontrolled field after a mag failure I said "emergency inbound, get out of my way, mag failure"
 
Seems like an excellent time for Pan, Pan, Pan to me if it’s an oil cap.

Clark1961 said:
Pretty bad that tower made them wait for CFR to show up before going to parking.
Click to expand...

Anytime the Alert button is hit at KAPA, Airport Ops is mandated to get some info on the pilot, aircraft, and document it.

They’ll typically ask you to stop somewhere just east of Alpha and talk to the nice Ops folks in their Suburban and the CFR trucks will usually be there also.

Then you can crank back up and go wherever you like.

Ops truck will often follow you to parking afterward also.

It’s done there because the ramp is uncontrolled and they can’t even see most of the Area Hotel or Alpha North ramp areas from the Tower. Blocked by buildings.

They want you stopped somewhere you’re in sight and usually away from other aircraft so all the ground vehicles can gather ‘round like hungry animals. Ha.
 
Joegoersch said:
I think we could legitimately argue about whether an expeditious downwind landing would have been prudent with a 5, 10 or 15kt tailwind . I don't think there's any question that the pilot should have informed tower of his situation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Fer sure he should have said oil on the windscreen if for no other reason than vision was impaired.
 
Clark1961 said:
The reason to not declare if you don't need priority is to avoid a conflict with someone who truly needs priority. Single with oil on the windscreen or a light twin on approach with OEI at a Denver airport. What's the call? Whoever got in a bind first?
Click to expand...
Except that this never happens. If someone else declared an emergency you'd hear him on the radio and you can make a judgement. I've never even heard of a situation where two people have declared an emergency at the same time. Sure it's possible, and maybe it's happened but I wouldn't make a decision based on a one-in-a-million event. Not when I had oil on my windscreen. I'm not a mechanic, but I believe most piston engines don't work very well with no oil.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Clark1961 said:
...or a light twin on approach with OEI at a Denver airport.
Click to expand...

Oh so you did remember my Commerical ME ride story! LOL. (We were about to declare when we got the stupid engine restarted. Ha. I ran into some folks who shared that one of the local DPEs is mildly amused that one other twin based at KAPA has a right engine that never wants to start and they’ve had numerous candidates declare and land in that one, too... left engine apparently works better so guess which one that DPE likes to kill?)

But of course at most Denver airports two isn’t a problem...It’s three that gets tricky.

If the wind is calm KAPA can handle three, KFTG two, and depending on your answer to the LAHSO question if you’re number three, KBJC three, or two without.

Hahaha. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Seems like an excellent time for Pan, Pan, Pan to me if it’s an oil cap.



Anytime the Alert button is hit at KAPA, Airport Ops is mandated to get some info on the pilot, aircraft, and document it.

They’ll typically ask you to stop somewhere just east of Alpha and talk to the nice Ops folks in their Suburban and the CFR trucks will usually be there also.

Then you can crank back up and go wherever you like.

Ops truck will often follow you to parking afterward also.

It’s done there because the ramp is uncontrolled and they can’t even see most of the Area Hotel or Alpha North ramp areas from the Tower. Blocked by buildings.

They want you stopped somewhere you’re in sight and usually away from other aircraft so all the ground vehicles can gather ‘round like hungry animals. Ha.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have a problem once clear of the movement area. In the vid the Tower held the aircraft in the movement area.
 
Clark1961 said:
The reason to not declare if you don't need priority is to avoid a conflict with someone who truly needs priority. Single with oil on the windscreen or a light twin on approach with OEI at a Denver airport. What's the call? Whoever got in a bind first?
Click to expand...
Sounds imaginary to me. Any real world examples? Is this common enough to be an issue? Or is it a bit of tin foil?
 
denverpilot said:
Oh so you did remember my Commerical ME ride story! LOL. (We were about to declare when we got the stupid engine restarted. Ha. I ran into some folks who shared that one of the local DPEs is mildly amused that one other twin based at KAPA has a right engine that never wants to start and they’ve had numerous candidates declare and land in that one, too... left engine apparently works better so guess which one that DPE likes to kill?)

But of course at most Denver airports two isn’t a problem...It’s three that gets tricky.

If the wind is calm KAPA can handle three, KFTG two, and depending on your answer to the LAHSO question if you’re number three, KBJC three, or two without.

Hahaha. :)
Click to expand...
There's more than just your story. As you mention, getting one restarted around here isn't a given. Western Air had a Seminole that absolutely didn't like airstarts and 'driftdown' was more like land immediately.
 
Joegoersch said:
Except that this never happens. If someone else declared an emergency you'd hear him on the radio and you can make a judgement. I've never even heard of a situation where two people have declared an emergency at the same time. Sure it's possible, and maybe it's happened but I wouldn't make a decision based on a one-in-a-million event. Not when I had oil on my windscreen. I'm not a mechanic, but I believe most piston engines don't work very well with no oil.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When I was an Air Force controller I had something like 6-8 emergency fighters within minutes, hung ordnance to hot brakes. It was a very unusual situation and we didn't even have enough emergency vehicles to work them all. But it all turned out well.
 
Would someone elaborate on the FAA ramifications of actually declaring an emergency - maybe use this case as an example if possible.

Would the CFI be looking at some type of enforcement action if it was ruled to be his fault? Does the plane become grounded and a nightmare to move and fly again? Does a NASA report help in this case? Is the aversion to declare based on some older tactics no longer used by the FAA? If declaring had no ramifications, why wouldnt a CFI of all people declare first and ask questions later. Stigma? Hmm?

Between the possibility of a totally obscured forward view and fire...you'd think you'd want helpful resources as close as possible in case the landing goes south or fire starts while trying to get out.
 
Clark1961 said:
I wouldn't have a problem once clear of the movement area. In the vid the Tower held the aircraft in the movement area.
Click to expand...

Ahh yeah, that’s kinda silly. I couldn’t watch it yet.

I was just sharing what the Ops folks tell me.

They’ve had emergencies that turned out okay ignore the Ground controller to stop and just wander on past the fire trucks and have to go chase them to parking before. Ha.

They suspect someone was flying who wasn’t legal to do so, but for their report they don’t care. They’re not FAA and the info is just for their purposes. They’re just getting a name and a tail number for their Ops reports. As far as anyone can tell that info doesn’t go to any FAA Inspectors.

Of course for most of us it doesn’t matter, we’re legal. But I bet it makes a handful really nervous when they have to declare for something wrong with their unmaintained bucket of bolts and they think The Man is coming to check their cert, medical, and all of that stuff post-flight.

So then they don’t declare and things go even more sideways... sigh.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sounds imaginary to me. Any real world examples? Is this common enough to be an issue? Or is it a bit of tin foil?
Click to expand...
Are you really asking if there have ever been two emergencies at the same time at one airport? Certainly not common. Tin foil? no, not a chance. If I require priority I'll tell ATC what I'm doing. If things are operating okay but I have an unusual concern then I'll communicate that and take my turn. I understand that my perspective is a little different. I've dealt with jobsite problems and emergencies since I was a young adult. Keeping things in perspective and prioritizing are useful skills.
 
Sinistar said:
Would the CFI be looking at some type of enforcement action if it was ruled to be his fault? Does the plane become grounded and a nightmare to move and fly again? Does a NASA report help in this case? Is the aversion to declare based on some older tactics no longer used by the FAA? If declaring had no ramifications, why wouldnt a CFI of all people declare first and ask questions later. Stigma? Hmm?
Click to expand...

Answering your questions IMHO...

Typically not in cases where no property damage or injuries/deaths have occurred.

No. Unless the next pilot deems it unairworthy.

Unknown but filing one against yourself if you did something stupid is usually a good idea. It’s not a 100% get out of jail free card for reckless or careless behavior though.

Never in over 20 years have I seen FAA have heavy handed tactics about emergencies unless something terribly egregious was done by the pilot or they’ve had a history of other repetitive problems.

People have dumb ideas about why not to declare, mostly. They think things are going to happen that aren’t, for the most part. That it carries over into the CFI ranks is sad but it does.

Don’t think it’s about stigma or any perception problem.

Hmm.

:)
 
I just watched the video & honestly it seemed like the fellow handled things pretty well. I think there is a natural tendency not to declare as that involves admitting something to yourself. But the amount of oil on the screen does not seem to be very much, I remember landing one time with the entire screen frozen with zero vis forward. Landing like Charles Lindbergh, with a little pop out window on the left. The main take-away I got from this video is whatever you do, do not make videos of yourself flying and post them. Or you will be second guessed ad infitum.
 
Clark1961 said:
There's more than just your story. As you mention, getting one restarted around here isn't a given. Western Air had a Seminole that absolutely didn't like airstarts and 'driftdown' was more like land immediately.
Click to expand...

Seems like a common tale due to our altitude. Full rich isn’t always the best restart position for the mixture either, apparently.

All the DPEs ask the CFIs what the restart tricks are for each airplane before they fly with candidates, I’ve noticed. LOL. Or ask again, as the case may be. They forget if they haven’t done one in a particular club airplane for a while.
 
hankrausch said:
I just watched the video & honestly it seemed like the fellow handled things pretty well. I think there is a natural tendency not to declare as that involves admitting something to yourself. But the amount of oil on the screen does not seem to be very much, I remember landing one time with the entire screen frozen with zero vis forward. Landing like Charles Lindbergh, with a little pop out window on the left. The main take-away I got from this video is whatever you do, do not make videos of yourself flying and post them. Or you will be second guessed ad infitum.
Click to expand...
and how would the pilot know how much oil was coming out below the plane?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Sinistar said:
Would someone elaborate on the FAA ramifications of actually declaring an emergency - maybe use this case as an example if possible.

Would the CFI be looking at some type of enforcement action if it was ruled to be his fault? Does the plane become grounded and a nightmare to move and fly again? Does a NASA report help in this case? Is the aversion to declare based on some older tactics no longer used by the FAA? If declaring had no ramifications, why wouldnt a CFI of all people declare first and ask questions later. Stigma? Hmm?

Between the possibility of a totally obscured forward view and fire...you'd think you'd want helpful resources as close as possible in case the landing goes south or fire starts while trying to get out.
Click to expand...
FAA ramifications? None for the most part. They want a phone call once you're on the ground if at a non-towered field. They are just making certain you landed safely and don't need to be looking for a smoking hole somewhere. The plane may be grounded but that's for mechanical reasons, not regulatory (well directly anyway). No nightmare, get if fixed and move on.

IMNSOHO the CFI should have informed the tower of the problem. If the CFI didn't feel it's an emergency at least the tower would know that visibility was impaired and engine operation might become a problem. ATC can declare for you if it helps them manage the situation or they think it somehow helps. Mostly ATC can't do much for you but roll the trucks and maybe get traffic out of the way.
 
hankrausch said:
I just watched the video & honestly it seemed like the fellow handled things pretty well. I think there is a natural tendency not to declare as that involves admitting something to yourself. But the amount of oil on the screen does not seem to be very much, I remember landing one time with the entire screen frozen with zero vis forward. Landing like Charles Lindbergh, with a little pop out window on the left. The main take-away I got from this video is whatever you do, do not make videos of yourself flying and post them. Or you will be second guessed ad infitum.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Unfortunately.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I love the concept:

Don't declare. After all, someone else might be having a more important issue than you and how would ATC ever cope with that?
Click to expand...
It wasn't expressed that simply Mark but thanks for the comment taking it to that level. I wish the world was binary and all decisions were that simple.
 
Is it just me or is the engine running roughly? It doesn't sound right to me and there seems to be a lot of vibration. Also, when they start the engine and he notes the oil pressure is "coming up slowly" - is that normal for a plane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top