Would you declare an emergency?

Henning said:
About $500,000 on average by wrongful death suit payouts and term life insurance policies bought.
Click to expand...
About right--probably higher for a highly trained military pilot--but certainly lower than the aircraft.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Nice to see such high regard for another human.
Click to expand...
The military figures stuff like that into their procurement decisions. One of the factors in a fighter procurement choice some years back was the cost of the extra lives lost (right down to GI life insurance and survivor benefit payments) in in dogfights in the less capable aircraft against the extra cost of the more capable aircraft that would keep more pilots from getting killed.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
It's truly sad when a piece of machinery, which is replaceable, is held in higher regard than a human life, which is not replaceable.
Click to expand...

True, but a reality of our times. Not everyone will agree that a human life is irreplaceable either. New ones are being produced at a prodigious rate, and there are many who will say that we have too many already, and that overpopulation is a good part of the reason that we need these weapons anyway, so the weapons value is in destroying lives, which is what it was designed for anyway, so it's value is inherently and by design greater than that of a life.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
It's truly sad when a piece of machinery, which is replaceable, is held in higher regard than a human life, which is not replaceable.
Click to expand...

To quote Bill Cosby's Dad:

"I brought you into this world, junior, and I'll take you out too, then make another one looks just like you!"

To any society, people are an expendable resource. If we decide that the life of an individual is of infinite value, we'd never do anything.
 
TMetzinger said:
To any society, people are an expendable resource. If we decide that the life of an individual is of infinite value, we'd never do anything.
Click to expand...

OK, so when you are teaching your students the advise you give them is to do everything possible to save the airplane in an emergency?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
OK, so when you are teaching your students the advise you give them is to do everything possible to save the airplane in an emergency?
Click to expand...

I recommend:
Save the people on the ground first
Save the people in the plane second
Save the property on the ground third
Save the airplane last.

The point I was making (which you missed) is that every society undertakes activities which tend to improve the lot of the society as a whole, even though it increases the risk for some individuals in that society. Building anything large or complex usually kills or injures someone. Vaccines can kill a small number of people while the vast majority get immunized.
 
TMetzinger said:
I recommend:
Save the people on the ground first
Save the people in the plane second
Save the property on the ground third
Save the airplane last.
.
Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing aircraft and whether to save the airframe or the pilot flying it?

Sorry Tim, I didn't miss anything. It's obvious you have 2 sets of standards.:rolleyes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Mayday is OK if you're broadcasting in the blind, but the use of that word while in contact with ATC is not really necessary, just inform the controller you are declaring an emergency and the nature of the problem.

From the AIM:

6-3-1. Distress and Urgency Communications ​
a. A pilot who encounters a distress or urgency condition can obtain assistance simply by contacting the air traffic facility or other agency in whose area of responsibility the aircraft is operating, stating the nature of the difficulty, pilot's intentions and assistance desired. Distress and urgency communications procedures are prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), however, and have decided advantages over the informal procedure described above.
b. Distress and urgency communications procedures discussed in the following paragraphs relate to the use of air ground voice communications.
c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.

While in contact with ATC, as the described situation that started this thread "Mayday" is not necessarily needed in the call up.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you've misread the language there - I've tried to clear it up with emphasis above. The initial communication should be mayday. If necessary, any subsequent transmissions should also begin with mayday.

It's really pretty clear - the use of the word "and" in the second clause refers to "any subsequent transmissions".

You've just misread it, is all. So, according to the AIM, an aircraft in distress SHOULD BEGIN initial communications with the use of "MAYDAY".
(capitals showing emphasis, not shouting, thankyouverymuch :))
 
etsisk said:
Sorry, but you've misread the language there - I've tried to clear it up with emphasis above. The initial communication should be mayday. If necessary, any subsequent transmissions should also begin with mayday.

It's really pretty clear - the use of the word "and" in the second clause refers to "any subsequent transmissions".

You've just misread it, is all. So, according to the AIM, an aircraft in distress SHOULD BEGIN initial communications with the use of "MAYDAY".
(capitals showing emphasis, not shouting, thankyouverymuch :))
Click to expand...

I'm on your side on this but IMO the confusion is about whether the "initial" refers to the first communication with ATC of the flight, or the first callup when the emergency condition exists. My vote is for the latter but the way it's worded one could take it either way.

One thing I'm dead certain of is that if you have a bona fide emergency of any sort, no one in ATC will get their panties in a wad if you utter MAYDAY on the air.
 
Funny thing about this thread are the contradictions. My point from the beginning has been to calmly fly the airplane and deal with the emergency, but foremost fly the airplane.

Then we have an interpretation of the AIM. In this thread it's an absolute interpretation, where over in another thread I'm told that while the AIM recommends something I don't necessarily have to do it.

One thing I've noticed in today's world of flight instruction is the lack of preparing a student to deal with real time emergencies. Instructors like to point out the AIM and say "Here, this is the way to do it!". I always taught my students to remain calm, announce your intention but above all else, fly the aircraft.

The last flight instructing I did was in helicopters. When I had a student that was airplane rated getting an add on rating, prior to solo I would give them an oral exam. One question I would ask is "You are flying at 1000 feet and the engine begins running rough, what would be your first action?"

9 times out of 10 the answer would be "I'll get on the radio and declare an emergency". I would then tell them, "no, the first thing you do is lower collective and look for a place to set the helicopter down".

Fly the aircraft, always.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Fly the aircraft, always.
Click to expand...

Funny how many pilots think that declaring an emergency with ATC is going to take care of the emergency. If the problem is that the pilot is lost or caught on top of a layer then ATC might indeed be the ace in the hole the pilot needs but for an engine failure, control problem, or inadvertent IMC penetration by a non-IR pilot about all ATC can really do is offer moral support along with some annoying questions about fuel remaining and souls on board.
 
lancefisher said:
about all ATC can really do is offer moral support along with some annoying questions about fuel remaining and souls on board.
Click to expand...

..And often provide a real good fix to emergency services which is pretty valuable when you crash.
 
lancefisher said:
Funny how many pilots think that declaring an emergency with ATC is going to take care of the emergency.
Click to expand...
I think that feeling only lasts until ATC asks, "What are your intentions?"
 
lancefisher said:
Funny how many pilots think that declaring an emergency with ATC is going to take care of the emergency.
Click to expand...

So far, I haven't seen anyone say that ATC is going to "take care" of the emergency, if by that you mean relieve the pilot of responsibility for dealing with it.

If the problem is that the pilot is lost or caught on top of a layer then ATC might indeed be the ace in the hole the pilot needs but for an engine failure, control problem, or inadvertent IMC penetration by a non-IR pilot about all ATC can really do is offer moral support along with some annoying questions about fuel remaining and souls on board.
Click to expand...

They can also direct whatever aircraft are under their control out of the path of the distress aircraft. I'd say that enhances safety, both for the distress aircraft and for the other aircraft in the vicinity.

As long as aviate, navigate, communicate are done in that order, I still can't figure out what the downside is to declaring an emergency. As far as I can see, it MIGHT help, and it won't hurt.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I'll respectively disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Disagree all you want, but the language is pretty plain - an unqualified clause "the initial contact" plus a qualified clause... leaves no foundation for disagreement, but hell, that's never stopped a pilot! :)
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Funny thing about this thread are the contradictions. My point from the beginning has been to calmly fly the airplane and deal with the emergency, but foremost fly the airplane.
I'll agree with you there! :yes:

Then we have an interpretation of the AIM. In this thread it's an absolute interpretation, where over in another thread I'm told that while the AIM recommends something I don't necessarily have to do it.
Click to expand...
Ah, but I only brought it up because YOU were using the AIM (incorrectly in my humble imho) as support for NOT having to use MAYDAY... ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
So far, I haven't seen anyone say that ATC is going to "take care" of the emergency, if by that you mean relieve the pilot of responsibility for dealing with it.
Click to expand...

My last post was in response to:

Rotor&Wing said:
The last flight instructing I did was in helicopters. When I had a student that was airplane rated getting an add on rating, prior to solo I would give them an oral exam. One question I would ask is "You are flying at 1000 feet and the engine begins running rough, what would be your first action?"

9 times out of 10 the answer would be "I'll get on the radio and declare an emergency". I would then tell them, "no, the first thing you do is lower collective and look for a place to set the helicopter down".
Click to expand...

Granted he didn't say that ATC would take care of the emergency but I've read a number of NTSB reports where a pilot in trouble seems to think ATC should be able to eliminate their problem and I think that's consistent with the silly notion that contacting ATC and declaring an emergency is priority #1 when a pilot gets in over their head.

Palmpilot said:
They can also direct whatever aircraft are under their control out of the path of the distress aircraft. I'd say that enhances safety, both for the distress aircraft and for the other aircraft in the vicinity.

As long as aviate, navigate, communicate are done in that order, I still can't figure out what the downside is to declaring an emergency. As far as I can see, it MIGHT help, and it won't hurt.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and if you check my earlier posts on the subject I'm a proponent of declaring whenever necessary.
 
lancefisher said:
Granted he didn't say that ATC would take care of the emergency but I've read a number of NTSB reports where a pilot in trouble seems to think ATC should be able to eliminate their problem and I think that's consistent with the silly notion that contacting ATC and declaring an emergency is priority #1 when a pilot gets in over their head.



I agree with that, and if you check my earlier posts on the subject I'm a proponent of declaring whenever necessary.
Click to expand...

It seems today's pilots are trained to rely on the radio for everything. And now in the age of GPS and MFD's more pilots are flying with their head glued to the instrument panel.

Declare the emergency, but fly the aircraft. Everything else is secondary.
 
lancefisher said:
Funny how many pilots think that declaring an emergency with ATC is going to take care of the emergency.
Click to expand...

What it does is get equipment rolling your way, and in those regards, a few minutes difference can be surviving or not.
 
etsisk said:
Disagree all you want, but the language is pretty plain - an unqualified clause "the initial contact" plus a qualified clause... leaves no foundation for disagreement, but hell, that's never stopped a pilot!
Click to expand...

How do you do that when the emergency situation occurs after the initial contact with ATC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top