Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#1 Post by pelmet » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:30 pm

C-FTZD, a Boeing 737-800 aircraft operated by Sunwing, was conducting flight SWG675 from Varadero/Juan Gualberto Gómez Intl, Cuba (MUVR) to Vancouver Intl, BC (CYVR). During the final approach to Runway 26R at CYVR, the flight crew received an AUTOBRAKE DISARM
warning light. ATC was notified and initiated an emergency standby. The flight crew completed the appropriate checklist and landed without further incident using manual braking.
---------- ADS -----------

DanWEC
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#2 Post by DanWEC » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:40 pm

Probably not, but what about the 200 lawyers in the back? If, during the landing, anything else went sideways, even for a completely different reason, everyone would pounce.
---------- ADS -----------
Meow

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#3 Post by pelmet » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:15 pm

From the report it is not clear who initiated the 'Emergency Standby'. ATC can do it. Just seems a bit strange to advise ATC in the first place. After all, one could depart with it MEL'd. I doubt ATC would be advised in that case.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Bede
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2771
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am
Contact:

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#4 Post by Bede » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:08 pm

DanWEC wrote:Probably not, but what about the 200 lawyers in the back? If, during the landing, anything else went sideways, even for a completely different reason, everyone would pounce.
And what probability is there that something else will actually happen? Slim to none.
---------- ADS -----------

FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#5 Post by FICU » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:18 pm

It means auto brakes aren't available for landing...

The corrective action is to press the brakes with your feet.

I sure hope the crew didn't ask for CFR vehicles! Why they would notify ATC in the first place is beyond me. We land without auto brakes all the time if we have a long roll out.
---------- ADS -----------

DanWEC
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: 404

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#6 Post by DanWEC » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:40 pm

Bede wrote: And what probability is there that something else will actually happen? Slim to none.
Oh, I agree entirely, probably closer to the order of none.
---------- ADS -----------
Meow

PositiveRate27
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:27 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#7 Post by PositiveRate27 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:30 am

I've had a scenario before at YVR when we had to break off an approach to run a checklist. ATC asked if we were declaring an emergency. We said no, completed the checklist and to our surprise were greeted with the emergency vehicles on landing.



Oh well...
---------- ADS -----------

Eric Janson
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#8 Post by Eric Janson » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:38 pm

ATC are not Pilots - they most likely won't understand the specifics of any technical problem.

This is especially true if you are dealing with people who's second language is English.

Nothing wrong with them being pro active imho.

At the end of the day the aircraft landed safely and nobody got hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#9 Post by Rockie » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:06 pm

Plus it gives the fire crews a reason to tear around the airfield at high speed in their trucks and be ready on the spot just in case they're needed. You'll never hear any of them complain about that, and we won't either in case, you know...they're needed.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
bcrockett
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Vancouver Island
Contact:

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#10 Post by bcrockett » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:08 pm

Some ATC are pilots. And some have lost friends who had an emergency but did not declare it.

There's no harm letting ATC know what's going on in the aircraft. And there's no harm if ATC initiates an emergency standby.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#11 Post by pelmet » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:04 pm

bcrockett wrote:Some ATC are pilots. And some have lost friends who had an emergency but did not declare it.

There's no harm letting ATC know what's going on in the aircraft. And there's no harm if ATC initiates an emergency standby.
If you are going to advise ATC that the autobrake is U/S...what about the auto-spoilers. Autoland as well perhaps. I suppose having the fire trucks out and ready to go in general means they can react more quickly. Unless they are all on the north side of the airport and an accident happens on the south side.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
bcrockett
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Vancouver Island
Contact:

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#12 Post by bcrockett » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:59 pm

Any of those indications appearing on final approach - seems like it's fine to let ATC know. What's the harm?
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#13 Post by pelmet » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:46 am

bcrockett wrote:Any of those indications appearing on final approach - seems like it's fine to let ATC know. What's the harm?
Why do you specify final approach only. What about in cruise? What about in the climb? What about if MEL'd for departure. Do you suggest advising ATC in all those cases as well?
---------- ADS -----------

FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#14 Post by FICU » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:19 am

ATC does not need to know about an auto-brake failure. You use manual brakes without any problems like the olden days.

I've operated with no auto-speed brakes under MEL and we did not notify ATC for every landing. You pull the speed brake handle back with your hand and arm... like the olden days.

We can operate a jet with our hands and feet without notifying ATC... even in todays new world of auto-aviation.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
bcrockett
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:48 pm
Location: Vancouver Island
Contact:

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#15 Post by bcrockett » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:45 am

pelmet wrote:
bcrockett wrote:Any of those indications appearing on final approach - seems like it's fine to let ATC know. What's the harm?
Why do you specify final approach only. What about in cruise? What about in the climb? What about if MEL'd for departure. Do you suggest advising ATC in all those cases as well?
I specify final approach because that's the situation in the report. I think letting ATC know of any unexpected indication on final is probably good. Why not?
---------- ADS -----------

bobcaygeon
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#16 Post by bobcaygeon » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:01 am

In this case questionable but why not if there any doubt? Maybe one of them was in line indoc, etc. I don't know.

Pilots are notorious for under reporting/ down playing irregularities. It probably comes from what seems to be cultural issue they learn early in their careers ie defaulting to downplaying questionable snags etc to get the job done. How many times have pilots minimized snags just so they don't get stuck in the north ie Resolute, Big trout, etc?
I shouldn't have to drag someone into office because they didn't declare an emergency or declined ARFF after doing a precautionary shutdown but it's happened several times at different companies. Why???

If it wasn't initially briefed like a MEL then why not say something? In the old days every landing didn't have auto brakes and perf. charts reflected that.

There's also the "I didn't think about that part" of systems integration when irregularities appear on final approach.

The king air crash in YVR is an example I use regularly. The only reason more people didn't die is because they crashed near the Richmond fire hall.

We pay the ARFF to be there and most will say they are bored as hell at work.
---------- ADS -----------

Big Pistons Forever
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4909
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#17 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:18 am

I told everyone I taught that if you were in doubt about whether to call an emergency or not, then there was no doubt, call it

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1P0149.asp

This crew thought they had every thing under control, until they didn't....

Declaring an emergency would have meant the trucks were 100 yards from the crash site not 3 miles. I won't say whether whether it would have ultimately changed the outcome because I don't think anybody could definitively know, but it definitely would not have hurt.

Sadly there still seems to be a lot of "real pilots don't declare an emergency" sentiment out there. IMHO this attitude has no place in civil aviation.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#18 Post by pelmet » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:51 pm

Big Pistons Forever wrote:I told everyone I taught that if you were in doubt about whether to call an emergency or not, then there was no doubt, call it

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1P0149.asp

This crew thought they had every thing under control, until they didn't....

Declaring an emergency would have meant the trucks were 100 yards from the crash site not 3 miles. I won't say whether whether it would have ultimately changed the outcome because I don't think anybody could definitively know, but it definitely would not have hurt.

Sadly there still seems to be a lot of "real pilots don't declare an emergency" sentiment out there. IMHO this attitude has no place in civil aviation.
There is a massive difference between having an engine issue due to a significant fault and an autobrake not working. If you think that these are comparable........

Exactly how small an issue are we now going to be suggested to advise ATC. Some exterior lights as there is an increased risk of a midair at night, the autofeather is inop, one generator has failed on a twin engine airliner.

All things we can dispatch. Barring certain specific situations, why is it OK to dispatch with this stuff and not advise ATC but it is best to advise them if it fails enroute? If you are unsure whether some of these things are an emergency, perhaps there is a problem.
---------- ADS -----------

jschnurr
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#19 Post by jschnurr » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:16 pm

If something fails enroute rather than being MEL'd, the difference is you don't know why it stopped working. I don't know the 737 systems or what is connected with what, but extra caution when you have a failure of unknown origin doesn't seem like a bad idea.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2797
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#20 Post by pelmet » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:07 pm

bobcaygeon wrote:We pay the ARFF to be there and most will say they are bored as hell at work.
When an emergency happens, whether by ATC or the pilot, things start shutting down. Emergency vehicles on the runway to chase an aircraft mean that other aircraft have to divert or hold or be delayed or or cause other miscommunications. If it is a legitimate emergency, then this is an acceptable consequence. But when it is for situations where, in reality, there is nothing near an emergency, it creates higher levels of risk.

A while back, the pilots of an airliner in South America carrying a soccer team made a foolish mistake and arrived at destination with little fuel left. Instead of the expected quick arrival and a good lesson learned, they had to hold due to an emergency declared by another aircraft. While that other emergency was legitimate, it shows how the declaration of one can have follow-on consequences as the pilots with little fuel on board had to hold and ran out of gas killing 71. You can start arguing about what these accident pilots should have done and you will likely be correct but it doesn't change the fact that there would not have been an accident if there had not been the earlier emergency.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20161128-0

About 30 years ago, a DC-8 crashed in Saudi Arabia after a chain of events resulted in a fire on board the aircraft. The pilots declared an emergency but due to miscommunications, they ended up having a significant delay in returning because the controller thought that their emergency requests were from another airline on frequency that had previously declared an emergency. You can start arguing about what these accident pilots could have done differently and you will probably be correct but it doesn't change the fact that an immediate return as desired by the pilots with vectors from ATC may have prevented a major tragedy.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19910711-0

So please...if you have a significant issue, declare an emergency. But if it is minor stuff that does not significantly decrease the level of safety, fly and land the aircraft in a normal manner instead of worrying about how bored the emergency vehicle drivers are. If they are bored, that is a good thing.

As time goes on, people seem to be coming up with more and more reasons to declare an emergency for less and less significant situations. Think about the occasional time in your career when for whatever reason, you were tight on fuel and you would really rather not go-around. It does happen. The last thing one needs on this rare occasion is having to go-around because the aircraft ahead declared an emergency or had an emergency declared for them by ATC because their auto-brake was inop for a landing on a 10,000 foot runway or some other insignificant reason.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bede
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2771
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am
Contact:

Re: Does this situation really require the emergency equipment

#21 Post by Bede » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:48 pm

pelmet wrote: So please...if you have a significant issue, declare an emergency. But if it is minor stuff that does not significantly decrease the level of safety, fly and land the aircraft in a normal manner instead of worrying about how bored the emergency vehicle drivers are. If they are bored, that is a good thing.

As time goes on, people seem to be coming up with more and more reasons to declare an emergency for less and less significant situations. Think about the occasional time in your career when for whatever reason, you were tight on fuel and you would really rather not go-around. It does happen. The last thing one needs on this rare occasion is having to go-around because the aircraft ahead declared an emergency or had an emergency declared for them by ATC because their auto-brake was inop for a landing on a 10,000 foot runway or some other insignificant reason.
Exactly. The same thing happens with the 911. Remember when 911 came out and there was a big public service campaign about how it was for emergencies only. Now people call 911 for every minor thing- smoke alarms going off (no smoke or other signs of fire), minor medical ailments (generally unwell). And now people are dying because we're running out of ambulances.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”