Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

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

Mayday

Yes
44
80%
No
11
20%
 
Total votes: 55

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by B208 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:34 pm

ahramin wrote:I'll admit it was a bit of a trick question. While none of those situations necessarily require a Mayday, each has the potential to be a Mayday in certain circumstances.
Agreed; And when the potential becomes a reality the call should be issued.
The point is that if we continue to equate Mayday with panic, you remove that option whether it's needed or not.
Agreed; However, not every emergency is a MAYDAY. PAN PAN is there for a reason and should be used when appropriate.
And yes, a rejected takeoff in a heavy is a mandatory Mayday,
Is that IAW with CARs or just your company SOPs?
In low vis conditions you will also use Mayday regardless because there may be an aircraft landing or taking off behind you.
I don't see MAYDAY as being the wisest way to bring everybody's SA up to speed in that situation. I hear MAYDAY and the automatic assumption in my mind is that someone is in the air who needs to get on the ground in a hurry. I would suggest that a better call in that situation would be along the lines of "XXX Aborting on runway XXX". Granted, there seems to be no ICAO standard for this, (However, the term 'stopping' does seem to pop up in ICAO standard phraseology.)
CFR wrote:DND considers a single engine shut down in a C-130 an "emergency". Search CADORS for a long list.
Yep, they do and there is a long list. If you dig a little deeper I'll bet you find that the radio call they made was a PAN PAN.

A MAYDAY call is nothing to be afraid of and does not mean panic, (panic and flying never mix well). It just indicates that your circumstances are dire, that there is a grave and imminent threat requiring immediate assistance; I.e. circumstances have developed which require you to get on the ground immediately.

A PAN PAN call is also nothing of which to be afraid. It does not mean panic, it just indicates that you have a problem, but you can keep the machine safely in the air for the time being.

Use the calls when you need them, but use them properly.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by ahramin » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:09 pm

While I can't remember seeing anything in the CARs or in Industry Canada's rules requiring the use of Mayday under a given set of circumstances, I did read an article about a commerical twin piston pilot in the US who was sanctioned for not declaring an emergency after an engine failure. Perhaps there is something in the FARs? In any case I don't think regulation is the answer. Philosophy discussions like this are obviously still needed or we wouldn't have polls like the one above, but I think most pilots flying for the majors have gotten over their reticence to use the proper terminology inculcated during their initial training.

By the way when it comes to rejecting, the ICAO phraseology is actually "stopping", but I regularly get in trouble for using it in the sim so one might want to just say what everyone else does. My particular brand of academic terrorism not being for everyone. As for the Mayday requirement for heavies you'll find it's in the Boeing and Airbus factory SOPs for many good reasons, most of which I've already mentioned. I'm not suggesting they researched it extensively and agonized over the decision, but as it happens to agree with my philosophy on the matter I accept it as a requirement.

For me it's pretty simple, if I need something out of the ordinary for safety reasons, I call a Pan Pan. If I need something out of the ordinary for safety reasons RIGHT NOW I call a Mayday.

A couple of examples:

1. I've only called one Mayday, and it was in a private aircraft, not at work. Engine was acting up. After a minute of fiddling and finding that it wasn't going to get better but it wasn't bad enough to put us in the drink I downgraded it to a Pan Pan. I suppose some here would say that because the engine hadn't quit I wasn't entitled to calling a Mayday but I'll tell you that dealing with an emergency is not the time to have a semantics argument with yourself over which call is more appropriate. I felt I needed to alert ATC to the problem, start descending, and change course for the nearest airport immediately so that's what I did. In retrospect I didn't need to call a Mayday but I can't see a downside. I wasn't sure at the time and certainly couldn't be bothered to spend 1 second considering it.

2. Last month I was flying into Springbank and there was another aircraft on YYC TML which was having electrical problems and was worried that they were going to lose the radio before getting on the ground in Springbank. The pilot was certainly trying his best to communicate the situation as clearly and unequivocally as possible but was doing a terrible job. Told TML he was having electrical problems, explained that he might lose the radio, explained that Springbank tower would need to be informed, explained that they might lose the radio before being able to switch to Springbank tower. Then when switched to Springbank tower explained the whole situation again to be clear that the message hadn't been lost in the telephone game between TML and TWR. Honestly if he didn't kill his battery with all the explaining about the battery problem I don't know what would. Instead a simple Pan Pan to TML with the basics, followed by using the Pan Pan callsign when checking in with TWR would have taken 10 times less electricity and done a better job of making sure everyone knew of the problem. Can't blame him though as he's a product of the culture that we're discussing here.
---------- ADS -----------
  

#37
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by #37 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:50 am

Thats a pretty good all round view ahramin. Ultimately, I am not advocating not calling mayday, and do not want to leave that impression in anyone's minds. If you have to, you have to. Get the help you need. I just think it's silly for some to insist it must be done under the conditions of this thread.
Your point of clarity in communication is relevant, but we also have to remember that most of the time these things are confusing to the one closest to the scene, the pilot. Canadian and American controllers are very very good, they will give you exactly what you need if you have communicated your issues/plan of attack to cope with the issues. This is why mayday is reserved (for me personally) to the situations where the confidence of a successful outcome (no one hurt) is not high. In some cases/places the controller may be part of the reduction in confidence, then for sure, out pops the Mayday or pan pan, as part of the clarity of communication.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by B208 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:52 pm

ahramin wrote:…. the proper terminology inculcated during their initial training.
Agreed. Sometimes the proper terminology is PAN PAN.
ahramin wrote:By the way when it comes to rejecting, the ICAO phraseology is actually "stopping",
Agreed. :mrgreen: I actually went to the trouble of looking it up. I would further suggest that since ICAO went to the trouble of making up standard phraseology for an aborted take off it might be a good idea to use it.
ahramin wrote:As for the Mayday requirement for heavies you'll find it's in the Boeing and Airbus factory SOPs for many good reasons
If the SOPs say to do it, then that is the way to do it; (which is to say that your point is well taken).
ahramin wrote:For me it's pretty simple, if I need something out of the ordinary for safety reasons, I call a Pan Pan. If I need something out of the ordinary for safety reasons RIGHT NOW I call a Mayday.
That makes sense. Why did we spend all this time arguing? :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4301
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by pelmet » Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:42 pm

Gannet167 wrote:
Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:13 pm
Land as soon as possible has been removed from many checklists by the lawyers. The term land at nearest suitable airfield leaves the decision with the pilot to decide what is "suitable" under the circumstances. It removes some liability from the checklist authors by leaving "suitable" up to the pilot rather than dictating that the plane land wherever it's possible to put it down. It still implies that if there's an airport under you that you can land at, you should. It might be hard to explain why you overflew a useable airfield in a situation where the checklist says land at nearest suitable.
Looks like these guys made a very wise decision as to what is suitable....

C-FXLH, a Bombardier CL600-2B19 operated by Voyageur Airways Corp., was conducting flight
UNO196P from Sana'a Intl. (OYSN), Yemen to Aden Intl. (OYAA), Yemen. During descent through
14000 at 260 kias, with thrust levers at idle, the aircraft experienced an engine noise followed by a
vibration. The right hand engine ITT increased significantly; the engine was shut down in
accordance with the Quick Reference Handbook. ATC, dispatch and the five passengers were
briefed in accordance with company emergency procedures. The aircraft diverted to
Djibouti/Ambouli Intl. (HDAM), Djibouti and landed uneventfully.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by mbav8r » Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:25 pm

pelmet wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:42 pm
Gannet167 wrote:
Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:13 pm
Land as soon as possible has been removed from many checklists by the lawyers. The term land at nearest suitable airfield leaves the decision with the pilot to decide what is "suitable" under the circumstances. It removes some liability from the checklist authors by leaving "suitable" up to the pilot rather than dictating that the plane land wherever it's possible to put it down. It still implies that if there's an airport under you that you can land at, you should. It might be hard to explain why you overflew a useable airfield in a situation where the checklist says land at nearest suitable.
Looks like these guys made a very wise decision as to what is suitable....

C-FXLH, a Bombardier CL600-2B19 operated by Voyageur Airways Corp., was conducting flight
UNO196P from Sana'a Intl. (OYSN), Yemen to Aden Intl. (OYAA), Yemen. During descent through
14000 at 260 kias, with thrust levers at idle, the aircraft experienced an engine noise followed by a
vibration. The right hand engine ITT increased significantly; the engine was shut down in
accordance with the Quick Reference Handbook. ATC, dispatch and the five passengers were
briefed in accordance with company emergency procedures. The aircraft diverted to
Djibouti/Ambouli Intl. (HDAM), Djibouti and landed uneventfully.
I don’t get it, granted I don’t know the area, what in particular makes this a wise decision?
The fact they were descending through 14,000’ makes me think they were close to destination already, what you’ve posted doesn’t seem to indicates a dire need to land now, what am I missing here?
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

Rudy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:00 am
Location: N. Ont

Re: Westjet engine problem YYZ July 24,2014

Post by Rudy » Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:42 pm

It's not in civil war. That could have been a factor in diverting.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”