DH4 Better do a final door check yourself

[dontcallmeshirley]

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Couldn't tell you why, but I could give you several reasons that I assume might play a part.

Low time new FOs with no prior airline experience.
Keeping all RTOs the same to make sure the stressful parts go smoother.
Heightening the awareness of everyone on frequency to an aircraft that is expected to lift off the runway coming to a stop instead.

[tbayav8er]

Maybe the best thing to do is to have a procedure at each station where two separate ground workers check that the door is properly latched....

C-GWJK, a WestJet Encore DHC8-402, was conducting flight WEN3242 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Brandon Municipal Airport (CYBR), MB. During the initial take-
off run at CYYC, the flight crew received a baggage door warning indication. The take-off was
aborted, and a MAYDAY call was made with ATS. The aircraft returned to the gate where company
maintenance determined that baggage door handle had been secured incorrectly.
The door handle was inspected, stowed correctly, and the aircraft returned to service.

...from TSB.

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Encore's SOP's at least at the time I left, required that you call a mayday upon commencing the rejected takeoff. That mayday can then be cancelled right away upon analyzing the situation further. It didn't matter the reason for the rejected takeoff. As for the door unlocked indications....I have quite a bit of time on the Q, and can tell you those sensors are notoriously unreliable. Snow/frost gets on the sensors in the winter, and even when the doors are fully closed and locked, they would indicate open. We had an MEL that could be applied on cabin door sensors, but not the aft cargo door for faulty sensors. With that MEL applied, you were allowed to fly around with the door-open indication on a specific door, as long as you verified that it was closed and locked from the outside prior to each flight. I also had numerous situations where the door open indication illuminated in flight, but often didn't divert because of it, because obviously if the aircraft is maintaining pressurization, then a door is not actually open. In all cases where it illuminated in flight, it was a sensor problem.

[pelmet]

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Couldn't tell you why, but I could give you several reasons that I assume might play a part.

Low time new FOs with no prior airline experience.
Keeping all RTOs the same to make sure the stressful parts go smoother.
Heightening the awareness of everyone on frequency to an aircraft that is expected to lift off the runway coming to a stop instead.

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. Mayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

From TSB......

C-FENU, a WestJet Encore de Havilland DHC-8-400, was operating as WEN3433 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Terrace Airport (CYXT), BC. While on the takeoff roll on
Runway 35L, during the “Power Set” call the flight crew heard a single chime. The captain
observed the “OUTBD ANTISKID” caution light, rejected the takeoff at approximately 80 knots and
took control. The first officer declared MAYDAY. During the rejected takeoff, when the power levers
were brought to disc, the caution light extinguished. Upon coming to a stop on the runway, the
flight crew actioned the quick reference handbook and verified that the ANTISKID switch was set to
on. As there were no further applicable checklists to run, the flight crew advised ATC that the
aircraft would return to the gate. There were no injuries.
The company will advise TSB of maintenance findings and follow-up.

[BigQ]

At WG we are trained on the automatic MAYDAY to make everyone on the frequency shut up and pay attention, also because we fly to destinations with chances of questionable ICAO level 4 English. It is a safety tool in an emergency. When in doubt, use it, then cancel or downgrade. You're writing a report anyways...

[digits_]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

[pelmet]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

[digits_]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......

I don't think a PAN PAN is inappropriate. It's a contained engine failure in a twin.

all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Do you have a reference for that?
At least in Canada I've seen a tower just operate as normal with an airplane that did declare an emergency on short final.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Right from ICAO, and in alignment with NavCanada ATC procedures:

"The word MAYDAY at the start of communication identifies a distress message indicating that the aircraft is threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

The words PAN PAN indicate an urgency message concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or a person on board or within sight, not requiring immediate assistance."

It appears a precautionary single-engine shutdown on a multi-engine jet is more in line with a PAN PAN. If the shutdown was due to say a fire or uncontained failure, that might be more in line with declaring an emergency/MAYDAY.

In both of your examples, the PAN PAN seemed like the appropriate action.

[airway]

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......

I don't think a PAN PAN is inappropriate. It's a contained engine failure in a twin.

all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Do you have a reference for that?
At least in Canada I've seen a tower just operate as normal with an airplane that did declare an emergency on short final.

I too think it is inapropriate to call Mayday in a situation that does not require immediate assistance. If you have any doubt, go ahead and call a Mayday, but for a low speed reject for a caution light it is not necessary.

I have been flying recently when a aircraft has called a mayday in flight and tower did not operate as normal even though the aircraft was 10 miles away in a hold. Nobody could take off, and they were very careful allowing other aircraft to land. Apparently if they had called pan pan or downgraded to pan pan the tower could have operated more normally.

Maybe an ATC person could fill us in on exactly what happens in these situations.



.

[pelmet]

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Right from ICAO, and in alignment with NavCanada ATC procedures:

"The word MAYDAY at the start of communication identifies a distress message indicating that the aircraft is threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

The words PAN PAN indicate an urgency message concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or a person on board or within sight, not requiring immediate assistance."

It appears a precautionary single-engine shutdown on a multi-engine jet is more in line with a PAN PAN. If the shutdown was due to say a fire or uncontained failure, that might be more in line with declaring an emergency/MAYDAY.

In both of your examples, the PAN PAN seemed like the appropriate action.

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

[DHC-1 Jockey]

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

Yes they could, but in your earlier post you intimated that they should have declared an emergency/MAYDAY. I was just explaining as an ATC that NavCanada and ICAO are in alignment on what constitutes a PAN PAN or a MAYDAY, and your example incidents seem more in line with a PAN PAN.

I've got over 6000 hours as well (mostly multi-turbine and jet) and wouldn't have declared an emergency/MAYDAY for a precautionary engine shutdown.

[pelmet]

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

I've got over 6000 hours as well (mostly multi-turbine and jet) and wouldn't have declared an emergency/MAYDAY for a precautionary engine shutdown.

Many do.

From today’s TSB update via Google Translate…..

“ C-FDIJ, a Boeing 767-39H operated by Cargojet Airways Ltd. under flight code CJT470 had just taken off from Iqaluit Airport (CYFB), NT bound for Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (CYOW), ON when the crew heard a thud followed by a loss of power on the right engine significantly reducing riding performance. Once level at 15,000 feet asl, an emergency was declared and the aircraft returned to CYFB where it landed safely. Maintenance personnel inspected the right engine and confirmed”.

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

Your example today quoted a "thud" where the previous examples were simple indication issues. I'd be more likely to declare a Mayday if I actually felt something happening to the airplane as opposed to something like a low oil pressure indication.

Again, all I'm saying is that not declaring a Mayday for a precautionary engine shutdown isn't the worst thing in the world. There are definitions for these terms that are internationally recognized by ATC and we'll act accordingly.

[digits_]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

What does it depend on? You have likely less info than the pilots to determine what exactly is going on. So what factors decide if you hold your arrivals or departures? Is it the size of the aircraft? The tone in the voice that calls mayday (not joking)? The amount of people on board?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

What does it depend on? You have likely less info than the pilots to determine what exactly is going on. So what factors decide if you hold your arrivals or departures? Is it the size of the aircraft? The tone in the voice that calls mayday (not joking)? The amount of people on board?

Speaking for me as a tower controller at a smaller airport, there's lots of factors. I'm sure a large-tower airport or IFR controller may have different answers:
- Is there a secondary runway that can be used for other traffic while maintaining the main runway for the incident aircraft?
- Is the emergency declared 5 miles final or does the controller know about it long in advance? If it's declared 5 miles final, of course I'll pause other operations. If I know the aircraft is still 15 minutes away, I can easily get some arrivals or departures out before "sterilizing" the runway for the use of the incident aircraft.
- Is the controller working alone? Are they working single stand (both ground and tower) or are they working split (one controller on ground, one on tower)? Working single stand exponentially increases the workload with now trying to coordinate emergency response in addition to regular traffic.
- What is the current traffic situation? Are there 4 aircraft airborne and in the circuit, or just one 172 waiting to depart on a scenic flight? It might actually be easier to land all of the circuit traffic ahead of the incident aircraft (if there is time) so that the only "active" aircraft to deal with is the incident one. The other option is to keep the circuit traffic airborne but force them to leave the circuit and orbit at the edge of the zone (for example).

Personally, the size of the aircraft isn't a huge factor, aside from maybe a feeling of additional "pressure" simply because it's bigger.

Tone of voice does play a factor. There have been many accidents analyzed where the controller didn't know the extent of the issue because the pilot didn't intimate that the issue was as critical as it actually was. That's why there's the standard ICAO phraseology I mentioned earlier where even if the pilot sounds cool as a cucumber, the specific words PAN PAN or MAYDAY will elicit a different response from the controller. Same goes if the pilot sounds like they're having a helmet fire and chooses NOT to declare a PAN PAN or a MAYDAY (even when asked by the controller). The controller might pre-emptively roll the trucks anyways as a precaution and even if they're not needed.

It's really hard to boil it down to a black and white answer. There's too many small variables that inform a controller's decision, but using PAN PAN or MAYDAY does have a defined level of urgency, which will give a certain level of response. Same with the terms "minimum fuel" and "fuel emergency." Both terms have different levels of urgency and will determine a controller's decisions.

[pelmet]

As a tower controller, I would expect that you are keeping a greater time difference between the last takeoff before the emergency aircraft lands than you would under normal circumstances, same with spacing aircraft for landing ahead of the emergency aircraft. If so,(and it should be so), then the emergency declaration has been effective. And that is why I would declare the emergency, even for a precautionary shutdown. In the end, who cares if the engine was shut down for vibrations or low oil pressure. The point is, I don't want to be going around on one engine because ATC let somebody in close to me that had a temporary issue causing a delay on the runway or was slow to clear and now I have to go around.

Best to declare the emergency.

And that would be especially so in a light twin.

[digits_]

The point is, I don't want to be going around on one engine because ATC let somebody in close to me that had a temporary issue causing a delay on the runway or was slow to clear and now I have to go around.

Then tell ATC that? That doesn't warrant calling a mayday when you don't need immediate assistance, or using your own definition on when to use pan pan or mayday.

Note that an emergency gives you the authority to break any rule (within reason) you want to ensure the survival of your passengers and crew. It doesn't allow you to control other aircraft (other than demanding radio silence). A mayday/emergency is no guarantee the runway will be available for X minutes before your arrival either. If you want something specific, you'll have to communicate.

"I'm unable to go around" will be more efficient than 'mayday mayday mayday'

[pelmet]

The point is, I don't want to be going around on one engine because ATC let somebody in close to me that had a temporary issue causing a delay on the runway or was slow to clear and now I have to go around.

Then tell ATC that? That doesn't warrant calling a mayday when you don't need immediate assistance, or using your own definition on when to use pan pan or mayday.

Note that an emergency gives you the authority to break any rule (within reason) you want to ensure the survival of your passengers and crew. It doesn't allow you to control other aircraft (other than demanding radio silence). A mayday/emergency is no guarantee the runway will be available for X minutes before your arrival either. If you want something specific, you'll have to communicate.

"I'm unable to go around" will be more efficient than 'mayday mayday mayday'

Not interested in explaining to ATC the details of what I want, especially in some foreign country where the understanding of English by ATC is mostly limited to the standard phraseology.

Also not interested in changing the company SOPs to declare an emergency at the last two places I worked.

I am aware that not all airlines have this as SOP and leave it up to the captain. Also aware that different ATC units and likely different controllers in the same unit can do things differently for the same or different situations or perceived situations.

The situation where I really hope that traffic will be limited is a low fuel emergency at an airport with a single runway as the consequences of another aircraft becoming disabled on that runway could be catastrophic.

[digits_]

The point is, I don't want to be going around on one engine because ATC let somebody in close to me that had a temporary issue causing a delay on the runway or was slow to clear and now I have to go around.

Then tell ATC that? That doesn't warrant calling a mayday when you don't need immediate assistance, or using your own definition on when to use pan pan or mayday.

Note that an emergency gives you the authority to break any rule (within reason) you want to ensure the survival of your passengers and crew. It doesn't allow you to control other aircraft (other than demanding radio silence). A mayday/emergency is no guarantee the runway will be available for X minutes before your arrival either. If you want something specific, you'll have to communicate.

"I'm unable to go around" will be more efficient than 'mayday mayday mayday'

Not interested in explaining to ATC the details of what I want, especially in some foreign country where the understanding of English by ATC is mostly limited to the standard phraseology.

Also not interested in changing the company SOPs to declare an emergency at the last two places I worked.

I am aware that not all airlines have this as SOP and leave it up to the captain. Also aware that different ATC units and likely different controllers in the same unit can do things differently for the same or different situations or perceived situations.

The situation where I really hope that traffic will be limited is a low fuel emergency at an airport with a single runway as the consequences of another aircraft becoming disabled on that runway could be catastrophic.

We were discussing a contained engine failure in a Canadian airplane at a Canadian airport, not a low fuel emergency in a foreign country. And again, a mayday will not necessarily lock down an airport just for you.

[pelmet]

Then tell ATC that? That doesn't warrant calling a mayday when you don't need immediate assistance, or using your own definition on when to use pan pan or mayday.

Note that an emergency gives you the authority to break any rule (within reason) you want to ensure the survival of your passengers and crew. It doesn't allow you to control other aircraft (other than demanding radio silence). A mayday/emergency is no guarantee the runway will be available for X minutes before your arrival either. If you want something specific, you'll have to communicate.

"I'm unable to go around" will be more efficient than 'mayday mayday mayday'

Not interested in explaining to ATC the details of what I want, especially in some foreign country where the understanding of English by ATC is mostly limited to the standard phraseology.

Also not interested in changing the company SOPs to declare an emergency at the last two places I worked.

I am aware that not all airlines have this as SOP and leave it up to the captain. Also aware that different ATC units and likely different controllers in the same unit can do things differently for the same or different situations or perceived situations.

The situation where I really hope that traffic will be limited is a low fuel emergency at an airport with a single runway as the consequences of another aircraft becoming disabled on that runway could be catastrophic.

And again, a mayday will not necessarily lock down an airport just for you.

That would explain why I said that I recognize that different ATC units and different controllers might have different procedures.

We were discussing a contained engine failure in a Canadian airplane at a Canadian airport,

Didn't hear DHC-1 Jockey say that he would treat his engine shutdown situation differently in different countries, just that he would not declare an emergency for a precautionary engine shutdown, so you are incorrect.

Your example today quoted a "thud" where the previous examples were simple indication issues. I'd be more likely to declare a Mayday if I actually felt something happening to the airplane as opposed to something like a low oil pressure indication.

Noted.

By the way, it does look like some AC pilots will declare an emergency for an oil a precautionary engine shutdown due to an oil pressure indication.....

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later. (From TSB)

Probably had the airport to himself with no worries about traffic without having to explain to the Azerbaijani controllers his preferences for traffic spacing in detail.

Anyways, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on procedures and decision-making.

We were discussing a contained engine failure in a Canadian airplane at a Canadian airport, not a low fuel emergency

As for the fuel emergency scenario add-on, just felt like adding it on as a note to any controllers as that is a scenario where another aircraft becoming disabled on the runway could really screw things up. Of course, in such a situation, one could land on a parallel taxiway if the weather was good. This scenario was even more of a concern of mine up north with single strip runways and no parallel taxiways. Whenever diverting to an alternate(and it is your last hope for landing), I got worried about an aircraft becoming disabled on the runway. Diversions happen a lot up north due to high minimums, so the scenario came up on a regular basis. Admittedly, these airports had no ATC.

Anyways, we are far off the thread title topic, so let’s just close up by declaring the emergency for an engine shutdown(at least in a twin engine aircraft) and leave it at that.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

By the way, it does look like some AC pilots will declare an emergency for an oil a precautionary engine shutdown due to an oil pressure indication.....

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later. (From TSB)

I don't see anything in this example that states the pilots declared an emergency.

Didn't hear DHC-1 Jockey say that he would treat his engine shutdown situation differently in different countries, just that he would not declare an emergency for a precautionary engine shutdown, so you are incorrect.

I would follow the ICAO terminology I described earlier. There have been accidents where the pilots confused ATC by declaring PAN PAN and an emergency or only declaring an emergency but not using MAYDAY, confusing the defined terms "minimum fuel" and "fuel emergency," etc.

That's precisely WHY in a foreign country, I'd use PAN PAN or MAYDAY (as required), because all ATC's, regardless of language should be on the same page as to the level of urgency each term requires. The term "emergency" connotes urgency, the level of which is up to interpretation. Not every "emergency" is a MAYDAY, just like every PAN PAN isn't necessarily an emergency.

Stick to the defined terms. That's why they exist... to prevent the scenarios you keep trying to invent.

[pelmet]

By the way, it does look like some AC pilots will declare an emergency for an oil a precautionary engine shutdown due to an oil pressure indication.....

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later. (From TSB)

I don't see anything in this example that states the pilots declared an emergency.

Didn't hear DHC-1 Jockey say that he would treat his engine shutdown situation differently in different countries, just that he would not declare an emergency for a precautionary engine shutdown, so you are incorrect.

I would follow the ICAO terminology I described earlier. There have been accidents where the pilots confused ATC by declaring PAN PAN and an emergency or only declaring an emergency but not using MAYDAY, confusing the defined terms "minimum fuel" and "fuel emergency," etc.

That's precisely WHY in a foreign country, I'd use PAN PAN or MAYDAY (as required), because all ATC's, regardless of language should be on the same page as to the level of urgency each term requires. The term "emergency" connotes urgency, the level of which is up to interpretation. Not every "emergency" is a MAYDAY, just like every PAN PAN isn't necessarily an emergency.

Stick to the defined terms. That's why they exist... to prevent the scenarios you keep trying to invent.

Please show us all the scenarios that I am trying to invent.

All I am suggesting is that pilots of twin engine airliners not use the same thought process as you(not declare an emergency in the event of a precautionary engine shutdown) as in my opinion, it creates a higher risk potential. This higher risk potent can be mitigated by declaring an emergency. There is no downside to that same flight by declaring an emergency(perhaps some controllers might not like it though).

Using ICAO terminology is recommended(although every controller in Canada and the US will know exactly what you mean if you do happen to use the term Emergency instead of Mayday).

As for the AC event, I forgot to include the part of the report mentions the declaration of an emergency, which has now been corrected. Doubt there was any downside.

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later.

The Canadian TSB reported the crew declared Mayday and landed 20kg overweight.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

As for the AC event, I forgot to include the part of the report mentions the declaration of an emergency, which has now been corrected. Doubt there was any downside.

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later.

The Canadian TSB reported the crew declared Mayday and landed 20kg overweight.

You're contradicting yourself in your own example. They didn't declare an emergency (as you say); they declared a MAYDAY (proper terminology). While a MAYDAY might not have been required given the nature of the issue, at least it was the correct terminology. There's a reason why the terminology is MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY or PAN PAN PAN and not EMERGENCY EMERGECY EMERGENCY or some other indication of distress.

Again, not every "emergency" is a MAYDAY, just like every PAN PAN isn't necessarily an emergency. We have defined terms that work worldwide, and throwing out new ones like "emergency" thinking that the airport will cease all operations just for the incident aircraft isn't going to happen.

If you want a real-world example of why proper phraseology is important, check out Blancolirio's review of a recent crash where the pilot didn't use proper phraseology to convey their issue, like I indicated in an earlier post (minimum fuel vs emergency fuel). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdRvob5yZw

And yes, I know EMERGENCY fuel contains the word EMERGENCY, but it is different than "MINIMUM" fuel each of which have their own set definitions. So use MAYDAY/PAN and MINIMUM FUEL/EMERGENCY FUEL. Not just "EMERGENCY" all by itself as you advocate.

[pelmet]

As for the AC event, I forgot to include the part of the report mentions the declaration of an emergency, which has now been corrected. Doubt there was any downside.

An Air Canada Boeing 777-200, registration C-FIVK performing flight AC-42 (dep Oct 21st) from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Delhi (India) with 316 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 190nm west of Baku (Azerbaijan) when the crew observed a low oil pressure indication for the left hand engine (GE90), shut the engine down and diverted to Baku for a safe landing on runway 34 about 40 minutes later.

The Canadian TSB reported the crew declared Mayday and landed 20kg overweight.

You're contradicting yourself in your own example. They didn't declare an emergency (as you say); they declared a MAYDAY (proper terminology). While a MAYDAY might not have been required given the nature of the issue, at least it was the correct terminology. There's a reason why the terminology is MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY or PAN PAN PAN and not EMERGENCY EMERGECY EMERGENCY or some other indication of distress.

Again, not every "emergency" is a MAYDAY, just like every PAN PAN isn't necessarily an emergency. We have defined terms that work worldwide, and throwing out new ones like "emergency" thinking that the airport will cease all operations just for the incident aircraft isn't going to happen.

Seeing as I am on a nice, sunny vacation,
I won’t necessarily be checking the AIM soon.

I may very well have the exact terminology wrong. As far as I am concerned, there are multiple ways to declare an emergency. It could be by use of a transponder, CPDLC, saying Mayday, or saying that you have an emergency.

In the end, there appear to be finer details may be different but it doesn’t change the argument that I have been saying repeatedly………that I recommend letting ATC know that you consider yourself to be in an emergency situation after a precautionary engine shutdown in a twin engine airliner(and other twins). This will make it less likely for the airport to have normal traffic ops for your arrival.

I have now repeatedly said that I don’t expect that the airport will cease all operations.

Appreciate the info about the emergency stuff. This would be a good opportunity for you to let us know what your procedures are at your airport traffic-wise when you become aware of an aircraft that has advised that they have an emergency(let’s use precautionary engine shutdown) estimating arrival on 30 minutes.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I recommend letting ATC know that you consider yourself to be in an emergency situation after a precautionary engine shutdown in a twin engine airliner(and other twins). This will make it less likely for the airport to have normal traffic ops for your arrival.

I can tell you as an ATC, that this might be confusing. You're advocating for telling ATC something that you think will help your situation, but it does nothing aside from forcing me to ask you if you're declaring a PAN PAN or MAYDAY because those are the terms we operate under. Just saying "emergency" is redundant and wastes time.

You think you know what ATC would want to hear, but as one, I can tell you it doesn't help the situation.

But, if you REALLY want to say "emergency," would you say "PAN PAN PAN we have an emergency" or "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY we have an emergency?" What happens if you start with PAN PAN and then later say "emergency." Does that now mean you're now in more danger than your original PAN PAN? Does that mean you're changing to a MAYDAY status? Is it some status in between PAN PAN and MAYDAY?

It's a fallacy in your logic that by saying the magic words "emergency" it'll somehow unlock some other (additional?) level of service from ATC/reduction of airport traffic beyond what a PAN PAN or MAYDAY would. In fact, it might confuse the mater. If you just say MAYDAY, you'll get the full red carpet treatment whether you needed it or not.

This would be a good opportunity for you DHC-1 Jockey to let us know what your procedures are at your airport traffic-wise when you become aware of an aircraft that has advised that they have an emergency(let’s use precautionary engine shutdown) estimating arrival on 30 minutes.

I can't go into specifics because the emergency response plan is written by and owned by the Airport Authority I work at. Since I don't speak for the airport, it's not my place to describe their emergency response plan.

I will say this: We have an emergency response checklist that gives a step-by-step instruction on what to do for a PAN PAN and MAYDAY, outlining who to call (in what order), instructions on limiting traffic (if required), what information needs to be recorded (weather, light settings), etc.

If it was a precautionary engine shutdown on say an A320, and I'm aware of that 30 minutes out, I'll still run normal ops up to a point. If someone asks for circuits, I would probably deny that and tell them their option is to go to the practice area. If there is a 172 at the edge of the zone and inbound for landing in 3 minutes, I'll still bring them in on a full stop so my focus can be on the incident aircraft as it approaches the airport. I'm not going to sterilize the runway 30 minutes in advance on the one-in-a-million chance that the Cessna ALSO has an issue that somehow closes the runway.

I see we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, so I'll leave it at this: Your stance is to use your version of the phraseology to get an enhanced level of service from ATC, and here's an ATC telling you that won't always work and MAY even confuse the situation, especially if in a foreign country where English isn't the first language. Don't be surprised if one day you're in a pickle and choose to use your own phraseology and don't get the level of response you want, need or expect. There's been many famous accidents where the pilots went off script and didn't use the standard terms. From an ATC: stick to the script and you'll be safer for it.