Inflight Emergency -- Definition

[Chris OCallaghan]

Thought I'd break this subject out of the Landout Laws thread. I have
no opinions to share on this topic, but would like to read yours as
regards off airport landings during cross country flight. However, I
suggest review the FARs and AIM for the FAA's definition of
emergencies, pilot responsibilities, and emergency operations. Most of
this is available online. Search Google for "Airman's Information
Manual Emergency Operations."

I'll look forward to your informed comments.

This has the potential to be a very short thread! ;-)

[303pilot]

Airman's info manual didn't have much to offer.
FARs have:
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
a.. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes;
b.. (a) ·Anywhere. ·An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.
§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is
the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
meet that emergency.

Those are the only things that seem remotely on point (in a quick check
during lunch). Neither suggests any different treatment of ships w/onboard
power vs. ships using external power (sailplanes).

I wasn't able to find any info on what the landowners legal responsibilities
are in the case of an emergency landing that is not also an accident
investigation site.

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Thought I'd break this subject out of the Landout Laws thread. I have
> no opinions to share on this topic, but would like to read yours as
> regards off airport landings during cross country flight. However, I
> suggest review the FARs and AIM for the FAA's definition of
> emergencies, pilot responsibilities, and emergency operations. Most of
> this is available online. Search Google for "Airman's Information
> Manual Emergency Operations."
>
> I'll look forward to your informed comments.
>
> This has the potential to be a very short thread! ;-)

[Ivan Kahn]

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Thought I'd break this subject out of the Landout Laws thread. I have
> no opinions to share on this topic, but would like to read yours as
> regards off airport landings during cross country flight. However, I
> suggest review the FARs and AIM for the FAA's definition of
> emergencies, pilot responsibilities, and emergency operations. Most of
> this is available online. Search Google for "Airman's Information
> Manual Emergency Operations."
>
> I'll look forward to your informed comments.
>
> This has the potential to be a very short thread! ;-)

Might want to get a copy of the AIM and do a little reading. Here is an
excerpt from Chapter 6:

a. An emergency can be either a distress or urgency condition as defined
in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. Pilots do not hesitate to declare an
emergency when they are faced with distress conditions such as fire,
mechanical failure, or structural damage. However, some are reluctant to
report an urgency condition when they encounter situations which may not be
immediately perilous, but are potentially catastrophic. An aircraft is in at
least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes doubtful about
position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that could
adversely affect flight safety. This is the time to ask for help, not after
the situation has developed into a distress condition.

b. Pilots who become apprehensive for their safety for any reason should
request assistance immediately. Ready and willing help is available in the
form of radio, radar, direction finding stations and other aircraft. Delay
has caused accidents and cost lives. Safety is not a luxury! Take action!

Ivan

[Chris OCallaghan]

The section implies a requirement (tacit, at least) to communicate a
distress or urgency, since both these situations indicate an uncertain
outcome. I've never heard a broadcast of mayday or pan, pan, pan prior
to an out landing (though I don't listen to 121.5). Do sailplane
pilots typcially declare an emergency before an outlanding? So many
pilots indicated in the farmer relations thread that an outlanding is
an emergency, I'm confused as to whether we should be declaring them.
I can't recall an outlanding (I've had roughly 75) where I didn't have
time to broadcast a pan, pan, pan. Of course, I never have. From time
to time I call other pilots to inform them of an outlanding (mine or
someone else's). But this has alway been a matter of convenience.

I'm looking for some validation here from those convinced that an
outlanding is an emergency. Do you truly treat it as an emergency in
as much as the AIM and FARs detail emergency operations? Or is this an
emergency of convenience, living in the gray of the regs so long as it
suits the pilot's need to retrieve his glider?

[Ivan Kahn]

Here's a thought - how do you think the FAA would view a pilot who routinely
puts himself into a position in which he must delcare an emergency? A
landout is not an emergency, in my view it is just a landing at a location
other than an established airport.

Ivan


"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> The section implies a requirement (tacit, at least) to communicate a
> distress or urgency, since both these situations indicate an uncertain
> outcome. I've never heard a broadcast of mayday or pan, pan, pan prior
> to an out landing (though I don't listen to 121.5). Do sailplane
> pilots typcially declare an emergency before an outlanding? So many
> pilots indicated in the farmer relations thread that an outlanding is
> an emergency, I'm confused as to whether we should be declaring them.
> I can't recall an outlanding (I've had roughly 75) where I didn't have
> time to broadcast a pan, pan, pan. Of course, I never have. From time
> to time I call other pilots to inform them of an outlanding (mine or
> someone else's). But this has alway been a matter of convenience.
>
> I'm looking for some validation here from those convinced that an
> outlanding is an emergency. Do you truly treat it as an emergency in
> as much as the AIM and FARs detail emergency operations? Or is this an
> emergency of convenience, living in the gray of the regs so long as it
> suits the pilot's need to retrieve his glider?

[Ivan Kahn]

Todd, I think we are beginning to mix the question of is an outlanding an
emergency an when should an emergency be declared. Please see below:

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Ivan Kahn" > wrote:
>
> >Here's a thought - how do you think the FAA would view a pilot who
routinely
> >puts himself into a position in which he must declare an emergency?
>
> I don't see that the FAA's concerns about the pilot affect
> whether an outlanding justifies deviation from an FAR.
>

The point I am trying to make is that IF you view an outlanding as an
emergency, then the FAA will rightly take a dim view of any pilot who
routinely put themselves into such a position. "Declaring" an emergency is
certainly recommended if you need to deviate from the FARs. .


> >A
> >landout is not an emergency, in my view it is just a landing at a
location
> >other than an established airport.
>
> You are ignoring the most important facet of the question -
> the pilot's intent.
>

Again, see above - if every outlanding is by definition an emergency the FAA
will take a dim view of that.

> Assume a small dirt field inside the edge of some FAR
> prohibited or controlled airspace. If you take off with the
> intent of entering that airspace and landing in that field,
> you are violating an FAR and can lose your license. If you
> did not intend to land there, but do so because there is no
> lift, you were justified in deviating from the applicable
> FAR to the extent required for safety under FAR 91.3.
>
>

In your example, declaring an emergency in this case is needed because you
need to deviate from an FAR - but not because you are simply landing out.

[Ivan Kahn]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Ivan Kahn" > wrote:
>
> >Todd, I think we are beginning to mix the question of is an outlanding an
> >emergency an when should an emergency be declared. Please see below:
>
> I don't see any mixture, but I'll try to make my points
> clear.
>
> 1) An outlanding required by lack of lift is legally an
> "emergency" under the FAR's which justifies deviating from
> any FAR to the extent required by safety.

I appeciate your view, but I disagree, an outlanding is not an emergency. If
you find that you need to deviate from an FAR, no matter what the reason,
that would be an emergency.

>
> 2) An intentional landing in the same field, where not
> required by lack of lift is not an "emergency" under the
> FAR's and does not justify deviating from the FAR's.

Agree, since one could choose not to land,

>
> 3) There's no requirement to "declare" an emergency, but you
> should communicate whenever you think it will improve
> safety.

To the extend that we consider the words delcare and communicate to mean the
same thing, I agree. But one can certainly have an emergency without
communicating, which is what I meant when I used the word declare. Sorry for
that confusion.

>
> >The point I am trying to make is that IF you view an outlanding as an
> >emergency,
>
> I don't think your attitude is relevant.

That was not atittiude, your original reponse seemed to me to miss the point
I was trying to make and so I was trying to highlight the operative word
which is that if, by defination an outlanding is viewed as an emergency that
some undersible FAA views might then follow.

>
> >then the FAA will rightly take a dim view of any pilot who
> >routinely put themselves into such a position.
>
> If I understand you, you are advocating not calling it an
> "emergency" so the FAA will look on us kindly? IMHO, if the
> FAA objected to outlandings, they would do so no matter what
> the pilot thought about it.

I do not believe it to be an emergency to begin with. My statement is that
if it were then the FAA would take a dim view of outlanding as a standard
practice since glider pilots would be engaging unsafe practices.

>
> >"Declaring" an emergency is
> >certainly recommended if you need to deviate from the FARs. .
>
> I see no advantage to making any kind of formal declaration,
> except where needed to obtain some assistance. Even then,
> I'd probably just advise of my problem and ask for the
> assistance I wanted.

Assuming you are not requesting assistance, then I agree but by declaring
you will alert others to your problem and also have it on record should the
FAA question you later/

>
> >Again, see above - if every outlanding is by definition an emergency the
FAA
> >will take a dim view of that.
>
> Baloney. They don't care what we *think* it is - they care
> what it really is.



>
> >In your example, declaring an emergency in this case is needed because
you
> >need to deviate from an FAR - but not because you are simply landing out.
>
> So whether it's an "emergency" depends on whether you need
> to break a rule? That's ridiculous. You get to break the
> rule *because* it's an emergency, not because you made some
> radio announcement or because you wanted to beak the rule.
> Whether a pilot is in an emergency condition does not depend
> on his radio declaration.
>

I think you are trying to read a lot more into what I have said then exists.
The beginning and ending of my view is that an outlanding is not, by
definition, an emergency.

> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Ivan Kahn" > wrote:

> > >then the FAA will rightly take a dim view of any pilot who
> > >routinely put themselves into such a position.
> >
> > If I understand you, you are advocating not calling it an
> > "emergency" so the FAA will look on us kindly? IMHO, if the
> > FAA objected to outlandings, they would do so no matter what
> > the pilot thought about it.
>
> I do not believe it to be an emergency to begin with. My statement is that
> if it were then the FAA would take a dim view of outlanding as a standard
> practice since glider pilots would be engaging unsafe practices.

My take on it:

- an outlanding is not in itself an emergency, it is a
routine (though undesired in any particular instance)
fact of flying anything with an unreliable source of
energy.

- being denied the use of a suitable landing area *would*
create an emergency.

[Bert Willing]

Under German law, this legal right is straightforward:

With a glider, the right do an outlanding is granted regardlelss who owns
the field. The owner of the field has no right whatsoever to prevent the
evacuation of the outlanded glider from his field.
The conterpart is that all damages are covered by the glider's insurance,
and that the pilot of the glider must communicate his name and the insurance
contract number/contacts to the owner of the field.

On the other hand, if you intend prior to take off that you will land in a
certain field, without authorization of both the owner of the field and
aviation authorities, you better forget about it.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Todd Pattist" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> >My take on it:
> >- being denied the use of a suitable landing area *would*
> > create an emergency.
>
> I'm comfortable with this definition. Of course, I consider
> a "suitable landing area" to be one that is known to be
> landable and where I have the legal right to land. As a
> consequence, I don't consider a landing at such a place to
> be an "outlanding." If the necessity to land does not give
> us the right to claim an "emergency," then I see no
> justification for smashing up some poor farmer's crops no
> matter how smooth his field is and no matter how safely we
> can land on his young plants.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Bert Willing]

Well, the idea is the same in Germany. And for a sailplane on x-country the
necessity is supposed to be given.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Todd Pattist" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> "Bert Willing"
> > wrote:
>
> >Under German law, this legal right is straightforward:
> >
> But it is not so straightforward in the U.S. A pilot does
> not have the right to use and potentially damage the
> farmer's property unless he can claim necessity in order to
> avoid potentially more significant loss of life or injury to
> person or property. That risk to life and property is the
> basis for the right in the U.S. to make an outlanding.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Nyal Williams]

At 16:48 01 March 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
>'Bert Willing'
> wrote:
>
>>Under German law, this legal right is straightforward:
>>
>But it is not so straightforward in the U.S. A pilot
>does
>not have the right to use and potentially damage the
>farmer's property unless he can claim necessity in
>order to
>avoid potentially more significant loss of life or
>injury to
>person or property. That risk to life and property
>is the
>basis for the right in the U.S. to make an outlanding.
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


This argument (thread) desperately needs the expertise
of both an attorney to sort out the differences among
FAA regulations, property law, and the difference
between criminal and civil law, and also of a grammarian
to sort out the syntax and bad punctuation, which distorts
the ideas of the respondents.

I'm neither, but I do see the failed communication
on both sides.
>

[Jack]

On 3/1/04 2:24 PM, in article ,
"Nyal Williams" > wrote:

> This argument (thread) desperately needs the expertise
> of...and...a grammarian to sort out the syntax and bad
> punctuation, which distorts the ideas of the respondents.

The parts you quoted indicate none of those failings, and in fact there was
little contentiousness of any kind in them.

Add "reading for meaning" to your list of our shortcomings.



Jack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jack]

On 3/1/04 2:40 PM, in article , "Jack"
> wrote:

> On 3/1/04 2:24 PM, in article ,
> "Nyal Williams" > wrote:
>
>> This argument (thread) desperately needs the expertise
>> of...and...a grammarian to sort out the syntax and bad
>> punctuation, which distorts the ideas of the respondents.
>
> Add "reading for meaning" to your list of our shortcomings.

Add also my inability to edit with clarity. Sorry.



Jack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Nyal Williams]

At 20:42 01 March 2004, Todd Pattist wrote:
>Nyal Williams
>wrote:
>
>>I'm neither, but I do see the failed communication
>>on both sides.
>
>What do you think is not being communicated? I think
>I
>understand him, and as far as I can tell, he understood
>me.
>I didn't even think we disagreed.
>
>Todd Pattist - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

This thread is 20 items long; I did not intend to quote
any particular post, but answers back and forth seemed
to me to misinterpret the critical point of the previous
poster. My previous post was not prompted by the post
to which it was attached; it was the whole shmear.


>