Descending through a thin icing layer

[Wyatt Emmerich]

Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing.
By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?
>

Who knows? Better play it safe and run out of fuel above the clouds.

[Bonanza Man]

icing is a safety issue....flying w/o fuel is also a safety issue.

if you know you're about to run out of fuel (you should have .5
hr reserve if you're a stickler), and if you attempt to fly w/o
knowing how far you'll have to go to get vfr descent...you're
taking a major chance.

also, going thru a cloud layer or rain is not automatic an
automatic fall to the ground like stone situation. in MOST cases
one gets into trouble because of flying quite a while in icing
conditions...ice layer builds up...drag increases...airspeed
decreases...and eventuall stalls.

in your scenario...if you've above the airport AND you're running
short on fuel...setting yourself on the downwind to the active and
descending should be ok. land w/o extending the flaps.

others might disagree...but my point is weighing the two situations -
icing when you're over the airfield w/ running out of fuel.

bman.

p.s. com'n lets build up this newsgroup!!!


"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing.
By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?
>
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Wyatt Emmerich wrote:
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

If there is no forecast for icing conditions, then it appears you are
legal according to the FAA. However, if you are low on fuel, then
declare and emergency and you shouldn't have a problem with legality at
that point ... assuming you really do have the grounds for the declaration.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing.
By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

If you have a safe alternative, then descent through known icing-conditions
would be illegal in that scenario. But if it's the only way you can land
without risking fuel exhaustion, then you use your emergency authority to
override the regulations.

[SFM]

"Bonanza Man" > wrote in message
...
> icing is a safety issue....flying w/o fuel is also a safety issue.
>
> if you know you're about to run out of fuel (you should have .5
> hr reserve if you're a stickler),

You mean .75 hours unless you are a helicopter, I guess I am a stickler!

Sec. 91.167 - Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it
carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather
conditions) to --
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that
airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.

[Michael]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

No, it's not legal.

However, since you are low on fuel and above an icing layer, you are
in an emergency situation. You can thus ignore the prohibition on
operating in known icing conditions (assuming your airplane has one)
and descend anyway, since that's what's required to meet the
emergency.

Your condition is EXACTLY the same as that of a VFR pilot who relied
on a forecast of clear skies over his destination, went over the top,
had the forecast go bust, and is now trapped above a solid layer. The
only difference is that he's more likely to come out of this unscathed
than you.

Michael

[Michael 182]

Not sure I agree with this - assuming the 2000 foot layer is not too low
AGL, you can bomb down through it in a little over a minute. Although it is
possible to accumulate enough ice in a minute to affect flight, it is pretty
unlikely. The key is not to hang out in the ice. For example, if the ice is
at the same level as the IAF you may want to modify the approach and make it
significantly steeper or shallower, depending on the surrounding terrain and
altitudes. This happened to me in San Marcos once. I just got below the ice
and flew a low visual approach. ATC was very cooperative.

Michael


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Your condition is EXACTLY the same as that of a VFR pilot who relied
> on a forecast of clear skies over his destination, went over the top,
> had the forecast go bust, and is now trapped above a solid layer. The
> only difference is that he's more likely to come out of this unscathed
> than you.
>
> Michael

[Roy Smith]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

The basic thread of legality is that the FARs say you cannot do anything
with the POH says is prohibited, and modern POH's for planes which are
not approved for icing have a statement along the lines of "flight in
known icing conditions is not approved". There's nothing in there which
differentiates between conditions which were forecast to exist at the
time you did your pre-flight planning and conditions which unexpectedly
popped up during the flight.

That being said, section 91.3(b) allows you great leeway in dealing with
emergencies:

"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."

Notice the "to the extent required", however. You can do anything you
HAVE to, not anything you WANT to.

So, is this an emergency? Yeah, stuck above a 2000 foot icing layer
while low on fuel in a no-ice airplane sounds like an emergency to me.
I assuse by "low on fuel" you mean you don't have enough to get to
someplace else.

If I was stuck in such a situation, I would declare an emergency to make
sure ATC knew my predicament. I would get them to solicit pireps from
people in the air right now to make sure I knew where the floor of the
clouds were. Then I would get a clearance to descend, pilots
discretion, to an altitude known to be below the clouds.

Then I would get down though the layer as fast as I possibly could.
Pitot heat on, carb heat on, enough engine power to keep the carb warm,
and push the nose down. In smooth air, I'd let the airspeed climb well
into the yellow arc. Gear down in a retract will help get you down
faster. You should be able to get 1500 fpm down with no trouble. It's
hard to imagine anything could happen to you in the time it takes to
puch through a 2000 foot layer at that descent rate.

A slip or steep turn will add drag too, but I'm not sure I'd advise
either of those in a high-speed IMC descent.

I'm sure some people will poo-poo the idea of declaring an emergency.
Well, there's two reasons for doing so. One is that it gets you the
legal authority to violate the POH. The other (more important in my
mind) is that it makes sure ATC knows what's up. If you were to just
say "request 4000", and ATC gave it to you, you would be in a pickle if
in the middle of your descent, the controller came back with, "ammend
altitude, maintain 6000 for now, I'll have lower for you in 5 miles".

But, the biggest piece of advice is to NOT get into such a situation to
begin with.

Make sure you've got enough fuel to get to an alternate, whether it's
legally required or not. And make it a real alternate, not a paper one.
An alternate 5 minutes away from your destination is a stupid alternate
because whatever weather is happening at one is likely to be happening
at the other at the same time.

Also, keep up with the weather during the flight. On a long X/C with
any significant weather at all, I'm talking to flight watch once an hour
to get weather updates. Getting a weather update is usually the first
item on my agenda once I'm settled into cruise. If the forecast goes
bad, the sooner you know about it, the sooner you can do something about
it.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
>
>>Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
>>the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
>>with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
>>through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?
>
>
> The basic thread of legality is that the FARs say you cannot do anything
> with the POH says is prohibited, and modern POH's for planes which are
> not approved for icing have a statement along the lines of "flight in
> known icing conditions is not approved". There's nothing in there which
> differentiates between conditions which were forecast to exist at the
> time you did your pre-flight planning and conditions which unexpectedly
> popped up during the flight.
>
> That being said, section 91.3(b) allows you great leeway in dealing with
> emergencies:
>
> "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."
>
> Notice the "to the extent required", however. You can do anything you
> HAVE to, not anything you WANT to.
>
> So, is this an emergency? Yeah, stuck above a 2000 foot icing layer
> while low on fuel in a no-ice airplane sounds like an emergency to me.
> I assuse by "low on fuel" you mean you don't have enough to get to
> someplace else.

Assuming that you got low on fuel through ATC delays, a fuel leak or
something else largely out of your control. To me, getting low on fuel
in deteriorating weather is preventable and doesn't thus constitute a
bona fide emergency. It constitutes stupidity. I wonder if the FAA
would really buy the emergency authorization argument for a pilot who
had flown past airports that had fuel. I have to admit, if I was the
FAA or an NTSB administrative judge, I don't think I'd buy it.


Matt

[Roy Smith]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
> To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
> and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
> stupidity.

Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
It's just an emergency of your own making.

The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
the here and now, it's an emergency.

[David Rind]

Roy Smith wrote:
> I'm sure some people will poo-poo the idea of declaring an emergency.
> Well, there's two reasons for doing so. One is that it gets you the
> legal authority to violate the POH.

I think declaring an emergency may make good sense in this situation,
but I don't see that you need to do so legally. If as PIC you have
determined there *is* an emergency, then you have emergency authority
to deal with the situaation. If you are planning to deviate from an
ATC instruction, you need to tell them about the emergency, but
is there anything in the FARs to require you to declare an emergency
just because you are, in fact, acting outside the usual FARs to deal
with the emergency? (By "declare an emergency", I'm assuming you
mean calling up ATC and saying "Cessna 123 is declaring an emergency",
as opposed to turning to the person flying in the right seat and
saying "Hey, this is an emergency".)

--
David Rind

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sure some people will poo-poo the idea of declaring an emergency.
> Well, there's two reasons for doing so. One is that it gets you the
> legal authority to violate the POH.
>

You have that authority by HAVING an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
action, it does not have to be declared.

[Teacherjh]

>>
You have that authority by HAVING an in-flight emergency requiring immediate
action, it does not have to be declared.
<<

Yes, but having it on tape may be beneficial should you not make it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Michael]

David Rind > wrote
> I think declaring an emergency may make good sense in this situation,
> but I don't see that you need to do so legally. If as PIC you have
> determined there *is* an emergency, then you have emergency authority
> to deal with the situaation.

Exactly. Just because you don't declare an emergency does not mean
one doesn't exist, and just because you do declare an emergency does
not mean one exists.

> If you are planning to deviate from an
> ATC instruction, you need to tell them about the emergency, but
> is there anything in the FARs to require you to declare an emergency
> just because you are, in fact, acting outside the usual FARs to deal
> with the emergency?

There is not, for Part 91 operations.

Further, in this situation I would think twice about declaring. Odds
are that even if you got into the mess through no fault of your own
(and you probably didn't), you will not be able to prove this to the
satisfaction of an FAA inspector. And if you declare an emergency,
there will be paperwork. You won't necessarily need to do any, but a
flight assist report will go to someone in your FSDO. Months later,
after all the weather records and ATC tapes are gone, and you have no
hope of proving that you did not wind up in your situation through
sheer stupidity, you may be getting a certified letter from the FAA.
Don't tell me it can't happen, because I know for a fact it has.

There is also the possibility that the fed who looks at the flight
assist report will consider any IFR flight in a non-deiced light
airplane in weather with the potential for icing conditions to be
stupid, and will thus consider your situation to be your own fault.
He will then consider the violation (descent through the icing layer)
intentional, and not even a NASA form will protect you.

Michael

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>
>>To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
>>and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
>>stupidity.
>
>
> Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
> stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
> It's just an emergency of your own making.
>
> The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
> the here and now, it's an emergency.

I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
into known icing conditios.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, but having it on tape may be beneficial should you not make it.
>

How can anything be beneficial to you if you don't make it?

[Teacherjh]

>> How can anything be beneficial to you if you don't make it?

I didn't say beneficial to you. I said beneficial. To (for example) your
heirs.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't say beneficial to you. I said beneficial. To (for example) your
> heirs.
>

How so?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
> >
> >>To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
> >>and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
> >>stupidity.
> >
> >
> > Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
> > stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
> > It's just an emergency of your own making.
> >
> > The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
> > the here and now, it's an emergency.
>
> I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
> wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
> into known icing conditios.

Well, if I'm running out of fuel, I don't give a rats ass what the feds
are going to do to me once I get my sorry butt safely on the ground.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Teacherjh wrote:
>>>How can anything be beneficial to you if you don't make it?
>>
>
> I didn't say beneficial to you. I said beneficial. To (for example) your
> heirs.

So they can sue God for putting ice in the air???

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
>>>>and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
>>>>stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
>>>stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
>>>It's just an emergency of your own making.
>>>
>>>The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in the
>>>the here and now, it's an emergency.
>>
>>I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
>>wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
>>into known icing conditios.
>
>
> Well, if I'm running out of fuel, I don't give a rats ass what the feds
> are going to do to me once I get my sorry butt safely on the ground.

That's why I don't get myself into a situation where I'm running out of
fuel! :-) There's just no excuse for it unless, as I mentioned
earlier, it is due to a leak or something else out of your control and
that didn't get noticed quickly enough.


Matt

[Wyatt Emmerich]

> Your condition is EXACTLY the same as that of a VFR pilot who relied
> on a forecast of clear skies over his destination, went over the top,
> had the forecast go bust, and is now trapped above a solid layer. The
> only difference is that he's more likely to come out of this unscathed
> than you.

I would think a well trained IFR pilot could descend through 2,000 feet of
below freezing visible moisture far more safely than a VFR pilot through
non-freezing visble moisture.

I would think in most case, the descent would just pick up a little light
ice and not affect the flight much at all.

[William W. Plummer]

You use "would" in both sentences. That denotes supposition. Are you
unsure about what you are saying?

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
...
> > Your condition is EXACTLY the same as that of a VFR pilot who relied
> > on a forecast of clear skies over his destination, went over the top,
> > had the forecast go bust, and is now trapped above a solid layer. The
> > only difference is that he's more likely to come out of this unscathed
> > than you.
>
> I would think a well trained IFR pilot could descend through 2,000 feet of
> below freezing visible moisture far more safely than a VFR pilot through
> non-freezing visble moisture.
>
> I would think in most case, the descent would just pick up a little light
> ice and not affect the flight much at all.
>
>
>
>

[Roy Epperson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of
icing.
> By
> > the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
> you
> > with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> > through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known
icing?
> >
>
> Who knows? Better play it safe and run out of fuel above the clouds.

Best newsgroup response in months!!!! "-))

[Jeff]

If you dont have reports of ice then its not known to you, so decending wouldnt
be a problem, if you start picking up ice while decending, then you report it to
ATC and then its known to the next person behind you.
its only against the law to fly known or forcasted icing. If others have landed
ahead of you and not reported ice then you have no worry.


Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

[Judah]

Shhhh!!!

The lawyers haven't figured out that you can sue God yet!! You'll blow his
cover!


"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in
:

> Teacherjh wrote:
>>>>How can anything be beneficial to you if you don't make it?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say beneficial to you. I said beneficial. To (for example)
>> your heirs.
>
> So they can sue God for putting ice in the air???
>
> Matt
>
>

[Judah]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
<snip>
> If I was stuck in such a situation, I would declare an emergency to
> make sure ATC knew my predicament. I would get them to solicit pireps
> from people in the air right now to make sure I knew where the floor of
> the clouds were. Then I would get a clearance to descend, pilots
> discretion, to an altitude known to be below the clouds.
>


For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would draw nearly the
same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't necessarily require
priority at this point, you don't need to do that yet. Perhaps once you are
in the soup and start building up enough ice to be dangerous, you need to
change over to an Emergency declaration and get priority handling, but it
seems to me that 99 out of 100 times you will get the same level of priority
and attention without the formalities simply by declaring a "Critical"
condition.

From my perspective, if you tell the controller what you have and what you
are concerned about, they will do their best to cooperate even if you don't
declare an Emergency...

Just MHO...

[Teacherjh]

>>
> I didn't say beneficial to you. I said beneficial. To (for example) your
> heirs.
>

How so?
<<

By possibly disarming a lawyer. It establishes the fact that you are
excercising your right to ignore an FAA reg becuase of an emergency. You may
still be on the hook for causing the emergency (if you did) but you'll be off
the hook for violating the rule.

If it's not on tape, then you might just get busted for violating the rule
(which would be credited with directly causing the accident).

Somehow, I think the lawyers have more ammunition to give your heir's
inheretance to whatever victims there may be.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote:
> <snip>
> > If I was stuck in such a situation, I would declare an emergency to
> > make sure ATC knew my predicament. I would get them to solicit pireps
> > from people in the air right now to make sure I knew where the floor of
> > the clouds were. Then I would get a clearance to descend, pilots
> > discretion, to an altitude known to be below the clouds.
> >
>
>
> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
> equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would draw nearly the
> same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't necessarily require
> priority at this point, you don't need to do that yet.

Works for me. The goal is to make sure you get whatever help you need
from ATC. In this case, it's a clearance to execute a high-speed
descent through the clouds at a time of your choosing. If you're
somehow hung up about saying the E-word, and you think saying "Critical"
will get you what you need, go for it.

Just make sure ATC knows unambigiously what you need. Don't assume.
The thing you're trying to avoid is getting halfway though the descent
and having ATC level you off for traffic because they didn't understand
the icing situation. Or park you in a hold because they didn't
understand your fuel situation. ATC can't read your mind, and most of
them (while expert at their jobs) are not pilots so they don't see the
world the way you do.

[Barry]

> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
> equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would draw nearly the
> same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't necessarily require
> priority at this point, you don't need to do that yet.

I disagree. "Critical condition" isn't in the AIM's Pilot/Controller
Glossary, so there's no accepted meaning.

There are two levels of emergency, distress and urgency. The AIM (para.
6-1-2) says:

"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."

I think that being stuck above icy clouds, low on fuel, certainly qualifies.
If you use the word emergency, you know that the controller will understand
that your situation is serious. Using your own language like "critical" might
not make it clear.

Your other option is to declare "minimum fuel":

"Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where, upon
reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an
emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible
should any undue delay occur."

I much prefer "emergency" for the case we're discussing.

Barry

[Wyatt Emmerich]

Well I "know" there's likely to be ice if it's a cloud layer at 30 F.


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> If you dont have reports of ice then its not known to you, so decending
wouldnt
> be a problem, if you start picking up ice while decending, then you report
it to
> ATC and then its known to the next person behind you.
> its only against the law to fly known or forcasted icing. If others have
landed
> ahead of you and not reported ice then you have no worry.
>
>
> Wyatt Emmerich wrote:
>
> > Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of
icing. By
> > the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
you
> > with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> > through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known
icing?
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Somehow, I think the lawyers have more ammunition to give your heir's
> inheretance to whatever victims there may be.
>

How so?

[Brien K. Meehan]

Judah > wrote in message >...
> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it would be
> equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition ...

With all due respect, I think this detail is bad advice.

The word "critical" in this context has no specific meaning to air
traffic control. Describing your situation as critical may lead to
confusion.

Pilots can declare a state of distress or urgency. Both states are
emergencies to ATC, and are handled as such.

If you describe your situation as "critical," ATC may believe an
emergency exists and handle it as such, or may not believe an
emergency exists. This could be confusing. Confusion is bad. You
might get asked if it's an emergency or not, and you'll tie up the
airwaves explaining, "Well, sorta, but not really, I don't wanna
declare an emergency, but if I don't get this I'll crash, but I don't
want to inconvenience anyone ..."

Either declare an emergency or don't. Don't hesitate to declare an
emergency if safety is at risk.

> From my perspective, if you tell the controller what you have and what you
> are concerned about, they will do their best to cooperate even if you don't
> declare an Emergency...

This is true, and is very GOOD advice!

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Somehow, I think the lawyers have more ammunition to give your heir's
> inheretance to whatever victims there may be.
>

How so?
<<

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I try to give them a wide berth.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mark Mallory]

Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

> Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of icing. By
> the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below you
> with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known icing?

No. You must remain above the icing layer until your fuel is exhausted.

[Judah]

I'm not sure where I read it or heard it, but I thought that "Critical" was
actually an ATC term. Perhaps I confused it with Distress or Urgent.

But yes, the bottom line is if you tell ATC exactly what's going on, and
exactly what you want to do, it alleviates confusion regardless of whether
you declare an emergency or use improper FAA language. :)


(Brien K. Meehan) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it
>> would be equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition ...
>
> With all due respect, I think this detail is bad advice.
>
> The word "critical" in this context has no specific meaning to air
> traffic control. Describing your situation as critical may lead to
> confusion.
>
> Pilots can declare a state of distress or urgency. Both states are
> emergencies to ATC, and are handled as such.
>
> If you describe your situation as "critical," ATC may believe an
> emergency exists and handle it as such, or may not believe an
> emergency exists. This could be confusing. Confusion is bad. You
> might get asked if it's an emergency or not, and you'll tie up the
> airwaves explaining, "Well, sorta, but not really, I don't wanna
> declare an emergency, but if I don't get this I'll crash, but I don't
> want to inconvenience anyone ..."
>
> Either declare an emergency or don't. Don't hesitate to declare an
> emergency if safety is at risk.
>
>> From my perspective, if you tell the controller what you have and what
>> you are concerned about, they will do their best to cooperate even if
>> you don't declare an Emergency...
>
> This is true, and is very GOOD advice!

[Judah]

Perhaps I confused Critical with Urgent. But I was fairly certain at some
point I read or heard that the term Critical was a legitimate FAA/ATC term
that came short of declaring an emergency, but made the point.

I'll have to look it up and see if I can find where I came up with that.



"Barry" > wrote in :

>> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it
>> would be equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would
>> draw nearly the same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't
>> necessarily require priority at this point, you don't need to do that
>> yet.
>
> I disagree. "Critical condition" isn't in the AIM's Pilot/Controller
> Glossary, so there's no accepted meaning.
>
> There are two levels of emergency, distress and urgency. The AIM
> (para. 6-1-2) says:
>
> "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."
>
> I think that being stuck above icy clouds, low on fuel, certainly
> qualifies. If you use the word emergency, you know that the controller
> will understand that your situation is serious. Using your own
> language like "critical" might not make it clear.
>
> Your other option is to declare "minimum fuel":
>
> "Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where,
> upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This
> is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency
> situation is possible should any undue delay occur."
>
> I much prefer "emergency" for the case we're discussing.
>
> Barry
>
>
>

[Jeff]

You do not know that, you assume that, you wont actually know that untill you or
someone else goes through it and finds out, then its known.

Weather can do strange and unexpected things sometimes.

Wyatt Emmerich wrote:

> Well I "know" there's likely to be ice if it's a cloud layer at 30 F.
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you dont have reports of ice then its not known to you, so decending
> wouldnt
> > be a problem, if you start picking up ice while decending, then you report
> it to
> > ATC and then its known to the next person behind you.
> > its only against the law to fly known or forcasted icing. If others have
> landed
> > ahead of you and not reported ice then you have no worry.
> >
> >
> > Wyatt Emmerich wrote:
> >
> > > Let's say you take off on a long cross country with no forecast of
> icing. By
> > > the time you arrive at your destination, a 2,000-foot layer exist below
> you
> > > with temps of 30 F. You are getting low on fuel. Is it legal to descend
> > > through the thin layer even if you are in an airplane without known
> icing?
> >

[Allan9]

And as a controller (retired) I'm going to help in every way I can.
Al


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
>
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> > > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>To me, getting low on fuel in deteriorating weather is preventable
> > >>and doesn't thus constitute a bona fide emergency. It constitutes
> > >>stupidity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course it's an emergency. I agree with you that it's most probably
> > > stupidity and preventable, but that doesn't make it not an emergency.
> > > It's just an emergency of your own making.
> > >
> > > The feds may still bust your butt for careless and reckless, but in
the
> > > the here and now, it's an emergency.
> >
> > I agree it is an emergency and should be dealt with as such, but I
> > wouldn't be surprised if the Feds didn't accept it as a reason to fly
> > into known icing conditios.
>
> Well, if I'm running out of fuel, I don't give a rats ass what the feds
> are going to do to me once I get my sorry butt safely on the ground.

[Allan9]

I never heard the term crtical used. I'd probably say something like I'm
starting to pickup some icing and I'm getting a little concerned about my
fuel. Most good controllers would get the idea. But they'd also expect you
to let them know before it became too late. There's a lot they can do for
you. Don't ever make it a we/they thing.
Al

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps I confused Critical with Urgent. But I was fairly certain at some
> point I read or heard that the term Critical was a legitimate FAA/ATC term
> that came short of declaring an emergency, but made the point.
>
> I'll have to look it up and see if I can find where I came up with that.
>
>
>
> "Barry" > wrote in :
>
> >> For those who seem to be afraid to declare an emergency, I think it
> >> would be equally safe to declare a "Critical" condition, which would
> >> draw nearly the same amount of attention from ATC, but since you don't
> >> necessarily require priority at this point, you don't need to do that
> >> yet.
> >
> > I disagree. "Critical condition" isn't in the AIM's Pilot/Controller
> > Glossary, so there's no accepted meaning.
> >
> > There are two levels of emergency, distress and urgency. The AIM
> > (para. 6-1-2) says:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > I think that being stuck above icy clouds, low on fuel, certainly
> > qualifies. If you use the word emergency, you know that the controller
> > will understand that your situation is serious. Using your own
> > language like "critical" might not make it clear.
> >
> > Your other option is to declare "minimum fuel":
> >
> > "Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where,
> > upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This
> > is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency
> > situation is possible should any undue delay occur."
> >
> > I much prefer "emergency" for the case we're discussing.
> >
> > Barry
> >
> >
> >
>

[Barry]

> I never heard the term crtical used. I'd probably say something like I'm
> starting to pickup some icing and I'm getting a little concerned about my
> fuel.

Again, "a little concerned about my fuel" isn't in the Pilot/Controller
Glossary and has no clear meaning. Here's the entire paragraph 6-1-2 from the
AIM:

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!

The word "emergency" is designed specifically for this situation. Why mess
around with "critical" or "concerned"?

Barry

[Judah]

Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
assistance?

Quite frankly, as soon as I see ice building up, I would probably tell ATC
and requiest immediate assistance in the form of an altitude change or
course deviation. If I were VFR, I wouldn't even make it a request. I would
just let them know that I am deviating for weather and ice.

I hear pilots request altitude changes and deviations for various reasons
(sometimes not expressed) and get what they asked for, or be told when they
will. I would probably express to ATC that the reason for the request was
because of icing, to help them understand the severity of the request, and
allowing them to help me as best they can without too much interference
with the rest of the system. I suspect in most cases, even if some action
is required, they would do their best to comply as soon as they heard that
I was encountering ice. If they refuse to help out, and the ice is still
developing, then I would declare an emergency. But I really think that if
you tell ATC that you are developing ice and would like to climb or descend
1 or 2000', they will work it out so that you can as quickly and safely as
possible.

I would think that working WITH ATC to solve this problem would be a safer
bet than declaring an emergency, deviating course, and leaving ATC to route
everyone else out of your way and clean up the mess while you fly blind in
a vacuum...


"Barry" > wrote in :

>> I never heard the term crtical used. I'd probably say something like
>> I'm starting to pickup some icing and I'm getting a little concerned
>> about my fuel.
>
> Again, "a little concerned about my fuel" isn't in the Pilot/Controller
> Glossary and has no clear meaning. Here's the entire paragraph 6-1-2
> from the AIM:
>
> 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!
>
> The word "emergency" is designed specifically for this situation. Why
> mess around with "critical" or "concerned"?
>
> Barry
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isn't this exactly what caused that Avianca 707 to crash near JFK?
> Ran out of fuel because weather was bad and everyone was being put in
> holds and they failed to convey the severity of their fuel state to
> the controllers for some sort of expedited handling until it was way
> too late for the controllers to help?
>

That airplane crashed near JFK because the flight crew missed an approach
when they knew they didn't have enough fuel for another one.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
> assistance?
>

Why not declare an emergency? What better way is there to get maximum
assistance than to declare an emergency?

[Roy Smith]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Isn't this exactly what caused that Avianca 707 to crash near JFK?
> > Ran out of fuel because weather was bad and everyone was being put in
> > holds and they failed to convey the severity of their fuel state to
> > the controllers for some sort of expedited handling until it was way
> > too late for the controllers to help?
> >
>
> That airplane crashed near JFK because the flight crew missed an approach
> when they knew they didn't have enough fuel for another one.
>
>

That's a simplistic (although accurate) answer. The proximate cause of
the crash was certainly fuel exhaustion, but why did they run out of
fuel?

Had they declared an emergency, it's possible that they could have been
vectored around for another try while they still had fuel left. But,
from my recollection of reading the report, it's not even clear they had
enough fuel for that, or that if they did, the result would have been
any different at the end of the second approach.

Like many accidents, Avianca was the result of a long chain of mistakes.
How did they end up in New York so low on fuel that they only had enough
for a single approach? Either they didn't put enough on when they left,
or conditions changed so drasticly during the flight that they used a
lot more than they should have. In which case, I'm sure they overflew
dozens of airports along they way where they could have safely diverted.

Why didn't they? Because they never declared an emergency. I'm not
talking about saying the E-word on the radio, I'm talking about
admitting to themselves that they've got a problem and doing something
about it before it's too late.

Why am I rehashing Avianca? Because it has relevance to this thread.
The original problem statement was that you're low on fuel and caught on
top of unforecast ice-containing clouds. It's interesting in a way to
debate the options at that point, but the real answer is that this is
not an icing problem, it's a fuel problem.

You should never let yourself get into a situation where you have so
little fuel that you can't handle the unexpected. **** happens. Extra
fuel lets you deal with it. Forecasts go bad. Airports close
unexpectedly (a few years back, LaGuardia closed down because a bizjet
hit a truck that was parked on the runway changing light bulbs). ATC
blows your flight plan out of the water with reroutes or holds. You
forget to lean and don't notice it for 2 hours. Whatever.

My club just bought a Bonanza with tip tanks. I work the no-wind range
with the tips filled to just shy of 1200 miles. Personally, I think
it's wonderful to be able to file a 30 minute flight from White Plains
to Philadelphia and know I can make it to Orlando if that's how far I
need to go to find someplace that's open. When's the last time somebody
picked up ice on approach to Orlando?

[Teacherjh]

>>
That airplane crashed near JFK because the flight crew missed an approach
when they knew they didn't have enough fuel for another one.
<<

This makes it sound like missing an approach is a voluntary thing. If you
don't see the runway, you can't land. (at least not with the equipment I
believe that they had) Were they VMC?

Now, when one is in a situation where a missed approach would put you out of
gas, and you're IMC, that's pretty much an emergency to me. My understanding
is that they did not declare an emergency (or did not understand the authority
that doing so grants, because they were foreign). Am I wrong? (in this
statement? :)

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's a simplistic (although accurate) answer. The proximate cause of
> the crash was certainly fuel exhaustion, but why did they run out of
> fuel?
>
> Had they declared an emergency, it's possible that they could have been
> vectored around for another try while they still had fuel left. But,
> from my recollection of reading the report, it's not even clear they had
> enough fuel for that, or that if they did, the result would have been
> any different at the end of the second approach.
>

They were being vectored around for another try, but they didn't have enough
fuel for another try. Sure, there were a series of rather minor errors made
along the way that collectively put them in a bad spot, but they still chose
to miss the approach when they knew they did not have enough fuel on board
to fly another approach anywhere. I don't care what the weather conditions
are, you simply cannot execute a missed approach procedure without fuel.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> This makes it sound like missing an approach is a voluntary thing. If you
> don't see the runway, you can't land. (at least not with the equipment I
> believe that they had)
>

Well, when you've got just a couple of minutes of fuel left at decision
height, a decision to miss is a decision to crash. Of course, a decision to
continue the approach may also be a decision to crash, but even in the worst
case it's probably a crash in an open, level area with plenty of emergency
equipment nearby. Instead Avianca crashed on a wooded hillside and rescue
forces had difficulty finding them.


>
> Were they VMC?
>

They were IMC, real crappy IMC.


>
> Now, when one is in a situation where a missed approach would put you out
of
> gas, and you're IMC, that's pretty much an emergency to me. My
understanding
> is that they did not declare an emergency (or did not understand the
authority
> that doing so grants, because they were foreign). Am I wrong? (in this
> statement? :)
>

Exactly. They had a gen-you-whine, first-class, bonafide emergency and they
never said the E word.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:37:45 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
>> assistance?
>>
>
>Why not declare an emergency? What better way is there to get maximum
>assistance than to declare an emergency?
>
One of our local pilots was headed home from the south. As he was
approaching MBS (it's only 11.3 from MBS to 3BS) his engine started to
run rough. Carb heat helped, but even so it was running pretty bad.

He declared an emergency, they brought him straight in... He landed, A
mechanic gave it a quick checkout and it ran fine. He had told the
tower he thought it was carb ice.

He landed, 20 minutes later it was running fine, conclusion, it was
carb ice, he went home. No grilling, no big long explanations, just a
glad you're OK from the tower. I seem to remember he said he called
to tower to tell them that it appeared it had been carb ice.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[Barry]

The cockpit voice recorder transcript from the Avianca accident is available
at:

http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_av052.shtml

The lack of assertiveness is pretty amazing. On the first approach, the crew
knew that weather was near minimums and that they were very low on fuel,
but accepted speed changes and a late localizer intercept that made it harder
to fly a stabilized approach. After the go around, the Captain asked the
First Officer to declare an emergency, but the FO never used the word
"emergency," instead telling ATC "we're running out of fuel, sir". Then ATC
says "I'm going to bring you about fifteen miles northeast, and then turn you
back onto the approach, is that fine with you and your fuel?" and Avianca
replies "I guess so, thank you very much."

Barry

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
> assistance?

You shouldn't declare it if it doesn't exist.


> Quite frankly, as soon as I see ice building up, I would probably tell ATC
> and requiest immediate assistance in the form of an altitude change or
> course deviation. If I were VFR, I wouldn't even make it a request. I would
> just let them know that I am deviating for weather and ice.

Yep, that's what I do. So far it has always worked.


> I hear pilots request altitude changes and deviations for various reasons
> (sometimes not expressed) and get what they asked for, or be told when they
> will. I would probably express to ATC that the reason for the request was
> because of icing, to help them understand the severity of the request, and
> allowing them to help me as best they can without too much interference
> with the rest of the system. I suspect in most cases, even if some action
> is required, they would do their best to comply as soon as they heard that
> I was encountering ice. If they refuse to help out, and the ice is still
> developing, then I would declare an emergency. But I really think that if
> you tell ATC that you are developing ice and would like to climb or descend
> 1 or 2000', they will work it out so that you can as quickly and safely as
> possible.

Yes, this is has been my experience also. First mention of ice along
with a request to climb or descend has always resulted in a very quick
response from our friends behind the screens.

I wouldn't hesitate to declare and emergency though if I felt I was
really in deep doo-doo. Fortunately, I've never been in a situation
where I felt that way. I came close once picking up ice (unforecast I
might add) south of Lake Erie one night. I couldn't hold altitude at
11,000 feet with full power and thus informed the controller that I was
beginning an unplanned descent. :-) The controller came back and
cleared me to fly any altitude from 11,000 down to 5,000. You might say
that not being able to maintain altitude is an emergency, but to me it
wasn't one while at 11,000 feet above ground that was maybe 2,000 feet
high. Now if I'd been at 3,000' in the same circumstance, I'd have
probably declared an emergency. Fortunately, thrust and drag again
reached equilibrium at 9,000 feet and I motored on into ELM with 1-2" of
ice on the 182. Fortunately, it flew quite nicely in that condition,
other than the poor visibility through the windshield.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
>>assistance?
>>
>
>
> Why not declare an emergency? What better way is there to get maximum
> assistance than to declare an emergency?
>
>

If you need maximum assistance, I agree. If all you need is a quick
altitude change to get out of icing conditions, why declare an
emergency? Now, if I ask for a change and the answer is "standby", then
I will declare an emergency as I now need more assistance than was offered.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That's a simplistic (although accurate) answer. The proximate cause of
>>the crash was certainly fuel exhaustion, but why did they run out of
>>fuel?
>>
>>Had they declared an emergency, it's possible that they could have been
>>vectored around for another try while they still had fuel left. But,
>>from my recollection of reading the report, it's not even clear they had
>>enough fuel for that, or that if they did, the result would have been
>>any different at the end of the second approach.
>>
>
>
> They were being vectored around for another try, but they didn't have enough
> fuel for another try. Sure, there were a series of rather minor errors made
> along the way that collectively put them in a bad spot, but they still chose
> to miss the approach when they knew they did not have enough fuel on board
> to fly another approach anywhere. I don't care what the weather conditions
> are, you simply cannot execute a missed approach procedure without fuel.

Yes, that is almost as smart as staying above an icing layer until you
run out... :-)


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>This makes it sound like missing an approach is a voluntary thing. If you
>>don't see the runway, you can't land. (at least not with the equipment I
>>believe that they had)
>>
>
>
> Well, when you've got just a couple of minutes of fuel left at decision
> height, a decision to miss is a decision to crash. Of course, a decision to
> continue the approach may also be a decision to crash, but even in the worst
> case it's probably a crash in an open, level area with plenty of emergency
> equipment nearby. Instead Avianca crashed on a wooded hillside and rescue
> forces had difficulty finding them.

Absolutely. They should have declared an emergency and then flown to
decision height in a stablized approach and then kept on going until
they contacted terra firma. Might have been a really rough landing, but
that was in the cards anyway at that point.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Barry wrote:
> The cockpit voice recorder transcript from the Avianca accident is available
> at:
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_av052.shtml
>
> The lack of assertiveness is pretty amazing. On the first approach, the crew
> knew that weather was near minimums and that they were very low on fuel,
> but accepted speed changes and a late localizer intercept that made it harder
> to fly a stabilized approach. After the go around, the Captain asked the
> First Officer to declare an emergency, but the FO never used the word
> "emergency," instead telling ATC "we're running out of fuel, sir". Then ATC
> says "I'm going to bring you about fifteen miles northeast, and then turn you
> back onto the approach, is that fine with you and your fuel?" and Avianca
> replies "I guess so, thank you very much."

Yes, I read the transcript many years ago and was amazed. I can't
imagine being so passive when your life literally is on the line. I
remember having trepidation about ATC when I was a student pilot. I
decided to go visit my local tower and that was what did it for me.
Found that the controllers were really nice people dedicated to doing
their job. After that, I lost almost all concern about talking with
ATC. I think every pilot should visit an ATC facility at least once,
preferably as a student pilot. You quickly learn that the ATC folks are
human too, make mistakes just like pilots do, but keep in doing their
job as best they can.


Matt

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> writes:

>I think every pilot should visit an ATC facility at least once,
>preferably as a student pilot. You quickly learn that the ATC folks are
>human too, make mistakes just like pilots do, but keep in doing their
>job as best they can.
>

I agre, but it is harder to do after 9-11.

Chuck

[Matthew S. Whiting]

PaulaJay1 wrote:
> In article >, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> > writes:
>
>
>>I think every pilot should visit an ATC facility at least once,
>>preferably as a student pilot. You quickly learn that the ATC folks are
>>human too, make mistakes just like pilots do, but keep in doing their
>>job as best they can.
>>
>
>
> I agre, but it is harder to do after 9-11.
>
> Chuck

Most things are it seems.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you need maximum assistance, I agree. If all you need is a quick
> altitude change to get out of icing conditions, why declare an
> emergency?
>

A simple altitude change is not a request for assistance.

[Judah]

Do you declare an emergency every time you need a Vector?

I don't think it's appropriate to declare an emergency if there isn't
one. Just the mere presence of ice is not necessarily an emergency. If
you're at 8000' and the ceilings are 7000', it is extremely likely that
all that would be required is a descent to 6500' and the ice would be
eliminated, or at least stop building up. If the tops are 9000', a climb
to 10,500' would probably do the trick.

On the other hand, if the weather is Low IFR, with Tops in the Flight
Levels, or you're somehow intolerably low on fuel, or you have an
equipment failure, or your in a panic, then I could see declaring an
emergency.

It's an emergency when its an emergency. Not every time you need
assistance. If every time you needed assistance you immediately declared
an emergency, the system would be loaded with people all frivously
requesting priority. Our air traffic system would start looking like our
legal system!



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
>> assistance?
>>
>
> Why not declare an emergency? What better way is there to get maximum
> assistance than to declare an emergency?
>
>

[Judah]

Exactly.

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in
:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Why declare an Emergency when all you really want to do is request
>>>assistance?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why not declare an emergency? What better way is there to get maximum
>> assistance than to declare an emergency?
>>
>>
>
> If you need maximum assistance, I agree. If all you need is a quick
> altitude change to get out of icing conditions, why declare an
> emergency? Now, if I ask for a change and the answer is "standby",
> then I will declare an emergency as I now need more assistance than was
> offered.
>
>
> Matt
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you declare an emergency every time you need a Vector?
>

No, but I certainly don't consider that a need for assistance. Do you?


>
> I don't think it's appropriate to declare an emergency if there isn't
> one.
>

Nor do I.

[Dave Butler]

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> That's why I don't get myself into a situation where I'm running out of
> fuel! :-) There's just no excuse for it unless, as I mentioned
> earlier, it is due to a leak or something else out of your control and
> that didn't get noticed quickly enough.

Hmmm. So, I'm confused. Is there an excuse, or is there no excuse?

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Michael]

"Wyatt Emmerich" > wrote
> I would think a well trained IFR pilot could descend through 2,000 feet of
> below freezing visible moisture far more safely than a VFR pilot through
> non-freezing visble moisture.

I don't agreee at all.

A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.

Icing is unpredictable.

> I would think in most case, the descent would just pick up a little light
> ice and not affect the flight much at all.

Yes, in most cases there will only be a little ice. In some cases, it
will be a lot - and at that point, the plane will fall out of the sky
and no amount of training will help.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...

>
> A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
> have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
> a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
> able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.
>
Perhaps. If you know you are going to need to fly instruments, you can usually
handle a straight descent ok. (at least for a short time). I suspect the major
killer is the tendency to continue to look out the window into the abyss rather
than hunkering down and getting on the instruments. Then you're safe until
the leans set in.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If you need maximum assistance, I agree. If all you need is a quick
>>altitude change to get out of icing conditions, why declare an
>>emergency?
>>
>
>
> A simple altitude change is not a request for assistance.
>
>

I guess it depends on how you define assistance.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Dave Butler wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>> That's why I don't get myself into a situation where I'm running out
>> of fuel! :-) There's just no excuse for it unless, as I mentioned
>> earlier, it is due to a leak or something else out of your control and
>> that didn't get noticed quickly enough.
>
>
> Hmmm. So, I'm confused. Is there an excuse, or is there no excuse?
>
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>

In most cases, there is no excuse. However, there are things that can
happen that are beyond the pilots control.


Matt

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:22:44 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"Michael" > wrote in message om...
>
>>
>> A VFR pilot still has had 3 hours of instrument training, and ought to
>> have no problem at all mnaintaining wings level as he descends through
>> a layer for 5 minutes. Unless he screws up hideously, he ought to be
>> able to complete the descent safely 100% of the time.
>>
>Perhaps. If you know you are going to need to fly instruments, you can usually
>handle a straight descent ok. (at least for a short time). I suspect the major
>killer is the tendency to continue to look out the window into the abyss rather
>than hunkering down and getting on the instruments. Then you're safe until
>the leans set in.

Those leans are bad enough even when you are current and rated. <:-))

Possibly... IF the pilot has recently had some hood time, but I think
you will find a lot of rated instrument pilots can be uncomfortable
with the idea of being "on the gauges" for 5 minutes if they haven't
had any real, or simulated instrument time in a couple of years.

In the above scenario, IF the pilot has the plane trimmed for straight
and level, then reduces the power for a straight and level descent AND
believes the gauges, AND makes no more than the necessary inputs to
keep the wings level he, or she *probably* would make it, but I'd not
want to wager more than pocket change. There are just too many things
to go wrong.

The 3 hours is minimal and without any recurrent training doesn't come
any where near preparing the pilot for real instrument conditions.
Just ask any instrument student with 3 hours of hood time how they are
doing. As it's recent, they should handle straight ahead climbs and
descents, but three hours some years back is not exactly comforting.

I have the rating, I haven't flown much in the last couple of years,
and I'm not IFR current. I am getting ready to go take a competency
check. The point is, prior to starting on the competency check, I'd
have been extremely uncomfortable with the idea of 5 minutes on the
gauges. I'd be confident I could do it, but I'd still be
uncomfortable and I have quite a few hours in actual. I had near 10
and many approaches down to minimums prior to taking the check ride.
I was far more proficient the first time I went into actual on my own
than I was just a few weeks ago, maybe even now.

I'd say a pilot who only has the 3 hours required for the PPL with no
recent hood time is a long way of being assured of completing a 5
minute descent in IMC 100% of the time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Do you declare an emergency every time you need a Vector?
>>
>
> No, but I certainly don't consider that a need for assistance. Do you?


No? What is it then?

You need a vector in order to get your nose pointed in the right direction.
Maybe you are lost. Maybe you are disoriented. Maybe all your charts blew
out the window. Maybe your VORs failed.

If you didn't need assistance, you would have pointed the nose where it
belongs all by yourself... If you didn't need assistance, I would assume
you wouldn't have asked for a vector.

>>
>> I don't think it's appropriate to declare an emergency if there isn't
>> one.
>>
>
> Nor do I.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> No? What is it then?
>

It's a heading issued to an aircraft to provide navigational guidance by
radar.

[Ray Andraka]

Not by the FAA's definition. As far as they are concerned it is known ice if it is
in the forecast, even if the forecast came out after you last got it.

Jeff wrote:

> You do not know that, you assume that, you wont actually know that untill you or
> someone else goes through it and finds out, then its known.
>
> Weather can do strange and unexpected things sometimes.
>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759