Not an emergency???

[William W. Plummer]

Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring an
emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
decending through icing layer while short on fuel]

[Ben Jackson]

In article <ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54>,
William W. Plummer > wrote:
>Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring an
>emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist?

I went to an aviation safety seminar about declaring emergencies recently.
A local FSDO guy said a few words at the beginning. He emphasized that
the reports for flight assists (emergencies) all go to him and it's the
FSDO's policy not to start an enforcement action based on an emergency.
He was very clear that they didn't want to do anything to discourage pilots
from getting help when they need it.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[tscottme]

William W. Plummer > wrote in
message news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
> Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for
declaring an
> emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist?
[Reference:
> decending through icing layer while short on fuel]
>

I participated in a research project a few years ago concerning this
issue. After the experiments, the person doing the research indicated
he had not been able to find any enforcement action against a pilot for
unnecessarily declaring an emergency. Nearly all of the pilot
participating in the project has tried to avoid declaring and talked
around the issue with ATC with bad results.

I've not seen any reason to avoid declaring when there is a possibility
of needing help. My rule would be, if you start thinking if you should
declare or not, do it. It's unlikely there will even be paperwork
unless there are serious injuries or damage.

--

Scott
--------
If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered,
Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats.
Ann Coutler

[C J Campbell]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
| Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring
an
| emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
| decending through icing layer while short on fuel]

You are much more likely to face action for declaring an emergency when the
emergency is of your own making. Still, you should not hesitate to declare
an emergency if one arises.

[Doug]

I had one magneto fail totally at NIGHT in VFR. I declared an
emergency although it turned out I really didn't have to. I declared
it on Center frequency, and received flight following as well as
assistance in deciding which airport to proceed land at (the nearest
or the nearest with a mechanic). After landing without mishap, I had
it repaired. I received a very pleasant letter from ATC telling me
they were more than willing to help me out. I wrote them back a letter
thanking them and informing them of the outcome (the magneto was
indeed faulty, etc). More knowledgable pilots than I, have told me it
wasn't really an emergency. It felt like one to me, and I think that
is important. I, as Pilot in Command, truly felt like I was going to
have to land off field at night, therefore I declared an emergency.
The fact that I did not have to land off field and the fact that the
plane was capable of continuing the flight without mishap was not a
factor. So here is one example of a pilot declaring an emergency,
because he THOUGHT he had one, and getting ATC assistance with no
negative reprecussions. My impression was the ATC division wanted a
thankyou letter to show to their supervisors to show how needed they
are, which, indeed they are! They received that from me. Least I could
do. That was the extent of the paperwork. Thank you ATC. Thank you
FAA.

So I would say, if you think you have an emergency, and you think
declaring it to ATC would be helpful, do it. No one is going to
prosecute you. Obviously a pilot declaring phony emergencies would be
liable for some ATC certificate action, but I don't think any of us
would do that. And if one of us did, I would support the action
against him.

You are PIC and you have to decide. No one expects your decisions to
be perfect. But they do expect your intentions to be honorable.
A stuttering engine can be a gut wrenching scary experience, and if
you need help, even if it just means someone to talk to, then do get
on the radio and start asking for assistance. ATC is trained in
assisting you and they display that attitude. This was also true of
the other pilots on frequency. No one is going to knock you down for
seeking help so long as you truly think you need it.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
> | Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring
> an
> | emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
> | decending through icing layer while short on fuel]
>
> You are much more likely to face action for declaring an emergency when the
> emergency is of your own making. Still, you should not hesitate to declare
> an emergency if one arises.

[Allan9]

Bill
I certainly hope you are talking theoretcally. In 38 years of ATC I never
heard of anything like that. In most instances the only entry would be in
the Daily Record of Operations. This normally does not leave the facility.
Take a look at this reference. http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/ATQ/APNDX%207.htm

You mentioned short on fuel. Was the required fuel on board, proper flight
planning, etc..
Al



"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
> Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring
an
> emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
> decending through icing layer while short on fuel]

[Gerald Sylvester]

during one of my phase checks for my PPL, the instructor brought up a
situation in I think florida where a pilot declared a fuel
priority/emergency twice in 2 weeks and the guy in ATC recognized
it the 2nd time. He was ****ed for whatever reason and pursued
it. All I remember is the guy filled out a NASA form for the
first time and the 2nd time was broken fuel guage (?, something like
that) and was let off. I guess anything is possible. As long as you
are not stupid, get yourself in an even more stupid situation and
proceed like a moron, you probably won't get in trouble. Just like
the boy who cried wolf. If you or others cry all the time, then
ATC won't care when it really matters.


gerald




Allan9 wrote:
> Bill
> I certainly hope you are talking theoretcally. In 38 years of ATC I never
> heard of anything like that. In most instances the only entry would be in
> the Daily Record of Operations. This normally does not leave the facility.
> Take a look at this reference. http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/ATQ/APNDX%207.htm
>
> You mentioned short on fuel. Was the required fuel on board, proper flight
> planning, etc..
> Al
>
>
>
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
>
>>Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring
>
> an
>
>>emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
>>decending through icing layer while short on fuel]
>
>
>
>

[GregR]

"William W. Plummer" wrote:

> Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for declaring an
> emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist? [Reference:
> decending through icing layer while short on fuel]

Haven't had to declare an emergency yet, but have requested priority landing
clearance a couple of times.

First was while doing instrument training at KJAX in the late-70's. This was
during the days of the switchover from 80 octane to 100LL, and this particular
plane apparently got a bad case of lead indigestion (you've never seen an IFR
hood come off so quickly...). They bumped us to #1 for landing, and we landed
uneventfully (heh, they even rolled "the equipment" for us).

Second incident was back in the early '90's at KVNY - engine went severe rough
just after takeoff. Let the tower know about the problem, struggled up to
pattern altitude at reduced RPM, and managed to land normally on this one as
well.

Neither incident triggered any kind of follow-up or contact from the
powers-that-be, though my instincts would be to declare an emergency if in
doubt, and do whatever it takes to get the airplane safely back on terra
firma. The paperwork can be dealt with later.

BTW, the VNY incident turned out to be severe plug fouling as well - FBO
manager shrugged and said "it happens", needless to say that was my last flight
with them. :-)

--

GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

CA/IFR/BGI - KVNY

[This space for rent - inquire within]

[Marco Leon]

I for one think you did the right thing. There are two sides to an
mechanical failure emergency--the mechanical failure itself and the ability
of the pilot to handle that failure. If you had serious doubts about the
ability to handle the situation, then it truly was an emergency. I'm sure
there are test pilots out there that fail one system or another on a regular
basis and can handle most type of failures. These pilot may not consider
many mechanical failures emergencies where the majority of the pilot
population would find themselves in a world of hurt given the same
situation.

Marco

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> I had one magneto fail totally at NIGHT in VFR. I declared an
> emergency although it turned out I really didn't have to. I declared
> it on Center frequency, and received flight following as well as
> assistance in deciding which airport to proceed land at (the nearest
> or the nearest with a mechanic). After landing without mishap, I had
> it repaired. I received a very pleasant letter from ATC telling me
> they were more than willing to help me out. I wrote them back a letter
> thanking them and informing them of the outcome (the magneto was
> indeed faulty, etc). More knowledgable pilots than I, have told me it
> wasn't really an emergency. It felt like one to me, and I think that
> is important. I, as Pilot in Command, truly felt like I was going to
> have to land off field at night, therefore I declared an emergency.
> The fact that I did not have to land off field and the fact that the
> plane was capable of continuing the flight without mishap was not a
> factor. So here is one example of a pilot declaring an emergency,
> because he THOUGHT he had one, and getting ATC assistance with no
> negative reprecussions. My impression was the ATC division wanted a
> thankyou letter to show to their supervisors to show how needed they
> are, which, indeed they are! They received that from me. Least I could
> do. That was the extent of the paperwork. Thank you ATC. Thank you
> FAA.
>
> So I would say, if you think you have an emergency, and you think
> declaring it to ATC would be helpful, do it. No one is going to
> prosecute you. Obviously a pilot declaring phony emergencies would be
> liable for some ATC certificate action, but I don't think any of us
> would do that. And if one of us did, I would support the action
> against him.
>
> You are PIC and you have to decide. No one expects your decisions to
> be perfect. But they do expect your intentions to be honorable.
> A stuttering engine can be a gut wrenching scary experience, and if
> you need help, even if it just means someone to talk to, then do get
> on the radio and start asking for assistance. ATC is trained in
> assisting you and they display that attitude. This was also true of
> the other pilots on frequency. No one is going to knock you down for
> seeking help so long as you truly think you need it.
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > "William W. Plummer" > wrote in
message
> > news:ZmsEb.146587$_M.719680@attbi_s54...
> > | Has any pilot ever been prosecuted (by the FAA, NTSB, ...) for
declaring
> > an
> > | emergency when, in some experts opinion, one did not exist?
[Reference:
> > | decending through icing layer while short on fuel]
> >
> > You are much more likely to face action for declaring an emergency when
the
> > emergency is of your own making. Still, you should not hesitate to
declare
> > an emergency if one arises.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Robert Moore]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote

> I for one think you did the right thing. There are two sides to
> an mechanical failure emergency--the mechanical failure itself
> and the ability of the pilot to handle that failure. If you had
> serious doubts about the ability to handle the situation, then
> it truly was an emergency. I'm sure there are test pilots out
> there that fail one system or another on a regular basis and can
> handle most type of failures. These pilot may not consider many
> mechanical failures emergencies where the majority of the pilot
> population would find themselves in a world of hurt given the
> same situation.

As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
remainder of the flight. All of this at 100' to 500'. Certainly
wasn't an emergency to us but for the average airline pilot flying
the same basic airplane (Electra), this would have been an emergency
for sure.

Bob Moore
VP-46 (1965-1967)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Robert Moore wrote:
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote
>
>
>>I for one think you did the right thing. There are two sides to
>>an mechanical failure emergency--the mechanical failure itself
>>and the ability of the pilot to handle that failure. If you had
>>serious doubts about the ability to handle the situation, then
>>it truly was an emergency. I'm sure there are test pilots out
>>there that fail one system or another on a regular basis and can
>>handle most type of failures. These pilot may not consider many
>>mechanical failures emergencies where the majority of the pilot
>>population would find themselves in a world of hurt given the
>>same situation.
>
>
> As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
> patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
> one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
> remainder of the flight. All of this at 100' to 500'. Certainly
> wasn't an emergency to us but for the average airline pilot flying
> the same basic airplane (Electra), this would have been an emergency
> for sure.

Yes, having a plane load of passengers isn't quite the same as a plane
with a military crew. The military by necessity accepts risks every day
that would be unacceptable to civilian commercial aviation.


Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

Robert Moore wrote:

> As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
> patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
> one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
> remainder of the flight.

Why? I was thinking perhaps "for fuel economy", but then why wait?

- Andrew

[Roy Smith]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> As a Naval Aviator, I flew the Lockheed P-3 Orion on 10-12 hour
> patrols. After about 2 hours, we shut-down (feathered) the number
> one engine and after 2-3 more hours, off went number four for the
> remainder of the flight.

Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight limits as
fuel burned off?

Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of the
remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on one?

[Robert Moore]

Roy Smith > wrote

> Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight
> limits as fuel burned off?

YEP!

> Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of
> the remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on
> one?

At least until we could get another started. That was the reason
for the 500' limitation on two engines. Wasn't adhered to very
often though. As I recall, it only took about 10-15 seconds get
one going again.

This fuel saving method only works on constant speed turboprop
engines. The Allison turned the prop a constant 1061 rpm....
TO...cruise...and... landing. The compressor section required
about 6000hp at that constant speed regardless of the power being
delivered to the prop (up to 4600hp).

Bob Moore

[Everett M. Greene]

Robert Moore > writes:
> Roy Smith > wrote
>
> > Why the staggered shutdown? Waiting to hit certain weight
> > limits as fuel burned off?
>
> YEP!
>
> > Once you had shut down two engines, what would happen if one of
> > the remaining two failed? Was the airplane capable of flying on
> > one?
>
> At least until we could get another started. That was the reason
> for the 500' limitation on two engines. Wasn't adhered to very
> often though. As I recall, it only took about 10-15 seconds get
> one going again.
>
> This fuel saving method only works on constant speed turboprop
> engines. The Allison turned the prop a constant 1061 rpm....
> TO...cruise...and... landing. The compressor section required
> about 6000hp at that constant speed regardless of the power being
> delivered to the prop (up to 4600hp).

I read/heard something about the Navy telling the crews to stop
routinely shutting down the engines in flight. Don't recall
what, if any, reason was given for the order.