Mayday in Utah

[[email protected]]

Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
motorglider had safely landed.

You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.

Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
Jim Payne

[Scott[_7_]]

wrote:
> Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
> with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
> new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
> was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
> Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
> search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
> motorglider had safely landed.
>
> You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
> better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
> Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
> Jim Payne

Huh? The engine quit? Why was that worth a mayday? Wasn't the dead
engine attached to a GLIDER? Don't they normally fly OK without an
engine? Sounds fishy to me ;)

Scott

[JJ Sinclair]

*Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> glider with a failed engine"

Sounds like one of our motorized brethren actually had to SOAR his way
out of trouble. Got to be tough when one presses the iron thermal
button and gets no put-put noise.
JJ

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
> Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine"

Sounds like the pilot involved has a really odd sort of
mindset - mired in the world of powered flight. I mean,
what's the use of those long wings if you're not going
to use them?

Jim Beckman

[5Z]

On Jun 12, 7:28 am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>
> > Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> >glider with a failed engine"
>
> Sounds like the pilot involved has a really odd sort of
> mindset - mired in the world of powered flight. I mean,
> what's the use of those long wings if you're not going
> to use them?

OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
happened:

Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.

If he had a transponder or SPOT, he might activate these before
landing, again in case something bad happens.

When I fly my ASH-26E, I'm always planning to land it somewhere
safely, but it's a welcome relief when the engine starts. It's just
plain stupid to not be preparing to land as one is starting the engine
- just in case.

-Tom

[Scott[_7_]]

5Z wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:28 am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
>>At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>>>glider with a failed engine"
>>
>>Sounds like the pilot involved has a really odd sort of
>>mindset - mired in the world of powered flight. I mean,
>>what's the use of those long wings if you're not going
>>to use them?
>
>
> OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
> happened:
>
> Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
> dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
> it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
> landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
> remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
> pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>
> If he had a transponder or SPOT, he might activate these before
> landing, again in case something bad happens.
>
> When I fly my ASH-26E, I'm always planning to land it somewhere
> safely, but it's a welcome relief when the engine starts. It's just
> plain stupid to not be preparing to land as one is starting the engine
> - just in case.
>
> -Tom

Way back, as a powered pilot student, I was always taught to constantly
be scanning for suitable landing sites if the fan stopped and I became a
glider. Since I've never been to Utah, I don't know the terrain but
always assumed a lot of those dry lake beds, etc with some mountains
thrown in here and there ;)

Scott

[FreeFlight107[_2_]]

On Jun 12, 8:29*am, Scott > wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 7:28 am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
> >>At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>
> >>>Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> >>>glider with a failed engine"
>
> >>Sounds like the pilot involved has a really odd sort of
> >>mindset - mired in the world of powered flight. *I mean,
> >>what's the use of those long wings if you're not going
> >>to use them?
>
> > OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
> > happened:
>
> > Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
> > dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. *Runs out of lift and decides
> > it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
> > landing options. *The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
> > remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
> > pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>
> > If he had a transponder or SPOT, he might activate these before
> > landing, again in case something bad happens.
>

Easy Cowboys, if you transmit a MAYDAY or activate your transponder to
Mayday before landing and land where radio transmission is not likely
to reach anyone, wouldn't this activate SAR missions? If one had ELT
or SPOT this could be used on the ground anywhere except in dense
jungle, right?

Granted in Utah & Nevada you could actually land in an area so remote
that not even a paved road for 50 miles is near your dry lake or open
desert landing, in which case this would be prudent. I guess what I'm
saying is, if you could still be in deep doo-doo after a landing, it
would be prudent to Mayday, but if the landing is pretty near
civilization, maybe hold off till you get on the ground?

Any comments from SAR people on this?

Thanks,

Wayne

[Tim Taylor]

On Jun 12, 9:29 am, Scott > wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 7:28 am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
> >>At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>
> >>>Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> >>>glider with a failed engine"
>
> >>Sounds like the pilot involved has a really odd sort of
> >>mindset - mired in the world of powered flight. I mean,
> >>what's the use of those long wings if you're not going
> >>to use them?
>
> > OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
> > happened:
>
> > Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
> > dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
> > it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
> > landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
> > remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
> > pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>
> > If he had a transponder or SPOT, he might activate these before
> > landing, again in case something bad happens.
>
> > When I fly my ASH-26E, I'm always planning to land it somewhere
> > safely, but it's a welcome relief when the engine starts. It's just
> > plain stupid to not be preparing to land as one is starting the engine
> > - just in case.
>
> > -Tom
>
> Way back, as a powered pilot student, I was always taught to constantly
> be scanning for suitable landing sites if the fan stopped and I became a
> glider. Since I've never been to Utah, I don't know the terrain but
> always assumed a lot of those dry lake beds, etc with some mountains
> thrown in here and there ;)
>
> Scott

Southern Utah, lots of mountains, scrub, river beds and very few dry
lake beds, epically this year. There are alfalfa fields in some
valleys.

Google Earth Duck Creek Village Utah, the runway is not usable by
gliders. Fence posts on each side that will let a Cezzna land but not
gliders. You will notice the elevation is 8400 feet, don't want to
think about the density altitude the day I was forced to land there
(way over 10,000 feet). Went from fat dumb and happy to Oh sh#* in
about two minutes by a thunderstorm miles away. The only lucky thing
was I was flying a Ventus B that day and could get it into one of the
meadows and stopped in about 300 feet.

I can understand the precautionary Mayday if you are not sure you are
going to make a good landing and no one knows where you are. Often I
can be anywhere in 90,000 square miles out here. Without an ELT
signal or spot they will find my bones ten years from now when a
hunter stumbles on the glider. I think a Mayday with coordinates
would be a good idea. Yes I fly with an ELT, but it has to work.

Where is Steve Fossett?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 12, 5:36*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> **Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>
> > glider with a failed engine"
>
> Sounds like one of our motorized brethren actually had to SOAR his way
> out of trouble. Got to be tough when one presses the iron thermal
> button and gets no put-put noise.
> JJ

JJ

You are sounding a little bitter JJ. :-) Put-put? Maybe in past times.
Most motorgliders now sound more like gas powered weed whackers. The
ASH-26E sounding like a particularly fine weed whacker IMNSHO.

Seriously - it should be an unusual situation to declare an emergency
because of an engine failure to start. Most motorglider pilots will do
starts over a suitable landing location should things not go well. And
should allow for things like stuck partially extended engine masts
etc. I've had to put my motorglider into a field because of a mistake
I made. The only real hassle was having to call a non-motorglider
pilot to come retrieve me and put up with some teasing (thank God it
was not J.J.). Utah can be intimidating, desolate areas etc. and maybe
the pilot had a good reason to do what they did.

Darryl

[Scott[_7_]]

Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:29 am, Scott > wrote:

>
> I can understand the precautionary Mayday if you are not sure you are
> going to make a good landing and no one knows where you are. Often I
> can be anywhere in 90,000 square miles out here. Without an ELT
> signal or spot they will find my bones ten years from now when a
> hunter stumbles on the glider. I think a Mayday with coordinates
> would be a good idea. Yes I fly with an ELT, but it has to work.
>
> Where is Steve Fossett?
>
>
>
May PAN PAN might be more appropriate. I believe MAYDAY is supposed to
be used when loss of property or life is imminent. Pan Pan is for
"urgent" situations. I realize it's a judgement call, but I'd use PAN
PAN if I was lost or something, and MAYDAY when a wing or tail feathers
departed the plane. Maybe the Feds should add an Oh S***! phrase since
all one has to do is remember to key the PTT line because Oh S*** comes
out without even the slightest thought as "Now what were those proper
FAA phrases?" ;)

Scott

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 14:56 12 June 2008, 5Z wrote:
>
>OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
>happened:
>
>Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
>dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
>it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
>landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
>remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
>pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>
>If he had a transponder or SPOT, he might activate these before
>landing, again in case something bad happens.
>
>When I fly my ASH-26E, I'm always planning to land it somewhere
>safely, but it's a welcome relief when the engine starts. It's just
>plain stupid to not be preparing to land as one is starting the engine
>- just in case.

So if you were flying a pure glider, and facing the prospect
of landing in a remote, but reasonably safe looking dry
lake, pasture, whatever, would you send out a Mayday
message before even landing?

Jim Beckman

[brtlmj]

> May PAN PAN might be more appropriate. I believe MAYDAY is supposed to
> be used when loss of property or life is imminent. Pan Pan is for
> "urgent" situations. I realize it's a judgement call, but I'd use PAN
> PAN if I was lost or something, and MAYDAY when a wing or tail feathers
> departed the plane.

This is slightly OT, but... suppose that you are flying in a remote
area and see an accident, or what looks like a recent accident.
Landing is impossible or difficult. What radio call would you make?

Bartek

[Scott[_7_]]

brtlmj wrote:

>>May PAN PAN might be more appropriate. I believe MAYDAY is supposed to
>>be used when loss of property or life is imminent. Pan Pan is for
>>"urgent" situations. I realize it's a judgement call, but I'd use PAN
>>PAN if I was lost or something, and MAYDAY when a wing or tail feathers
>>departed the plane.
>
>
> This is slightly OT, but... suppose that you are flying in a remote
> area and see an accident, or what looks like a recent accident.
> Landing is impossible or difficult. What radio call would you make?
>
> Bartek
I'd say "Fligh****ch, experimental 3642 near Ogden (or nearest known
position so they know which transmitter to reply with)" When they
returned my call, I'd tell them what I think I see below.

Scott

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jun 12, 7:56*am, 5Z > wrote:

> OK, I'm sure some of you are jesting, but here's what *might* have
> happened...

I think we can be fairly sure he wasn't tightening the iris on his
camera after a console lockup.

[Cliff Hilty[_3_]]

I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
about communications on the ground. When it got dark I could not find a
single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)


At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
>with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
>new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
>was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
>Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
>search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
>motorglider had safely landed.
>
>You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
>better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
>Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
>Jim Payne
>

[Cliff Hilty[_3_]]

I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
about communications on the ground. When it got dark I could not find a
single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)


At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
>with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
>new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
>was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
>Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
>search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
>motorglider had safely landed.
>
>You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
>better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
>Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
>Jim Payne
>

[Cliff Hilty[_3_]]

I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
about communications on the ground. When it got dark I could not find a
single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)


At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
>with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
>new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
>was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
>Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
>search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
>motorglider had safely landed.
>
>You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
>better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
>Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
>Jim Payne
>

[Cliff Hilty[_3_]]

I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
about communications on the ground. When it got dark I could not find a
single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)


At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
>with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
>new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
>was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
>Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
>search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
>motorglider had safely landed.
>
>You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
>better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
>Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
>Jim Payne
>

[Cliff Hilty[_3_]]

I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
about communications on the ground. When it got dark I could not find a
single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)


At 04:22 12 June 2008, wrote:
>Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
>with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
>new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
>was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
>Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
>glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
>search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
>motorglider had safely landed.
>
>You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
>better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
>Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
>Jim Payne
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jun 12, 3:28*pm, Cliff Hilty > wrote:
> I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
> think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
> prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
> well deactivating itafter landing?

I think those folks ought to expect to be billed for any SAR service
expense incurred on their behalf as a result of non-emergency
activation.

I have no problem donating time and resources to searching for
bretheren in actual peril, or even those who think they're in peril,
because I know that some day that might be me out there. However, I
think it'd be pretty seriously demotivating to get regularly called
out and then stood down because of an alert sent up by someone who
thought that there was the possibility that they might soon be in
peril, maybe. Demotivating events like that take their toll on SAR
groups, making it harder to attract and retain qualified and dedicated
volunteers.

Thanks, Bob K.

[raulb]

What I want to know is, how much are they going to charge the
motorglider pilot for the Global Hawk search and rescue team?

On Jun 11, 9:22*pm, wrote:
> Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
> with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. *The team was flying a
> new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
> was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
> Center made the request. *Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
> search and rescue. *Fortunately good news followed that the
> motorglider had safely landed.
>
> You all be careful out there. *We don't fly Hawks every day. *It is
> better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
> Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
> Jim Payne

[COLIN LAMB]

Regarding the Mayday, this is encouraged by the FAA if the pilot is
concerned about his safety - whether founded or unfounded. They are there
to help and can decide how urgent the matter is. Perhaps the pilot was
simply a low time pilot or perhaps no one knew he was flying in that area.
Perhaps he did something bonehead, but that can be discussed later.
Remember, the FAA is there to help and prevent accidents. Although soaring
pilots rarely get lost these days, pilots were encouraged to call in
whenever they got disoriented and still are when they are in a position of
low visibility. I think the terminology is less important than letting the
FSS or other facility the pilot needs help.

Regarding SAR, I am a member of SAR and have been involved in a number of
searches. Once a beacon is turned on, we are going to try to find the
source. If it turns off, we still are going to look for the cause and
assume the battery failed. So, do not turn it on unless you want to be
found. If you know you are gong to crash, that is a good reason to turn the
ELT on.

ELTs do not assure immediate location, which is why they have moved to a
higher frequency. Most of the ELTs we track down are on perfectly good
airplanes, with no accident. Could be a hard landing or defective
workmanship. The satellites report by traingulation of passing satellites
and sometimes the report given to us is far away from where found. The most
difficult case is when an instructor throws his bag into the back and
activates the ELT, then keeps flying for another hour. One tracker was
right under the airplane and reported that the signal strength was the same
in every direction. Later, he learned he had been under the missing
airplane.

And, remember that motorgliders are often not 50/1 ships. Some are as low
as 23/1.

Colin

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

Cliff Hilty wrote:
> I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
> think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
> prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
> well deactivating itafter landing? I bring to mind a landing I made about
> 60 miles west of Ely last year after a 1000k attempt in Long valley dry
> lake. I thought it would have been prudent to activate a PLB prior to
> making the landing in case of incapacitation after. Now don't get me
> wrong I didn 't think I would wreck the plane, however I was concerned
> about communications on the ground.


Sounds like a good reason to have SPOT along when flying in the Great Basin


When it got dark I could not find a
> single light for 40miles in any direction with mountains all around.
> Amazingly I did have sporadic cell coverage and was able to get my crew
> and help to me in a few hours and able to retrieve the sailplane the next
> day with minimal effort....but thats another story:)

[Tony Verhulst]

> I'd say "Fligh****ch, experimental 3642 near Ogden (or nearest known
> position so they know which transmitter to reply with)"



Errr, Flight Service (often on 122.2 - both transmit/receive)? Flight
Watch (122.0 - only, AFAIK) is for weather advisories.

Tony

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 3:28 pm, Cliff Hilty > wrote:
> I brought this up before but got lost in the thread shift: What do you
> think the "official" position on activating a PLB or similar device
> prior to making a questionable out landing? And then if everything goes
> well deactivating itafter landing?

I think those folks ought to expect to be billed for any SAR service
expense incurred on their behalf as a result of non-emergency
activation.

I have no problem donating time and resources to searching for
bretheren in actual peril, or even those who think they're in peril,
because I know that some day that might be me out there. However, I
think it'd be pretty seriously demotivating to get regularly called
out and then stood down because of an alert sent up by someone who
thought that there was the possibility that they might soon be in
peril, maybe. Demotivating events like that take their toll on SAR
groups, making it harder to attract and retain qualified and dedicated
volunteers.

Thanks, Bob K.

OK, that's useful information, Bob. What about using a rented sat-phone to
call in an apology to the SAR folks after turning the PLB off. Is there any
central number to call?

Bill D

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 00:27 13 June 2008, COLIN LAMB wrote:
>
>And, remember that motorgliders are often not 50/1 ships. Some are as
low
>as 23/1.

That doesn't mean that an off-field landing in a 23/1 glider
is by its very nature an emergency. I've done it. More
than once. So has anybody who flies cross-country in
a 1-26.

Jim Beckman

[COLIN LAMB]

Although we can discuss whether the incident should have been an emergency,
the point was that the pilot felt it prudent to use the radio to get
assistance. I flew helicopters with 2/1 glide ratio and we practiced
autorotations regularly, and I always flew over terrain that an engine out
would not be an emergency.

In the midwest, there is probably always a spot to land - but in rugged
terrain, there are sometimes few places to land a ship - no matter what.

I knew a fellow - Cal Butler - who made an emergency landing with an old
torpedo plane that he was ferrying across the Cascades (engine failure) on
lava beds. He no doubt did not call Mayday, but he was a different breed.
He walked away, but the aircraft was in a little ball.

Even if the radio communication and known backup eased the pilot's mind, to
allow him to fly the sailplane, that woud be sufficient reason to justify
the call.

I have scraped off enough pilots who did not call for help that I prefer it
the other way around.

Colin Lamb

[COLIN LAMB]

And, I forgot to mention that just because the MG has the same glide ratio
as the 1/26 does not mean that it will land in the same space. The MG has
more mass and some have a stall speed at about 50, which is different that a
1/26.

We can talk about whether or not the pilot was prepared, but that might be a
different question. We do not know all the facts. Maybe the pilot was
dehydrated. Maybe he was suffering from hypoxia. The good news is that he
is down and safe, and he did a lot more right than he did wrong.

Colin Lamb

[[email protected]]

On Jun 12, 12:22 am, wrote:
> Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
> with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
> new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
> was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
> Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
> glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
> search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
> motorglider had safely landed.
>
> You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
> better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.
>
> Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
> Jim Payne

JP - Now that we have been subjected to the customary RAS
>>> Rampant Aviation Speculation <<<
Can you tell us what actually transpired (why he called MayDay) ?
Thanks !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 13:38 13 June 2008, COLIN LAMB wrote:
>
>I have scraped off enough pilots who did not call for help that I prefer
>it
>the other way around.

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Would the crash
have been any less severe if the pilot you scraped off
had called for help beforehand?

The point here seems to be that the pilot's call
for assistance wasn't based on the lack of a place
to land (obviously such a place was handy) but on
his lack of engine power. Given the positive outcome
it's sort of funny, and it gives us purists a chance to
snicker at the powerglider brigade. How much of our
snickering is rooted in envy is left as an exercise for
the student.

Jim Beckman

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jun 13, 11:28*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 13:38 13 June 2008, COLIN LAMB wrote:
>
>
>
> >I have scraped off enough pilots who did not call for help that I prefer
> >it
> >the other way around.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand this. *Would the crash
> have been any less severe if the pilot you scraped off
> had called for help beforehand?
>
> The point here seems to be that the pilot's call
> for assistance wasn't based on the lack of a place
> to land (obviously such a place was handy) but on
> his lack of engine power. *Given the positive outcome
> it's sort of funny, and it gives us purists a chance to
> snicker at the powerglider brigade. *How much of our
> snickering is rooted in envy is left as an exercise for
> the student.
>
> Jim Beckman

Obviously? We know next to nothing about what happened. You don't know
if the pilot had anywhere to land. He might have gotten very lucky and
found lift and got to somewhere else. Or he might have ended up in an
extremely bad landing situation and just gotten lucky, or, or, or...
Lets wait for actual information.

Darryl

[Mike the Strike]

On Jun 13, 2:15 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:28 am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > At 13:38 13 June 2008, COLIN LAMB wrote:
>
> > >I have scraped off enough pilots who did not call for help that I prefer
> > >it
> > >the other way around.
>
> > I'm afraid I don't understand this. Would the crash
> > have been any less severe if the pilot you scraped off
> > had called for help beforehand?
>
> > The point here seems to be that the pilot's call
> > for assistance wasn't based on the lack of a place
> > to land (obviously such a place was handy) but on
> > his lack of engine power. Given the positive outcome
> > it's sort of funny, and it gives us purists a chance to
> > snicker at the powerglider brigade. How much of our
> > snickering is rooted in envy is left as an exercise for
> > the student.
>
> > Jim Beckman
>
> Obviously? We know next to nothing about what happened. You don't know
> if the pilot had anywhere to land. He might have gotten very lucky and
> found lift and got to somewhere else. Or he might have ended up in an
> extremely bad landing situation and just gotten lucky, or, or, or...
> Lets wait for actual information.
>
> Darryl

There are some extremely nasty places to get stuck down low in Utah
(I've been in some of them) and a precautionary Mayday to alert others
doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It also seems standard to use Mayday
rather than Pan Pan. There may be many folks who wouldn't know what
it means, but Mayday is universally understood as a distress signal.

I know we're all tempted to beat up on the wussy motorglider pilots in
the belief that they deploy the engine as a crutch at the slightest
soaring difficulty, but in this case I think we should wait for the
full story. If you check OLC, they've been stacking up some
impressive flights in the past few days.

Mike

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 14:55 14 June 2008, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>There are some extremely nasty places to get stuck down low in Utah
>(I've been in some of them) and a precautionary Mayday to alert others
>doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It also seems standard to use Mayday
>rather than Pan Pan.

I was sort of under the impression that the expected response
to a Mayday call is to start the wheels rolling immediately for
whatever rescue mission turns out to be appropriate. It
really seems like there should be some intermediate form
that acknowledges that while things could get messy, it
hasn't actually happened yet.

>I know we're all tempted to beat up on the wussy motorglider pilots in
>the belief that they deploy the engine as a crutch at the slightest
>soaring difficulty, but in this case I think we should wait for the
>full story. If you check OLC, they've been stacking up some
>impressive flights in the past few days.

Well, the engine is, as they say, a real confidence builder.

Jim Beckman

[bagmaker]

Today (June 11) Oakland Center asked the Global Hawk Test Team to help
with a Mayday call from a motorglider in Utah. The team was flying a
new Global Hawk somewhat above 50,000 feet north of Edwards AFB and
was 8 hours into a 30 hour mission to test the sensor suite when OAK
Center made the request. Center reported a Mayday from a "powered
glider with a failed engine" and asked if the Hawk could join in the
search and rescue. Fortunately good news followed that the
motorglider had safely landed.

You all be careful out there. We don't fly Hawks every day. It is
better to have a SPOT and/or an ELT.

Soar safe, have fun, go fast and far,
Jim Payne

JP - Now that we have been subjected to the customary RAS
Rampant Aviation Speculation
Can you tell us what actually transpired (why he called MayDay) ?
Thanks !
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric" [/i][/color][/i][/color]


Gotta love speculation
Am I the only paranoid here?
This sounds like bunk to me.
Did anyone actually hear the mayday?
Does anyone actually know the pilot (its not like we dont know each other here)
Did anyone actually see/hear/hear of/know anything like this actually happen?

Let me put forward option #3

US military monitors these RAS threads, like everything else
The notice the gliding, RA & GA community are suspect of their trumped up model aircraft killing machines and think, duh, how can we get onside with this mob?
Duh, lets throw in a bull#*^t mayday JUST WHEN a global eyeball is testing and wallah! instant hero's
Next time they loose one of their toys or have a mid-air with one of us they can point out when they helped us out -presto- insant spin for the computer pilots and Joe public thinks WE did something wrong by being in THEIR airspace

or maybe I am paranoid and should trust the US military (Especially the air force)

[kirk.stant]

On Jun 14, 5:08*pm, bagmaker >
wrote:

> or maybe I am paranoid and should trust the US military (Especially the
> air force)
>
> --
> bagmaker

Uhh, yeah, you are paranoid!

First of all, the report is that Center reported a Mayday, and asked
for help from the Global Hawk team.

So maybe you should be more concerned about the FAA (I know I am!!).

Second, if your knowledge of the military comes from Hollywood or the
media - well, go ahead, enjoy your paranoia unencumbered with reality.

Kirk
66

[bagmaker]

Yep, paranoid!

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marine.verdict/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/06/pilot.crash/
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010917
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=06061971&reg=N9345&airline=Hughes+Airwest

some fun reading, Kirk, media can be a double edged sword. The military sharpen it well on both sides nowadays, do we all read both sides? Not from my understanding of citizens in the USA (and most of OZ, frankly)

BUT-

Steve has given details of his exciting day elsewhere regarding this incident and I applaud him for doing so.

I am thankful on his behalf for any assistance received from your authorities for Steve and the effort put in by them after the MAYDAY call.

I am ever hopeful that incidents like those including the links above and the ones that actually turn out well can be learned from for aviators throughout the whole world,


so, paranoid but respectfully thankful and slightly apologetic



safe flying, well done Steve

[brtlmj]

> > I'd say "Fligh****ch, experimental 3642 near Ogden (or nearest known
> > position so they know which transmitter to reply with)"
> Errr, Flight Service (often on 122.2 - both transmit/receive)? Flight
> Watch (122.0 - only, AFAIK) is for weather advisories.

Dang. Either way, I missed. My guess would be 121.5...

Bartek

[Ian]

On 12 Jun, 15:56, 5Z > wrote:

> Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
> dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
> it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
> landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
> remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
> pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.

That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
later.

Ian

[Jonas Eberle]

On 19 Jun., 10:33, Ian > wrote:
> On 12 Jun, 15:56, 5Z > wrote:
>
> > Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
> > dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. *Runs out of lift and decides
> > it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
> > landing options. *The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
> > remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
> > pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>
> That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
> NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
> later.
>
> Ian

On the discussion Pan-Pan vs. Mayday:
As I learned it (and is content of German PPL exams), Mayday means
declaring an emergency for your OWN plane, whereas Pan-Pan means you
noticed an emergency on someone else.

An engine failure on your plane would in this sense be a Mayday, an
observed car crash or a broken glider on the ground would be a Pan-
Pan.

Somehow I get confused because Wikipedia states it different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
They refer to the lower/higher order of the emergency situation.
Can anyone clarify that?

[John Callahan]

At 10:20 19 June 2008, Jonas Eberle wrote:
>On 19 Jun., 10:33, Ian wrote:
>> On 12 Jun, 15:56, 5Z wrote:
>>
>> > Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
>> > dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. =A0Runs out of lift and decides
>> > it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of
these
>> > landing options. =A0The engine fails to start, the location is
>extremel=
>y
>> > remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
>> > pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>>
>> That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
>> NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
>> later.
>>
>> Ian
>
>On the discussion Pan-Pan vs. Mayday:
>As I learned it (and is content of German PPL exams), Mayday means
>declaring an emergency for your OWN plane, whereas Pan-Pan means you
>noticed an emergency on someone else.
>
>An engine failure on your plane would in this sense be a Mayday, an
>observed car crash or a broken glider on the ground would be a Pan-
>Pan.
>
>Somehow I get confused because Wikipedia states it different:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
>They refer to the lower/higher order of the emergency situation.
>Can anyone clarify that?
>
MAYDAY means emergency while PAN PAN means Possible Assistance Needed.

John.

[Ian]

On 19 Jun, 11:20, Jonas Eberle > wrote:

> Somehow I get confused because Wikipedia states it different:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-panhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
> They refer to the lower/higher order of the emergency situation.
> Can anyone clarify that?

Mayday originally meant "grave and imminent danger to vessel (or
aircraft)". It doesn't have to be your own: if you see a ship sinking
or a glider lose a wing then you are perfectly justified in calling
Mayday.

It did not - the last time I checked, and when I was examined in such
things by a Marconi man - mean "grave and imminent danger to a
person". Various authorities - starting, I think, with the Royal
Yachting Association in the UK - have tried to extend the meaning de
facto, but as far as I am aware it's not official. Theoretically,
therefore, you could be in trouble for calling Mayday for a man
overboard. However, I doubt if anyone would prosecute in practixe, and
if my crew fell overboard I'd call any damn thing I thought would help
and deal with the consequences later.

To return to the distinction, Pan Pan means "this is nasty, but
nothing is on the point of sinking or crashing and "Securite securite
means "look out, folks".

Calling Mayday causes all sorts of things to happen. Everybody else
will stop transmitting (even pan pans). Every available receiver will
be tuned in to you. Recorders will start running. People will be
called in from rest periods. Air crews will warm up helicopters. Huge
amounts of money will be spent.

It is absolutely, grossly, terribly irresponsible to use it for
anything other than dreadful emergency. "I might screw up this landing
so I'd better ask for help just in case" is NOT a dreadful emergency.

Ian

[5Z]

On Jun 19, 2:33*am, Ian > wrote:
> That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
> NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
> later.

You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
want to notify *someone* of your predicament.

So you tune 121.5 and say...????

-Tom

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

5Z wrote:
> You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
> don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
> want to notify *someone* of your predicament.
>
> So you tune 121.5 and say...????
>
PAN PAN in Europe, which would have the desired effect. I've heard this
is not fully recognised in the US - true or not?

[jcarlyle]

According to the FAA's 2008 Aeronautical Information Manual Chapter 6
Section 3, Mayday is to be used for Distress situations, and Pan-Pan
is to be used for Urgency situations: See
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0603.html
for further details.

-John

Chris Reed wrote:
> PAN PAN in Europe, which would have the desired effect. I've heard this
> is not fully recognised in the US - true or not?

[Bruce]

Hi Tom

This is RAS - so the advice is only guaranteed to be worth every cent you pay, but here is my opinion for what it is worth.

I believe the adage is Aviate, navigate, communicate (My corollary is - and know the consequences.)

Having aviated into a hazardous situation - however we got there, the thing to do is to fly the aeroplane, to as safe a
location as possible under the circumstances (minimise the risk of damage and injury), and communicate the situation
(location and risk of damage or injury) as clearly as possible.
Part of mitigating risk to yourself and others is to ensure the people at your home airfield and or SAR know where you
are, and what your intentions are. The cost and risks associated with a large scale search when there is limited
information available is much higher.

So -


> You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
> don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
> want to notify *someone* of your predicament.
>
> So you tune 121.5 and say...????

My call is -
PAN PAN "... I have the following situation."

But my understanding is that the controllers / SAR / contest directors would like to know the situation whatever you
call it- as long as you explain the situation. If you mistakenly use "Mayday", the person you are talking to "should"
ask if you really want to declare an emergency.
Then remember to tell the same people once you are down what the new (hopefully - "no problem") situation is.

Even in remote areas you may be able to relay via an airliner - who should be listening for your call if you made a PAN
announcement.

If they don't hear from you cancelling the PAN (Possible Assistance Needed )call all the expensive stuff will start on
the assumption that it is no longer a possible, but an actual "assistance needed" situation - but you won't be on the
hook for futile expenses.

I you cry wolf - You will, of course, aggravate a lot of people you might really want on your side in a real emergency.
And they will bill you.

Communicating anything can save a lot of aggravation - Consider the contest pilot who got too busy to call landing out
in the middle of nowhere on a contest day that developed massive storm fronts. Last contact on the radio was around two
hours before eventual landing. That is a lot of ground for a modern 18m ship.
On the ground , he had no cell reception, deserted farmhouses and too little radio range (flat battery) to reach anyone.
Having lost track of exactly where he was in the excitement he was unaware/unsure of how to reach the nearest town which
was 13km away. Out of options and ideas he slept uncomfortably in the cockpit while the storm blew itself out - which is
more than can be said for a lot of others who spent much of the night up and arranging a search at dawn. Then seven
aircraft started a grid search, with most burning two hours of tach time by the time the aircraft was located, and they
got back home. Then the issue of cost comes up...

The take away from that one for me was - have decent battery endurance available, and try to have two cellular phones so
that you may be able to get alternative comms working. The field we found him in had reasonable cellular coverage by the
alternative network, not his service provider. Could/should have been a simple retrieve.

Sometimes abuse is preferable to non-use.

5Z wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:33 am, Ian > wrote:
>> That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
>> NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
>> later.
>
> You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
> don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
> want to notify *someone* of your predicament.
>
> So you tune 121.5 and say...????
>
> -Tom

[Scott[_7_]]

Jonas Eberle wrote:
> On 19 Jun., 10:33, Ian > wrote:
>
>>On 12 Jun, 15:56, 5Z > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pilot is soaring over remote Utah with some reasonably safe looking
>>>dry lakes, pastures, whatever below. Runs out of lift and decides
>>>it's time to start the engine while within easy range of one of these
>>>landing options. The engine fails to start, the location is extremely
>>>remote, so pilot makes a MAYDAY call while still in the landing
>>>pattern to ensure someone will come get him if problems arise.
>>
>>That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
>>NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
>>later.
>>
>>Ian
>
>
> On the discussion Pan-Pan vs. Mayday:
> As I learned it (and is content of German PPL exams), Mayday means
> declaring an emergency for your OWN plane, whereas Pan-Pan means you
> noticed an emergency on someone else.
>
> An engine failure on your plane would in this sense be a Mayday, an
> observed car crash or a broken glider on the ground would be a Pan-
> Pan.
>
> Somehow I get confused because Wikipedia states it different:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
> They refer to the lower/higher order of the emergency situation.
> Can anyone clarify that?

Here is text regarding marine VHF use of mayday and pan pan. I recall
learning the same for aircraft use as well (USA)...

7. Emergency signals:

* "MAYDAY": this distress signal is to be used only when threat of
grave and iminent danger exists; requests immediate assistance. “MAYDAY”
has priority over all other messages.
* "PAN PAN": this urgency signal is to be used when the safety of
vessel or person(s) is in jeopardy.

(From website:
http://www.co.escambia.fl.us/departments/nesd/VHFRadioProcedures.php )

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

5Z wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2:33 am, Ian > wrote:
>
>>That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
>>NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
>>later.
>
>
> You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
> don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
> want to notify *someone* of your predicament.
>
> So you tune 121.5 and say...????
>
> -Tom
"Any station, any station, Glider 1234 Alpha (use your ship's callsign),
I have a situation...I'm at (lat/Long, near town X, over the shopping
mall,, etc.) describe problem and ask if they can assist in a specific
manner (call flight service, call so and so on a cellphone, etc.)"

Chances are that even if you are on or near the ground, someone will
hear you on 121.5. Airliners are required (If I recall) to monitor
while in flight. From 5 miles up they should have a pretty good range.

Scott

[Scott[_7_]]

jcarlyle wrote:

> According to the FAA's 2008 Aeronautical Information Manual Chapter 6
> Section 3, Mayday is to be used for Distress situations, and Pan-Pan
> is to be used for Urgency situations: See
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0603.html
> for further details.
>
> -John
>
> Chris Reed wrote:
>
>>PAN PAN in Europe, which would have the desired effect. I've heard this
>>is not fully recognised in the US - true or not?

Thanks for the link...this is what I was looking for to help answer the
question...

Scott

[Ian]

On 19 Jun, 15:48, 5Z > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:33 am, Ian > wrote:
>
> > That would be a gross misuse - an abuse - of the MAYDAY call. You are
> > NOT supposed to use it on the off chance that something might go wrong
> > later.
>
> You're in a remote area, you're high enough to make a radio call, but
> don't know how much lower you can be and still communicate, so you
> want to notify *someone* of your predicament.
>
> So you tune 121.5 and say...????

An interesting question, particularly if you can't confirm that you're
OK (or not) after landing. However, since you are not in any immediate
danger, neither mayday nor pan-pan would be appropriate. On the whole
you are probably best to keep quiet and activate your emergency
locator if necessary.

Ian

[Ian]

On 19 Jun, 17:58, Bruce > wrote:

> If they don't hear from you cancelling the PAN (Possible Assistance Needed )call all the expensive stuff will start on
> the assumption that it is no longer a possible, but an actual "assistance needed" situation - but you won't be on the
> hook for futile expenses.


That's what will happen if you make a pan-pan call before descending
to a height where you can't cancel it.

Ian

[Bruce]

Hi Ian

Agree - best option is to just tell people what you are doing. No need to call pan or mayday - just give them the facts.
Then at least they know where to start looking if you don't call in.

In this instance I think the pilot had reason to believe he might not make a safe landing. In which case PAN is
justified. As I said, just remember the consequences part - including costs of search and rescue. And that there is risk
to those who go searching too.

Bruce

Ian wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 17:58, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> If they don't hear from you cancelling the PAN (Possible Assistance Needed )call all the expensive stuff will start on
>> the assumption that it is no longer a possible, but an actual "assistance needed" situation - but you won't be on the
>> hook for futile expenses.
>
>
> That's what will happen if you make a pan-pan call before descending
> to a height where you can't cancel it.
>
> Ian

[Jack[_1_]]

Ian wrote:


> ...since you are not in any immediate danger, neither mayday
> nor pan-pan would be appropriate. On the whole you are
> probably best to keep quiet and activate your emergency
> locator if necessary.


This is some of the worst advice I've ever heard on this or any other
aviation list.

Let's encourage people to know their options, to "aviate, navigate, and
communicate." Being quiet about the situation while counting on your
emergency locator to activate, or your post-landing ability to activate
it, is not recommended. Any difference of opinion regarding radio
terminology is trivial compared to the decision to use the radio to
communicate your circumstances in the first place, and in a timely manner.



Jack