Descending through a thin icing layer

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

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

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

"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.

"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?

In article . net,
"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?

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)

"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.

"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.

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