AOPA article: ATC and Airworthiness

[azure]

Why would you go to that airport? Why wouldn't you turn around and go home or go to an airport with an FBO and mx service?

Because I didn't have information as to what services the airport had, other than that the remarks in the A/FD mentioned fuel. I didn't know before I landed that the place would be deserted. It's a municipal airport with an AWOS and even an instrument approach or two I think. I figured someone would be there.

Also, I didn't know for sure that it was a gauge malfunction until it came back to life on rollout. Though unlikely, it MIGHT have been a real fuel leak. My first action was to move the selector from both to the unaffected tank, which also prevents fuel from crossing over between tanks. Not knowing all the possible causes, I figured I should at least check for obvious hazards on the ground "as soon as practicable".

 

[azure]

This. I've told them things that probably sound more serious than a glitch in the fuel gauge (?) but have never been questioned later. They rolled the trucks because you said you had a glitch in your fuel gauge? Seriously?

Actually I said I had a fuel gauge that was reading zero. I said I suspected a malfunction in the gauge but wanted to make a precautionary landing to check it out. I didn't mention the possibility of a leak, but it seems likely that ATC thought of it and that might be why they declared for me.

In view of how unlikely that was, I still think that was an overreaction.

 

[docmirror]

Actually I said I had a fuel gauge that was reading zero. I said I suspected a malfunction in the gauge but wanted to make a precautionary landing to check it out. I didn't mention the possibility of a leak, but it seems likely that ATC thought of it and that might be why they declared for me.

In view of how unlikely that was, I still think that was an overreaction.

You done right(except for the chatty with center).

Land, check, verify, continue or don't.

 

[StinkBug]

Actually I said I had a fuel gauge that was reading zero.

Well now Ithink we know why they declared. regardless of what you said after the fact, you said the gauge read zero, so they have to assume you're out of gas. You did nothing wrong, but Ican see why the controller took the safest route, since we see so many people running out of fuel and not saying anything about it. there's a thread on the front page right now with a dude landing on a highway instead of simply saying "i'm out of fuel"

 

[Omalley1537]

I would guess that they equated "gauge reading zero" as no fuel on board rather than the reality that the aircraft has two tanks and two gauges with only one gauge affected.

 

[azure]

Well now Ithink we know why they declared. regardless of what you said after the fact, you said the gauge read zero, so they have to assume you're out of gas. You did nothing wrong, but Ican see why the controller took the safest route, since we see so many people running out of fuel and not saying anything about it. there's a thread on the front page right now with a dude landing on a highway instead of simply saying "i'm out of fuel"

Why do they "have to" assume I'm out of gas? I didn't say anything about low fuel or needing to land for fuel. How do you get from "I suspect a gauge malfunction" to "that pilot sounds like one of those idiots who only lands when they're running on fumes"? Even if that was their thinking, IMO it shouldn't be in their purview to act on it without harder evidence.

They asked if I wanted the trucks rolled, I said "negative" in no uncertain terms. Why do you think it was appropriate for them to second-guess my PIC decision?

 

[Everskyward]

Why do they "have to" assume I'm out of gas? I didn't say anything about low fuel or needing to land for fuel. How do you get from "I suspect a gauge malfunction" to "that pilot sounds like one of those idiots who only lands when they're running on fumes"? Even if that was their thinking, IMO it shouldn't be in their purview to act on it without harder evidence.

They asked if I wanted the trucks rolled, I said "negative" in no uncertain terms. Why do you think it was appropriate for them to second-guess my PIC decision?

Declaring an emergency for you or rolling the equipment are not entirely your decision. That said, from what I have read, I think it was a overreaction.

 

[Palmpilot]

so you don't think there's anything paranoid about not asking for help because you're afraid the fsdo might call and ask a couple questions?

There is a perception among pilots, rightly or wrongly, that the FAA has a unique capacity for blowing things out of proportion.

 

[Everskyward]

There is a perception among pilots, rightly or wrongly, that the FAA has a unique capacity for blowing things out of proportion.

I know I'm in the minority, reading this thread and others, but I don't feel that way.

 

[BillTIZ]

I had the power roll back on takeoff, I was at pattern altitude, called the tower I was returning. He asked why and I said, no power. He already had one rolling behind me. I was doing a 180 to land opposite direction on the parralle. That guy called me in sight, staying low. I crossed over the top, landed opposite direction and rolled clear. I had enough throttle to taxi.

A south departure off the right side runway, right turnout, power failed, continued right turn, evaluated the downwind, but chose to make it a left base to land northbound. The departing traffic went straight out below me. I turned and landed northbound.

Tower asked me to call the tower when I could. I called, gave pilot information, suspected problem and the plane was in the hangar for the mechanics.

I never heard from FSDO.

 

[Palmpilot]

I know I'm in the minority, reading this thread and others, but I don't feel that way.

I don't know whether the perception I mentioned represents the majority or a minority, just that it is a frequently expressed view.

 

[StinkBug]

Why do they "have to" assume I'm out of gas? I didn't say anything about low fuel or needing to land for fuel. How do you get from "I suspect a gauge malfunction" to "that pilot sounds like one of those idiots who only lands when they're running on fumes"? Even if that was their thinking, IMO it shouldn't be in their purview to act on it without harder evidence.

They asked if I wanted the trucks rolled, I said "negative" in no uncertain terms. Why do you think it was appropriate for them to second-guess my PIC decision?

Gauge reads zero, but I suspect......

What if your suspicion was wrong? I know a bunch of controllers, and none of them want extra paperwork, but even more than that none of them want an emergency or worse a crash on their watch. If there is ANY chance of someone needing the equipment they roll it, cause that's what it's there for. If you land safely and the trucks go back to the shed without doing anything that's what everyone wants to see. What they don't want is for your "suspicion" of a faulty gauge to be wrong and the emergency crew is back in the office drinking coffee.

No need for you to get defensive, you didn't do anything wrong, in fact I think you were probably more conservative than you needed to be. At the same time so was the controller. Being extra cautious on both sides of the radio is rarely a bad thing.

 

[Tom-D]

Remember when someone says Hi I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you,don't believe it.

Many many times I have asked my PMI for help, and always got it.


Some times it just wasn't the help I wanted.

 

[warthog1984]

Telling ATC "I have a flaky fuel gauge" and "my fuel gauge is on empty" imply two entirely different things.

Learn the difference, go forth and sin no more.

 

[azure]

Gauge reads zero, but I suspect......

What if your suspicion was wrong?

And that's exactly why I landed there, instead of continuing to my destination which was only another 50 miles or so.

As you say, I was being very conservative, more so than I needed to be. I had plenty of evidence that all but ruled out a real fuel leak and was really playing "what if I'm wrong".

Most importantly, the gauge had been reading normally 2 minutes earlier and then suddenly read zero. "Normally" means about 3/8 full, which translates to somewhere between 15 and 20 gallons. I had just gone through some turbulence over the mountains and I'd seen that gauge rock back and forth and even momentarily hit zero before under similar conditions.

15-20 gallons of fuel is a heck of a lot to lose in 2 minutes without being aware of it. Also, that's about 100 lbs or more disappearing from one side. The plane didn't feel at all unbalanced. No fuel odor in the cabin, no drop in fuel pressure. Just the gauge reading zero.

The chances that it was anything but a gauge malfunction? You can judge, but I thought they were pretty close to zero.

Being a conservative pilot I just wanted to check it out and make sure.

I didn't expect ATC to necessarily be on exactly the same page based on what I had told them, but they did ASK me whether I wanted the tanks rolled. That implies to me that it wasn't a mandatory emergency for them. What it comes down to, for me, is that they didn't respect my PIC judgement.

No need for you to get defensive, you didn't do anything wrong, in fact I think you were probably more conservative than you needed to be. At the same time so was the controller. Being extra cautious on both sides of the radio is rarely a bad thing.

That's a good assessment, but I still think controllers should be there to assist the pilot, and not to take matters into their own hands without clear evidence that the pilot is not using good judgement or treating a situation with the seriousness it deserves.

 

[Palmpilot]

An earlier thread on a related subject:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72013

 

[Everskyward]

And that's exactly why I landed there, instead of continuing to my destination which was only another 50 miles or so.



As you say, I was being very conservative, more so than I needed to be. I had plenty of evidence that all but ruled out a real fuel leak and was really playing "what if I'm wrong".



Most importantly, the gauge had been reading normally 2 minutes earlier and then suddenly read zero. "Normally" means about 3/8 full, which translates to somewhere between 15 and 20 gallons. I had just gone through some turbulence over the mountains and I'd seen that gauge rock back and forth and even momentarily hit zero before under similar conditions.



15-20 gallons of fuel is a heck of a lot to lose in 2 minutes without being aware of it. Also, that's about 100 lbs or more disappearing from one side. The plane didn't feel at all unbalanced. No fuel odor in the cabin, no drop in fuel pressure. Just the gauge reading zero.



The chances that it was anything but a gauge malfunction? You can judge, but I thought they were pretty close to zero.



Being a conservative pilot I just wanted to check it out and make sure.



I didn't expect ATC to necessarily be on exactly the same page based on what I had told them, but they did ASK me whether I wanted the tanks rolled. That implies to me that it wasn't a mandatory emergency for them. What it comes down to, for me, is that they didn't respect my PIC judgement.



That's a good assessment, but I still think controllers should be there to assist the pilot, and not to take matters into their own hands without clear evidence that the pilot is not using good judgement or treating a situation with the seriousness it deserves.

You seem to be taking the fact that they rolled the equipment for you as an insult, which it wasn't. They can make that decision on their own. I'm not sure how many controllers are pilots, but I don't think it is a huge percentage. You might have gotten the one who thought your situation was more serious than it was.

 

[Palmpilot]

I also suspect that controllers can't always tell whether the pilot they're working with at the moment has good judgment, or is prone to go into denial about a developing hazard.

 

[azure]

You seem to be taking the fact that they rolled the equipment for you as an insult, which it wasn't. They can make that decision on their own. I'm not sure how many controllers are pilots, but I don't think it is a huge percentage. You might have gotten the one who thought your situation was more serious than it was.

I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. I don't take it in any way as a *personal* insult, but IMO overruling a PIC decision does smack a little of condescension and nannyism. What I said was they should be there to assist when asked, not overrule and declare for the pilot unless it's mandatory or clearly warranted.

So what are the mandatory emergency situations? I can think of a few that are probably mandatory:

Fire or smoke in cabin
Loss of engine power
Control failure
Pilot reports out of fuel
VFR-only into IMC
Loss of control due to weather (severe turbulence, icing, etc.)

Others? Are any of these not mandatory E's?

 

[azure]

I also suspect that controllers can't always tell whether the pilot they're working with at the moment has good judgment, or is prone to go into denial about a developing hazard.

But would you want them to always err on the side of caution on that? Particularly in view of what Yodice's article tell us, that seems likely to lead to a lot of unnecessary work for the FAA and work and stress for pilots.

Yes, of course, they can and do make decisions to declare on their own. Which brings me back to the first point I made in this thread: to avoid having to deal with possible followup from the FSDO, it's probably best to tell ATC only what they need to know to fulfil your request. And I would add: if you're not in an emergency situation, don't say anything that could be misinterpreted to imply that one exists.

 

[Everskyward]

I think you're reading too much into what I wrote. I don't take it in any way as a *personal* insult, but IMO overruling a PIC decision does smack a little of condescension and nannyism. What I said was they should be there to assist when asked, not overrule and declare for the pilot unless it's mandatory or clearly warranted.

So what are the mandatory emergency situations? I can think of a few that are probably mandatory:

Fire or smoke in cabin
Loss of engine power
Control failure
Pilot reports out of fuel
VFR-only into IMC
Loss of control due to weather (severe turbulence, icing, etc.)

Others? Are any of these not mandatory E's?

I'm not sure there is a defined list for ATC any more than there is for pilots. Maybe a controller can answer that.

They rolled the trucks for me years ago when I had a gear problem. I would have eventually asked for the equipment, but they sat there next to the runway for at least an hour or two. They sent four trucks for a Cessna 320.

I've been asked the amount of fuel and number of SOB a few times, but I don't know if they actually declared an emergency for me or not. I wasn't curious enough to ask. In any case, I never got a call from the FSDO in these instances.

 

[Velocity173]

I'm not sure there is a defined list for ATC any more than there is for pilots. Maybe a controller can answer that.

They rolled the trucks for me years ago when I had a gear problem. I would have eventually asked for the equipment, but they sat there next to the runway for at least an hour or two. They sent four trucks for a Cessna 320.

I've been asked the amount of fuel and number of SOB a few times, but I don't know if they actually declared an emergency for me or not. I wasn't curious enough to ask. In any case, I never got a call from the FSDO in these instances.

10-2-5 in the .65 has one but the catch all is an emergency declared by facility personnel. So it really doesn't matter if you're overdue or VFR encountering IFR conditions or other listed emergency situations. If in that controller's judgment your situation could be an emergency that requires assistance / priority, then they'll declare.