Box vectors and lost comm

The Avianca crash comes to mind. The crew said they're low on fuel or something like that, but continued to accept ATC vectors. They were pilloried for not declaring an emergency and out of the accident came the silly "minimum fuel" concept. The crew should have been pilloried for not getting the damn thing on the ground before they ran out of gas. "Declaring" an emergency would only have punted the outcome to ATC. IMO, the emphasis in teaching should be to DO what's required, not SAY what really isn't.
 
Declaring an emergency doesn't "punt" it to ATC; it lets them know that the pilot is invoking the PIC authority described in 14 CFR 91.3(b).
 
Declaring an emergency doesn't "punt" it to ATC; it lets them know that the pilot is invoking the PIC authority described in 14 CFR 91.3(b).
Well it does if you keep taking vectors, like Avianca. They could have "Let them know" they were heading straight for the outer marker (or middle marker) because they were on fumes.
 
Absolutely correct. That's not the problem. The potential problem is when ATC doesn't understand an emergency condition exists. Read NTSB reports, especially more recent ones, where ATC re-vectors aircraft reporting "vacuum failure" right back into the clouds after the pilot enters visual conditions, and there is no pilot to interview later.

The NTSB often says it's an ATC education problem. Sure, but it's also a very basic pilot problem.

Very true. The archives are full of accident reports where a more knowledgeable and experienced controller may have made the difference. Someday maybe Pilot Certificates with advanced ratings may become a requirement to be a controller but I doubt it very much. Pilots gotta know themselves, their limitations, what to ask for and when to say no.
 
Well it does if you keep taking vectors, like Avianca. They could have "Let them know" they were heading straight for the outer marker (or middle marker) because they were on fumes.
I think we're in agreement that the pilot needs to take charge when an emergency exists. There's nothing about declaring an emergency that prevents him or her from doing that.
 
The Avianca crash comes to mind. The crew said they're low on fuel or something like that, but continued to accept ATC vectors. They were pilloried for not declaring an emergency and out of the accident came the silly "minimum fuel" concept. The crew should have been pilloried for not getting the damn thing on the ground before they ran out of gas. "Declaring" an emergency would only have punted the outcome to ATC. IMO, the emphasis in teaching should be to DO what's required, not SAY what really isn't.

Minimum fuel was not new after Avianca 52. Long before that, Minimum Fuel meant there was not an emergency but undue delay may cause an 'emergency low fuel' situation. After Avianca there were bulletins, education programs, maybe even an Advisory Circular, I'm not sure. Mandatory briefings were done throughout the ATC field reminding controllers that Minimum Fuel was not an emergency. Although it was already a requirement to pass important information from controller to controller concerning a flight, it became 'specifically' required to relay Minimum Fuel reports.

2−1−8. MINIMUM FUEL
If an aircraft declares a state of “minimum fuel,”
inform any facility to whom control jurisdiction is
transferred of the minimum fuel problem and be alert
for any occurrence which might delay the aircraft
en route.
NOTE−
Use of the term “minimum fuel” indicates recognition by
a pilot that his/her fuel supply has reached a state where,
upon reaching destination, he/she cannot accept any undue
delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely an
advisory that indicates an emergency situation is possible
should any undue delay occur. A minimum fuel advisory
does not imply a need for traffic priority. Common sense
and good judgment will determine the extent of assistance
to be given in minimum fuel situations. If, at any time, the
remaining usable fuel supply suggests the need for traffic
priority to ensure a safe landing, the pilot should declare
an emergency and report fuel remaining in minutes.
 
Declaring an emergency would have eliminated 3 holds and a 360 turn for Avianca, allowing them a few attempts at getting it on the ground. “I think we need priority” was a waste of a transmission. Just say you’re emergency fuel, or do the traditional “mayday” / “pan pan”.

By communicating clearly to ATC that you’re an emergency, will eliminate the confusion on their end as to whether or not to provide you with service that an emergency affords.
 
On a one-engine approach in the 727, once the gear and 5 flaps were extended a go-around was not possible. (Can't remember about the L1011.) The company did not teach to declare an emergency before starting the one-engine approach, which I thought to be foolish on the part of Boeing, the company, and the FAA.

I don't know whether anyone ever had to make such an approach, other than in the simulator.
 
Back
Top