Declaring an emergency (or not)

Agree with that, a precautionary landing is what I asked for in my situation (fuel gauge suspicious reading). I had plenty of fuel in the other tank even if the gauge was reading accurately, but I wanted to land to figure out what was going on.

And yes, ATC declared an emergency for me -- they were a LOT more cautious and concerned about the situation than I was. Even if the one tank had leaked all its fuel out, I wouldn't consider an empty fuel tank to be a hazard on the ground. I had plenty of fuel in the other tank for a normal safe landing.

I'm not trying to second guess your decision, but I can also see some logic to what ATC did. If the reason for the low fuel gauge reading had turned out to be fuel leaking into the wings or fuselage, I can see why their rolling the fire trucks could have turned out to be prudent.
 
Last edited:
I read through the case that Ron cited above and it seems to me that the ATP used the reasoning that Bob did on emergency.

Not sure I understand all the drama of his case, but I thought them calling his reasoning and statement "blatantly false" and "bad faith" a bit harsh. Paired with Bob's narrative of AIM 6-1-2, it appears to me the Administrator's reasoning is argumentative and specious. Again, not sure I grasped all of it so I'm hoping that someone can clear it up for me. The reason, I'll explain:

Prior to reading that case, I had the same interpretation Captain used in several postings in this thread on declaring EMERGENCY (there I said it). I don't think I have any hangups with it. But after reading that case, I'm not sure I would use the same interpretation Bob used above....unless I'm over-reaching.

I think the belief that he was showing bad faith in his minimum fuel declarations had to do with his landing with forty gallons of fuel still on board. That's what stood out to me, anyway.
 
I think the belief that he was showing bad faith in his minimum fuel declarations had to do with his landing with forty gallons of fuel still on board. That's what stood out to me, anyway.

For planning purposes, he was required to reach destination + alternate + have 45 mins remaining. The article did not say how much 40 gallons meant in that airplane.
 
For planning purposes, he was required to reach destination + alternate + have 45 mins remaining. The article did not say how much 40 gallons meant in that airplane.
About an hour and a half. Had he flown the route he was cleared, he would have had sufficient fuel to land with legal reserves, and he knew his fuel situation when he took off with that clearance. He just waited until airborne to indicate a fuel concern in order to obtain a shorter route which fouled up ATC and forced other aircraft to get out of his [shorter] way. Then he did the same thing on the way home.
 
I'm not trying to second guess your decision, but I can also see some logic to what ATC did. If the reason for the low fuel gauge reading had turned out to be fuel leaking into the wings or fuselage, I can see why their rolling the fire trucks could have turned out to be prudent.
I suppose. There is nowhere that I know of in the wings that would hold fuel outside the tanks, so if the fuel had leaked into the wings it would likely have all dripped out and/or evaporated by the time I landed. If it was going into the fuselage, I would expect to smell it. But then again, they weren't in the cockpit, so I suppose from where they sat it was justifiable.
 
I suppose. There is nowhere that I know of in the wings that would hold fuel outside the tanks, so if the fuel had leaked into the wings it would likely have all dripped out and/or evaporated by the time I landed. If it was going into the fuselage, I would expect to smell it. But then again, they weren't in the cockpit, so I suppose from where they sat it was justifiable.

For what it is worth, those airport fire guys live for that stuff. It cost you nothing for them to roll and it is good training for them. Please do not get put out because they rolled.
 
I'm not asking whether that is an emergency! I'm asking whether in that specific set of circumstances it would have been more prudent to declare initially, given that I already had priority handling.

Yes!

Declaring an emergency avoids any misunderstanding about your status.
 
For what it is worth, those airport fire guys live for that stuff. It cost you nothing for them to roll and it is good training for them. Please do not get put out because they rolled.

Those guys following the ground looped Maule across 27 at OSH wanted an excuse to hose him down sooooo bad.

We were laughing that they adjusted the water cannon while they were rolling to put a perfect waterfall on the aircraft if there had even been a hint of fire.
 
Is there ever a reason to not declare an emergency if you believe something is happening in/on/around your aircraft that could likely result in injury to the pilot/passengers or damage to the plane?

I understand the concept of crying wolf. But if something had you seriously concerned and you declared an emergency, only to find once on the ground that it was nothing, would there be any repercussions? Assuming that the landing was normal in all respects, other than the declaration of an emergency.

No, when in doubt of the safe outcome of your flight, declare immediately, you will be amazed at the help and resources that will be brought to bear. All they seek is a safe conclusion, you don't get any hassles for it if it turns out to be something minor.
 
For what it is worth, those airport fire guys live for that stuff. It cost you nothing for them to roll and it is good training for them. Please do not get put out because they rolled.
Oh, I wasn't put out because they rolled. I was put out because ATC declared an emergency for something that the evidence available to me suggested strongly was a gauge malfunction. (And yes, I realize that ATC had much less info to go on.) When the call from the inspector came I was under the impression that the emergency declaration was the reason they had to file paperwork. According to him, however, it's because I diverted, whether or not anyone declared the E.

And FWIW I don't think they were airport fire personnel, I think they were a crew from the city FD. This was a small, untowered, unattended field on the edge of a town of 2000 or so in upstate NY.
 
Spoken like a true Coastie. Happy Coast Guard Day!!!

Bob Gardner

Right back at ya... Semper P.

picture.php
 
Is there ever a reason to not declare an emergency if you believe something is happening in/on/around your aircraft that could likely result in injury to the pilot/passengers or damage to the plane?

I understand the concept of crying wolf. But if something had you seriously concerned and you declared an emergency, only to find once on the ground that it was nothing, would there be any repercussions? Assuming that the landing was normal in all respects, other than the declaration of an emergency.

You won't get in trouble for making a declaration of emergency anywhere in the world, however, one ought to have a belief in a bonafide emergency, or have an actual emergency prior to doing so.

The concept of "declaring" is misunderstood and often misapplied. The point of making such a declaration is to request priority with ATC. There are times when one makes such a call in the blind, such as a mayday or pan pan call, but generally there is no benefit to declaring for the sake of declaration.

"I declare thee therefore this day, thou art an emergency!" does little good.

If you have a problem, contact the party which can most help you and state your problem. Get to the point, and don't be too worried about making a formal declaration.

Several years ago in a high performance twin turboprop, I had a complete loss of oil pressure during a departure. I notified ATC of the issue and stated my intentions; returning to land. No formal "declaration" was necessary, and I did not make one. I shut the engine down during the descent, and continued to a normal one-engine landing. Upon arrival, I was met with crash rescue. I did not request them, but the tower did, and that was fine. It was a very simple process.

A couple of days ago I got a fuel filter light just after takeoff, and jettisoned my load. I notified the aircraft ahead of me that I was jettisoning with a filter light and returning to land, and then I turned around and landed. The aircraft ahead of me notified the air attack over the fire of my situation; I did that primarily because we were working a structure that was about to be burned over, and I didn't want them expecting another tanker that wasn't coming. No declaration of an emergency was necessary, nor made. Making such a declaration while departing the uncontrolled field wouldn't have benefitted anything at all. At most, I could have made a request with the unicom to call the airport fire rescue personnel, but it wasn't necessary and I didn't.

Conversely, while landing a turboprop single tailwheel airplane in a strong crosswind a few years ago, I discovered that I had no hydraulics. Without brakes, the airplane would have departed the runway, and the prognosis wasn't good at that location. I picked another airport, notified the dispatch center of my condition and asked them to notify the aircraft operator. I went to the other airport, but the runway I needed was closed with men and equipment on the runway. I discussed my condition with the tower, determined that the men and equipment could be moved and that the runway was able to bear my weight, and notified ATC I'd use the closed runway anyway. They had the runway cleared, and the problem was solved. No emergency was declared. I told ATC what my intentions were, and ATC offered what assistance they were able.

Where one ought to declare an emergency, one ought not delay, and one should never do so for fear of repercussions. It's not illegal to have an emergency, just to create one. Take care that you don't create one by making a big deal out of a small one.

A crew years ago was having a hard time getting a word in edgewise, and finally broke into the ATC mix with "XXX Approach, XXX is down to one engine and three hundred pounds of fuel. Request immediate landing!" The crew was granted an immediate, and all other traffic resequenced to get them in. The tower then watched a single engine Cessna with full fuel slowly make it's way down final to a normal landing, with a crew of CAP volunteers on board. They got an earful. By making such a foolish statement, they put a number of other aircraft in jeopardy and created fuel situations and diverts for aircraft carrying a lot more people, burning a lot more fuel, and that had priority over the Cessna. It's okay to declare an emergency, but be sure you have one to declare.

If you're in doubt, make the declaration and sort it out on the ground.

UPS 6 didn't make such a declaration soon enough after departing Dubai last year. They were on fire and bypassed Doha, when they should have been getting on the ground. They were unable to see anything on the descent, missed the approach and ended up crashing outside Dubai. If you have a need for priority, seek it early and get on the ground where you can handle it safely. Then worry about whether you should have done things differently. It's not nearly so easy if you wait too long.

Engine failures are easy too...always an emergency. Loss of cabin pressure and you can't keep the cabin below 10,000? Emergency. Above 10,000 non-pressurized and you lose O2? Emergency.

An engine failure is not always an emergency. In many cases, it's a non-event. In many others, it's not even in the emergency procedures; it's an abnormal event. You perhaps ought to qualify such statements a little more.

Loss of cabin pressure...it can be an emergency, but not necessarily so.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I wasn't put out because they rolled. I was put out because ATC declared an emergency for something that the evidence available to me suggested strongly was a gauge malfunction. (And yes, I realize that ATC had much less info to go on.) When the call from the inspector came I was under the impression that the emergency declaration was the reason they had to file paperwork. According to him, however, it's because I diverted, whether or not anyone declared the E.

And FWIW I don't think they were airport fire personnel, I think they were a crew from the city FD. This was a small, untowered, unattended field on the edge of a town of 2000 or so in upstate NY.
Why would a diversion be a cause for concern? Happens all the time, people change mind...
 
About an hour and a half. Had he flown the route he was cleared, he would have had sufficient fuel to land with legal reserves, and he knew his fuel situation when he took off with that clearance. He just waited until airborne to indicate a fuel concern in order to obtain a shorter route which fouled up ATC and forced other aircraft to get out of his [shorter] way. Then he did the same thing on the way home.
Hmmmm.......my spidey senses tells me that you know more about it than what's on that paper you posted.
 
Why would a diversion be a cause for concern? Happens all the time, people change mind...
On IFR flight plans now, diversions get reported to Washington where they evaluate the likelihood that there's been a hijacking.
 
You won't get in trouble for making a declaration of emergency anywhere in the world, however, one ought to have a belief in a bonafide emergency, or have an actual emergency prior to doing so.

The concept of "declaring" is misunderstood and often misapplied. The point of making such a declaration is to request priority with ATC. There are times when one makes such a call in the blind, such as a mayday or pan pan call, but generally there is no benefit to declaring for the sake of declaration.

"I declare thee therefore this day, thou art an emergency!" does little good.

If you have a problem, contact the party which can most help you and state your problem. Get to the point, and don't be too worried about making a formal declaration.

Several years ago in a high performance twin turboprop, I had a complete loss of oil pressure during a departure. I notified ATC of the issue and stated my intentions; returning to land. No formal "declaration" was necessary, and I did not make one. I shut the engine down during the descent, and continued to a normal one-engine landing. Upon arrival, I was met with crash rescue. I did not request them, but the tower did, and that was fine. It was a very simple process.

A couple of days ago I got a fuel filter light just after takeoff, and jettisoned my load. I notified the aircraft ahead of me that I was jettisoning with a filter light and returning to land, and then I turned around and landed. The aircraft ahead of me notified the air attack over the fire of my situation; I did that primarily because we were working a structure that was about to be burned over, and I didn't want them expecting another tanker that wasn't coming. No declaration of an emergency was necessary, nor made. Making such a declaration while departing the uncontrolled field wouldn't have benefitted anything at all. At most, I could have made a request with the unicom to call the airport fire rescue personnel, but it wasn't necessary and I didn't.

Conversely, while landing a turboprop single tailwheel airplane in a strong crosswind a few years ago, I discovered that I had no hydraulics. Without brakes, the airplane would have departed the runway, and the prognosis wasn't good at that location. I picked another airport, notified the dispatch center of my condition and asked them to notify the aircraft operator. I went to the other airport, but the runway I needed was closed with men and equipment on the runway. I discussed my condition with the tower, determined that the men and equipment could be moved and that the runway was able to bear my weight, and notified ATC I'd use the closed runway anyway. They had the runway cleared, and the problem was solved. No emergency was declared. I told ATC what my intentions were, and ATC offered what assistance they were able.

Where one ought to declare an emergency, one ought not delay, and one should never do so for fear of repercussions. It's not illegal to have an emergency, just to create one. Take care that you don't create one by making a big deal out of a small one.

A crew years ago was having a hard time getting a word in edgewise, and finally broke into the ATC mix with "XXX Approach, XXX is down to one engine and three hundred pounds of fuel. Request immediate landing!" The crew was granted an immediate, and all other traffic resequenced to get them in. The tower then watched a single engine Cessna with full fuel slowly make it's way down final to a normal landing, with a crew of CAP volunteers on board. They got an earful. By making such a foolish statement, they put a number of other aircraft in jeopardy and created fuel situations and diverts for aircraft carrying a lot more people, burning a lot more fuel, and that had priority over the Cessna. It's okay to declare an emergency, but be sure you have one to declare.

If you're in doubt, make the declaration and sort it out on the ground.

UPS 6 didn't make such a declaration soon enough after departing Dubai last year. They were on fire and bypassed Doha, when they should have been getting on the ground. They were unable to see anything on the descent, missed the approach and ended up crashing outside Dubai. If you have a need for priority, seek it early and get on the ground where you can handle it safely. Then worry about whether you should have done things differently. It's not nearly so easy if you wait too long.



An engine failure is not always an emergency. In many cases, it's a non-event. In many others, it's not even in the emergency procedures; it's an abnormal event. You perhaps ought to qualify such statements a little more.

Loss of cabin pressure...it can be an emergency, but not necessarily so.

What in your mind constitutes an emergency?
 
After experiencing total electrical failure while IFR, I descended to MOCA, found the closest airport and landed. The airport was towered, but WX was marginal so after carefully looking for other traffic I just landed and called the tower. If the question of delcaring had come up I was prepared to say that I had delcared, but the lack of electricity had made it hard for them to hear the transmission. They and center were glad I was on the ground and out of their hair and nobody ever mentioned it again.
 
Seriously?
Thinking back, I may have overstated it a bit. There is a nationwide coordination center that receives reports of changed destinations, loss of communication, (obviously) squawking 'hijack', etc. Now, ATC may have some leeway in not reporting some things like obvious diversions for weather, and there may be other exceptions. But basically, yeah. Any unusual and not readily explicable event gets reported.
 
On IFR flight plans now, diversions get reported to Washington where they evaluate the likelihood that there's been a hijacking.

Heck, I get questioned about diversions on VFR FF, they always ask the reason anymore.
 
azure, do you have any specifics about the instances you cite? My own experiences (more than one) are that there are no repercussions, not even a "call this number," when you declare. It is far better to declare than to keep it to yourself. Read AIM 6-1-2...it says to declare an urgency or distress situation before it becomes an emergency.

Bob Gardner

Bob, if you declare for a reason that requires a mandatory NTSB report, then the FAA may get notified by ATC. See the thread on the trim cable failure.

On the other hand, I've declared four times for other issues (ice and passenger illness) and never gotten any follow-up beyond a "glad you're ok" from ATC.
 
Last edited:
What in your mind constitutes an emergency?

It really depends on the circumstances, the aircraft, the pilot, and so on.

One could say that if it's in the emergency procedures section of the aircraft flight manual, then it's an emergency, but that's not always the case. A depressurization, for example, might be a big emergency, but at a lower altitude it might not. Several years ago I had an explosive depressurization in a Cessna 421 when the windscreen on the left side failed, blowing out a big jagged hole. At the time, we were close to Class B airspace, and didn't have far to go to get to an airport.

The top of the instrument panel and glare shield was outside the aircraft, in front of the cockpit. The checklist and flight manual had been sitting on the glare shield. The interior headliner and side of the cockpit tore and blew forward, leaving the impression at night that even more damage had occurred. I had a new hire in the left seat; his first flight with the company, and his first in a 421. His headset went with the windscreen, and he was a bit bewildered, so I took the airplane. I was able to talk with ATC, and advised them lf my intent. When I arrived at my first destination (I advised two; the first had shorter runways but the company's full repair facilities, whereas the second had long runways, but no facilities), I requested a truck from the tower, and they rolled crash rescue. The matter turned out to be uneventful, and a formal declaration of an "emergency" was really superfluous. I sought and received priority handling, and that was all that was needed.

Some things listed as "abnormal" procedures in the aircraft flight manual might turn out to be emergencies, or they might not; the circumstances dictate.

What's important for you is that if the event is an emergency to you, then that's all that matters. Whether it's an emergency to me or to anyone else is entirely irrelevant. If you're flying and the event is in your judgement an emergency, then you should handle it accordingly.
 
Thinking back, I may have overstated it a bit. There is a nationwide coordination center that receives reports of changed destinations, loss of communication, (obviously) squawking 'hijack', etc. Now, ATC may have some leeway in not reporting some things like obvious diversions for weather, and there may be other exceptions. But basically, yeah. Any unusual and not readily explicable event gets reported.
Hubby was giving a Discovery Flight to a couple. When on downwind, Tower asked for an expedited landing. There was a jet landing on the runway (wake turbulence), still there when he was on short final, and another jet closely in trail. He chose to go around instead of subjecting his newcomer passengers to an 'all too exciting' experience. Tower contacted him later and asked why he went around. It is scuttlebutt at BDR that all aborted landings are required to be reported. If he had asked outside the hearing of the passengers, Tower would have gotten a more honest answer than that he just felt it was better.

Just want to make clear that this response is about required reporting, not about declaring an emergency.
 
Hmmmm.......my spidey senses tells me that you know more about it than what's on that paper you posted.
It has to do with the TEC routes in the Northeast Corridor versus a straight line route. I'll teach you all about that whn you do your IR training.
 
Thinking back, I may have overstated it a bit. There is a nationwide coordination center that receives reports of changed destinations, loss of communication, (obviously) squawking 'hijack', etc. Now, ATC may have some leeway in not reporting some things like obvious diversions for weather, and there may be other exceptions. But basically, yeah. Any unusual and not readily explicable event gets reported.
If you change your destination, they ask why. If they think your explanation is fishy, then they start running that checklist. If your answer is "I gotta pee," and you're changing destination to the next good airport ahead of you, they don't tell HQ about it.
 
A friend of mine declared an emergency when one cylinder started getting hot and his attempts to cool it were only making matters worse. He began by alerting ATC (he was flying IFR) with "Approach Nxyz is declaring an emergency. Stand by." They had no idea what the emergency was, but they began diverting flights immediately and he had the freedom to figure out what to do without having to answer any "Say intentions" requests. Eventually he got things sorted out, informed ATC of intentions, and he glided to a landing at an airport that was closed due to an airshow. No one got mad. Investigation was concerning his mechanical failure, not flying decisions.

My personal experience is that nobody questions an honest declaration of emergency even if the pilot does something really stupid.
 
Last edited:
If you change your destination, they ask why. If they think your explanation is fishy, then they start running that checklist. If your answer is "I gotta pee," and you're changing destination to the next good airport ahead of you, they don't tell HQ about it.

Yep, "pick up a few extra gallons of fuel" or "getting tired" draws a simple "roger" as well.
 
Heck, I get questioned about diversions on VFR FF, they always ask the reason anymore.

That's from the DHS boneheads. During AirVenture many pilots file IFR to non-reservation airports with the intent to cancel near the filed destination and join the VFR arrivals to OSH. All of these diversions are supposed to be called in. After the first dozen or so they apparently got tired of answering the phone and decided no more calls were needed.
 
As best I can tell, Part 91 doesn't specify anywhere that an emergency be declared by the pilot, however, IMHO, it always makes sense for the pilot to declare an emergency anytime: the outcome of the flight is in jeopardy; the situation requires priority handling by ATC, and the pilot has the time to do so. Not declaring an emergency when one should has led to many unfortunate accidents that could have been prevented. Declaring an emergency puts everyone on notice that priority handling is required. There is a fear among many pilots of all levels of experience that declaring an emergency is a bad thing and should be avoided. I have declared three emergencies in 44 years and never had to do anything other than the last time where I had experienced a partial engine failure, the tower asked me what the problem was after I was safely on the ground. I am sure that some pilots have been requested to write a report to the FAA, but I have yet to come across an example of anyone. If the emergency is not of your making, nothing will be made of it.

The relevant regulations are quoted below.

91.3 states in part:

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Part 91.123 states in part:

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.
(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.

91.183 states (emphasis is mine):

IFR communications.


Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the pilot in command of each aircraft operated under IFR in controlled airspace must ensure that a continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency and must report the following as soon as possible--

(a) The time and altitude of passing each designated reporting point, or the reporting points specified by ATC, except that while the aircraft is under radar control, only the passing of those reporting points specifically requested by ATC need be reported;
(b) Any unforecast weather conditions encountered; and
(c) Any other information relating to the safety of flight.

91.187 states:

Operation under IFR in controlled airspace: Malfunction reports.

(a) The pilot in command of each aircraft operated in controlled airspace under IFR shall report as soon as practical to ATC any malfunctions of navigational, approach, or communication equipment occurring in flight.
(b) In each report required by paragraph (a) of this section, the pilot in command shall include the--
(1) Aircraft identification;
(2) Equipment affected;
(3) Degree to which the capability of the pilot to operate under IFR in the ATC system is impaired; and
(4) Nature and extent of assistance desired from ATC.
 
How about "pan pan pan?". Does that have any value in our airspace? Sounds kind of dorky, and I personally would either declare the emergency or say nothing. But it's in the AIM.
 
How about "pan pan pan?". Does that have any value in our airspace? Sounds kind of dorky, and I personally would either declare the emergency or say nothing. But it's in the AIM.

It's pronounced "pahn-pahn pahn-pahn pahn-pahn", and I'd imagine that they will treat it as an emergency since it is basically saying "I'm not in a world of **** yet, but if I don't get a hand here, I will be in a few minutes."
 
How about "pan pan pan?". Does that have any value in our airspace? Sounds kind of dorky, and I personally would either declare the emergency or say nothing. But it's in the AIM.

"PAN PAN PAN" is a lot like "WILCO"; they're in the book but rarely heard.
 
"PAN PAN PAN" is a lot like "WILCO"; they're in the book but rarely heard.


I'm trying to bring back WILCO. Its a good word with good meaning and is short and concise. The only issue is it sorta sounds subservient. Small issue really.
 
I'm trying to bring back WILCO. Its a good word with good meaning and is short and concise. The only issue is it sorta sounds subservient. Small issue really.

I like wilco also. I use it a lot. One word I'm actually trying to flush is talley. A carry over from my military jargon. Also not needed is no joy. As far pan, pan, pan? In 8 yrs of ATC I never once heard someone use it. It's simply "I'd like to declare an emergency."
 
This is awesome. I have long wondered about this subject, and I'm getting a bucketload of relevant and insightful info. Thanks everyone!
 
"PAN PAN PAN" is a lot like "WILCO"; they're in the book but rarely heard.

Pan is ICAO and is heard internationally, along with Mayday.

I use wilco frequently.
 
I like wilco also. I use it a lot.
Same here, and there are a lot of times when it's the appropriate response, e.g. any instruction that doesn't require a readback.

"November eight juliet tango, remain clear of Bravo airspace."

"Wilco, eight juliet tango."
 
I use Wilco, and would use Mayday (M'aidez) in an extreme emergency. Otherwise it's "N3462B declaring an emergency". I used "Pan Pan" in the USCG a few times for Maritime situations, but never since.
 
Mayday and Pan are used to get attention on the radio.

We have a similar conundrum when using "minimum fuel" vs. stating an emergency. Minimum fuel conveys the message that an emergency may occur with undue delay, whereas stating that one has an emergency cuts right to the chase.

Pan is used to notify radio traffic that you need the frequency to broadcast your condition, and that you've got something that merits priority.

Mayday simply states that you've got an emergency and that you are the priority speaker. The floor is yours.

Both Pan and Mayday are used to creating an opening in the conversation. When the radio frequency is busy, calling Pan Pan Pan should immediately silence other traffic so that you can state your case. Mayday serves the same purpose; it's there to shut everyone up and give you the floor.
 
Back
Top