DG had another incident a few months ago

Well… I wouldn’t say that controller tried to talk him into 35… that was just the first thing he offered, which was the most logical choice.

And he wound up landing 35 anyway.
 
Tools said:
Well… I wouldn’t say that controller tried to talk him into 35… that was just the first thing he offered, which was the most logical choice.

And he wound up landing 35 anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, kind of a moot point while handling an aircraft following declaration of an emergency. "Descend at your discretion, the field is yours, cleared to land any runway, do you need any assistance(?)", is EXACTLY what I'd like to hear. This controller (probably out of habit) issued the runway based upon winds while anticipating a normal-ish descent to that runway. Not a spiral down upon reaching the airport.

If fire erupted at some point after informing the controller of the initial plan to circle, the desired altitudes and choice of runway remained wide open for any type of emergency approach and landing that DG desired. Without any further communications needing to be supplied to ATC until requested and able.

I did exactly the same thing when the Mooney ate a valve when receiving Flight Following. After declaring an emergency, ATC gave me a vector (was already rolling out of the 90 degree left turn) towards a towered airport that was clearly in view off the left wingtip when the engine went south. Following the vector, I was then instructed to descend to a lower hard altitude. Nope, informed him that's not going to happen. Kept all the altitude possible, arrived over the airport, then proceeded to spiral down and land on the runway of my choosing.

ATC often does what they are accustomed to doing. Once an emergency is declared the rules change. The pilot should be establishing the structure of supplying information, or requesting assistance. ATC asking "How much fuel remains, souls on board, etc.", can be answered at the time the pilot chooses (or not). Nothing wrong with responding "standby" if there's a higher and more important aviating type priority happening at that point in time.

One of my hot buttons is hearing the tape of a pilot on takeoff who's just lost an engine, immediately jump onto the radio and announce "the engine quit and I'm turning back". Too often that becomes the last words spoken before a stall, spin and fire.
 
Last edited:
Rick A said:
One of my hot buttons is hearing the tape of a pilot on takeoff who's just lost an engine, immediately jump onto the radio and announce "the engine quit and I'm turning back".
Click to expand...
Well, turning around towards unsuspecting departing traffic can also be a recipe for disaster. So it needs to be a balancing act between flying the aircraft and making sure everyone else knows they need to get out of the way.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Well, turning around towards unsuspecting departing traffic can also be a recipe for disaster. So it needs to be a balancing act between flying the aircraft and making sure everyone else knows they need to get out of the way.
Click to expand...

I consider a low altitude engine failure during takeoff as a maximum brain cell "call to action", where the highest priority is surviving. Even the surprise and adrenaline rush from a door popping open rattles some pilots enough to stall and crash.

Dodging someone else nearby, or already in the pattern would be the least of my concerns. You should already notice any other nearby aircraft as an emerging threat to your planned spot to land. Aviate and Navigate to a survivable location includes noticing and avoiding other aircraft.

Since the pilots' view is already outside, there's very little time to diagnose why the engine suddenly and unexpectedly quit. If time allows and the plan of action is squared away, then that's the time to divert some brain cells and talk... but only when beneficial to help survive the emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top