What is an emergency?

[poadeleted20]

Flaps modify lift, and their use may change aircraft attitude. Sounds like control surfaces to me.

Perhaps to you, but I really don't think it's considered such by the NTSB in this context. If you really need to know, call them and ask, but I am pretty sure they'll say it isn't. And please let me know if they say otherwise.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's all true of course, but Ron, I live in the real world. Do you really thing that if I say "N1234 is in distress" that the controller will even grok what you're trying to say?

I'm not entirely sure, but I am sure if you use the proper word for that situation by the P/CG (*Mayday"), they'll understand for sure.

I'm in 'distress' a lot because I have a small bladder, but so far I haven't had to tell the controller about it.

Being 63 years old with a benignly enlarged prostate, I know what you mean, but that's not "distress" as defined in the P/CG.

DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.

The controller has probably heard of 'PAN PAN PAN', but that's going to sound weird at first and the controller will immediately declare an emergency for you anyway.

Then the desired result has been achieved.

When flying in the actual USA ATC system 'emergency' and 'Mayday' are the only words that will unambiguously convey the message you want to send to the receiver in ATC.

Agreed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Regarding flaps as flight controls:

NTSB requires reporting of "flight control system malfunction or failure" (49 CFR 830.5)
FAA defines "primary flight controls" as aileron, elevators, and rudder, and "secondary flight controls" as flaps, leading edge devices, spoilers, and trim (PHAK chapter 5, page 5-2).

Since the NTSB does not differentiate between "primary" and "secondary" flight controls, it seems that a flap failure would indeed require a report.

You're using an FAA advisory/guidance document to interpret an NTSB regulatory requirement. As I said above, I don't think the NTSB (which is an independent agency not even part of DoT) would consider malfunctions of those "secondary flight controls" listed in the PHAK to require an incident report, but if anyone has an NTSB reference on point, I'd love to see it.

 

[Henning]

Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, French pronunciation used of pahn, said in pairs, three times.

 

[poadeleted20]

Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, Pan-Pan, French pronunciation used of pahn, said in pairs, three times.

We're not in France. It's not even pronounced that way in Europe outside France (at least not the hundred or so times I heard it used when I was flying in NATO in the 1980's). If you say "PAN, PAN, PAN" pronouncing it like "frying pan", you'll get the response you wanted from ATC, even in Europe.

 

[Captain]

It's funny how you all think airlines declare emergencies when a pax has a medical issue. They do not. Citing medical definitions of medical emergencies does not support your case. Warning of legal troubles does not either. Showing media reports of 'the plane made an emergency landing' doesn't prove a thing either as we all know the media doesn't know bupkis in these matters.

Telling ATC that a passenger is having a medical emergency is NOT declaring an emergency. I am quite sure you will get priority handling up to and even including MEDEVAC status. But you're still not getting emergency aircraft status.

Let's say I'm a 757 with 200 souls onboard and one of them is in the throws of having a heart attack. I've told ATC and we are diverting for medical attention. As we approach there is another plane with a failed engine who has declared. Who gets extended and who has priority?

My pax with a heart attack doesn't get to put other people at risk. That's why the plane who declared with an engine failure gets priority. Is it in the realm of likely hood that two planes would have these issues? No, but it illustrates why airlines don't declare an emergency for pax issues. It doesn't rise to the level of elevating the risk of that plane or other planes.

A normal approach and landing at the nearest suitable airport is what is required, nothing more.

 

[Captain]

Yes, it is. Life is at stake, and time is critical. It is most definitely a condition where life is "threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance". That's a distress condition and a "Mayday" in the FAA's book. The precise term to be used to describe the situation to ATC is "medical emergency".

Ron, you are respected on this forum for your vast knowledge. Please appreciate that and limit your authoritative responses to subjects that you're actually familiar with.

 

[B350ATP]

It's funny how you all think airlines declare emergencies when a pax has a medical issue. They do not. Citing medical definitions of medical emergencies does not support your case. Warning of legal troubles does not either. Showing media reports of 'the plane made an emergency landing' doesn't prove a thing either as we all know the media doesn't know bupkis in these matters.

Telling ATC that a passenger is having a medical emergency is NOT declaring an emergency. I am quite sure you will get priority handling up to and even including MEDEVAC status. But you're still not getting emergency aircraft status.

Let's say I'm a 757 with 200 souls onboard and one of them is in the throws of having a heart attack. I've told ATC and we are diverting for medical attention. As we approach there is another plane with a failed engine who has declared. Who gets extended and who has priority?

My pax with a heart attack doesn't get to put other people at risk. That's why the plane who declared with an engine failure gets priority. Is it in the realm of likely hood that two planes would have these issues? No, but it illustrates why airlines don't declare an emergency for pax issues. It doesn't rise to the level of elevating the risk of that plane or other planes.

A normal approach and landing at the nearest suitable airport is what is required, nothing more.

Thanks

 

[Jaybird180]

It's funny how you all think airlines declare emergencies when a pax has a medical issue. They do not. Citing medical definitions of medical emergencies does not support your case. Warning of legal troubles does not either. Showing media reports of 'the plane made an emergency landing' doesn't prove a thing either as we all know the media doesn't know bupkis in these matters.

Telling ATC that a passenger is having a medical emergency is NOT declaring an emergency. I am quite sure you will get priority handling up to and even including MEDEVAC status. But you're still not getting emergency aircraft status.

Let's say I'm a 757 with 200 souls onboard and one of them is in the throws of having a heart attack. I've told ATC and we are diverting for medical attention. As we approach there is another plane with a failed engine who has declared. Who gets extended and who has priority?

My pax with a heart attack doesn't get to put other people at risk. That's why the plane who declared with an engine failure gets priority. Is it in the realm of likely hood that two planes would have these issues? No, but it illustrates why airlines don't declare an emergency for pax issues. It doesn't rise to the level of elevating the risk of that plane or other planes.

A normal approach and landing at the nearest suitable airport is what is required, nothing more.

So in essence you're saying that the Captain has to eat the fish in order to get emergency???

I get the priority thing, two aircraft declaring it's simple math - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but I have a hard time rationalizing that ATC would be so heartless (no pun intended) as to not give expedited handling to an aircraft with a passenger requiring immediate medical attention.

If that's the way it is, then I guess I need to make sure I have more Omega-3 in my diet.

 

[N801BH]

Part 121 crews are advised to go ahead and declare an emergency rather than second guess the situation. If the CRJ didn't declare, landed and went off the runway and destroyed the aircraft or injured someone, now you have a really bad situation. Having the fire truck standing by is good insurance.

Agreed... The crash guys/ gals / equipment need training too.....:wink2:

 

[Captain]

So in essence you're saying that the Captain has to eat the fish in order to get emergency???

I get the priority thing, two aircraft declaring it's simple math - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but I have a hard time rationalizing that ATC would be so heartless (no pun intended) as to not give expedited handling to an aircraft with a passenger requiring immediate medical attention.

If that's the way it is, then I guess I need to make sure I have more Omega-3 in my diet.

I never said you wouldn't get priority handling. In fact I said the opposite, that you would...up to and including MEDEVAC status. But it's not an emergency situation for the aircraft or the air traffic system.

However, with that said...if the passenger with the medical issue is actively affecting the flight crew performing their duties then THAT could be grounds to elevate it to an actual emergency. Examples might include a slumped passenger in a GA plane blocking the controls or possibly the emotional effect of a loved one having the emergency.

I wouldn't criticize a pilot for declaring...I'm just saying that the passenger emergency in and of itself isn't grounds. That's how the airlines look at it and unlike most of us here they actually have experience with this.

 

[Henning]

We're not in France. It's not even pronounced that way in Europe outside France (at least not the hundred or so times I heard it used when I was flying in NATO in the 1980's). If you say "PAN, PAN, PAN" pronouncing it like "frying pan", you'll get the response you wanted from ATC, even in Europe.

Listen to the USCG say it on the radio all over the United States. Just because one is American, that does not require one to sound like an imbecile. It's not a Pan Pan Pan call, it's a Pan-Pan call, same as a Mayday call, and same as you say t over three times when making an initial call.

 

[Velocity173]

I never said you wouldn't get priority handling. In fact I said the opposite, that you would...up to and including MEDEVAC status. But it's not an emergency situation for the aircraft or the air traffic system.

However, with that said...if the passenger with the medical issue is actively affecting the flight crew performing their duties then THAT could be grounds to elevate it to an actual emergency. Examples might include a slumped passenger in a GA plane blocking the controls or possibly the emotional effect of a loved one having the emergency.

I wouldn't criticize a pilot for declaring...I'm just saying that the passenger emergency in and of itself isn't grounds. That's how the airlines look at it and unlike most of us here they actually have experience with this.

You're either an emergency or you're not an emergency. You don't get priority handling if you're not an emergency and you don't have one of the various callsigns in Ch2 of the .65 that are afforded priority.

A medical emergency IS an emergency and is treated as such under Ch 10 (emergencies) para 10-2-19 (illness) of the .65. Doesn't matter that there's nothing wrong with the aircraft itself. ATC is going to log it as an emergency and send the report up to the DEN. You're getting priority and most likely an ambulance standing by. If that's not the definition of an emergency, I don't know what is.

Also doesn't matter that you have two emergencies at the same time. ATC will make the best decision based on the urgency or distress of the two situations.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/fo...detailed-game-plan-b99138188z1-232204581.html

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, you are respected on this forum for your vast knowledge. Please appreciate that and limit your authoritative responses to subjects that you're actually familiar with.

I am familiar with this one. I've been taught it and I've been briefed on it by the FAA and in FAA-approved seminars for more than 40 years. You are the only person I've ever heard in all that time suggest that a life-threatening medical emergency involving a passenger is not an "emergency" as the FAA defines the term. If you can find something in writing from the FAA that says a medical threat to the life of a passenger is not an emergency even though life is immediately at stake and assistance/priority handling may be or is currently required is not an "emergency" (the FAA textbook definition of a distress condition, i.e., an emergency), I'd love to see it.

 

[B350ATP]

My definition of emergency stands and I will follow my company SOPs. Which state a heart attack is an emergency. If the company vice president (but it does not matter the job title...) is in the back and has an heart attack, guess what, we declare.

Thanks, Captain.

 

[B350ATP]

You're either an emergency or you're not an emergency. You don't get priority handling if you're not an emergency and you don't have one of the various callsigns in Ch2 of the .65 that are afforded priority.

A medical emergency IS an emergency and is treated as such under Ch 10 (emergencies) para 10-2-19 (illness) of the .65. Doesn't matter that there's nothing wrong with the aircraft itself. ATC is going to log it as an emergency and send the report up to the DEN. You're getting priority and most likely an ambulance standing by. If that's not the definition of an emergency, I don't know what is.

Also doesn't matter that you have two emergencies at the same time. ATC will make the best decision based on the urgency or distress of the two situations.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/fo...detailed-game-plan-b99138188z1-232204581.html

Good post. I touched on many of the same areas earlier but some folks on this board seem to have different, interpretations.

 

[Captain]

I am familiar with this one. I've been taught it and I've been briefed on it by the FAA and in FAA-approved seminars for more than 40 years. You are the only person I've ever heard in all that time suggest that a life-threatening medical emergency involving a passenger is not an "emergency" as the FAA defines the term. If you can find something in writing from the FAA that says a medical threat to the life of a passenger is not an emergency even though life is immediately at stake and assistance/priority handling may be or is currently required is not an "emergency" (the FAA textbook definition of a distress condition, i.e., an emergency), I'd love to see it.

Me...and the curious fact you don't see airliners declare an emergency for pax issues. I'll go looking for something in writing.

 

[Henning]

I see Captain's point about not declaring from an aircraft and safety of flight standpoint, however that is not the only criteria for an emergency. Whenever you face the imminent risk of loss of life, then the general criteria of an emergency onboard has been met. It is not a flight emergency, however it is a passenger medical emergency, and that criteria is enough for the controller to declare it an emergency under his authority. No big deal really, anybody in the loop can call the emergency and get whatever they think is necessary rolling and and give direct priority to get the plane where it needs to go to deal with it.

 

[kayoh190]

Sorry Captain, I guess you worked for some carriers that are adverse to declaring emergencies, but my experience has been different. And earlier I posted a section of my company's manual that specifically tells us to declare in the case of a passenger medical emergency. I'm not just making this stuff up.

To me, this isn't just some lawyer thing, or ATC thing, or because it's written in my book somewhere - somebody is having a life threatening situation in the back, and every second matters. I'm not asking for priority. I'm declaring the emergency, and I'm taking it. If it turns out to be the wrong decision, I'll hear about it at the debrief. But until then, the poor guy in the back deserves to have me do everything in my power to get the airplane on the ground as soon as safely possible.

 

[Captain]

Okay, lets look at the emergency route.

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency. So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from? You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Regs say 200' is the lowest you can descend on the ILS. Ya gonna bust through that? Exactly which relief do you need to deal with a passenger medical issue by declaring an emergency? I say 'none'.

Again, normal approach and landing is what I'm going to do. If I get to DH and don't see anything I'm going missed. You put your life in danger if you want to try and save the pax. I'm not being callous, I'm being professional and not getting all emotional and putting many at risk to maybe save one.

 

[Jaybird180]

Okay, lets look at the emergency route.

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency. So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from? You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Regs say 200' is the lowest you can descend on the ILS. Ya gonna bust through that? Exactly which relief do you need to deal with a passenger medical issue by declaring an emergency? I say 'none'.

Again, normal approach and landing is what I'm going to do. If I get to DH and don't see anything I'm going missed. You put your life in danger if you want to try and save the pax. I'm not being callous, I'm being professional and not getting all emotional and putting many at risk to maybe save one.

You don't save your finger by cutting off your arm do you?

 

[Palmpilot]

Okay, lets look at the emergency route.

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency. So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from? You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Regs say 200' is the lowest you can descend on the ILS. Ya gonna bust through that? Exactly which relief do you need to deal with a passenger medical issue by declaring an emergency? I say 'none'.

Again, normal approach and landing is what I'm going to do. If I get to DH and don't see anything I'm going missed. You put your life in danger if you want to try and save the pax. I'm not being callous, I'm being professional and not getting all emotional and putting many at risk to maybe save one.

The fact that you have an emergency, whether declared or not, does not always entitle you to deviate from a regulation. FAR 91.3 only authorizes you to deviate "to the extent required to meet that emergency," so you have to make the decision about whether and to what extent to deviate on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Captain]

The fact that you have an emergency, whether declared or not, does not always entitle you to deviate from a regulation. FAR 91.3 only authorizes you to deviate "to the extent required to meet that emergency," so you have to make the decision about whether and to what extent to deviate on a case-by-case basis.

Which is why I asked which rules those who say declare intend to violate to meet the 'emergency'.

 

[Palmpilot]

Which is why I asked which rules those who say declare intend to violate to meet the 'emergency'.

I believe I answered that question: only the ones required to meet the specific emergency that you have.

 

[Captain]

I believe I answered that question: only the ones required to meet the specific emergency that you have.

You parroted what I said and offered nothing new.

 

[Captain]

See? Covered.

Okay, lets look at the emergency route.

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency. So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from? You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Regs say 200' is the lowest you can descend on the ILS. Ya gonna bust through that? Exactly which relief do you need to deal with a passenger medical issue by declaring an emergency? I say 'none'.

Again, normal approach and landing is what I'm going to do. If I get to DH and don't see anything I'm going missed. You put your life in danger if you want to try and save the pax. I'm not being callous, I'm being professional and not getting all emotional and putting many at risk to maybe save one.

 

[kayoh190]

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency. So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from? You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Nobody is talking about putting the airplane in danger to get it on the ground. But I'm also not going to fly the whole friggin' RVAV arrival either. If the winds allow for a more direct runway, I'm going to want that too. There's a hell of a lot you can do that doesn't compromise safety.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, lets look at the emergency route.

By reg you can deviate from any rule to deal with the emergency.

That's not quite correct. 91.3(b) allows deviation from any section of Part 91, not any rule in the book.

So on a flight with a passenger having a heart attack which regs are you going to deviate from?

Hard to say without more details. However, the purpose of the declaration is not just to authorize deviation from the rules, but also to establish priority over non-emergency traffic. Without it being an emergency, the controller has no authority to move you up the priority ladder, but your declaration moves you very near to the top of the heap and gives the controller the authority to move other planes out of your way in order to get you on the ground as fast as possible.

You ask for lower to land and ATC says 'unable' due to traffic. Ya gonna deviate and descend anyway?

Very possibly if I feel it's necessary to save the passenger's life, but unless the traffic is Air Force 1, you shouldn't hear that after you declare an emergency.

Regs say 200' is the lowest you can descend on the ILS.

That's not what the regs say. I think you should review 91.175 and the various ILS procedure options.

Ya gonna bust through that?

It's possible.

Exactly which relief do you need to deal with a passenger medical issue by declaring an emergency? I say 'none'.

Regulatory relief isn't the only issue. Priority and additional assistance are the big issues, and the declaration gets you both from ATC. Otherwise, you stay in your place in the line (unless the controller is smarter than you are and, realizing the situation, declares an emergency for you).

Again, normal approach and landing is what I'm going to do.

Even if you're currently number 10 for arrival? You'll let the passenger die while you hold for nine other planes rather than declare an emergency in order to obtain priority?

 

[Henning]

The pilot deviation authority is not the only factor at play though, there are other bureaucratic processes that get started as well, heck, there's probably funding issues attached to reported emergencies. Long and short of it, you're correct in not having to declare an emergency, when you tell ATC you have a passenger onboard who appears to be having a heart attack, they will declare an emergency from their process end anyway, get the ground ball rolling, and expedite you to a meeting with medical assistance.

I agree that there is no compelling reason for the pilot to declare an emergency since it doesn't hinder ATC from acting to meet the situation's needs. However I see no disadvantage really to declaring it either. I do though accept your point about inferred communications as to the state of the flight in general, so I think your boss's position is fine, and since it's in your OpSpecs, so does the FAA. OTOH, it is simple enough to use direct communication in the form of a few words to convey that the flight itself is not in jeopardy.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, in the end the result will be the same.

 

[Palmpilot]

You parroted what I said and offered nothing new.

What "new" information are you looking for?

My point was that declaring an emergency does not mean that there is a need to deviate from regulations in every situation, so I don't see how the question is relevant to the issue of whether one should declare an emergency for a passenger medical emergency.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's not quite correct. 91.3(b) allows deviation from any section of Part 91, not any rule in the book.

Are there similar regs in Part 121, etc.?

 

[Palmpilot]

It occurs to me that saying "We have a medical emergency onboard" constitutes an emergency declaration. Has anyone seen an FAA publication that specifies a particular wording for emergency declarations?

 

[MAKG1]

Which is why I asked which rules those who say declare intend to violate to meet the 'emergency'.

Well, a really obvious one is the right of way rules.

14 CFR 91.113(c) only applies if the aircraft is in distress. 14 CFR 91.3(b) has no such restriction.

 

[Henning]

Are there similar regs in Part 121, etc.?

As PIC you are authorized to take whatever actions you deem to be necessary to the safe outcome of your flight, period, end of story, doesn't matter under what part you are operating.

 

[Captain]

That's not quite correct. 91.3(b) allows deviation from any section of Part 91, not any rule in the book.

Hard to say without more details. However, the purpose of the declaration is not just to authorize deviation from the rules, but also to establish priority over non-emergency traffic. Without it being an emergency, the controller has no authority to move you up the priority ladder, but your declaration moves you very near to the top of the heap and gives the controller the authority to move other planes out of your way in order to get you on the ground as fast as possible.

Very possibly if I feel it's necessary to save the passenger's life, but unless the traffic is Air Force 1, you shouldn't hear that after you declare an emergency.

That's not what the regs say. I think you should review 91.175 and the various ILS procedure options.

It's possible.
Regulatory relief isn't the only issue. Priority and additional assistance are the big issues, and the declaration gets you both from ATC. Otherwise, you stay in your place in the line (unless the controller is smarter than you are and, realizing the situation, declares an emergency for you).

Even if you're currently number 10 for arrival? You'll let the passenger die while you hold for nine other planes rather than declare an emergency in order to obtain priority?

Well there's another nit. A force Oce doesn't not have priority over emergency aircraft. You're up on this stuff, right?

 

[ChrisK]

Now wait a tick. I thought the urgency signal was PAN-PAN. Therefore, you'd say "PAN-PAN PAN-PAN PAN-PAN", right?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan

Actually, I'm positive about this one...

 

[Henning]

Now wait a tick. I thought the urgency signal was PAN-PAN. Therefore, you'd say "PAN-PAN PAN-PAN PAN-PAN", right?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan

Actually, I'm positive about this one...

Correct, which is why seeing it Pan Pan Pan is funny because it's wrong either way you look at it.

"Pahn-pahn, Pahn-pahn, Pahn-pahn, hello all stations, this is..."

 

[Johann]

Correct, which is why seeing it Pan Pan Pan is funny because it's wrong either way you look at it.

"Pahn-pahn, Pahn-pahn, Pahn-pahn, hello all stations, with you, this is..."

FTFY

 

[Henning]

FTFY

LOL, at least we aren't supposed to preface our calls into untowered fields with "'say-cure-I-Tay', security, security, all stations Redmond in the pattern, please advise."

 

[ChrisK]

LOL, at least we aren't supposed to preface our calls into untowered fields with "'say-cure-I-Tay', security, security, all stations Redmond in the pattern, please advise."

I dunno. I consider myself being in the pattern a hazard to navigation. "Medina Muni traffic, securite, securite, securite, Skyhawk 02G entering downwind for runway 27, securite, securite, securite, Medina Muni."

(Edit tapatalk i18ns for crap)