And meanwhile I “aborted” twice (once from very low speed and another from a stop)…thought it was water ingestion the first time, realized unhappy engine the second. Not a peep. Even called the tower to ask if I needed to do anything for them. “Nope, you’re good.” Consistently inconsistent!
Declared for the first time today
- Thread starter Fixtur
- Start date
Fixtur
Dunning-Kruger Expert
I didn't declare right away when the engine was initially not acting right, I just requested the diversion, the clearance, and vectors. A running (albeit poorly) engine isn't an emergency.
As soon as I had to feather it, I declared, because a non-running engine is a textbook emergency. It didn't make any difference for the clearance. Maybe he vectored us in a little tighter than he might have otherwise, but it was never a question that if I was going to be single engine that it was a gol-danged emergency. Especially with the ceilings/ice/terrain making a go around or continued flight a questionable proposition.
As soon as I had to feather it, I declared, because a non-running engine is a textbook emergency. It didn't make any difference for the clearance. Maybe he vectored us in a little tighter than he might have otherwise, but it was never a question that if I was going to be single engine that it was a gol-danged emergency. Especially with the ceilings/ice/terrain making a go around or continued flight a questionable proposition.
Fixtur
Dunning-Kruger Expert
Heh. Ya that was Chet working the tower freq and he kinda plays by his own rules.
ahw01
Well-Known Member
It's in ICAO as an MOR item
Reportable Incidents | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Annex 13 specifies the procedures for reporting accidents and incidents to ICAO.
skybrary.aero
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
My thoughts exactly. Released the brakes pushed the power up got a warning pulled the power back and exited. We reset and took off. Got a call from the company a few days later the FAA was looking for me. I didn't know it was going to be a thing so I didn't even report it to anyone.
Literally my first “abort.” But I’ve gotten calls from the FAA about things that I thought were a nothingburger. I had one for a go-around…that was initiated by ATC. Something about the left and right hands…
This got me thinking. I’ve had three declared emergencies, one kinda declared, and one return to investigate an odd noise. The three declared emergencies were 1) precautionary engine shut down due to oil coming out the gills on the left engine, 2) uncommanded left engine roll back, 3) large oil leak from prop seal. The one kinda declared happened while on short final (over Engineer’s Cut) to JNU at night: a bufflehead duck went through the right windshield and distributed duck snarge the full length of the interior. All in Navajos!
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
In 121 land everything abnormal has paperwork. Heck, even the fire/rescue crews have something for you to fill out sometimes. Ultimately, not a huge deal.
After seeing @BobDDuck’s post it makes sense now.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
I’ve only declared (been declared) once, flying into Baku.
We failed to get a landing permit and they wouldn’t clear us to land. Apparently, this was a common problem. Tower told us that they needed 48 hour notice and asked us if we had 48 hours of fuel onboard. Upon confirmation that we didn’t have 48 hours of fuel onboard, they declared an emergency on our behalf and cleared us to land. Airport police greeted us with smiles and collected the fee for landing permit and a reasonable fine.
Other than that, almost declared flying into Millington TN. We had an engine surging, advised that we might have to declare if we couldn’t get a straight-in clearance. We got our clearance and landed. Mechanics couldn’t get it to repeat the surging and we had a few anxious but uneventful flights afterwards.
We failed to get a landing permit and they wouldn’t clear us to land. Apparently, this was a common problem. Tower told us that they needed 48 hour notice and asked us if we had 48 hours of fuel onboard. Upon confirmation that we didn’t have 48 hours of fuel onboard, they declared an emergency on our behalf and cleared us to land. Airport police greeted us with smiles and collected the fee for landing permit and a reasonable fine.
Other than that, almost declared flying into Millington TN. We had an engine surging, advised that we might have to declare if we couldn’t get a straight-in clearance. We got our clearance and landed. Mechanics couldn’t get it to repeat the surging and we had a few anxious but uneventful flights afterwards.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
It's in ICAO as an MOR item
Reportable Incidents | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Annex 13 specifies the procedures for reporting accidents and incidents to ICAO.
Bingo. They’re looking to why and what can be done to prevent it. Crew training, ATC side, or unaddressed maintenance issues…
In a nutshell, if you’re taxing to a runway for the intention of takeoff and don’t, the FAA wants to know whats going on and how can it be prevented.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Airlines shouldn’t have to explain missed approaches or take-off delays to the FAA. FAA doesn’t understand unintended consequences.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
My understanding is that many 121 shops don't require paperwork for missed approaches or go-arounds. The lack of penalty "promotes" a safety minded culture and prevents someone from doing something dumb (for example: try to recover an unstable approach) just to avoid paperwork.
jrh
Well-Known Member
As DO at a 135 operation, I've worked with the FAA on these issues and it's always been smooth. One of the biggest concerns is that flight crews need to follow maintenance procedures correctly. If they aborted due to a mechanical abnormality such as a warning light, the FAA wants to make sure the underlying issue is addressed before the airplane flies. This is oftentimes as simple as a phone call to Maintenance from the runup pad to discuss what happened, but the FAA doesn't want pilots to shrug it off and take to the air on attempt #2 with a broken airplane.
Also, on a related note, we do a lot of in-aircraft training and checking at my operation. Obviously we have to train and check over aborted takeoffs. Lots of parties were annoyed when this mandatory reporting of aborted takeoffs came to be and our operation was generating a ton of reports due to training. We changed our technique to request "high speed taxis" down runways or "short delays at the beginning of our takeoff" with Tower so as to not constitute an abort for the sake of paperwork.
arkflyr
Well-Known Member
Wonder if this is one of the reasons the FAA is looking at this more.
Pilot Errors, Not Turbulence, Caused Fatal Upset
In a final report that seems scripted to prove the old adage about aircraft accidents resulting from a series of seemingly minor mishaps, the NTSB has
avweb.com
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've heard about it even earlier than that, and in the GA world too. My impression was that it was more about the subsequent departure and whether the abort was due to an unairworthy condition that wasn't fixed. But that was only an impression I have not tried to verify.
Looks like @jrh can confirm my impression.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
Wonder if this is one of the reasons the FAA is looking at this more.
Pilot Errors, Not Turbulence, Caused Fatal Upset
In a final report that seems scripted to prove the old adage about aircraft accidents resulting from a series of seemingly minor mishaps, the NTSB has
This will be a lifetime example of a cascade failure of 1000 cuts.
I ALWAYS conduct a final walk around as a Cap or FO
I've had a LOT of people screw up.... I'VE screwed it up.
Lack of checklists... inexcusable.
Cap should surrender his license and change careers.
Finally, the company needs to find out if this lack of adhering to procedures and standardization is systemic and chronic.
If yes, then a full stand down and retraining is in order and a reevaluation of the higher ups (CP DO etc) is necessary.
Another incident and this company loses its reputation and goes TU
That’s ugly.Wonder if this is one of the reasons the FAA is looking at this more.
Pilot Errors, Not Turbulence, Caused Fatal Upset
In a final report that seems scripted to prove the old adage about aircraft accidents resulting from a series of seemingly minor mishaps, the NTSB has
That’s a whole other level when a passenger dies even though they didn’t crash.
Not only the failure to do a final walk around, but to even restart a walk around or know where to resume it, when interrupted. A close second was lack of systems knowledge to understand what occurs when systems disagreements occur, and what to do to rectify them, which contacting Mx would’ve at least resolved. Tragic, unfortunate, and worse, entirely preventable. Not sure if there was some sense of being rushed, an aire of complacency, or some combo of the two and more.