Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

NAA/CAA action against a pilot upon declaring a mayday - fiction?

From here

Just a general note: There is reluctance or even fear of declaring emergency for whatever reason due to „the consequences“ – this is perpetuated in many forums. „Violation, investigation etc..“
There are none. Declaring an emergency and landing somewhere has no consequences. It’s a non event. At the most, a short written statement is all that follows. Not declaring emergency, and e.g. running out of fuel and crashing is what has consequences.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

Not declaring emergency, and e.g. running out of fuel and crashing is what has consequences.

Hm. Imagine the amount of paperwork for the pilot that has crashed and survived! :)
Only half joking.

EGTR

I’ve seen it done on airliners after they reported low fuel. And I’d be very sure they’d do that on a GA plane if you follow the rules and declare pan pan or mayday.

Maybe in Switzerland. And maybe if an airline has a reputation and had 100+ events in a short timeframe. Otherwise, weeks would have passed before a low fuel incident would come to the authorities attention via paperwork.

Besides that, what’s the point? It’s already known what amount of fuel was remaining. No one will dispute it?!

The important aspects of the rule change are
- performance based fuel planning aka low cost airline lobbied for flying around with even less fuel

- that extra fuel is now not under the commander’s discretion anymore, and needs to be operationally justified. Conservative fuel planning comes under even more scrutiny.

It’s all in the name of cost savings and office farts pretending some „system“ or yet another „procedure in a manual“ will take care of it while in reality it exerts more pressure and scrutiny on pilots who are nudged to conform and fly around on fumes, and if something goes wrong the hypocritical question asked is „why didn’t you take more fuel?“.

And again the low cost black sheep freeload on everybody else who arrives with a couple minutes to spare. Because this „idea“ obviously doesn’t work in reality if everybody is low on fuel at the same time. So while others spend time in the hold burning €€€ others declare minimum fuel and get ahead.

So far I once landed after a 12 hour leg with final reserve remaining precisely at touchdown, and believe me, it’s stressful, when compared to the usual 6-8 tons, it’s only ~2. Feels like nothing. And when taking into account the accuracy of the gauges is ~1%, it might have been even less. Briefing to fly missed approach at low pitch up to keep the fuel flowing etc.
Reason was a re-routing and looooong low level TMA vectors (around the pitch black Everglades I may add).

always learning
LO__, Austria

Hm. Imagine the amount of paperwork for the pilot that has crashed and survived! :)
Only half joking.

None. Only talking required. If even, the AAIB do the paperwork for you. Someone took of from the local controlled airport in a PH- experimental (first flight after purchase). Engine failed, stall spin, recovered 80m above surface, landed and flipped in a field. Survived with scratches. Police and fire rescue came. Short statement given. Fire rescue (volunteers) begged to get 700€ from insurance if possible, otherwise no problem. Farmer didn’t care about a bit of fuel oil.
AAIB&CAA never even bothered to inquire.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Snoopy wrote:

AAIB&CAA never even bothered to inquire.

In Austria?

In most countries this would trigger an AAIB investigation with all the stuff which comes with it, quite possibly with local police authorities and the state attorney’s office getting involved as well.

Also, the implication of the new fuel policy would be that a report has to be filed with the CAA via their report platform if you go under FR. Whether that would trigger consequences is not sure but likely. The same goes for any form of incident.

I recall an incident where an uncommanded gear extention en route above Vle prompted the commander of the airplane to ask for a fly by to verify the gear at Innsbruck. This was partly done as a training point to make to the student pilot. However, Innsbruck told the crew they would file a safety report, which gave them the chance to do it as well. If they had not done it, they certainly would have been questioned about the incident later.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

There are none. Declaring an emergency and landing somewhere has no consequences. It’s a non event. At the most, a short written statement is all that follows.

I cannot confirm that without further data added to it, i.e. different countries within EASAland. I did declare an emergency a few years ago in Germany on engine trouble and made it barely to a small airstrip luckily on the way. When on the ground I got company from the police, which had been told ‘a crash happened’. We sorted that out ‘on the fly’ as one of the policemen was a glider pilot flying off that field. But, I got fined and had to oppose in court, almost. To my rescue the investigating judge was a pilot too and made clear he would treat the incident as ‘precautionary landing’ instead of an ‘emergency’ and they abandoned the case. It may have been easier when I had landed ‘somewhere’, as Germany has some special ongoing with airstrips being non-existent when outside ‘opening hours’. Marquis de Sade was a Frenchman, but Germany happily adopted some of his ideas and combined it with procedures still from very dark times.

So, yes, in the end it came out well, but the concept of increasing flight safety by nonpunitive approaches is not at the same level in all of EASAland.

Germany

MichaLSA wrote:

I got fined

This is dreadful.

At the other extreme, a UK friend was surprised at how little anyone in authority cared after he declared a PAN (fuel leak in cockpit). The airfield lost interest as soon as he landed and shut down, and he was never contacted by the aviation authority or accident investigators. He found it quite disconcerting that no-one bothered to make sure he was alright, either on the day or afterwards. An argument to go straight to a Mayday?

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

A few years ago, I declared a mayday when the cowling of the aircraft came off from one side.
It was still attached to one side and lifted up into a 45 degree angle. It partly blocked my vision, and I was concerned that it was going to come off completely (possibly damage rudder in the process and if I followed the normal circuit, I’d be over some housing estates.

I declared a mayday and cut across to a very short final.

I was contacted by the IAA a few weeks later (by email) with a polite request to complete a form just stating what happened. I did and never heard anymore.

It nothing to be scared of.

MichaLSA’s experience above is really unacceptable in aviation. The authorities should be ashamed of themselves.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Don’t one need to file at least an MOR under EASA rules for MAYDAY or PANPAN?

I know that ATS do it as well on their side (and CAA may get in touch based on that, usually they don’t care)

In France, declaring mayday does involve some decent amount of paperwork (e.g. ATC, BGTA, DGAC) but it’s more books & records keeping than any sort of blame stated above !

Last Edited by Ibra at 28 Nov 13:23
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

file at least an MOR under EASA rules for MAYDAY or PANPAN

In the case I described above it was an uncertified type, for which a MOR was optional for a PANPAN (can’t find the reference now)

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom
56 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top