Back in the late 70s - early 80s, I flew DC7s as air tankers. These planes had 4 - 18 cylinder radial piston engines, 3400HP for takeoff, 2900 continuous. Pretty impressive for an engine of that size designed in the mid 1930s but they had their share of problems...... I never had one outright fail but had more than a few precautionary shutdowns. Most causes were the cowl flaps. The engines needed to be at a certain temperature in order to apply takeoff power and since they're air cooled, there are flaps on the nacelles (housings) that would regulate cooling air. They would always close, mainly because they are in the airstream but they would not always open. So, to avoid overheating the engine, we would shut it down. Often, it would be cooled down enough that we could start it back up and use it for landing and reverse thrust. Also, they had a nasty tendency to burn exhaust valves, so if we noticed one cylinders exhaust temperature lower than the others, it was often a burned valve. This required an immediate shutdown, if the valve actually broke (they will if left running long enough), it would jam between the piston and the cylinder head and usually break the cylinder off the engine. This would usually result in a fire......bad news.........
VASAviation - you guys do a great job. Only thing I can add is constructive criticism. Listen carefully to what's being said. I've only had a few partial power losses over my career. Only 1 event in a jet which was both engines rolling back from freezing rain/ice crystal ingestion.
I was, funnily enough, coming out of Hong Kong on a 777-300er to London and there were a few bangs from the right side... plane started rolling right and a weird - almost crunching - noise was heard... we eventually were told that it was just an air pocket in the engine and that we would continue to LHR... but we had to shut down the engine and restart it mid flight before it was working again... weirdest flight ever
Back in December of 2013, I was on an American flight from Chicago to Boston that diverted to Syracuse. Captain got on the PA as we started descending and calmly announced we had a low oil pressure light on the left engine, and that the condition was a mandatory divert (Syracuse, being both a National Guard base and a FedEx base, was the nearest available airport that could handle a 737 in potential distress). Once we landed and were rolling out, I could see emergency vehicles blocking all the taxiways. The captain then got on the PA again and stated "Now that we're on the ground, I can give you some more details. When we got the oil light, we checked the gauges. The left engine was completely out of oil."
Not funny Will a possible safety alarm with an engine is not a joke. Are you a pilot who asks for fire escort then changes their mind telling the cabin stewards to watch out for tarmac stalkers?
Good Jason. Good customer service does not end anywhere. Possible oil failure on approach to their stated airport just turn the engine off and notify ATC of a possible modified landing. No real concern unless the engine catches fire.
Great as always. Just FYI, 00:20, ATC says "good morning, STAR clearance available." EDIT: To which the pilot actually replies "Go ahead for Cathay 173", not "Roger that"
With regards to the questions that ATC [ air traffic control ] are requesting of the flight crew. Those are KNOWN entities and many captains make continuous mental notes of souls on board, remaining endurance of fuel, and whether there were dangerous goods onboard. It is an anticipated line of inquiry in an emergency so its really not a problem.
great job by the flight crew. single engine landing alarming ATC to call out the fire trucks. Also good job in not being clear about the FOD message they were asked about. I would hate it though if the flight crew told their cabin that they were being stalked by Adelaide Fire on the tarmac.
That was almost clinically by the book, even down to saying pan pan three times. Great contrast to the sloppy variation and lack of professionalism you often see in the US.
iatsd agreed with everything you said - minus some bizarre misnomer you seem to have about US pilots in emergency situations. You should probably be reminded that US routes account for the VAST majority of commercial aviation, along with the fact that many of the most embarrassing aviation accidents and disasters involved foreign carriers, pilots, and airspace. 🙄
It’s opposite: the low oil pressure could be caused by the engine failure, since there is an engine driven oil pump on each engine. But the low oil pressure then is on one system only, yellow or green
VASAviation - i am a hydraulics engineer at airbus. The pilot doesn’t mention hydraulics loss at all. Only engine failure. So no indication of low hydr pressure. He would make a callout if one of the system is loss, since the landing procedure changes then
It was on the 6th of November. Pilots confused the taxiway (that I guess was an old runway) for the runway and started takeoff, rejected takeoff when the plane was at 170km/h.
There is no right or wrong answer - you quote as though a pilot can be prosecuted for wrongly issuing a "Mayday", which of course they can't. There are different definitions available; in the UK, it is expected that any time the aircraft is in 'grave and imminent danger', it can be considered a Mayday. The crew had access to more information than us, however from the comfort of my metaphorical chair, yes, I absolutely would declare a "Mayday" upon experiencing an engine failure. I want ATC to drop their coffee and be prepared that we don't know why we've lost oil pressure in one engine - my other engine could drop out in a few seconds and I want people to know that. For me, 'Pan-Pan's are better suited to medical emergencies, issues relating to passengers and generally something that doesn't pucker my butt and warrant we be on the ground right now. Once again, I'm not knocking the Cathay pilot's decision - they're the ones there in the situation, but in my 16 years in UK aviation I've never, not once come across or heard of a situation where an engine failure or issues relating to the engine doesn't warrant a "Mayday" call.
That you would chastise a Captain for issuing a Mayday for an engine related emergency onboard a commercial passenger aircraft is unbelievable if you are involved in aviation. What you quote are not rules, they are guidelines. When making an emergency call, part of that call is the nature of the emergency. ATC then prioritise accordingly. You don't get to analyse the ANO in detail before making these kinds of decisions. It's a bit like a getting off an assault charge by virtue of self defence - there doesn't have to be physical contact, only the belief that you are about to take one on the nose. Curiously, there is nothing in your argument that actually conflicts with my opinion... Again, what you've quoted is advice; it's not a mandatory response. Amongst other things, it's much easier to explain an overzealous Mayday versus trying to convince the investigation board why you didn't do so prior to an incident that claimed lives. I'm a relatively new FO, but your steadfast attitude is not one I have encountered in a Captain yet; when this conversation has bounced around, the general consensus (which I have agreed with) is that an open response is best - beyond SOPs, you react to the situation as YOU see fit. You're the one whose ass is burning if it goes wrong, not the ones who write the rules.
I certainly wouldn't hold that pilot responsible for what happens to my aircraft. ATC are not the first line of defence - the pilots are. Real world time, put the textbooks down. I'm flying over central Portugal and lose engine 1. I follow SOP, contain the situation as best as possible, declare a Mayday and tell ATC I'm proceeding direct Lisbon. While checking airport data and performance on descent, a 737 reports a hijack in progress, declares an emergency and points at Lisbon also. At this point I can either give priority to the 73 verbally, downgrade to an urgency if I feel it's appropriate, or further divert to Faro. If the aircraft was literally on fire, Lisbon would be out as it has a crossing runway and likely both will be obstructed following their landing. I don't know what I would do while I'm sat here in my chair; it depends on an overwhelming number of factors - severity of engine issue, altitude, wx at destination, fuel remaining, and probably more important ones that I can't think of. You've touched on what I consider to be a valid point; in the absence of a simultaneous emergency, it doesn't matter what is declared, so by god I'm going to demand the highest priority. It is excruciatingly rare, but as you pointed out, not unknown. For me, it boils down to getting as much help as is available. That doesn't make me selfish - it's a calculated decision and yes, other emergency traffic will influence that decision as will every other factor. It is absolutely more logical and desirable to downgrade to a PAN than to upgrade to a MAYDAY. All other variables considered neutral, for me an initial PAN call might concern serious ill health of a passenger of fellow crew member, a drunk or unruly passenger, or partial instrumentation loss for instance. It's urgent, but unlikely to lead to a life threatening situation. I have two engines. Losing one increases risk exponentially, especially if the cause is not immediately known. That is an emergency. It demands a Mayday. Same with an electrical burning smell - I would declare a Mayday without hesitation. It keeps us ahead of the risk curve in a situation where time can quickly become scarce. Critical analysis is clearly not your strong point; re-read my comment and you will see I addressed every point in your diatribe. For clarity's sake - in ANY emergency/urgency call, part of that call is the nature of the emergency. This is precisely so ATC can distinguish and prioritise between two emergencies in the same classification.
JulianShagworthy a single engine failure on a multi-engine aircraft that is experiencing no handling difficulties or concurrent issues is not a Mayday. An A330 has at least an EDTO of 240 minutes, they can safely fly that long and land on one engine. There was no imminent danger to life, Especially as they were coming through 9,000 and close to the aerodrome. At anytime if the situation deteriorated they could have changed to a Mayday call.
On airbus when u have an engine failure, there's a warning display called land ASAP. It will be amber or red depends on the situation, if amber u can just pan pan, red u can declare mayday. In this case is a boeing but not so much different, pan pan is a good idea cause the aircraft can fly pretty well with 1 engines, is not really a life threatening situation.
WOuld ATC really advise/request PAN aircraft on N-1 to vacate at a given taxiway ? I think it is a bit too much. On the other hand the guy said it was "almost" normal OPS so maybe gave ATC credit to ask such request. I would be piss. off myself to receive such instruction when landing N-1 normal ops or not. Any ATC guy would comment on this ?
In other words, it is a less severe 'MAYDAY'. Pan comes before normal traffic, but Mayday still has higher priority. Also when declaring a Pan, it should be said like so, 'Pan-Pan Pan-Pan Pan-Pan', like Mayday, which is also stated three times; Mayday Mayday Mayday. Hope this helps!
@@breezyjr "Declaring an emergency" is very much a US thing and non standard. A PAN-PAN and MAYDAY are both emergencies but MAYDAY means imminent threat to life.
I can see why they would declare a PAN PAN but being single engine why not just declare an emergency? You know ATC is going to treat exactly the same way especially with fire services being dispatched on standby. Just a thought
Walter Boxhead But it's all irrelevant what you're saying. If there's two aircraft that have declared an emergency all atc can do is give them vectors and get the fire crash and rescue ready. In this case if there was a plane with one engine and another on fire and out of control of course the one out of control would get priority unless the one with single engine can make it in first. But again all this is just theory. As a pilot in conditions of failed aircraft systems, is to help yourself not worry about bureaucracy and certainly not about inconveniences to traffic. Please tell me you're not a pilot. Unless you're a Cathy guy with an ego bent out of shape because someone is criticizing you.
Walter Boxhead you are so wrong on many levels. As pilot in command, you can do whatever you like if you feel like you're in an emergency. And you keep insulting me from the beginning saying I'm a kid, not a pilot, calling me names instead of having an intelligent discussion. You got some serious anger issues.
Walter Boxhead and he would have been better if he used mayday too that's all people are saying, including me since it would have been more conservative. But it's ok, no smoking hole and everyone is fine. You are the insecure guy that has a problem since all you've done is insult from the beginning wihiut even knowing me. Again, your assumptions on how the crew could handle their engine in this scenario, which is what I called you out on at first was my problem with you. Obviously you have no idea and are trying to sound like you know what you're talking about from extensive experience of flying your couch at home.
It is technically called an urgency. Not as critic as an emergency (MAYDAY) is. The main is the priority between them two. Mayday requests immediate priority to land as soon as possible so that controllers will move everyone around to let the emergency land safely and quick. An urgency needs way less priority.
While I hope you never get into a situation where you need to call it, I'd still point out that it's not PAN, but actually PAN-PAN. The three levels are SECURITE, PAN-PAN, and MAYDAY, each repeated three times on a radio call.
![[REAL ATC] Cathay A333 ENGINE FAILURE due to LOW OIL PRESSURE](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
