(journeyman) wrote in message ru.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:18:31 GMT, Michael 182
wrote:

That said, "a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an emergency landing
situation".

Might be best if you qualify that a little better:

I did qualify it. Go back and take a look at the post you answered.

I read the post. You missed the point. Your point is, in the absence
of other information, you get an F some random case study course if you
conclude that the emergency landing was justified given the available
information (or to be fair, to conclude insufficient info to decide).

Given the number of things that can go wrong in that situation, the
very fact that the pilot elected to perform a precautionary landing
speaks for itself. Case studies courses notwithstanding, I wouldn't
conclude it was unjustified until I knew more about the situation.

Saying that, "under ideal conditions", an electrical problem *may not*
require a precautionary landing is not the same thing as saying it
"hardly qualifies".


Morris (sadly noting yet another case where academia and reality diverge)


Given what we know, it's perfectly reasonable to state as a general
rule that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as a condition
warranting an emergency landing. There may very well be more to the
story. There may not be. We had a guy at a local airport declare an
emergency because his GPS went on the fritz in CAVU conditions. He
wasn't lost, he was within sight of at least 2 airports, and
apparently his Nav was working fine. But he freaked out, and declared.
And that airport scrambled the firetrucks because this chucklehead
thought losing a GPS in severe VFR qualified as an emergency. Could it
in certain circumstances? Absolutely. As a general case? Very
definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In
general? Nope.

I took what Michael said to mean exactly what he *did* say. What he
said is

"Not to mention that a failed alternator
hardly qualifies as an emergency landing situation..."

Which as a general rule is absolutely correct. There certainly may
have been more to the story, but what was reported was an alternator
failure, and given that specific information, it is perfectly
reasonable to state that a failed alternator hardly qualifies as an
emergency landing situation. More than just experienced pilots read
these groups. Students read these groups. Should we simply let them go
on believing that if an alternator calls it a day, it's time to
declare?

As a general rule, what Michael said is absolutely correct. Specific
situations often trump general rules, and I didn't see him or anyone
stating that isn't the case.

Mr. Chicken
CP-ASEL