![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 29 Jul 2003 12:33:23 -0700, Jeffrey LLoyd
wrote: I think we're at the point of bisecting rabbits. 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. I disagree. Sure, there are still aircraft out there with no electrical system in the first place, but A) they are not flown in conditions where the electrical system is essential to safe flight, and B) there are known failure modes that are intrinsically unsafe (say, involving smoke or bits of metal flying around inside the engine compartment). In the absence of other information, and the knowledge that someone considered a particular situation severe enough to warrant a precautionary landing, I'd be inclined to take it at face value. Later, we can armchair quarterback the decision-making. The Kings who publish all those training materials crashed an airplane some time back. They were on top, had an alternator failure, had a case of getthereitis and decided to press on, couldn't find a hole, ran out of fuel, options, and ideas at the same time. They tell the story themselves to point out the importance of decision making. If they can screw up that way, pretty much anyone can. Furthermore, if a plane I was flying was hit by lightning and blew out my electrical system, I'd be definitely considering an immediate off-field precautionary landing to inspect for other damage before continuing. Yeah, I realize that wasn't in the original reports, but it does demonstrate yet another hazardous failure mode. OTOH, I'm aware of several cases that a failed alternator was handled with nothing more than contacting ATC before the battery ran down, and getting vectors to VMC and/or a NORDO clearance into the home airport. It helps to keep the ammeter in the instrument scan. In fact not only was my last flight was in a plane with no electrical system, but I lost thrust at 2000' AGL. Okay, I pulled the tow rope release at the normal altitude, but still... 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 Okay, that's a bit over the top. Okay, that's more than a bit over the top. Panic is insidious. Still better to declare and deal with it on the ground. Probably feels sheepish, and a 609 ride (or whatever they call it this week) might be in order, but if you haven't done something really dumb in the airplane yet, take comfort: you will eventually. As poor judgement goes, at least it's erring on the right side. definitely not. Losing an alternator? In certain cases, sure. In general? Nope. Semantics perhaps, but I take the position, right or wrong, that the general case is to treat it as an emergency, and routine in the particular case. Look at the difference between losing a GPS, even a panel-mount GPS, and losing the entire electrical system: a GPS is a single point of failure. You have reasonable backups available. When you lose the electrical system, you lose everything: all nav, all comm. In IMC, that can be bad, very bad. Plus, you may have a systemic problem that might cause a fire. 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? I'd rather they declared unnecessarily than die of embarassment by not declaring when they should, but that's beside the point. 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. Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the general case is that it's an emergency, and if other conditions are favorable, then it's not. It doesn't really matter what the default is because you have to judge the particular situation when it happens. Morris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
single-engine turboprop emergency landing in Indiana | Kyler Laird | General Aviation | 4 | December 29th 04 06:42 AM |
C-141 emergency landing Christchurch | Miche | Military Aviation | 11 | February 6th 04 04:04 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
C-17 Emergency Landing in Baghdad--CNN Report | Kevin Brooks | Military Aviation | 0 | December 10th 03 02:35 PM |
Military jet makes emergency landing at MidAmerica | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 1st 03 02:28 AM |