737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
What is this, a test?

Nope, just sincerely trying to understand the basis of your question.

Seriously, my uncertainty has to do with the "if A equals B and B equals
C,
then A must equal C" logic used in the AIM.

You're uncertain that if A=B and B=C, then A=C?

In other words, one reads in the AIM chapter that you posted earlier that
an urgent situation equals an emergency, but then one has to go to the
glossary to discover that PAN-PAN equals an urgent situation.

Actually, the P/CG is just one place you can discover that "pan-pan"
declares an urgency condition. As I later posted, it's also in AIM 6-3-2
("Obtaining Emergency Assistance"), clause a3a. But even if it were only
stated in the P/CG, it's still clearly stated, so I don't see where any
uncertainty arises.

Why not simply state in the chapter you referenced that "announcing
PAN-PAN" will be treated as an emergency by ATC?

That's essentially what 6-3-2a3a says, although 6-1-2a in conjunction with
the P/CG makes it clear too.

Perhaps the real problem is that I am over-analyzing this.

Seems to me that the problem is your reluctance to accept the transitivity
of 'equals'. That kind of puts a crimp in any attempted analysis.

--Gary