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

Gary Drescher wrote:

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

Essentially? Makes it clear? Sorry, but the fact that ATC treats a
PAN-PAN as an emergency is *still* not as black and white to me as it is to
you, at least in terms of the AIM. Once again I will have to agree to
disagree with you, for I don't want to beat this horse any more.

If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
when one of my mags failed during flight.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
when one of my mags failed during flight.


That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep that
information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and the
other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in. Of
course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! G


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep that
information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and the
other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in. Of
course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! G

That is your opinion, duly noted and filed. When I relayed this
experience to this group last October, I received a few comments from
experienced pilots that I should have indeed declared an emergency over the
failure of one mag. Such is Usenet.

At the time, the lost mag was an urgent situation to me because I honestly
did not know how the engine, an over-TBO, turbo-normalized IO-520, would
react at low RPMs on only one mag, as in a descent out of cruise or while
being vectored behind other aircraft on approach. Other than needing rich
of peak operations to keep temperatures in a comfortable operating range,
the engine was otherwise running without hiccups at full throttle, 2500
RPMs.

While I did not use the term PAN-PAN, I did communicate to ATC that I had
an urgent situation that required direct to the airport with no delaying
vectors, as well as the need to remain at cruise altitude until I decided
to bring it down to the airport. ATC was very accommodating, but I don't
think they declared an emergency for me given the absence of the rescue
trucks at the runway.

Since this experience last year, I would now probably err on the side of
caution and declare an emergency.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
ATC was very accommodating, but I don't think they declared
an emergency for me given the absence of the rescue
trucks at the runway.

I'm not aware of any principle that says an emergency necessarily requires
rescue trucks--especially if it was just an urgency-level emergency, rather
than a distress-level emergency.

--Gary

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...
Peter R. wrote:
If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
when one of my mags failed during flight.


That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep
that
information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and
the
other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in.
Of
course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! G


Followed by a "What the f*&%k ??".

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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.

Essentially? Makes it clear?

Well yes. AIM subsection 6-3-2 is called "Obtaining EMERGENCY Assistance".
To request that assistance from ATC, the subsection says you should
"transmit a distress or urgency message consisting of... if distress,
MAYDAY... if urgency, PAN-PAN...". How much clearer could it possibly be
that ATC treats "pan-pan" calls as emergencies? (And *in addition*, AIM
6-1-2a already explained that distress and urgency conditions are the two
kinds of emergencies.)

Sorry, but the fact that ATC treats a PAN-PAN as an emergency
is *still* not as black and white to me as it is to you,
at least in terms of the AIM.

Ok, but you still haven't articulated *any* objection to my conclusion,
other than your completely-unexplained reluctance to accept the reasoning
that if 1) "pan-pan" declares an urgency condition, and 2) an urgency
condition is one of the two kinds of emergency, then 3) "pan-pan" declares
one of the two kinds of emergency. (This is, by the way, the *same*
reasoning that tells us that ATC treats "mayday" calls as emergencies. You
don't doubt the reasoning in *that* case, do you?)

It would perhaps be helpful if you were to briefly clarify the following. Do
you think then that "pan-pan" does *not* declare an urgency condition
(contrary to what the P/CG and AIM 6-3-2a3a say)? Or do you think that
"pan-pan" declares an urgency condition that is somehow not an emergency
(contrary to what AIM 6-1-2a says)?

Sorry to persist on this point, but I think it's pretty crucial for pilots
to be clear on the basics of emergency communications.

--Gary