• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
02:02AM EST


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesFAA investigating after plane emergency ignored by ATC

Back to Squawk list

FAA investigating after plane emergency ignored by ATC

Submitted
Controllers at Denver fail to properly recognize United 5912 when it declared an emergency with smoke filling cabin. (www.9news.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


billteasdale
Bill Teasdale 11
The FAR's allow for deviation from the rules to the extent to meet an emergency, whether declared or not. Nothing else needs to be said.

My sense is that the FAA will make some recommendations, but take no punitive action. You can't second guess a pilot when he's standing on the ground, leaning up against his intact aircraft, after meeting an emergency and taking care of business.
billteasdale
Bill Teasdale -4
And the controllers may get some flack, but it's hard to second guess them, either.
shattashaun
Shaun Schroeter 9
The controller should have sent the trucks out even if he thought it was a prank or not. He should have also look on his cards or system to see how many United planes he had ending with 12
mk882004
Matt Kladder -1
I agree with you ATC should've looked for flight numbers ending in 12, but as for sending the trucks anyway, remember DIA is huge, where do you send the trucks? They were looking for a flight that didn't exist
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Not familliar with "DIA" but I would think you'd send the trucks to the active runway.

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Understand DIA error. Just going with the flow. Unfamiliar with DEN. Haven't flown in since it was built anew. Controllers reactions make no sense. He has a clear view of the runways as well as ground radar and should have seen the aircraft STOPPED on the runway, deploy the E. chutes and begin off loading. Something seems amis with the report.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
No "E chutes" on an Embraer 145. Still, this incident was a comedy of errors.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Missed the aircraft type. My point is that the controller should have seen the passengers being discharged on the runway unless RVR would not allow it. But certainly ground radar or lack of a target if the transponder wasn't changed should have keyed some response.

A comedy of errors sums it up. Even the article was poorly written. Mistakes on all sides. Don't miss the teaching moment.
linbb
Boyd Butler 1
Start them out the gate so to speak then point to the place that way they are in the equipment they dont stay in it waiting for the call with engines running 24/7.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 5
Local traffic controllers have a unique visual view of the entire airport facility. If I read the article right the fire equipment was not called for until 5 min after UAL 5912 landed and was evacuating passengers. A pair of binoculars and a look out the tower glass to the active runway or maybe a check of the primary radar would have shown 5912 stationary on the runway. A blocked active should have rung someone's bell. I'm glad no one was seriously hurt for lack of timely EMS attention, but the controller became part of the problem rather than the solution.

I can see how the first radio call was missed. the 59 was partially garbled, but how many times has my tail number been abbreviated by the controllers to the final 2 digits or the last digit and the letter.

This was a BIG whoops and could have been a disaster. I'm not sure about discipline but, it sure should be a teaching moment.
MACGSO
MACGSO 4
I agree that anyone caught making a false transmission on aircraft frequencies should feel the full weight of the law. Unfortunately, anyone can buy a hand-held aircraft radio from any of a number of sources. No registration is required prior to purchase, and if some idiot thinks it might be funny to make a bogus transmission as he drives by an airport, there would be no practical way to locate the source.

In this case, however, it seems a controller made an assumption in haste, and did not adequately check out the situation. While I can understand that he may have been distracted, I feel he dropped the ball by not taking the extra stepo necessary to determine wheter or not there was actually an emergency situation. Simply dismissing an emergency call as "BS" is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.
dbaker
Daniel Baker 4
It's amazing how the incident keeps unfolding and escalating and nobody realizes it's legitimate and being ignored. I've often wondered if there were any "pranks" on ATC frequencies and I guess the answer is yes based on the controller's reaction.

Does anyone have a link to the original audio?

Related: http://avherald.com/h?article=44d72e46&opt=0
cfkwm
Bob Keeping 4
I can't say I always side with ATC, they can be difficult. Having said that, the controller simply missed the call from the pilot. The pilot was clearly stressed and should have realized that asking for help INCLUDES making sure your communication was heard. Play the audio by "Sully" on the Hudson river landing... that is the standard we need to work from. This pilot had lost it. AN emergency NEEDS clear communication. Mayday-mayday-mayday works, or emergency-emergency-emergency - but help is not coming if all you can manage is a garbled message!with a barely readable call sign
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 2
Spot on, MACGSO. It is entirely too easy to do a drive-by and of course, there would be no way to find that source unless someone came forward as a witness and even that would be hearsay. This is somewhat similar to those incidents where lasers are directed at aircraft at night--hard to trace the source.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
I don't read that as a valid excuse here. Even the author said it was a rare and unusual circumstance that a mischif call was intercepted by the towers. Weather and visability in snow and blowing snow must have been a factor although no RVR was published nor the traffic density mentioned. In the time the controller took to talk to others, he could have called out emergency equipment. I'm not sure yet how he missed the runway evacuation on radar and visually. And then he let another 5 min. pass.
RobSJC
The pilot identified his flight, although it appears he had started talking before the mic was fully keyed. The tower caught it was UNITED and was clearly provided "5912" .. yet still chose to ignore the correct flight number .. Remedial training will NOT resolve this issue .. Maybe the ATC needs hearing aids .. or a different type of work, I would not blame the pilot .. for reporing a mechanical issue on his aircraft .. How do fly with a smoke filled cockpit ?
dbaker
Daniel Baker 8
Where did the pilot ever say United? The call sign for ASQ5912 would be ExpressJet had he used it. As far as I can tell, the controller just made up the United part.
DashTrash
DashTrash 7
Sounded to me like the controller misheard the "fifty nine" for "united".
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell -2
1) The second call identified it as a United flight but used the abreviated United 12 call sign.
2) If the aircraft was painted United colors and leased to United it would use a united flight number as a call sign.

The initial call was garbled, the follow up call was suspect, but the controller should have observed the evacuation on rnwy 34 and not waited 5 min to call for ground assistance equipment.
dbaker
Daniel Baker 3
1) Incorrect, no call from aircraft had the word "United" in it.

2) The aircraft is not leased to United. Painting on a plane has no impact on a call sign. The call sign for ASQ5912 would be "ExpressJet 5912," not United 5912. This is why no call from the aircraft had the word "United" in it. This is why on any passenger's ticket, it would say "UA5912 operated by ExpressJet"
johncook1
john cook 1
Dito i never heard united, iI did hear a clear 5912.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 0
Listen again. United is called out at least the second or third time. And there is more to this than improper radio proceedure.
johncook1
john cook 1
Not by the pilot!
;5912 emergency smoke in the cockpit roll firetrucks!
Then thcontrollerer calls- united 12
DashTrash
DashTrash 9
I've heard the audio. The pilot on the radio did not use his full callsign, only the numbers, which led to confusion. It's a bad habit more than a few airline pilots have...
linbb
Boyd Butler 0
The name says it all Trash, you have no idea like I said what is needed inside at that point and since there was a fire in the cockpit and at the least smoke its not like your damn car, pull over and get out. They had a plane full of people to worry about too, you could have been on it. Now lets see how well you do trying to shut systems down make radio calls configure the plane for landing and on and on there isnt one switch to shut off the propper system there are many and lots to do in a short time. They should have rolled fire and then pointed them that way they were in the trucks out of the garage ready to go not sitting inside drinking coffee waiting for the call.
DashTrash
DashTrash 7
Wow, dude. After a flight control emergency, blown tires leading to loss of directional control, smoke in the cabin on the ground, 4 in flight engine failures, one in flight battery overtemp and an in flight electrical failure, I think I know a little about the subject.....

When I got to the airlines, my IOE instructor pounded into my head that you ALWAYS use your full call sign. This is a prime example why. I'm not slamming these guys. An emergency evac on an active runway with smoke in the cockpit has got to be stressful as hell, but I'd bet any amount of money if these guys had called "Jetlink / Acey 5912 emergency, evacuating on rwy XXX", there would have been no confusion. If you asked the guys involved, I bet they'd agree.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Wow, Dash. You must fly for Piedmont.
cwsfan18
Ryan Pitt 1
Exactly! I would of thought it was prank due to the lack of a full call sign. However, DIA ATC should of had someone check the flight strips. In this instance I blame the pilot, but the controllers should have reacted a little bit differently and check the strips.
CaryA
Cary Alburn 3
After listening to the recording, the controller missed a clear transmission of the flight number. He made an unsupportable assumption that the call was bogus. To conclude, as the controller did, that "5912" meant United 12, is ridiculous. He was sitting in a nice warm tower cab while the calling pilot, who was understandably less than calm, tried to communicate by using the word "emergency". There is no regulatory requirement to say "emergency" in any specified way. "Mayday" may sound better to some, but "emergency" certainly says it as well to most.

For whomever here who questions why not switch the transponder to 7700, think of the time element. On short final, you don't worry about the transponder, you fly the airplane. In the few seconds it takes to divert your attention to the transponder, a lot can happen. Further, the AIM's language clearly indicates its purpose is to alert the ATC facility to an emergency--but in this case (had the controller been responsive), the tower was already alerted to the emergency.

There is no excuse for the callousness of the controller. He was wrong. That the pilot was less than professional in his communication contributed, but he didn't cause the controller's error. The pilot did his job; the controller did not.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 3
If smoke was observed or smelled at 1000 feet AGL on final in instrument conditions as was reported, the aircraft should have been about 3 NM from the runway on tower frequency and cleared to land. The controller had to be aware who flight 5912 was. At 120 KTS ground speed, that's about 90 seconds--not much time to do anything but FLY THE AIRPLANE! Were they on autopilot? I would have been. Did a crew member don the mask and goggles? Did they have time? Talking through the mask is very difficult because of the positive pressure. It would be of no surprise that any transmission would have come in garbled. Lots of questions for the FAA to sort through. Unless you were there, you really don't know. The most important thing was to land, declare an emergency and evacuate. This is what the crew did--hats off to them for a great job. Hope the hotel was nice. No comment on ATC for good reasons.
toolguy105
toolguy105 3
I agree with Mark Lansdell. The Towers have all that glass to give the controller the ability to look out at the runway. DEN unlike JFK or other airports has the ability to see the runways and see a plane being evacuated on the runway. DEN also has the ground radar to tell them a plane is stationary on the runway. If the snow inhibited the visual the ground radar was telling the controller 5912 was taking to long to clear the runway, hence the call to help him out an clear the runway. Seeing no action and getting no response should have triggered a call for the trucks. The controller is at fault for the delay. simple logic should have triggered an earlier response. He saw the delay in 5912 clearing the runway then took no further action.
pdbishopii
Paul Bishop 3
Hearing the ATC tapes makes me angry at the controller who, after the second call, couldn't put 59 and 12 together to come up with a real flight with a real emergency. He should be re-trained.
Wingscrubber
Wingscrubber 3
Last thing we need is controllers second-guessing emergencies, pranks or otherwise.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Atta boy, Cary. finally someone agrees with me. Tower didn't pursue the distress call aggressively. You don't brush off an emergency, smoke in the cockpit call even if you think it's a fake. You try and find out who it is. ATC might track these ExpressJet flights as United. This always causes confusion. But for crying out loud, the controller had cleared 5912 to land!!!! Did he forget that fast? Then he tells 5912 to spend minimum time on the runway. I've spent time in the tower and know several controllers. If you stop on the runway, tower will immediately say something and put the binoculars on you. Pilots know to never stop or do a 180 unless approved. Obviously, 5912 thought they were an emergency aircraft and could deviate from the FAR's if necessary. I know they were thinking where are the crash trucks?
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Thank you. My point exactly. Boigus radio call or not the trucks should have been called out.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Most of the posts about this incident are on the ATC side. Unless you find yourself on short final in IMC and smoke begins to fill the cockpit, you just don't know. Being a "Monday morning quarterback" the only change to the outcome would have been a faster response of the crash trucks. This would have been critical if they crashed. If you listen to the tapes, ATC didn't aggressively pursue who was saying smoke in the cockpit and emergency. Mater of fact, after landing, the controller told 5912 to spend "minimum time on the runway"!!!!!! He was unaware of the connection between "12" and "5912" even though he used that number in clearing the runway. Then, way too much time goes by before the trucks are alerted. Yes, the crew was very excited in their LATE call about the evacuation. I'm sure they also noticed there were no trucks to greet them which they were expecting. No evacuation goes as smoothly as in training. I recommend re-training both the crew and ATC. They all could have done a better job in communicating. However, the trophy goes to the pilots and Flight Attendant for a great job. http://www.9news.com/news/article/261127/339/Controller-during-emergency-landing-Thats-BS
pilot62
EMERGENCY LANDING !! The trucks should have been rolled before it touched down.
I missed something or its just a big cluster p H # $ @.
sheka
mark tufts 2
from what i heard from the audio ATC had the problems as with any flight name and numbers are mandatory unless emegerency
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 2
Seems that there were comm errors on both ends. I cannot imagine the Captain not prefacing his transmission with "Mayday" call, nor can I understand ATC not trying to reestablish radio contact/conversation. The Mayday call would have immediately gotten EVERYONE's attention, including the controllers on frequency. And I, too, would get the trucks rolling ASAP with further info after they're out of the house. Just my two cents' worth... And of course--I wasn't there to see/hear it so I don't want to appear to be a Monday Morning Quarterback....
rwf1001
I would like to know why the flight in question wasn't at the very least asked to repeat, or the controller didn't at least communicate "last flight please repeat?" I don't know....something did NOT go right there....and the controller is lucky that everything worked out ok!
rick737
richard weiss 2
Exactly Peter. There is plenty of blame to spread around here. Pilots need to use their full callsign. Stop the shortcutting. It becomes a habit that will bite you at times like this. The controller could have said "aircraft with the emergency, say your callsign." That would have cleared it up. The guys at the firehouse are usually looking for an excuse to roll, so when in doubt, hit the big red button.
rick737
richard weiss 3
Had the pilot not flying the aircraft used correct radio proceedures the controller would have gotten the message and responded correctly. It's a trend that has to be reversed that pilots are shortcuting radio calls. This is a good example of what can happen when we don't follow proceedure.
isppilot
Victor Tango 2
During a simulated engine out procedure on a BFR, I was reminded by my CFI that I did everything correctly except initiate my communication with MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY to make sure that I get everyone's attention and that everyone else (unless they also have a mayday situation) stays quiet.
Edsair
Edward Hoeger 2
They should have asked the pilot making the call to repeat that last transmission. Controllers usually respond when they miss a call by saying repeat that request you were stepped on.
linbb
Boyd Butler 2
Richard I guess that when you only have time for a quick call you will spend the amount of time calling them waiting for them to respond then declare again with all of the propper talk? I doubt it and also what was going on inside the AC they were working on everything everywhere inside to try and get it on the ground without crashing. The controler should have hit the button and then figured out what was what you dont have time to wait. Again you havent been there and done that so get off your high horse.
CaptainArt
For those with at least 1000hrs and not the micro. soft computer hours, take a slow look and you may find what I did. I believe the pilot lost his cool, should have done a much better job in communicating his mayday, and the controller did a poor job in getting all of the info in a calm but persisted manner knowing full well that during a mayday call most pilots are busy. My vote go's to both of them doing a poor job and getting a D.
thewhitegroup
Stephan White 2
An excellent comment. " United (Express)5912 MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY. United (Express) 5912 Roll the equipment - cabin fire 5912" This is no time to expect the controllers to ask 20 question while wondering if they should scatter 20 aircraft in the air. If this were another hoax, would they not be pilloried?

MAY DAY has far more emotional impact than "Emergency!" Let ATC use "Emergency." Those in the air, "MAY DAY", or not quite, "PAN PAN PAN!"


The pilot on the mike should be kicked down the runway, and should reconsider his ability to fly emergencies without panic.
jetdrvr1
Fred Moore 0
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Wow these posts are all completely out pf order and makes it terribly confusing. Is it me or are others having this problem too?
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Oh and for Peter...yeah 34 years and counting as an air traffic controller, sorry only 28 years as a pilot with just over 1000 hours.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
If all the controller had to do was piece this together he may have done just that. Again, procedures are there for a reason.
BlueBaron
CRM was instituted to coordinate the activities, communications and responsibilities within the cockpit. ATC has s imilar system. It is obvious that the pilot was hurried and a crisp MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY would have gone a long way to setting everyone's head in the emergency, however the controller that stated "I know that is BS" set the tone in the tower that discounted the real emergency. It will be interesting to see how the FAA rules on this.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Exactly wingscrubber...a simple squawk wouldve deleted ALL doubt.
lmiranda727
luis miranda 1
Ask in the frequency if someone understood the emergency call !
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
wonder what the weather was.... particularly the visability... tower controllers generally run traffic visually and should have all aircraft in sight... on the other hand Denver is a huge airport and not all runways may be visable??
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Agreed Fred...and thank you for your replies.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Ryan...you, and perhaps others, are missing my point. DIA is NOT the identifyer for Denver International airport.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
why do people continue to use DIA? No such airport identifyer.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Yeah kudos to pilots, but only one of them is flying the aircraft.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 1
I've heard of several instances over the years of illegal/harmful transmissions on aircraft frequencies and have even seen it in the NOTAMS. Why don't we have a concerted effort by the FCC to get these guys? There is equipment that can pinpoint the location of the transmitter fairly quickly, or at least within a fairly good footprint, so why is it not part of a direct, urgent effort to nail the perpetrators? Comments, anyone? Some of you may be more familiar with this sort of operation than I am, so I look forward to your response(s).
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Thank you for your opinion Cary. So do you actually know what a controllers job is? Are you now or have you ever been an air traffic controller? Did the aicraft have any delays getting on the runway safely? Did another aircraft land on the runway while the emergency was occupying it? A controllers job is separating airplanes. Next...the pilots workload was high yes. Remember, there are two pilots in that cockpit. One of the primary functions of the non flying pilot is communications. He failed to communicate to the controller. The Avianca crash on Long Island several years ago comes to mind. There is no communication if its only one sided! Again, the controller might have been able to do things better, but please dont say the controller didnt do his job.
richmixon
Rich Mixon 1
Smoke filled cabin? Flight 111 in 1988. All souls on board met a fatal demise.
richmixon
Rich Mixon 1
Smoke filled cabin? Flight 111 in 1988. All souls on board met a fatal demise. And yes, properly fully state your flight info & Airline. I think they teach that on day one.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Sorry Peter...i respectfully disagree...just curious, are you a pilot as well as a controller?
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Exactly Fred...mayday or squawk...either wouldve worked great...as long as you say your call sign with the mayday.
AZAFVET
Wayne Fox 1
Looks like they are going to have to encrypt radio traffic between the aircraft and the controllers.
dbaker
Daniel Baker 6
Easier said than done. :-)
rick737
richard weiss 2
A simple statement by the controller would have cleared the air. " aircraft declaring an emergency say your call sign." The pilot was obviously distressed, and could have used a little help from ATC
haroldrutila
Harold Rutila 1
Sometimes, not all runways are visible. They do have ASDE-X (surface detection radar) and tower display workstations (these display radar approach controller scopes), however, so that they are aware of the location of all aircraft.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I can tell you with smoke in the cockpit visability from 5912 was limited. According to the news report it was snowing. I did not hear an RVR.
indy2001
indy2001 1
There is a statement at the end of the TV report about how snowy it was that morning. So the snow probably made visual ID difficult, if not impossible.
cwsfan18
Ryan Pitt 1
Well of course it's not. It's KDEN/DEN. But most people (including the media in the Denver area, refer to it as DIA.

jetdrvr1
Fred Moore 1
Absolutely. Gotta keep your cool. If you don't, nobody will. Get it on the frequency clearly and if you aren't too busy, squawk, but as close in and as busy as they were, the radio should be your primary concern.
ckevinhamel
Kevin Hamel 1
Jim, you've got a good question. As an amateur radio operator (and pilot), I can say that illegal/harmful transmissions are commonplace on many radio bands. The FCC have less than 2,000 employees, with a rather tiny number of them working in their enforcement bureau. After reading enforcement action letters for a long time, it appears to me that they mostly concentrate on going after only the squeakiest of the squeaky wheels. They love the lowest, fattest and juiciest of the low-hanging "monetary forfeitures" (fines). I'm not saying the FCC doesn't care about these little rogue operators with their hand-held radios, but they generally won't act unless the local law enforcement does the legwork in finding these guys.

There is a community of us amateur operators that are active "fox hunters" that have experience in locating certain operators through the use of old-fashioned triangulation. They are occasionally called upon to locate continual or habitual interference, whether for rogue operators, interference-causing devices (like power transformers), or search-and-rescue operations. Obviously it's easier to find stationary transmitters, but the problem lies in that these bad guys with radios don't often sit still. The FCC does have their own DF equipment, but their concerted efforts are more towards offenders that cause widespread public and/or commercial harm.
johncook1
john cook 1
Just hire this controller he don't need no fancy equipment to know whats BS or not.
cwsfan18
Ryan Pitt 1
Denver International Airport.
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Back to my original post...why do people do that?
cwsfan18
Ryan Pitt 1
It's just what it's called. The Denver Airport Authority probably coined it. Not 100% sure though since I don't live in Denver.
perpetualv
Denver International Airport
gearup328
Peter Steitz 0
Kevin, are you a commercial pilot or controller? If not, then you are out of your league posting like an expert. After an Air Force career and 14 years as a Part 121 Captain, I am a pilot. Please listen to the tape. The crew did not "declare an emergency" or squawk 7700--error on their part. However, they did say smoke in the cockpit and roll the trucks and said 5912. The controller assumed it was not real. Also, there is lots of confusion on how ATC tracks call signs. This was an ExpressJet call sign but in the tower it may have been UA 5912 because they fly as a code share of United. Way too much time elapses without any talk from the tower. http://www.9news.com/news/article/261127/339/Controller-during-emergency-landing-Thats-BS
gearup328
Peter Steitz 0
Kevin, the Captain and First Officer each fly every other leg of a trip. We don't know who was flying this approach and landing. I will assume the Captain took control if he/she wasn't already. In a long time emergency, the Captain should allow the FO to "fly" while he/she manages all aspects of the emergency. It's important that there is always a flying pilot who does nothing but fly the airplane. It is pretty standard that the Captain take control for the landing.
johncook1
john cook 1
5912 emergency smoke in the cockpit roll fire trucks.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
If you listen to the ground frequency, another pilot calls in saying that she witnessed the landing and it was well short of the runway, to the point that he hit lights in the overrun for 16L. The question is, did he have smoke in the cabin before that?
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Not saying controller couldnt have handled it differently, but a. Using abbreviated call sign in an emergency, b. Not getting reply from controller, c. Not using the word mayday, and maybe most importantly, d. Not setting transponder to proper code...a procedure in place EXACTLY for cases like this.
jetdrvr1
Fred Moore 1
Lotta guys seem disturbed by the lack of a proper skawk. When you have a smoke-filled cockpit, you may not be able to see the bloody thing. The PNF should have called MAYDAY. That should get the attention of even the most lackadaisical controller.
altstiff
Al Stiff 1
I wonder what he was squawking on his transponder?
atcssct
Kevin Ford 1
Even if one of the pilots were unable to say mayday...the emerg squawk code procedure is there for a reason!
rssavell
Scott Savell 5
Doesn't matter. At that point in the flight with smoke filling the cockpit/cabin his job is to fly the plane and get it on the ground not be playing around with the box.
altstiff
Al Stiff 0
Agreed, but it could have added to the confusion and possible thought by the controller that it was a fake radio call....
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 3
"Roll the trucks" and all doubt is covered. Worry about a bogus radio call later
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
Too much to do on a short final in an RJ. My first instinct would not be to change channels on the transponder when I have one hand on the yoke and one on the thrust levers within 60 or so seconds of transition. I'm mor in mind of my cabin crew and what they have to do to get the airplane stopped and the slides deployed. As the pilot, I made the call for emergency trucks and expect the see them..
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
What do you guys want? Unless you were the crew and had maybe a minute to landing, you just don't know. When you declare an emergency, ATC starts asking lots of questions. In this case, they didn't. I said it before, FLY THE AIRPLANE FIRST--TALK LATER. This is what they did. These pilots were busy!! Great job. ATC blew it.
jetdrvr1
Fred Moore 0
Avigate, navigate, and communicate! If you do not ensure that the necessary people are aware of your situation, it is your fault. I have dealt with myriad emergencies during my career and I always communicated the situation to ATC as soon as was humanly possible, as clearly and succinctly as possible. It is simply foolish to do otherwise. If your feet are on fire, it may be difficlut or impossible to do more than scream, of course, but if I am on short final with a cockpit full of smoke, as I once was, I will do everything possible to ensure that the trucks are rolling.
johncook1
john cook 1
And land the plane later
linbb
Boyd Butler 0
Thats what the problem was Lacey smoke inside thats why he declared and they should have started the equipment then and pointed it later they would have just been outside by the time he figured out where to send them.
btweston
btweston 0
I love the wonton speculation propagated on this site...
thewhitegroup
Stephan White -1
What does soup have to do with this? Did I miss something?
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 2
Stephan, I'm just howling after that one! Great post! (I like someone with a twisted sense of humor!)
thewhitegroup
Stephan White 1
Thanks! There is a good list of oddities that I have published so I don't cast stones...two far.
Derg
Roland Dent -1
Immediate dismissal of the ATC.
markonlineus
Mark King 0
Major fail, the pilot did not identify himself. There is a reason for the rules. United fifty-nine twelve is not the same as fifty-nine twelve or fife niner one two or any shortened flight number. Easy to think you have a prank call if the caller is not following the book. If you don't understand than read the handbook section on "radio communications" initial call up.
If you sat on the other side of the radio and were listening to multiple frequencies you might get the flick on why the controller needs to hear YOUR FULL CALL SIGN.
I agree some steps, training can be taken to try to keep this from happening again. But in my mind if Atc does not answer an aircraft call with that same call sign (your call sign) then get a clue, he is not communicating with you!
bryantgipull
bryant gipull 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

ExpressJet 5912 Emergency Landing

ATC from an emergency involving ExpressJet 5912 dba United Express at Denver International Airport on April 3, 2012. You can here confusion from the tower believing that the emergency call was a hoax.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44d72e46&opt=0
atcssct
Kevin Ford 0
Hmmm...i say we coin it DEN since thats what it is! Lol.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Yes, errors on both sides. Mark's quote--"But in my mind if Atc does not answer an aircraft call with that same call sign (your call sign) then get a clue, he is not communicating with you!" I hope I would have found a second to say "did you copy, Denver?"
Derg
Roland Dent -3
All this stuff on this thread is PATHETIC. If an ATC does not respond to an emergency in an appropriate way then it is GOODBYE. Sometimes I think the posters on here live in cuckoo land. There are no employment laws in any land that would not support dismissal. If this happened in some places the ATC would be stoned to death.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

dctjf0290
Cayce Sweeney 11
in an emergency case, the pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. so whether his transmission made it through or not, his first priority was to land the plane, not make sure ATC was understanding correctly
rick737
richard weiss 3
The pilot talking, sounded like he lost his cool. His voice went a up couple of octaves and he rushed through the call. The aircraft was on final with the runway in sight. He should have remained calm, and reverted to the basics. That is- Aviate- Navigate - Communicate- in that order. Hey, I'm not advocating for the controller. He should have asked for help from his back-up. A simple call by the controller that said "Aircraft declaring an emergency say your call sign" would have cleared it up. So one might conclude that there's enough blame for both parties to take a hit.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 0
I think lawyers and insurance companies call it "contributory neglegance". There were mistakes on both sides. At least salvage a teaching moment. As for me , I have never been on final in the middle of check lists, approach plates, high cockpit clutter and reduced visability for snow and cockpit smoke. I'm forgiving a little pilot panic though. The controller had the advantage of time and comparitive reduced pressure and should not have relyed on some grand assumption of an infrequent scenerio. All he had to do was call the emergency ground equipment out. I wouldn't have come out of his check.
haroldrutila
Harold Rutila 6
Since the FAA operates Denver Tower and sets rules and regulations for pilots and controllers, it's impossible to make that conclusion right now.
rssavell
Scott Savell 8
A pilot may deviate from any "rule and regulation" to the extent necessary to meet an emergency situation.
stol701
stol701 2
That's what I'm sayin, you think they are going to hang one of their own? It's always the pilots fault. Jeeez you are a sensitive bunch.....
stbernardpass
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

FAA Investigating Ignored Emergency Landing Call

The FAA is investigating an incident which occurred last Tuesday in which a United Express pilot requested an emergency landing after reporting smoke in the cockpit, but the controller dismissed as a prank.

http://www.aero-news.net/EmailArticle.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=94049c9b-9f64-4d80-bcc6-0b3cd3b63fc3