By Joel A. Turpin, ATP CFII FAA Master Pilot
Even though the incident in this story occurred while flying a Boeing 757 simulator, the setting for this lesson is the same as if it had occurred in a real airplane. Also, what is presented in this story is valid for all pilots, regardless of what they fly. Whether you fly a single engine Cessna or Piper, or a Boeing airliner, being the Pilot in Command (PIC) is the same. In an emergency situation, regardless of what you are flying, you are the final authority on how the emergency is dealt with.
In the example found in this article, the emergency I dealt with was a cargo compartment fire. If you are flying a Cessna or Piper, simply substitute one of the following: an alternator failure in IMC or VFR at night, critically low on fuel, or an encounter with unanticipated icing conditions. In each situation, an immediate landing must be made and that is where your PIC authority comes into play. In that capacity, you tell ATC what you need to do to avoid a disaster, not ask. But you must first declare an emergency to do this.
In addition, the PIC of all airplanes should be flexible in his or her decision making and recognize those rare situations where obeying the FARs, the AIM, or any other norms of flight may result in an unsafe situation. That will require the use of one’s PIC authority to do what results in a safe outcome regardless of the rules. The golden rule for all PICs is to never put your life in danger during an unusual or emergency situation while trying to stay legal.
WHAT THE FARs SAY
As stated in FAR 91.3(a) “The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft.”
And FAR 91.3(b) states “An in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency”
The story below simply puts all of this into real world practice.
A LESSON ON BEING THE PILOT IN COMMAND
While dire emergencies aloft are exceedingly rare, pilots must remain flexible in their decision-making process should one occur. This story is an example of using one’s Pilot in Command authority of an airplane, regardless of its size, during a dire and life-threatening emergency.
Many years ago, I found myself in an emergency situation aloft that required some tough PIC decision making, as well as cockpit leadership. In this story, I will share my experience so that others can benefit from what happened.
It occurred on my very last recurrent simulator proficiency check (PC) at United Airlines prior to my retirement at age 65 in 2015. At United, our recurrent PCs consisted of three days of simulator training. Day one is a review and practice of maneuvers and emergencies. Day two is the check ride where you must demonstrate proficiency in such things as an engine failure at V1, single engine approaches and go arounds, wind shear encounters, and more. On day three we would fly a LOFT, which stands for Line Oriented Flight Training. The LOFT is a flight in real time in the simulator from one airport to another, just as if we were on a scheduled passenger flight.
On the day three LOFT, I was flying a Boeing 757 simulator as captain on a flight from Chicago’s O’Hare Airport to New York’s LaGuardia Airport. We pushed back from the gate at O’Hare, started the engines, taxied out, and took off. However, as we were climbing through about 25,000 feet on our way up to FL370, and some 80 miles west of Cleveland, the forward cargo compartment fire warning light illuminated.
We accomplished the cargo fire checklist, which required us to blow both fire bottles. This we did, but the fire light stayed on. Then, one of the “flight attendants” (in this case the sim instructor), called on the interphone to tell us that she smelled smoke in the cabin. This confirmed that our airplane was indeed on fire.
Joel Turpin
In every day flying, we simply must obey the FARs,
AIM procedures, and SOP, as should pilots flying in general aviation.
We must also be prepared mentally to innovate during an emergency or when doing
the right and legal thing would lead us into an unsafe situation.
An inflight cargo compartment fire that cannot be extinguished is a dire, and life-threatening emergency since the fire might spread to the cabin or cause structural failure. With this in mind, we immediately declared an emergency with the Cleveland center controller and diverted to Cleveland.
Even though the ATIS said the ILS for RWY 24R was in use, we told (did not ask) ATC that we were going to fly the ILS for RWY 6L as it would be almost a straight in from our position to the west of the airport. With our forward cargo compartment fire, we needed to land without delay. Landing downwind would accomplish that goal and avoid flying the extra ten minutes past the airport to land to the west on the active runway. The weather at Cleveland was a ceiling of 200 feet overcast with ½ mile visibility in fog and rain, with the wind out of the west at 7 knots.
As cited in FAR 91.3(b), the declaration of an emergency allows the PIC to deviate from all FARs as needed to mitigate the emergency. Knowing this, I briefed my first officer that there would be no going around, and that we would descend until we saw the runway regardless of the weather or the decision altitude printed on the approach chart. I hand flew the ILS approach to 6L and broke out precisely at 200 feet, the minimums published on the chart. After stopping the airplane on the runway, we conducted an “evacuation”, and that was that.
In the debriefing, I suggested to the simulator instructor that in the future, he should set the ceiling at 100 feet instead of 200 feet. This would reveal how many of our captains, when the runway was not in sight at the decision altitude, would initiate a go around with their airplane on fire. He was in shock at my suggestion and literally did not speak for a few seconds. He had never heard of such a thing! Then, with a quivering voice, he said that United did not want to encourage their pilots to bust minimums.
I told him that in a declared emergency, there is no such thing as minimums. I also told him that it would be a great opportunity to teach our pilots how to think out of the box as needed in an emergency. Any pilot who initiated a go around with his or her airplane on fire should be counseled that there are times when rigid adherence to the FARs in a life-or-death scenario might be the wrong thing to do. I also told him he would be shocked at how many of our captains would conduct a missed approach with their airplane on fire. Setting the ceiling at 100 feet would reveal which ones would make that mistake.
When we left the briefing room, I could tell that my instructor was not impressed. He truly thought that I was some kind of wild, undisciplined, irresponsible, and minimum busting captain.
WHAT PILOTS SHOULD LEARN FROM THIS STORY
Airline pilots and military pilots are some of aviation’s most disciplined and regimented pilots due to the complexity of the airplanes we fly, and our demanding mission profiles. In every day flying, we simply must obey the FARs, AIM procedures, and SOP, as should pilots flying in general aviation.
We must also be prepared mentally to innovate during an emergency or when doing the right and legal thing would lead us into an unsafe situation. This includes refusing to accept an ATC clearance when compliance would compromise safety. While regimentation is good, if an unusual situation or dire emergency should occur, the PIC must be willing to take any action necessary to save his or her airplane from a disaster, or to prevent an unsafe situation from occurring.
