Vacuum Pump Failure + Infringment
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vacuum Pump Failure + Infringment
Yesterday I infringed a Class D zone by 300' and 2nm. I was talking to a LARS and squawking mode C, they informed me I had infringed in no uncertain terms. Although not requested to do so, I contacted the LARS unit upon landing and explained myself.
Shortly prior to the infringement the AH toppled so violently it caught my attention. I glanced down at the suction and sure enough was indicating zero.
I headed directly for the overhead of the nearest as I had a first time passenger with me and didn't want to take any chances in case there was an associated engine problem. By doing that I infringed by 2 miles, and I immediately got called by the LARS controller and told I had infringed.
I didn't declare a PAN as it seemed overkill and did'nt want to alarm my passenger. However, in light of the infringement part of me wishes I had.
I called the LARS upon landing and explained the vacuum failure.
Thoughts/ suggestions on what I could have done better / reassurances etc gratefully received!
Shortly prior to the infringement the AH toppled so violently it caught my attention. I glanced down at the suction and sure enough was indicating zero.
I headed directly for the overhead of the nearest as I had a first time passenger with me and didn't want to take any chances in case there was an associated engine problem. By doing that I infringed by 2 miles, and I immediately got called by the LARS controller and told I had infringed.
I didn't declare a PAN as it seemed overkill and did'nt want to alarm my passenger. However, in light of the infringement part of me wishes I had.
I called the LARS upon landing and explained the vacuum failure.
Thoughts/ suggestions on what I could have done better / reassurances etc gratefully received!
Last edited by Essel; 19th May 2008 at 15:24.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bisley
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers and FISOs are encouraged to file a report so that the scale of the infringement problem can be determined. NATS just loves statistics.
Unless you are a repeat offender or the incident caused major mayhem / safety concerns you are very unlikely to be penalised. The fact that you contacted the ATC unit on landing also goes in your favour as it shows that you acknowledge that it happened and that you wanted to explain and hopefully learn from the experience.
Tick it off in your book of "lifes experiences" and enjoy your flying.
Unless you are a repeat offender or the incident caused major mayhem / safety concerns you are very unlikely to be penalised. The fact that you contacted the ATC unit on landing also goes in your favour as it shows that you acknowledge that it happened and that you wanted to explain and hopefully learn from the experience.
Tick it off in your book of "lifes experiences" and enjoy your flying.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Error of our ways
Essel
The CAA will almost certainly write to you asking for your report on the incident. That is your opportunity to explain why things went wrong and also remember it is your opportunity to explain what you have/are doing to prevent such a circumstance happening again.
You should consider; What could you have done better to prevent the airspace infringement following the vacumn failure? What were the actual consequences of the vacumn failure that would have had a bearing on your flight? What checks should you have carried out? Should you have informed the FIS, that you were receiving at the time, of your intention to divert? What benefits could you have availed yourself of by informing the FIS of your problem and intentions? You are quite right that a pan would most likely have not been necessary but a problem shared is a problem halved. In other words what were the real priorities at the time and how would you deal with a similar situation next time!
The CAA will be content to know that you have thought the events through and have resolved the matter yourself. The CAA current policy is NOT to proscecute when the pilot clearly has simply made a mistake and that you, the pilot, also wish to learn from the event.
The CAA will almost certainly write to you asking for your report on the incident. That is your opportunity to explain why things went wrong and also remember it is your opportunity to explain what you have/are doing to prevent such a circumstance happening again.
You should consider; What could you have done better to prevent the airspace infringement following the vacumn failure? What were the actual consequences of the vacumn failure that would have had a bearing on your flight? What checks should you have carried out? Should you have informed the FIS, that you were receiving at the time, of your intention to divert? What benefits could you have availed yourself of by informing the FIS of your problem and intentions? You are quite right that a pan would most likely have not been necessary but a problem shared is a problem halved. In other words what were the real priorities at the time and how would you deal with a similar situation next time!
The CAA will be content to know that you have thought the events through and have resolved the matter yourself. The CAA current policy is NOT to proscecute when the pilot clearly has simply made a mistake and that you, the pilot, also wish to learn from the event.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts/ suggestions on what I could have done better / reassurances etc gratefully received!
I assume you had no GPS unit? This would have given you appropriate situational awareness.
Edit to include the original request for what he could have done better as it seems there are those that found my post unhelpful. I answered the question.
Last edited by S-Works; 19th May 2008 at 08:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your post homeguard. I've replayed the flight 50times already, including during my sleep, and you are right I should informed the LARS unit, infact my first instinct was to, but whilst I was waiting to get a word (frequency was extremely busy) I had second thoughts as time was ticking away and I wanted to focus on getting to the overhead of the nearest, plan the rejoin (if req), watch the T&Ps more than usual, and too not alarm my passenger.
Do the CAA write to all infringers by default?
BoseX: My GPS, with CAA charts on, had packed in. It was stuck in a reboot loop. I am not kidding. Not one of my best flying days.
Do the CAA write to all infringers by default?
BoseX: My GPS, with CAA charts on, had packed in. It was stuck in a reboot loop. I am not kidding. Not one of my best flying days.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know some are going to have fairly strong views about the organisation concerned 
but here goes:
I would recommend everyone joins AOPA (UK). It has the following helpful advice on the back of the membership card:
That, along with the advice that will follow from their Legal Advice Line, may save both your licence and bank balance (often the CAAs expenses in investigating can run to multiples of the fines imposed).
In addition AOPA does valuable work representing GA:
I know there are other organisations doing similar good works, such as the LAA and BGA, but AOPA seems (to me at least) to be the most appropriate for my powered flying. (I am also a member of the BGA).
OC619
P.S. If anyone wants a debate about "should AOPA / BGA / LAA / ... combine" may I suggest a new thread?
but here goes:I would recommend everyone joins AOPA (UK). It has the following helpful advice on the back of the membership card:
If you are involved in any incident which requires a statement, wait 24 hours before giving one, but contact AOPA as soon as possible.
In addition AOPA does valuable work representing GA:
- Against the interests of the big commercial players in areas such as Mode S
- With the govt. / local councils as they try and build on the "brown field" sites, so conveniently located close to many towns
I know there are other organisations doing similar good works, such as the LAA and BGA, but AOPA seems (to me at least) to be the most appropriate for my powered flying. (I am also a member of the BGA).
OC619
P.S. If anyone wants a debate about "should AOPA / BGA / LAA / ... combine" may I suggest a new thread?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoseX. Good point - I did have a GPS unit. In fact it was brand new and on its maiden voyage. Unfortunately, it had become stuck in a reboot loop and was useless.
Just wasn't my day.
Just wasn't my day.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t worry - as others have said the CAA will not take further action beyond possibly writing to you.
You decided that the failure could have been indicative of something more serious.
Given that was so, a diversion was in order.
Aviate, navigate, communicate - forget all that old tosh.
It may work went you are mid channel or in some desolate and remote region of the UK but not surrounded by busy CAS.
The effect of the words “I have a small problem” is amazing if you are reluctant to call a pan.
Of course ensure you have the problem under control, but if you are “panicking” even a bit a cool head on the ground is worth its weight in gold. Immediately, they are expecting you to do something “stupid” like divert through CAS without thinking about a clearance because it just happens to be the shortest route. Moreover it gives them something a bit more interesting to do for the day.
It may be decried by some but it is much easier to have someone helping with the navigation with a 20"screen in front of them whilst you are managing the problem.
You decided that the failure could have been indicative of something more serious.
Given that was so, a diversion was in order.
Aviate, navigate, communicate - forget all that old tosh.
It may work went you are mid channel or in some desolate and remote region of the UK but not surrounded by busy CAS.
The effect of the words “I have a small problem” is amazing if you are reluctant to call a pan.
Of course ensure you have the problem under control, but if you are “panicking” even a bit a cool head on the ground is worth its weight in gold. Immediately, they are expecting you to do something “stupid” like divert through CAS without thinking about a clearance because it just happens to be the shortest route. Moreover it gives them something a bit more interesting to do for the day.
It may be decried by some but it is much easier to have someone helping with the navigation with a 20"screen in front of them whilst you are managing the problem.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few simple rules!
Aviate, navigate & communicate is most certainly not 'old tosh'. For those three simple words give the best guidance to any pilot when faced with a dilemma, whatever the experience level.
Aviate - will include; completing FREDA/LIFE (whatever) checks. Identification of the fault and isolation of the problem. Evaluation of the consequences of the failure; requirement to fly on a limited panel and by reference to the 'E' type compass for heading.
Navigate - will include; knowing position, deciding on the plan of any action required: divert or to continue with the flight as planned.
Communicate - Inform air traffic. In this instance the level of assistance required will depend on the factors identified during the first phaze and the complexity of the second. In the case of a vacumn pump failure the conditions may determine. Should the visibilty be very poor and the pilot is without a discernible horizon, perhaps surrounded by open seas, high terrain or controlled airspace then an 'urgency' call should be made immediately as it also should be if you find yourself overwhelmed in whatever conditions. However Essel appears not to be concerned about any of these factors. Simply having informed the FIS would have been all that was needed and would most likely have avoided the resulting infringement.
ATC, like we do, take their role seriously and are rarely bored. They would not have considered any call from Essel as entertainment but would have done their best to help. That is their job!
Aviate - will include; completing FREDA/LIFE (whatever) checks. Identification of the fault and isolation of the problem. Evaluation of the consequences of the failure; requirement to fly on a limited panel and by reference to the 'E' type compass for heading.
Navigate - will include; knowing position, deciding on the plan of any action required: divert or to continue with the flight as planned.
Communicate - Inform air traffic. In this instance the level of assistance required will depend on the factors identified during the first phaze and the complexity of the second. In the case of a vacumn pump failure the conditions may determine. Should the visibilty be very poor and the pilot is without a discernible horizon, perhaps surrounded by open seas, high terrain or controlled airspace then an 'urgency' call should be made immediately as it also should be if you find yourself overwhelmed in whatever conditions. However Essel appears not to be concerned about any of these factors. Simply having informed the FIS would have been all that was needed and would most likely have avoided the resulting infringement.
ATC, like we do, take their role seriously and are rarely bored. They would not have considered any call from Essel as entertainment but would have done their best to help. That is their job!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC, like we do, take their role seriously and are rarely bored. They would not have considered any call from Essel as entertainment but would have done their best to help. That is their job!
If ATC would have known that the DI was inop and turning onto/maintaining a heading was more complicated, they probably would have warned before the infringement happened.
Another mitigating circumstance might be the following: The indication that something was wrong with the vacuum was the AH toppling. Now the AH and DI both need gyros to work, and both gyros will take a few minutes to spin down once the vacuum is removed but they will not start indicating wrongly at the same time. It might just be so that the DI was already showing a serious error before the AH toppled, and that the OP was way off course by then already.
Essel, you said you headed directly for the overhead of the nearest airfield. How did you navigate there? Was that all visual, DR, GPS or what? Since you infringed by two miles, I am lead to believe that you were quite a ways off from that field and possibly used the DI to navigate to that field. Did you realise that your DI would be off, did you use the compass, properly?
On the other hand, since this is officially an ongoing investigation, it might be best not to comment too much on this, right now.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviate, navigate & communicate is most certainly not 'old tosh'. For those three simple words give the best guidance to any pilot when faced with a dilemma, whatever the experience level.
Have it your own way.
I was giving a different take on the subject. They may be three simple words but are still worth thinking about.
In this case the problem was under control but perhaps due to the stress of the situation the "navigate" didnt quite work.
A short communication would have prevented the infringement or at least AT would have been ready for it.
Aviate, navigate, communicate almost goes back to the dawn of flying when AT werent going to be much help and the navigation was down to the pilot.
Now that is not to say if you are comfortable with the situation iit is still a good "rule" to follow .. .. .. but if you realise you are surrounded by CAS and want to divert as quickly as possible whlst conscious you might be about to bust a corner of the CAS far better to annouce you have a problem .. .. .. and get some hlep with the navigation.
Worth thinking about perhaps?
Dead easy to say when you are on the ground, but loss of a vacuum pump on a CAVOK day should be a non-event.
However, when faced with any problem, its bound to take up some or all of your spare mental capacity, so any help you can get from any source can only be beneficial.
If you read the quarterly safety bulletins you'll see loads of MOR's filed for airspace busts but the recent CAA prosecutions (AFAICR) were only for only 2 or 3 of the most serious busts, so I wouldn't worry unduly on that score.
However, when faced with any problem, its bound to take up some or all of your spare mental capacity, so any help you can get from any source can only be beneficial.
If you read the quarterly safety bulletins you'll see loads of MOR's filed for airspace busts but the recent CAA prosecutions (AFAICR) were only for only 2 or 3 of the most serious busts, so I wouldn't worry unduly on that score.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The seriousness of the failure would also depend on whether the flight was being conducted in VFR in good VMC conditions (no reason not to be a non event since you are looking out of the window), VFR in marginal VMC conditions (requiring more dependence on instruments than a CAVOK flight to assist with navigation), or being conducted under IFR.
The CAA will offer appropriate advice.
The CAA will offer appropriate advice.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essel, per my previous post per possible failure of the DI, Backpacker has done an excellent explanation.
You may have had prior failure (or simultaneous) failure of the DI and not known it (normally no red flags on these instruments). In failure mode the DI card would simply not turn or it could displace say 90 degrees and then fail to turn any more (I've had such a failure).
You should consider if your navigation was unknowningly degraded by such a failure.
Anyway a safe return to the ground. (I note you did not have operational GPS, personally I wouldn't start rebooting it in the air - too distracting).
flyme
You may have had prior failure (or simultaneous) failure of the DI and not known it (normally no red flags on these instruments). In failure mode the DI card would simply not turn or it could displace say 90 degrees and then fail to turn any more (I've had such a failure).
You should consider if your navigation was unknowningly degraded by such a failure.
Anyway a safe return to the ground. (I note you did not have operational GPS, personally I wouldn't start rebooting it in the air - too distracting).
flyme
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have experienced suction pump failure only once. First the DG stopped doing it's stuff, then after a few moments the AI gently wound down and fell over.
Fortunately I was in my local area with >40 miles visibility, but it was still quite disconcerting. If I'd been unfamiliar with the area or the wx had been less than perfect, I would almost certainly have declared a PAN. Much better to get help (and lots of it) early on, rather than push on.
Given your circumstances I'd be very surprised if the CAA took a harsh view of the event.
Fortunately I was in my local area with >40 miles visibility, but it was still quite disconcerting. If I'd been unfamiliar with the area or the wx had been less than perfect, I would almost certainly have declared a PAN. Much better to get help (and lots of it) early on, rather than push on.
Given your circumstances I'd be very surprised if the CAA took a harsh view of the event.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time lag ?
If you had not picked up on the vac pump failure as it happend there will be a time period in which the gyros are running down but failure is not evident.
It could well be that the Infringmnt was due to unreliable heading information that would have happend after the vac pump failre but before the AI toppeled and you realised that the vac pump had failed.
It could well be that the Infringmnt was due to unreliable heading information that would have happend after the vac pump failre but before the AI toppeled and you realised that the vac pump had failed.