Same thing happened to me at FL210 in the 421. I did declare.

I'm going to be really blunt here (and I'm not picking on Thomas!): Not declaring if you have an engine failure is simply stupid. There is NO reason not to declare, but there are a lot of reasons TO declare.

Sorry guys & gals, but I simply don't understand not declaring.

Declare early, declare often. There is ZERO downside.

Robert

Same thing happened to me at FL210 in the 421. I did declare.

I'm going to be really blunt here (and I'm not picking on Thomas!): Not declaring if you have an engine failure is simply stupid. There is NO reason not to declare, but there are a lot of reasons TO declare.

Sorry guys & gals, but I simply don't understand not declaring.

Declare early, declare often. There is ZERO downside.

Robert

That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Can you please provide a specific example of when that has happened to someone?

My partner in the P-Baron did a precautionary shut down after oil pressure dropped on a newly installed engine. Didn't declare, but got the ATC handling he required to safely land. FSDO called about a week later and they were just asking what happened and if they could help in any way. After explaining, the gentleman there said he would shut the case and if there was anything they could do to assist (meaning if responsibility wasn't taken by the engine shop), to let them know.
In general, a very positive experience.

There are numerous such examples.

I had one of my former students get into a non-fatal, but serious accident about 7 months ago. As such, I picked up my notice of a 709 ride today from the Post Office. My current military aviation training environment forbids me from flying outside of the military curriculum. So, I am not in a position right now to take a ride with the FAA, and I am talking to a lawyer (thank you AOPA!).

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/40462-709-ride.html

Or from aviation lawyers website:

But what if the accident or incident was not the airman’s fault? What if the accident or incident was caused by a mechanical failure? Unfortunately, unless the mechanical failure is obvious to the FAA as the sole cause of the incident, a request for re-examination is likely to be considered reasonable. Why? Because the FAA only has to show that a lack of competence “could have been a factor” and, if it was, the re-examination request is considered reasonable, without regard to the likelihood that a lack of competence had actually played a role in the event.

USC 44709 spells it out pretty clearly. They can re-examine you for any reason and at any time:

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709

There are numerous such examples.

I had one of my former students get into a non-fatal, but serious accident about 7 months ago. As such, I picked up my notice of a 709 ride today from the Post Office. My current military aviation training environment forbids me from flying outside of the military curriculum. So, I am not in a position right now to take a ride with the FAA, and I am talking to a lawyer (thank you AOPA!).

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/40462-709-ride.html

Or from aviation lawyers website:

But what if the accident or incident was not the airman’s fault? What if the accident or incident was caused by a mechanical failure? Unfortunately, unless the mechanical failure is obvious to the FAA as the sole cause of the incident, a request for re-examination is likely to be considered reasonable. Why? Because the FAA only has to show that a lack of competence “could have been a factor” and, if it was, the re-examination request is considered reasonable, without regard to the likelihood that a lack of competence had actually played a role in the event.

What's the problem guys?

Not true, and a bad myth to spread. It gets people killed.

I declared when I had a partial engine failure (2 cylinders) in my A36. They cleared traffic at an airline airport for my landing. And twice I've had emergencies declared for me, they rolled the trucks. Never a peep from the FAA in any of those cases.

I have declared, or ATC has declared for me, several times, and it has never involved more than a phone call. Usually nothing.

There would be exceptions, if metal is bent, then there will be follow up, but if metal is bent, chance are there would have been followup anyway.

If you were flying a -172 IFR and declared because of severe icing, you might get a further investigation. But even if you didn't declare, ATC could report you just like they do if you land when the visibility is reported below minimums.

I am not hard over if people declare on an engine failure, once you say engine failure, ATC is going to do it for you. Everytime!

The problem is people who are low on gas, or in the ice and need to land right now, fail to tell ATC what they need, or if they do and ATC doesn't give them what they need, they need to declare.

Having a discussion, a training contract, or even a 709 ride, with the FAA is far preferable to ending up in a smoking hole... And there are lots of examples of the above where many lives were lost for fear of a discussion.

Personally, I don’t have a real problem with declaring, but if ATC is being helpful and I don’t think the declaration is necessary, I haven’t in the past. When a windshield cracked and I depressurized at FL260, I immediately descended without permission so my first communication with ATC after being established in the descent with oxygen on was to declare an emergency. I was not investigated, in fact I got no communication from the FAA at all. I think declaring is an excellent idea if you will be needing priority and special assistance, but in my experience so far, ATC has been very helpful regardless of whether there is a declaration. It’s great to have them “up there” helping us.

Let's just say I strongly disagree.

Robert

Bull. engine failure in the 340 at FL220, I declared, shot an ILS into KFAY, fire-trucks (and a crowd of people) waiting for what turned out to be a greaser landing.

I made 1 phone call to the FSDO, and he said "well, nice job. that wraps it up for me. any questions?" and that was that.

FAA may not be your friend, but they aren't necessarily the enemy, either.

Adam is correct, they do investigate. Not saying this is a reason to not declare; I definitely would. A friend of mine lost his engine over Alpine tower along the Hudson river. He secured the engine and returned to FRG. When he contacted the tower he told them he had OEI but did not declare. Tower recorded it and rolled the trucks, FAA investigated and claimed he overflew 3 closer (better choice) airports and required a him to take a 709 ride plus a full maintenance log review of the airplane.

Joel, You had me scratching my head... I couldn't recall anyone saying to make a report. (this was about 20 years ago)

But looking it up it says:



Mine ALL came out the exhaust path. Stacks had little BB gun dings in them.

That doesn't support Adam at all. Your friend didn't declare, just as Adam advocates doing so the FAA won't investigate, but the FAA investigated anyway. If they're going to investigate whether you declare or not, as in your friend's case, then there's no reason not to declare.