Narrative:

10 mi southeast of cvg the low oil pressure light began to flicker. As we were being vectored for the visibility approach to 18L at cvg, we continued to monitor the oil pressure gauge. At 30 psi we executed a preplanned engine shutdown on the #2 engine. The communication to the approach controller was that 'we did have to shut down an engine, ' and 'we are declaring an emergency.' the procedure was successfully completed and we landed with no further complications. We were advised upon landing that tower was confused to the situation and thought that we may have been doing this for maintenance reasons. I am not sure where the mixed communications may have come from. The message appeared to be clearly relayed because the flight was properly assisted by the emergency crew upon approach, landing and taxi to the gate. In my opinion, the situation was handled correctly and in compliance with air carrier operations and the FAA. Any mixed communication was not intentional. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter feels approach control failed to relay the information reference the engine shutdown and the request for emergency equipment to stand by. First officer indicated in a discussion after the incident he may have confused the controller with the term 'pre-planned shutdown.' has since been counseled by the chief pilot. Broken oil line found. Engine was shut down prior to any damage. Supplemental information from acn 170403: I do not think think there were any infractions of regulations or procedures. I do suspect there was some confusion over the radio, whether we needed 'assistance.' the first officer responded to this question while I was informing the passenger. What his answer was I do not know.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RIGHT ENGINE SHUTDOWN. TWR CONFUSED IF EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CALLED.

Narrative: 10 MI SE OF CVG THE LOW OIL PRESSURE LIGHT BEGAN TO FLICKER. AS WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE VIS APCH TO 18L AT CVG, WE CONTINUED TO MONITOR THE OIL PRESSURE GAUGE. AT 30 PSI WE EXECUTED A PREPLANNED ENG SHUTDOWN ON THE #2 ENG. THE COM TO THE APCH CTLR WAS THAT 'WE DID HAVE TO SHUT DOWN AN ENG, ' AND 'WE ARE DECLARING AN EMER.' THE PROC WAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AND WE LANDED WITH NO FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. WE WERE ADVISED UPON LNDG THAT TWR WAS CONFUSED TO THE SITUATION AND THOUGHT THAT WE MAY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR MAINT REASONS. I AM NOT SURE WHERE THE MIXED COMS MAY HAVE COME FROM. THE MESSAGE APPEARED TO BE CLEARLY RELAYED BECAUSE THE FLT WAS PROPERLY ASSISTED BY THE EMER CREW UPON APCH, LNDG AND TAXI TO THE GATE. IN MY OPINION, THE SITUATION WAS HANDLED CORRECTLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ACR OPS AND THE FAA. ANY MIXED COM WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR FEELS APCH CTL FAILED TO RELAY THE INFO REF THE ENG SHUTDOWN AND THE REQUEST FOR EMER EQUIP TO STAND BY. F/O INDICATED IN A DISCUSSION AFTER THE INCIDENT HE MAY HAVE CONFUSED THE CTLR WITH THE TERM 'PRE-PLANNED SHUTDOWN.' HAS SINCE BEEN COUNSELED BY THE CHIEF PLT. BROKEN OIL LINE FOUND. ENG WAS SHUT DOWN PRIOR TO ANY DAMAGE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 170403: I DO NOT THINK THINK THERE WERE ANY INFRACTIONS OF REGS OR PROCS. I DO SUSPECT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION OVER THE RADIO, WHETHER WE NEEDED 'ASSISTANCE.' THE F/O RESPONDED TO THIS QUESTION WHILE I WAS INFORMING THE PAX. WHAT HIS ANSWER WAS I DO NOT KNOW.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.