737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

"Maule Driver"

That was interesting. Hearing the use of "pan pan" makes me wonder, "is
there a hassle factor involved with diverting internationally (for the
scheduleds)"? I can almost hear the crew, coming up with a solution to
their low fuel then, seeing it required a US landing, deciding to add the
"pan pan" to their low fuel to ensure desired handling.

They probably wanted to land where they have facilities. But, given the
current US regs that make even a flight over US territory a hassle, I'm
surprised. Maybe it was their alternate. Does anyone know if using a US
alternate when a non-US is the destination means that they handle it (vis a
vis immigration advance procedures) as if it was the destination? That
might explain it.

The alternative would have been something like, "KLM: we have a low fuel
emergency, request diversion for immediate landing", "ATC: we can take you
to Ottawa", "KLM: ahhh, that looks like it would require some deviation
around this cell, how about Syracuse?","ATC: we can give you direct to
Hamilton", "KLM: too short, It think we need Syracuse" etc.

Hamilton is 10,000'. Buffalo 8,000'. Rochester 8,000'.

Syracuse 9,000'

KLM: We need a left turn to Syracuse, we got it lined up, and we think
we have just enough fuel to go to Syracuse, and land there with 30
minutes.

That seems to be cutting it really close. Does anyone know if company rules
usually require more than the FAA mins?

moo