737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

Watch it pal, or the "nice" police on the board will be assailing you for
"bullying" someone on the board.

[Disclaimer: The above post was a joke, not meant to offend. ]


"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:W86Ie.236694$Qo.17705@fed1read01...
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Matt,

Reports are that it was struck by lighting AFTER it landed, and lost
all
controls.

Ah, one of the perils of fly by wire...


Ok, I'll bite. Gimme facts. You seem to know more than the accident
investigators. Spell it out. PUT UP OUR SHUP UP!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Weren't you the one who was ripping people on their spelling earlier in
this thread?

The term is: Put Up Or Shut Up...

C'mon..get it right.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
Ok, I'll bite. Gimme facts. You seem to know more than the accident
investigators. Spell it out. PUT UP OUR SHUP UP!

Weren't you the one who was ripping people on their spelling earlier in
this thread?

The term is: Put Up Or Shut Up...

C'mon..get it right.


That's what happens when you take 'two' or 'three' pills before you go
online :-)


Montblack

Dave wrote:
Reports are that it was struck by lighting AFTER it landed, and lost all
controls.

Now the plane's passengers are saying that the interior lights went out
about a minute or two before landing, but the landing itself was okay.
Wonder if they lost a couple of electrical busses.

Changing topic, I was just listening to the Toronto ATC archive. A
couple of minutes afer the crash, and finding out the Toronto airport
was closed, a KLM flight from Amsterdam used the P-word... it went
close to this:

KLM: Pan, Pan Pan. KLM 691. We have a low fuel emergency for a
diversion to Syracuse. Declaring a low fuel emergency. KLM 691.

ATC: KLM 691 roger, uh, check that you're declaring a fuel emergency.
Are you able to go to Hamilton Airport? What's the minumum length of
runway I can have, uh, maybe in case we have closer ones.

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.

ATC: KLM 691, roger, direct to Syracuse, maintain 5000.

Kev

Local coverage of it he http://tinyurl.com/7cztx

The Professor (just passing through)

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.

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.

I thought it was a very appropriate use of "pan" given the other
emergency activity and the nature of their own.

Kev wrote:
Changing topic, I was just listening to the Toronto ATC archive. A
couple of minutes afer the crash, and finding out the Toronto airport
was closed, a KLM flight from Amsterdam used the P-word... it went
close to this:

KLM: Pan, Pan Pan. KLM 691. We have a low fuel emergency for a
diversion to Syracuse. Declaring a low fuel emergency. KLM 691.

ATC: KLM 691 roger, uh, check that you're declaring a fuel emergency.
Are you able to go to Hamilton Airport? What's the minumum length of
runway I can have, uh, maybe in case we have closer ones.

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.

ATC: KLM 691, roger, direct to Syracuse, maintain 5000.

Kev

Maule Driver wrote:
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.

AFAIK planes flying from the Northeast US to points West often transit
through Canadian airspace up around Toronto so I would think that the
controllers up there (Toronto/Detroit area) have no difficulty
coordinating. I'm not familiar with the use of the p-word in aviation
but from my maritime experience I recall it as being shorthand for
saying, "If you don't help me right now, this can turn into a Mayday
situation." That would seem relevant here where you might have someone
who is trying to cut through traffic on freq. It also seems to me
sometimes that the US has more idiosyncratic aviation phraseology while
other parts of the world hew closer to maritime language. Does "minimum
fuel" mean the same thing in Europe that it does here?

-cwk.

wrote:

, "If you don't help me right now, this can turn into a Mayday
situation." That would seem relevant here where you might have someone
who is trying to cut through traffic on freq. It also seems to me
sometimes that the US has more idiosyncratic aviation phraseology while
other parts of the world hew closer to maritime language. Does "minimum
fuel" mean the same thing in Europe that it does here?

What is interesting in the case of the KLM aircraft is that the pilot first
stated PAN-PAN, then continued by saying "Low fuel emergency."

Wouldn't the inclusion of the word "emergency" be the same as a pilot
stating "I am declaring an emergency" and therefore be handled by ATC as an
emergency?

It seemed to me that the subsequent exchange by the KLM pilot and ATC
didn't sound as if the situation was being treated as an emergency. For
example, the KLM pilot was requesting, not stating his intentions, and at
one point the KLM pilot was declined either an altitude or heading due to
nearby traffic, which I would have expected would have been moved out of
the way by then.


--
Peter

Maule Driver wrote:
I thought it was a very appropriate use of "pan" given the other
emergency activity and the nature of their own.

Three minutes before that, they were put on the localizer path and
turned over to the tower frequency. Apparently tower gave them back to
approach 90 seconds later because of the crash, and KLM was told to
circle. KLM then asked if Toronto was going to stay closed and ATC
answered yes and explained why. Fourty seconds later KLM came up with
the Pan Pan Pan. They were very calm about it, but also insistent on
Syracuse.

So yep, they very quickly decided where to divert and to declare the
emergency. [Side note: apparently they later landed in Montreal at
8:30pm. If only they'd had a little bit more fuel in the first
place...]

I've read somewhere that airlines were really cutting back on carrying
extra fuel the past few years. Sure, it's still up to the Captain, but
there's a lot of arm-twisting from the bean counters. This KLM came
trans-Atlantic and went missed with a little over one hour's total fuel
left... which sounds like a lot, unless the nearest airport was 45
minutes away and they had to go missed there as well.

Cheers, Kev

Kev wrote:

[Side note: apparently they later landed in Montreal at
8:30pm. If only they'd had a little bit more fuel in the first
place...]

Just to clarify, the KLM did land at Syracuse first, then apparently flew
up to Montreal once they were adequately refueled.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"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