737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

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

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
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?

Saying "pan-pan" already declares an emergency. There are two levels of
emergency--urgency (pan-pan) and distress (mayday). (AIM 6-1-2a)

Gary Drescher wrote:

Saying "pan-pan" already declares an emergency.

I don't see the above fact mentioned in the AIM chapter you referenced.
Does PAN-PAN declare an emergency in US airspace as far as ATC is
concerned?



--
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 =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Saying "pan-pan" already declares an emergency.

I don't see the above fact mentioned in the AIM chapter you referenced.
Does PAN-PAN declare an emergency in US airspace as far as ATC is
concerned?

It was my understanding that a Pan gave you clear communications, by getting
all other calls on the freq. stopped. Close?
--
Jim in NC

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Saying "pan-pan" already declares an emergency.
There are two levels of emergency--urgency (pan-pan)
and distress (mayday). (AIM 6-1-2a)

I don't see the above fact mentioned in the AIM chapter you referenced.

AIM 6-1-2a discusses distress and urgency conditions. The Pilot/Controller
Glossary defines "mayday" and "pan-pan" (respectively) as signaling those
conditions.

Does PAN-PAN declare an emergency in US airspace as far
as ATC is concerned?

Yes, "mayday" and "pan-pan" are recognized internationally, according to the
Pilot/Controller Glossary.

--Gary

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:16:35 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote:

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."

What's beautiful about Pan is that the listener doesn't have to wait
for the explanation. His ears are up, his adrenaline is already
running, he KNOWS that this one is out of the ordinary and will
require his very best efforts.

Whereas: XXXX, This is / I am --- is so much wasted talk. That's why
we have these MAYDAY and PAN calls (and, in maritime, SECURITE as
well).


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com