737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

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

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).

Just for the sake of pedantry, Securite is a little different, used to
alert other vessels to a potential danger as opposed to requesting
assistance with an existing situation. For instance, a large vessel
backing out of its slip into a high-traffic area might announce their
intentions preceded by "security, security, security" in order to make
sure everyone pays attention.

-cwk.

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

Happy Dog wrote:

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

Do company rules apply when a pilot declares an emergency?

--
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

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

Do company rules apply when a pilot declares an emergency?

? And, who declared an emergency?

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in

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

Do company rules apply when a pilot declares an emergency?

? And, who declared an emergency?

We are discussing the KLM 747 that had a low fuel emergency. According to
Gary D., the KLM did declare an emergency by stating PAN-PAN. I am still
unsure of whether this is considered an emergency.

I was hopeful one of the ATC regulars here would answer definitively as to
whether PAN-PAN is considered an emergency by ATC, but at least one of them
is too busy demonstrating his intelligence by nit-picking the trivial
threads to offer his expertise here.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
We are discussing the KLM 747 that had a low fuel emergency. According to
Gary D., the KLM did declare an emergency by stating PAN-PAN. I am still
unsure of whether this is considered an emergency.

I was hopeful one of the ATC regulars here would answer definitively as to
whether PAN-PAN is considered an emergency by ATC,

Peter, could you explain your uncertainty? Do you see any room for ambiguity
with regard to the AIM passages I cited to establish that "pan-pan" declares
an emergency? (If so, could you elaborate?) Or are you just doubting, for
some reason, that ATC actually complies with the emergency procedures
outlined in the AIM? (If so, do you doubt that with regard to "mayday" too,
or just with regard to "pan-pan"?)

--Gary

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Maule Driver
wrote:

The alternative would have been something like, "KLM: we have a low
fuel emergency, request diversion for immediate landing",

Surely EMERGENCY is a more serious call than PAN? All the P-word does
is tell everyone: shut up and listen to what I have to say.


-- 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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:19:58 GMT, Maule Driver
wrote:

The alternative would have been something like, "KLM: we have a low
fuel emergency, request diversion for immediate landing",

Surely EMERGENCY is a more serious call than PAN? All the P-word does
is tell everyone: shut up and listen to what I have to say.

No, according to AIM 6-1-2a and the P/CG, "pan-pan" declares an urgency
condition, which *is* an emergency condition. But it is a less immediate
emergency than a distress condition, which is signaled by "mayday". (The
transponder code 7700 is used to signal *either* a distress or urgency
condition, according to AIM 6-3-2a2b).

--Gary