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

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

Gary Drescher wrote:

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?)

What is this, a test?

Seriously, my uncertainty has to do with the "if A equals B and B equals C,
then A must equal C" logic used in the AIM.

In other words, one reads in the AIM chapter that you posted earlier that
an urgent situation equals an emergency, but then one has to go to the
glossary to discover that PAN-PAN equals an urgent situation.

Why not simply state in the chapter you referenced that "announcing
PAN-PAN" will be treated as an emergency by ATC?

Perhaps the real problem is that I am over-analyzing this.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
What is this, a test?

Nope, just sincerely trying to understand the basis of your question.

Seriously, my uncertainty has to do with the "if A equals B and B equals
C,
then A must equal C" logic used in the AIM.

You're uncertain that if A=B and B=C, then A=C?

In other words, one reads in the AIM chapter that you posted earlier that
an urgent situation equals an emergency, but then one has to go to the
glossary to discover that PAN-PAN equals an urgent situation.

Actually, the P/CG is just one place you can discover that "pan-pan"
declares an urgency condition. As I later posted, it's also in AIM 6-3-2
("Obtaining Emergency Assistance"), clause a3a. But even if it were only
stated in the P/CG, it's still clearly stated, so I don't see where any
uncertainty arises.

Why not simply state in the chapter you referenced that "announcing
PAN-PAN" will be treated as an emergency by ATC?

That's essentially what 6-3-2a3a says, although 6-1-2a in conjunction with
the P/CG makes it clear too.

Perhaps the real problem is that I am over-analyzing this.

Seems to me that the problem is your reluctance to accept the transitivity
of 'equals'. That kind of puts a crimp in any attempted analysis.

--Gary

"Peter R."
Gary Drescher wrote:

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?)

What is this, a test?

Seriously, my uncertainty has to do with the "if A equals B and B equals
C,
then A must equal C" logic used in the AIM.

In other words, one reads in the AIM chapter that you posted earlier that
an urgent situation equals an emergency, but then one has to go to the
glossary to discover that PAN-PAN equals an urgent situation.

Why not simply state in the chapter you referenced that "announcing
PAN-PAN" will be treated as an emergency by ATC?

Does it have to do with the attendant paperwork? Declaring an emergency
means a whole bunch of paperwork. The few times I've had a potentially
serious problem, ATC treated it as a potentially serious situation. In one
case it required rerouting landing airliner traffic. And, declaring an
emergency, for the pilot, means you can do pretty much anything you need to,
such as breaking regulations, to save the day. Isn't that what we're
taught?

moo