737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

[Skywise]

CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
in the area.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
@corp.supernews.com:

> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
> in the area.
>
> Brian

Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Skywise > wrote in news:11evmr8cj4ej990
@corp.supernews.com:

> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>> in the area.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.
>
> Brian

Sorry, further corrections. Media now reporting it as an
Airbus A340.

Next, they'll change their minds on what airport. I thought
they confirmed information before they reported it? (nawwww)

CNN's Miles O'brien, who is a pilot(?), is _trying_ to
explain what may have happened (wind shear causing plane to
stall and fall out of the sky, but not like a dead stick
landing where the pilot still has control). Funny thing is,
the video clearly shows the plane off the end of the
runway.

I think it's far more likely the plane simply couldn't stop.
A local reporter said at the time the rain was coming
down so hard you couldn't see. When the live video first came
in it was raining pretty hard.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Dave]

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

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
> in the area.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Skywise > wrote:
> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmr8cj4ej990
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>>> in the area.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Sorry, further corrections. Media now reporting it as an
> Airbus A340.
>
> Next, they'll change their minds on what airport. I thought
> they confirmed information before they reported it? (nawwww)
>
> CNN's Miles O'brien, who is a pilot(?), is _trying_ to
> explain what may have happened (wind shear causing plane to
> stall and fall out of the sky, but not like a dead stick
> landing where the pilot still has control). Funny thing is,
> the video clearly shows the plane off the end of the
> runway.
>
> I think it's far more likely the plane simply couldn't stop.
> A local reporter said at the time the rain was coming
> down so hard you couldn't see. When the live video first came
> in it was raining pretty hard.
>
> Brian

It sorta still is. Check
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=c6fc57df-fa74-4d08-a713-706ef0159d71

Also, the liveatc.net stream for CYYZ is up and PACKED. Dave
has it archiving as well, covering before, during, and after. Though
the airport is rather shut down for the most, I doubt you'll hear much.
Have a listen anyway.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC7+ZNyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlcmAKDuxkR6YysVNuuCJAxPRO CYJ2v6zQCg4hrK
2Q1Me9TqqIwybJCCN3SkSBI=
=iMd0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Gardner]

I have no experience in airline jets other than Boeing simulators, but my
corporate jet experience tells me that the stick pusher won't let you "stall
and fall out of the sky." Always willing to be proven wrong.

Bob Gardner

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmr8cj4ej990
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>>> in the area.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Sorry, further corrections. Media now reporting it as an
> Airbus A340.
>
> Next, they'll change their minds on what airport. I thought
> they confirmed information before they reported it? (nawwww)
>
> CNN's Miles O'brien, who is a pilot(?), is _trying_ to
> explain what may have happened (wind shear causing plane to
> stall and fall out of the sky, but not like a dead stick
> landing where the pilot still has control). Funny thing is,
> the video clearly shows the plane off the end of the
> runway.
>
> I think it's far more likely the plane simply couldn't stop.
> A local reporter said at the time the rain was coming
> down so hard you couldn't see. When the live video first came
> in it was raining pretty hard.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Dave]

Funny how none of the news agencies are saying anything about the lighting.

There was a witness that came on the live feed and talked about what he saw.
He said the plane WAS struck by lightning. I wonder how long it will take
the news agencies to get there?

Dave

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Reports are that it was struck by lighting AFTER it landed, and lost all
> controls.
>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>> in the area.
>>
>> Brian
>> --
>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>>
>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dave" > wrote:

> Funny how none of the news agencies are saying anything about the lighting.

I don't know about that... CNN and Fox were both saying something about
lightning

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dave]

I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different on
there.
The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)

Dave

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave" > wrote:
>
>> Funny how none of the news agencies are saying anything about the
>> lighting.
>
> I don't know about that... CNN and Fox were both saying something about
> lightning
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

[CW]

CBC report no fatalities, 14 minor injuries.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/02/pearson-plane050802.html

CW.



"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different
on
> there.
> The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
> nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)
>
> Dave
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Dave" > wrote:
> >
> >> Funny how none of the news agencies are saying anything about the
> >> lighting.
> >
> > I don't know about that... CNN and Fox were both saying something about
> > lightning
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
> > no one likes an educated mule
> >
>
>

[Skywise]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> I have no experience in airline jets other than Boeing simulators, but
> my corporate jet experience tells me that the stick pusher won't let you
> "stall and fall out of the sky." Always willing to be proven wrong.
>
> Bob Gardner

Miles O'Brien is now clearly backing off the wind shear/micro burst
theory. That's very good of him to do.

I just don't understand why he even went down that route. The
initial reports were that the plane skidded off the end of the
runway, so why speculate about wind shear/stalling/micro bursts?

Also, a press conference just wrapped up. Some numbers, but not
confirmed are:

297 passengers
12 crew
14 injuries
0 fatalities

Good news considering the fire. According to passengers the fire
was small at first and in the tail of the plane and everyone got
off quickly.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different on
>there.
>The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
>nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)
>
>Dave
>


Dave - Hello Dave - Wake up Dave!
I'm not interested in commenting on airline accidents in the early hours,
before at least the initial facts are in - but to comment disparagingly on
what the news are or are not reporting, then to come back and say you don't
have TV?

[Dave]

Whatever, get a life.

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different
>>on
>>there.
>>The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
>>nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)
>>
>>Dave
>>
>
>
> Dave - Hello Dave - Wake up Dave!
> I'm not interested in commenting on airline accidents in the early hours,
> before at least the initial facts are in - but to comment disparagingly
> on
> what the news are or are not reporting, then to come back and say you
> don't
> have TV?
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Whatever, get a life.


Get a TV - or stop whining about what the TV is or isn't reporting!

[Matt Whiting]

Dave wrote:

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

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

Matt

[Rick]

Greg Farris wrote in message ...
>In article >,
says...
>>
>>
>>I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different
on
>>there.
>>The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
>>nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)
>>
>>Dave
>>
>
>
>Dave - Hello Dave - Wake up Dave!
>I'm not interested in commenting on airline accidents in the early hours,
>before at least the initial facts are in - but to comment disparagingly
on
>what the news are or are not reporting, then to come back and say you don't
>have TV?

Dave originally said "news agencies." Maybe he has access to this thing
called the internet.

- Rick

[sunil]

It was really hot today (like most of the summer so far) and then a brief
rain fall and grayed sky around the time of the incident so lighting must of
been a factor. Would say though that if Air France made the landing going
the opposite direction (landing going eastwards verse the western landing it
did) it could of been much worst as there is a small regional terminal and
then higway 427. Wonder if they had radioed declearing an emergency and was
directed going west. Thank God everyone is safe.


"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>> in the area.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Kev]

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

[The Professor]

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

The Professor (just passing through)

[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.

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
>

[Ash Wyllie]

Dave opined

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

If true, the fly by wire advocates are going to be embarrassed.

>"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>> in the area.
>>
>> Brian
>> --
>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>>
>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?




-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[[email protected]]

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.

[Peter R.]

sunil > wrote:

> Wonder if they had radioed declearing an emergency and was
> directed going west.

Nope. All arriving airliners up to the moment of the accident were landing
on 24L at Toronto. If the site ever comes back up, you can hear the
archive of the actual ATC communications containing the Air France flight
from www.liveatc.net.

Go to the archive link there, then choose Toronto and then the 15:30
archive from today. Skip forward to about the 26th minute (the archives
are 30 minutes long) and you will hear the Air France being vectored and
cleared for the ILS approach, behind and in front many other arriving
aircraft.



--
Peter

[Kev]

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

[Happy Dog]

"sunil" > wrote in message
> It was really hot today (like most of the summer so far) and then a brief
> rain fall and grayed sky around the time of the incident so lighting must
> of been a factor. Would say though that if Air France made the landing
> going the opposite direction (landing going eastwards verse the western
> landing it did) it could of been much worst as there is a small regional
> terminal and then higway 427. Wonder if they had radioed declearing an
> emergency and was directed going west. Thank God everyone is safe.

Isn't God in charge of lightning? Or lighting, for that matter?

moo


>
>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Skywise > wrote in news:11evmba39sl7ue3
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
>>> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
>>> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
>>> in the area.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Correction. Plane belongs to Air France.
>>
>> Brian
>> --
>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>>
>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
>

[Peter R.]

> 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

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

> Dave opined
>
> >Reports are that it was struck by lighting AFTER it landed, and lost all
> >controls.
>
> If true, the fly by wire advocates are going to be embarrassed.
>
> >"Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> CNN showing a Luftanasa 737 skidded off the end of the
> >> runway at Peasron (sp?) airport, Toronto Canada. The plane
> >> is on fire but appears intact. Heavy thunderstorms reported
> >> in the area.

Another phenomenon not mention so far is the 180 degree wind shift that
often occurs when a T-storm passes overhead. The cell is drawing air
from around it and can cause a sudden reversal in surface winds as it
passes overhead. Couple that with wind shears and downdrafts and you
have a "devil's mix" of atmosphere.

[Peter R.]

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 =----

[Happy Dog]

"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

[Peter R.]

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 =----

[Gary Drescher]

"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)

[Dave]

Well....

I listened to the 3 networks here (Canada)

CBC, not bad, (They had a cam grew at the airport covering the
storm)

CTV, a little better.... more factual and reasonable..

Global... a joke..They REALLY need help... She couldn't even
get it straight between "Casualities " and "fatalities" ..

(sigh)

(Sorry, but it was really awful)

All in all, a mess, - but someone (many) did some things
right... Emerg crews apparently were at the plane in 50 secs... the
slides worked, and the crew had them launched...

NO fatals......!!!

14 or 24 minor injuries (depending on which network)

Everybody will get to go home..

Air France will need a new 340 however...

Dave


On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:04:08 -0500, "Rick"
> wrote:

>Greg Farris wrote in message ...
>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't have access to TV here, they might be saying something different
>on
>>>there.
>>>The news on the website was saying there was lighting in the area, but
>>>nothing about the plane getting struck. (I will check again)
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>Dave - Hello Dave - Wake up Dave!
>>I'm not interested in commenting on airline accidents in the early hours,
>>before at least the initial facts are in - but to comment disparagingly
>on
>>what the news are or are not reporting, then to come back and say you don't
>>have TV?
>
>Dave originally said "news agencies." Maybe he has access to this thing
>called the internet.
>
>- Rick
>

[Marty]

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>>Dave - Hello Dave - Wake up Dave!
>>I'm not interested in commenting on airline accidents in the early hours,
>>before at least the initial facts are in - but to comment disparagingly
> on
>>what the news are or are not reporting, then to come back and say you
>>don't
>>have TV?
>
> Dave originally said "news agencies." Maybe he has access to this thing
> called the internet.
>
> - Rick
>
>

Yea, like on msnbc. Get a load of what this passenger "lady" has to say.
Being alive and unhurt wasn't enough, maybe she expected a personal escort
to a plush RV with champagne & caviar?

The O2 masks never dropped? Maybe it's because the plane was on the ground?
Yea, lets add some O2 to the resulting fire!

Damn airline got her shoes muddy! Ohhhh, the humanity!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8801366/

Uggh!

[Peter R.]

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 =----

[Kev]

CW wrote:
> CBC report no fatalities, 14 minor injuries.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/02/pearson-plane050802.html

I loved this part from that link: "At mid-afternoon Tuesday, a
spokesperson with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority said lightning
was causing technical problems with the airport's lightning-detection
system."

Eh? ;-)

[Morgans]

"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

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Happy Dog]

"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

[Thomas Borchert]

Skywise,

> Luftanasa 737
>

Man, you need glasses or something. The spelling is "Lufthansa". And
the plane is an Air France Airbus. Please pay at least minimal
attention to the facts. Thank you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

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

And who exactly would "report" that, right after the accident? Please
folks, get a grip.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Marty,

> Get a load of what this passenger "lady" has to say.
> Being alive and unhurt wasn't enough, maybe she expected a personal escort
> to a plush RV with champagne & caviar?
>

Well, we're lucky it happened in Canada. Otherwise she would get millions
after her lawyers sued the airline for mental distress or something.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Cub Driver]

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]

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

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> 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!
>

It was a tonque-in-cheek comment. Seems like you were about the only
one who didn't get it. As for your last comment, take a hike on a short
pier.


Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> It was a tonque-in-cheek comment.
>

In that case, sorry. No way for me to get it. Maybe I should have taken
that pill before going online ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> It was my understanding that a Pan gave you clear communications, by
> getting
> all other calls on the freq. stopped. Close?

Since "pan-pan" declares an emergency (specifically, an urgency condition),
others on the frequency will presumably have the good sense to yield, though
I'm not aware of any regulation that explicitly requires them to do so.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It was my understanding that a Pan gave you clear communications, by
>> getting
>> all other calls on the freq. stopped. Close?
>
> Since "pan-pan" declares an emergency (specifically, an urgency
> condition), others on the frequency will presumably have the good sense to
> yield, though I'm not aware of any regulation that explicitly requires
> them to do so.

To follow up: although I still don't know of a corresponding regulation, AIM
6-3-1d does stipulate that distress calls have top priority, and urgency
calls have priority over everything but distress calls.

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"Marty" wrote:

> Damn airline got her shoes muddy! Ohhhh, the humanity!
>

Hee-hee! Good one.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Peter R.]

Gary Drescher > wrote:

> Peter Wrote:
>> 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, that doesn't answer my question. Does ATC treat a PAN-PAN as an
emergency?


--
Peter

[Peter R.]

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher > wrote:
>
>> Peter Wrote:
>>> 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, that doesn't answer my question. Does ATC treat a PAN-PAN as an
> emergency?

They do if their emergency procedures are consistent with the AIM and the
P/CG (and it would be surprising if their procedures were blatantly
inconsistent with those sources for something so basic and important).

According to AIM 6-1-2a, an urgency condition is an emergency. And according
to the P/CG and AIM 6-3-1c and 6-3-2a3a, "pan-pan" declares an urgency
condition to ATC in order to obtain emergency assistance.

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/index.htm

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Does ATC treat a PAN-PAN as an
> emergency?
>

ATC can grade you as an emergency any time anyway, even without your
declaring it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Peter,
>
>> Does ATC treat a PAN-PAN as an
>> emergency?
>>
>
> ATC can grade you as an emergency any time anyway, even without your
> declaring it.

Good point.

--
Peter

[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?

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

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"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.
>

I thought P-P-P was equivalent to "MAYDAY", which (I thought??) is an
abbreviation for declaring an emergency.

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> I thought P-P-P was equivalent to "MAYDAY", which (I thought??) is an
> abbreviation for declaring an emergency.

No, "mayday" and "pan pan" are entirely distinct. See the AIM clauses that
have been cited throughout this thread.

--Gary

[Dave]

An eyewitness to the landing and crash. He was watching the plane land, saw
a bolt of lighting hit the top, then the plane went out of control.

Thats what was said. It may or may not be true, but this is what was
reported.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
>
>> Reports are that it was struck by lighting AFTER it landed, and lost all
>> controls.
>>
>
> And who exactly would "report" that, right after the accident? Please
> folks, get a grip.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Dave]

Is it just me, or does this guy Thomas Borchert have a stick up his ass?

Hes constantly putting people down, jumping down peoples throats at the
slightest, most stupid things.

Get a life dude!

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Skywise,
>
>> Luftanasa 737
>>
>
> Man, you need glasses or something. The spelling is "Lufthansa". And
> the plane is an Air France Airbus. Please pay at least minimal
> attention to the facts. Thank you.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Peter R.]

Gary Drescher > wrote:

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

Essentially? Makes it clear? Sorry, but the fact that ATC treats a
PAN-PAN as an emergency is *still* not as black and white to me as it is to
you, at least in terms of the AIM. Once again I will have to agree to
disagree with you, for I don't want to beat this horse any more.

If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
when one of my mags failed during flight.

--
Peter

[Jay Beckman]

"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

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dave" > said:
>Is it just me, or does this guy Thomas Borchert have a stick up his ass?

He doesn't strike me as any better or worse than anybody else on this
group. You, on the other hand, are on the low end.

>Get a life dude!

Whenever anybody says "Get a life", it's a sure sign that they have
nothing intelligent to say.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Not that I'm annoyed at this particular bit of recto-plasmic sputum which
has crawled up from the depths of product mis-management to haunt me. Not
at all. -- Simon Burr

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
> the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
> when one of my mags failed during flight.


That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep that
information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and the
other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in. Of
course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! <G>


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher > wrote:
>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>>> 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.
>
> Essentially? Makes it clear?

Well yes. AIM subsection 6-3-2 is called "Obtaining EMERGENCY Assistance".
To request that assistance from ATC, the subsection says you should
"transmit a distress or urgency message consisting of... if distress,
MAYDAY... if urgency, PAN-PAN...". How much clearer could it possibly be
that ATC treats "pan-pan" calls as emergencies? (And *in addition*, AIM
6-1-2a already explained that distress and urgency conditions are the two
kinds of emergencies.)

> Sorry, but the fact that ATC treats a PAN-PAN as an emergency
> is *still* not as black and white to me as it is to you,
> at least in terms of the AIM.

Ok, but you still haven't articulated *any* objection to my conclusion,
other than your completely-unexplained reluctance to accept the reasoning
that if 1) "pan-pan" declares an urgency condition, and 2) an urgency
condition is one of the two kinds of emergency, then 3) "pan-pan" declares
one of the two kinds of emergency. (This is, by the way, the *same*
reasoning that tells us that ATC treats "mayday" calls as emergencies. You
don't doubt the reasoning in *that* case, do you?)

It would perhaps be helpful if you were to briefly clarify the following. Do
you think then that "pan-pan" does *not* declare an urgency condition
(contrary to what the P/CG and AIM 6-3-2a3a say)? Or do you think that
"pan-pan" declares an urgency condition that is somehow not an emergency
(contrary to what AIM 6-1-2a says)?

Sorry to persist on this point, but I think it's pretty crucial for pilots
to be clear on the basics of emergency communications.

--Gary

[John Larson]

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
>

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep that
> information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and the
> other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in. Of
> course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! <G>

That is your opinion, duly noted and filed. :) When I relayed this
experience to this group last October, I received a few comments from
experienced pilots that I should have indeed declared an emergency over the
failure of one mag. Such is Usenet.

At the time, the lost mag was an urgent situation to me because I honestly
did not know how the engine, an over-TBO, turbo-normalized IO-520, would
react at low RPMs on only one mag, as in a descent out of cruise or while
being vectored behind other aircraft on approach. Other than needing rich
of peak operations to keep temperatures in a comfortable operating range,
the engine was otherwise running without hiccups at full throttle, 2500
RPMs.

While I did not use the term PAN-PAN, I did communicate to ATC that I had
an urgent situation that required direct to the airport with no delaying
vectors, as well as the need to remain at cruise altitude until I decided
to bring it down to the airport. ATC was very accommodating, but I don't
think they declared an emergency for me given the absence of the rescue
trucks at the runway.

Since this experience last year, I would now probably err on the side of
caution and declare 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 =----

[Happy Dog]

"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

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Peter R. wrote:
> > If any good has come out of this discussion, it is that I am reminded of
> > the power of PAN-PAN, something I should have used but didn't last year
> > when one of my mags failed during flight.
>
>
> That's not necessarily an appropriate use either. I would probably keep
that
> information to myself, as you did. You use "PAN" when one mag is out and
the
> other is getting shaky. You use "Mayday" when the second one packs it in.
Of
> course, shortly before you issue "Mayday" you issue an "Oh, ****! <G>
>

Followed by a "What the f*&%k ??".

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> ATC was very accommodating, but I don't think they declared
> an emergency for me given the absence of the rescue
> trucks at the runway.

I'm not aware of any principle that says an emergency necessarily requires
rescue trucks--especially if it was just an urgency-level emergency, rather
than a distress-level emergency.

--Gary

[Montblack]

("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

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("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 :-)
>

Or whem zu have a lisp.

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("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 :-)
>
>
Hey, stop knocking drug users!!!

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
> 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?


Paperwork for who? I had a situation where I had rolled a T-34B and while I was
inverted, apparently got something stuck in the controls. The stick was jammed
partway to one side. It took a lot of effort on the stick along with mucho
rudder to keep the aircraft straight and level. I of course immediately
declared an emergency.

As it turned out, the landing was uneventful except for all the fire trucks that
followed me down the runway and taxiways. Thank God the stick was still stuck
when one of the emergency bigwigs tried it, because shortly after that the
obstruction amazingly disappeared after some manipulation.

I don't recall having to do any paperwork at all, ouside of a note to
maintenance suggesting they really go over the control system before anybody
else flew it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> The stick was jammed
> partway to one side. It took a lot of effort on the stick along with
mucho
> rudder to keep the aircraft straight and level. I of course immediately
> declared an emergency.
>
> As it turned out, the landing was uneventful except for all the fire
trucks that
> followed me down the runway and taxiways.

You musta felt like the Pied Piper!

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> As it turned out, the landing was uneventful except for all the fire trucks
>> that followed me down the runway and taxiways.
>
> You musta felt like the Pied Piper!


It was a strange sensation. My biggest fear was the controls would suddenly
become free when somebody tested them. I didn't want anybody to think I had
just pulled a stunt for the thrill of it.

But it was definitely still buggered up when they were tested. It was a little
later that they suddenly popped free.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Verna]

WELL ONE WROTE "GET A LIFE" AND THE OTHER WROTE "GET A GRIP" SO DOES THAT
MAKE THEM BOTH BOTTOM FEEDERS????




"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Dave" > said:
> >Is it just me, or does this guy Thomas Borchert have a stick up his ass?
>
> He doesn't strike me as any better or worse than anybody else on this
> group. You, on the other hand, are on the low end.
>
> >Get a life dude!
>
> Whenever anybody says "Get a life", it's a sure sign that they have
> nothing intelligent to say.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Not that I'm annoyed at this particular bit of recto-plasmic sputum which
> has crawled up from the depths of product mis-management to haunt me. Not
> at all. -- Simon Burr

[[email protected]]

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.

[Skywise]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Skywise,
>
>> Luftanasa 737
>>
>
> Man, you need glasses or something. The spelling is "Lufthansa". And
> the plane is an Air France Airbus. Please pay at least minimal
> attention to the facts. Thank you.

Please chill. I was more interested in letting members of the
group know about the accident than trying to get an "A" in
spelling.

Also, you jumped on me a bit quick as I later posted corrections.
I was simply repeating the 'facts' that were being reported at the
time. When those 'facts' were changed, I posted those changes.

Don't kill the messenger.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Beckman]

"Verna" > wrote in message
news:Z19Ie.104424$%K2.36277@pd7tw1no...
> WELL ONE WROTE "GET A LIFE" AND THE OTHER WROTE "GET A GRIP" SO DOES THAT
> MAKE THEM BOTH BOTTOM FEEDERS????

Not necessarily, but posting in ALL CAPS merits some consideration for that
award.

Jay B

[Bucky]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Man, you need glasses or something. The spelling is "Lufthansa". And
> the plane is an Air France Airbus. Please pay at least minimal
> attention to the facts. Thank you.

How about you try paying minimal attention to the thread. Way to
criticize someone 11 hours after they already corrected themselves. You
think the previous 70 posters didn't catch it?

Post #1 (Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:36:58 -0000)
Skywise posts that CNN reports Lufthansa 737 crashed.

Post #2 (Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:45:28 -0000)
Skywise corrects that plane is Air France.

Post #3 (Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:00:35 -0000)
Skywise corrects that plane is A340.

Post #77 (Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:40:53 -0000)
Thomas berates Skywise for getting the facts wrong.

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>It was a tonque-in-cheek comment.
>>
>
>
> In that case, sorry. No way for me to get it. Maybe I should have taken
> that pill before going online ;-)
>

Althought it would be very ironic if it did turn out to be related to
that, but I have to believe that they did some pretty exhausting testing
of the FBW during certification.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> 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?

What paperwork? This is one of those urban legends that just won't die.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>>>As it turned out, the landing was uneventful except for all the fire trucks
>>>
>>>that followed me down the runway and taxiways.
>>
>>You musta felt like the Pied Piper!
>
>
>
> It was a strange sensation. My biggest fear was the controls would suddenly
> become free when somebody tested them. I didn't want anybody to think I had
> just pulled a stunt for the thrill of it.
>
> But it was definitely still buggered up when they were tested. It was a little
> later that they suddenly popped free.
>
>
>

What did they find was the problem? Somebody leave a tool behind or
something?

Matt

[Stanislas de Kertanguy]

Dave > wrote:

> Air France will need a new 340 however...

Hi!

I'm not sure of this... Air France was rather in the move of less 340s
and more 777s and 330s (which is, I think a good choice!)

Hope we get the good factual information on the crashfrom the TSB of
Canada soon!

French TV was hardly informative tonight, with the usual 15 minutes of
"impressions" from passengers, people on ground etc...

Cheers

Stanislas


--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> Does it have to do with the attendant paperwork?

> What paperwork? This is one of those urban legends that just won't die.

http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183214-1.html

Is this article substantially incorrect?

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
> Paperwork for who? I had a situation where I had rolled a T-34B and while
> I was inverted, apparently got something stuck in the controls. The stick
> was jammed partway to one side. It took a lot of effort on the stick
> along with mucho rudder to keep the aircraft straight and level. I of
> course immediately declared an emergency.
>
> As it turned out, the landing was uneventful except for all the fire
> trucks that followed me down the runway and taxiways. Thank God the stick
> was still stuck when one of the emergency bigwigs tried it, because
> shortly after that the obstruction amazingly disappeared after some
> manipulation.
>
> I don't recall having to do any paperwork at all, ouside of a note to
> maintenance suggesting they really go over the control system before
> anybody else flew it.

http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183214-1.html

moo

[Kev]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> I thought P-P-P was equivalent to "MAYDAY", which (I thought??) is an
> abbreviation for declaring an emergency.

I would put it this way: Both are emergencies, but P-P-P means it's
not a critical situation yet. You're crossing the Atlantic and start
losing a little fuel, that might be a P-P-P alert. The fuel leak grows
to the point that you know you can't make it, that's definitely a
Mayday.

P-P-P is probably rarely used by GA pilots. But airline pilots do use
it to alert ATC as to just how serious _they_ think the situation is.
Perhaps this is because a full airliner emergency might have a larger
affect on airport or airspace operations. (GA planes can safely land
in a small grass field if they lose power... jetliners can't.)

For example, remember Swiss Air 111 that caught fire and then crashed
off Newfoundland before they could land? (Basically because they
followed the book and circled dumping fuel... so as not to be over
landing weight... but the time wasted doing that killed them all.)

Anyway, their calls went something like the following, going from what
they thought was "just" an urgent situation, then to life or death:

10:14PM - "Swissair 111 heavy is declaring Pan Pan Pan. We have smoke
in the cockpit. Request deviate immediate right turn to a convenient
place. I guess Boston..."

10:24PM - "We are declaring an Emergency. We have to land immediately."

10:30PM - crashes into the sea

Best,
Kev

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Kev" > writes:

> [...] For example, remember Swiss Air 111 that caught fire and then
> crashed off Newfoundland before they could land? (Basically because
> they followed the book and circled dumping fuel... so as not to be
> over landing weight... but the time wasted doing that killed them
> all.) [...]

I recall reading, probably in the official accident analysis report,
that this speculation is not actually true. Something like the fire
would have still consumed the cockpit by the time they'd landed, even
right away, over-gross.

- FChE

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
>> What paperwork? This is one of those urban legends that just won't die.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183214-1.html
>
> Is this article substantially incorrect?


My reading of the article indicates that there is rarely any paperwork for the
pilot. That was my experience with my T-34 incident. OTOH, when I crashed the
Lance, there was an ungodly amount of paperwork and a lengthy interview. The
difference was in the T-34 incident, there was no property damage and no injury.
In the Lance crash, there was both.

There was no certificate action with either.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>> What paperwork? This is one of those urban legends that just won't die.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183214-1.html
>>
>> Is this article substantially incorrect?
>
> My reading of the article indicates that there is rarely any paperwork for
> the pilot. That was my experience with my T-34 incident. OTOH, when I
> crashed the Lance, there was an ungodly amount of paperwork and a lengthy
> interview.

I should have added "review". The point being that *something* significant,
bureaucratically speaking, happens when an emergency is declared that
doesn't happen when one isn't.

moo

[George Patterson]

Happy Dog wrote:
>
> I should have added "review". The point being that *something* significant,
> bureaucratically speaking, happens when an emergency is declared that
> doesn't happen when one isn't.

But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for declaring an
emergency.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Happy Dog]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:v0eIe.5638$b91.3279@trndny06...
> Happy Dog wrote:
>>
>> I should have added "review". The point being that *something*
>> significant, bureaucratically speaking, happens when an emergency is
>> declared that doesn't happen when one isn't.
>
> But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
> declaring an emergency.

Correct. I was mistaken. I always believed that declaring an emergency was
an "incident" (correct) and that, as such, *some* paperwork had to be filled
out.
The only time there is any paperwork is if you have to violate a rule, and
then only if the FAA asks for a report. I have heard, more than once,
pilots advising other not to declare unless absolutely necessary. I also
recall an incident where I had a passenger pass out for well over a minute
during some very mild acro (Lazy - 8). I mentioned to an instructor that I
was preparing to declare an emergency when the guy woke up. By "emergency",
I mean the whole routine. The instructor suggested that it would be
overreacting. I still disagree. The whole procedure would have taken
fifteen seconds, would have told authorities the problem, my intended action
and request for assistance and freed me up to deal with the problem proper.

FAR 91.3

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of
this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
report of that deviation to the Administrator.

Research first. Mouth later.

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
> The only time there is any paperwork is if you have to violate a rule, and
> then only if the FAA asks for a report.


Not quite. If there's an accident with injuries you're going to be filling out
paperwork assuming you're still alive.


> recall an incident where I had a passenger pass out for well over a minute
> during some very mild acro (Lazy - 8). I mentioned to an instructor that I
> was preparing to declare an emergency when the guy woke up. By "emergency",
> I mean the whole routine. The instructor suggested that it would be
> overreacting. I still disagree.


As do I. The fellow may have been having a heart attack or a stroke... you
don't know. It's like when a family member complains about chest pain: do you
call for an ambulance or throw them in the car? Well, if they code , what are
you going to do? Watch them die? Wreck the car? Hell, no. Wait for the
ambulance ALWAYS unless somebody competent is available to tend them all the
way.

In the air, your first concern should be to get back on the ground ASAP. That
will probably require priority treatment from ATC, so declare your emergency
and get down. A loss of consciousness for more than a few seconds is very
significant... lazy eights just don't pull any Gs to speak of that would explain
it. Whoever that guy was had some significant health issues that needed
immediate assessment and treatment, even if he did come back to life after a
minute or two. He had more events in his future if he didn't get this
investigated. Loss of consciousness just isn't a normal event under those
circumstances.

As a registered nurse and pilot, I think your first impulse was correct. Your
instructor lacked either the experience or the imagination to give you good
advice on this one.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:v0eIe.5638$b91.3279@trndny06...
> Happy Dog wrote:
> >
> > I should have added "review". The point being that *something*
significant,
> > bureaucratically speaking, happens when an emergency is declared that
> > doesn't happen when one isn't.
>
> But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
declaring an
> emergency.
>

Unless the declared emergency stems from a violation of the FAR's.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> An eyewitness to the landing and crash.
>

My point was that the witness could have seen the lightning strike, but
he could definitely not have known if and how much the plane or the
pilots "lost all control".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> For example, remember Swiss Air 111 that caught fire and then crashed
> off Newfoundland before they could land? (Basically because they
> followed the book and circled dumping fuel... so as not to be over
> landing weight... but the time wasted doing that killed them all.)
>

Not so. The accident investigation showed that the time wouldn't have
been sufficient even when going for a landing immediately. That doesn't
mean to say they couldn't/shouldn't have acted differently.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
> Happy Dog wrote:
>> The only time there is any paperwork is if you have to violate a rule,
>> and
>> then only if the FAA asks for a report.
>
>
> Not quite. If there's an accident with injuries

An accident with injuries isn't an incident. You knew that, right?

> > recall an incident where

< there were no injuries >
>
> As do I. The fellow may have been having a heart attack or a stroke...
> you don't know. It's like when a family member complains about chest
> pain: do you call for an ambulance or throw them in the car? Well, if
> they code , what are you going to do? Watch them die? Wreck the car?
> Hell, no. Wait for the ambulance ALWAYS unless somebody competent is
> available to tend them all the way.
>
> In the air, your first concern should be to get back on the ground ASAP.

C'mon. *Think*.

< snip >

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" >
>> But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
> declaring an
>> emergency.
>>
>
> Unless the declared emergency stems from a violation of the FAR's.

Example?

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
>> Not quite. If there's an accident with injuries
>
> An accident with injuries isn't an incident. You knew that, right?


Mea culpa. You are correct.


>> In the air, your first concern should be to get back on the ground ASAP.
>
> C'mon. *Think*.


I am thinking. I'm thinking I'd rather not be responsible for a preventible
death just because I was reluctant to declare an emergency. Or are you thinking
that your first concern is flying the airplane? I consider that an understood.

If that is your thinking, you're just being argumentative and contributing
nothing here. If that isn't it, please enlighten me.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gary Drescher]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> The fellow may have been having a heart attack or a stroke... In the air,
> your first concern should be to get back on the ground ASAP. That will
> probably require priority treatment from ATC, so declare your emergency
> and get down.

Yup. It's also a good idea, in the event of a passenger medical emergency,
to request having medical personnel on hand when you land.

--Gary

[Kev]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kev,
>
> > For example, remember Swiss Air 111 that caught fire and then crashed
> > off Newfoundland before they could land? (Basically because they
> > followed the book and circled dumping fuel... so as not to be over
> > landing weight... but the time wasted doing that killed them all.)
>
> Not so. The accident investigation showed that the time wouldn't have
> been sufficient even when going for a landing immediately. That doesn't
> mean to say they couldn't/shouldn't have acted differently.

Frank, Tom, thank you for the update and correction. I should've
looked up the accident report before adding that bit of melodrama.

Did it turn out that it was the entertainment system wiring? I had
almost gone to work for a company that designed them, and sometimes
wondered how their engineers felt later on. <shudder>

Best, Kev

[Thomas Borchert]

Kev,

> Did it turn out that it was the entertainment system wiring?
>

I think so. Oh, and while in this case it may have been too late, I
still agree with you that less "by the book" and more quick-and-dirty
makes ssense in these kinds of emergencies. OTOH, hindsight is 20-20.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
> declaring an emergency.
>
> Unless the declared emergency stems from a violation of the FAR's.

In that case, the pilot has not simply declared an emergency. The pilot has
violated FARs.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:EQqIe.14414$2y2.11236@trndny02...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
> > declaring an emergency.
> >
> > Unless the declared emergency stems from a violation of the FAR's.
>
> In that case, the pilot has not simply declared an emergency. The pilot
has
> violated FARs.

So every time a pilot violates the FAR's they must file a report?

[Kev]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:EQqIe.14414$2y2.11236@trndny02...
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >>
> > >>But not, usually, to the pilot, and never to the pilot simply for
> > > declaring an emergency.
> > >
> > > Unless the declared emergency stems from a violation of the FAR's.
> >
> > In that case, the pilot has not simply declared an emergency. The pilot
> > has violated FARs.
>
> So every time a pilot violates the FAR's they must file a report?

I can come up with four different scenarios:

1) You clip class D without comms. You violated a FAR, but unless the
Administrator (or rep) asks for an incident report, nothing is
required.

2) You have a control fail just after takeoff from a towered airport,
so (with or without declaring an emergency over the air) you turn back
and land without clearance. You violated a FAR, but your emergency
authority allows you to to deviate as necessary for the safe completion
of the flight. A report is required for the control failure, but not
required for the landing.

3) Same scenario as (2) (you have a major oil leak on takeoff and land
again without clearance, say), but you were a student pilot and had a
passenger. Oops. The emergency let you land without clearance, but
you had (unrelated to the emergency) also busted a FAR. Report will
probably be requested on just the FAR bust <grin>.

4) You overloaded your aircraft and/or in flight realized your W&B was
so messed up that you had little control, and had to declare an
emergency to land as quickly as possible. Ooops again. The FAR bust
_caused_ the emergency to begin with.

Scenario 4 is the worst case, of course. If breaking a FAR causes the
emergency, your emergency powers can't protect you... nor can an ASRS
form, if you deliberately overloaded the aircraft. (Let's say the
passengers lied to you about their weight... that would mean you didn't
deliberately screw up.)

Cheers, Kev

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <
>>> Not quite. If there's an accident with injuries
>>
>> An accident with injuries isn't an incident. You knew that, right?
>
>
> Mea culpa. You are correct.
>
>
>>> In the air, your first concern should be to get back on the ground ASAP.
>>
>> C'mon. *Think*.

> I am thinking. I'm thinking I'd rather not be responsible for a
> preventible death just because I was reluctant to declare an emergency.
> Or are you thinking that your first concern is flying the airplane? I
> consider that an understood.

That and, next, assessing the emergency and taking appropriate action. That
might mean flying to an airport, right? :-) Seriously, though, I can think
of a number of scenarios where getting on the ground ASAP is not the correct
decision. So can you...

moo

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Happy Dog wrote:
> That and, next, assessing the emergency and taking appropriate action. That
> might mean flying to an airport, right? :-) Seriously, though, I can think
> of a number of scenarios where getting on the ground ASAP is not the correct
> decision. So can you...


I'm not suggesting an off-airport landing. The whole point of getting down
quickly is to get the passenger to an ambulance ASAP. That means trying to land
at an airport big enough to have a hospital nearby.

As for assessing, didn't he already say the fellow went lights out for more than
a minute? How much more information do you need to make a decision? I know I
heard enough.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Kev]

Kev wrote:
> > So every time a pilot violates the FAR's they must file a report?
>
> I can come up with four different scenarios:

*grin* Actually, here's a fifth:

5) Through no fault of your own, the aircraft develops a serious
problem and you let out a Mayday. ATC clears the sky for you.
However, figuring that you might as well take advantage of your
emergency authority to deviate from the FARS, you break out a case of
beer and down a few to calm your nerves. Now tipsy, you zoom over a
few crowded mall parking lots just to show everyone the smoke trailing
from your engine. You drop your empty bottles on the people below.

Well. You can deviate from the FARs to the extent required by the
emergency, of course. But you can't just break FARs during an
emergency for the heck of it. :) :)

Kev
(obviously with too much time on my hands today)

[Happy Dog]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >

>> That and, next, assessing the emergency and taking appropriate action.
>> That
>> might mean flying to an airport, right? :-) Seriously, though, I can
>> think
>> of a number of scenarios where getting on the ground ASAP is not the
>> correct
>> decision. So can you...
>
> I'm not suggesting an off-airport landing. The whole point of getting
> down quickly is to get the passenger to an ambulance ASAP. That means
> trying to land at an airport big enough to have a hospital nearby.

Well, somebody choking on their vomit might suffocate before you could get
to an airport.
>
> As for assessing, didn't he already say the fellow went lights out for
> more than a minute? How much more information do you need to make a
> decision? I know I heard enough.

And that's what I did.

moo

[[email protected]]

On 03 Aug 2005 19:25:01 -0400, (Frank Ch. Eigler)
wrote:

>
>"Kev" > writes:
>
>> [...] For example, remember Swiss Air 111 that caught fire and then
>> crashed off Newfoundland before they could land? (Basically because
>> they followed the book and circled dumping fuel... so as not to be
>> over landing weight... but the time wasted doing that killed them
>> all.) [...]
>
>I recall reading, probably in the official accident analysis report,
>that this speculation is not actually true. Something like the fire
>would have still consumed the cockpit by the time they'd landed, even
>right away, over-gross.
>
>- FChE

The UK R/T Manual states the following:

States of Emergency are classified as follows:

Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminetn
danger and requiring immediate assistance.

Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other
vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight, but does not
require immediate assistance.

The pilot should make the appropriate emergency call as follows:
Distress: 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday'
Urgency: 'Pan. Pan, Pan'.

[Happy Dog]

> wrote in message news:
> The UK R/T Manual states the following:
>
> States of Emergency are classified as follows:
>
> Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminetn
> danger and requiring immediate assistance.
>
> Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other
> vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight, but does not
> require immediate assistance.
>
> The pilot should make the appropriate emergency call as follows:
> Distress: 'Mayday, Mayday, Mayday'
> Urgency: 'Pan. Pan, Pan'.

Whatever. What pilots actually do is of far more interest. This is thin
edge of the wedge stuff. And, by definition, emergency situations may
require that some rules be broken. Only an idiot wants to be part of that
club. But, idiots and geniuses alike experience it and I've yet to see one
who frets over the minutiae of distress call protocol.

moo