737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

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?

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.

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

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

"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?

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

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.

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 =----