737 off runway, Pearson Toronto

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)

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)

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

"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

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

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

VE

"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

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

"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 =----

"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