Flight KL1277 KLM Boeing 737-700 Amsterdam Edinburgh squawk code 7700

[aatski]

Close to Edinburgh a KLM Boeing returns with transponder set to 7700. Why the return to Amsterdam when the plane is so close to it's destination?

[Hotel Tango]

Ask the Captain. He knows!

[Dave's brother]

Forgot his passport?


KL1277 - Flights list - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/kl1277/#61d964b)

[barry lloyd]

I'm taking bets on how soon this will be moved to Spectator's Balcony...

[edi_local]

KLM Amsterdam tom Edinburgh flight turns back after emergency - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32494202)

Not much point in posting this link as it contains very little information. Basicly a suspected technical fault and the pilots decided to return to AMS. Presumably because it'd be easier to fix such a problem (whatever it may be) at the home base rather than at an outstation and potentially have an aircraft stuck at EDI awaiting parts. Given they were only roughly half way in to the journey it seems to be the most sensible option to me.

[Hotel Tango]

Exactly edi_local. I was once 2.5 hrs on the way from AMS to YVR when we turned back for exactly those reasons (and as was explained to the pax by the Captain). Spare aircraft and crew were awaiting us on arrival and we were soon on our way again, albeit 6 hrs behind schedule. That 6 hour delay for the YVR-AMS pax was nothing to what they would have had as delay if we had continued to YVR (which was a legal option with the problem once in flight but would have grounded the a/c once in YVR).

[Basil]

Maintenance base or runway length?
If just for maintenance convenience, why squawk 7700?

[The Fat Controller]

Emergency declared, therefore 7700 selected, standard procedure for pilots and ATC.

Especially useful as it alerts other ATC agencies, especially the military, that the subject aircraft may make an unexpected turn or level change.

Not at work today so do not know the specifics, but entirely normal for them to go back to where the spare aircraft/parts/crew are if the safety of the aircraft is not compromised.

[Basil]

Hmm, at the subsequent board of enquiry:
"Captain, if you considered the situation serious enough to squawk 7700, why did you not land at the nearest suitable airport?"

[Pontius]

"Captain, if you considered the situation serious enough to squawk 7700, why did you not land at the nearest suitable airport?"

"ATC instructed me to squawk 7700" because "it alerts other ATC agencies, especially the military, that the subject aircraft may make an unexpected turn or level change."

[The Fat Controller]

Basil, 7700 will be selected for a PAN call as well as a MAYDAY.

If, for example, it is something like an autopilot failure which means the aircraft is still perfectly flyable albeit with much increased workload, then there is absolutely NO reason to go to the nearest airfield.

[framer]

Basil, 7700 will be selected for a PAN call as well as a MAYDAY.

If, for example, it is something like an autopilot failure which means the aircraft is still perfectly flyable albeit with much increased workload, then there is absolutely NO reason to go to the nearest airfield.
I would not transmit 7700 if I thought the ship was healthy enough to tootle off to a maintenance base while passing suitable airfields.

[Good Business Sense]

on one engine ... it's land at the nearest suitable airport and maintenance considerations don't count in the equation.

[The Fat Controller]

framer, I agree with your sentiment, however if you declare an emergency (PAN) as the BBC article suggests, then you WILL be instructed to select 7700 by ATC in the UK.

[Centaurus]

If, for example, it is something like an autopilot failure which means the aircraft is still perfectly flyable

Judging from a whole series of accident/incident reports since automation dependency first loomed as a problem, it seems the aircraft were perfectly flyable without an autopilot but it was the pilots that couldn't fly very well...

[susier]

Appeared to reach cruise then lost a little height before change of code, with traffic ahead at similar altitude.

[DaveReidUK]

If the aircraft really made an instantaneous 90° turn at 06:38, as FlightRadar24 would have us believe, the return to EHAM was probably to allow the passengers to change their underwear. :O

[Basil]

If, for example, it is something like an autopilot failure
Unless in RVSM airspace, I wouldn't even tell ATC that we were hand flying.
Clearly, if ATC request A7700 then one would comply.

[Evanelpus]

Given they were only roughly half way in to the journey it seems to be the most sensible option to me.

Not according to the OP

Why the return to Amsterdam when the plane is so close to it's destination?

Mind you, it was his/her first post:ugh:

[susier]

Incident: KLM B737 near Norwich on Apr 28th 2015, engine shut down in flight
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Apr 28th 2015 13:18Z, last updated Tuesday, Apr 28th 2015 13:18Z

A KLM Boeing 737-700, registration PH-BGR performing flight KL-1277 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Edinburgh,SC (UK) with 99 people on board, was enroute at FL400 about 60nm northeast of Norwich,EN (UK) when the crew reported an engine (CFM56) failure, shut the engine down, began to drift the aircraft down and turned around to return to Amsterdam. The aircraft landed safely on Amsterdam's runway 18C about 50 minutes after leaving FL400.

The airline confirmed an engine failure.

A replacement Embraer ERJ-190 registration PH-EZW reached Edinburgh with a delay of 3 hours.


___________



ETA: Sorry, it looked rather alarming copied and pasted! Have altered the fonts and bolding.

[west lakes]

Broken Donk

Incident: KLM B737 near Norwich on Apr 28th 2015, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4856d77c&opt=0)

Designed to fly on one, close enough to return I would suggest.
Not aware of any absolute must land rule

[DaveReidUK]

Quote:
"If the aircraft really made an instantaneous 90° turn at 06:38,"

Looks like 180° to me.

instantaneous - definition of instantaneous by The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/instantaneous) :ugh:

[Silver Pegasus]

Personally wouldn't it be better to fly to nearest airport than risk a over water flight on one engine... Without knowing why the first engine shut down. Folk would have been at less risk and easily bussed up/over to EDI.

[NudgingSteel]

How do we know the crew didn't know what caused the IFSD? You can't say pax would have been at less risk by landing at the nearest airport...as AMS would probably have been the crew's home base, they'd presumably be intimately familiar with the approaches, airfield layout, nav & comm frequencies, local ATC etc etc. All of which makes the subsequent single engine approach and landing easier and less stressful, which I respectfully suggest is much more of a safety benefit than avoiding 20 mins over the sea. Sounds like a no-brainer especially with the a/c positioned 100 or so miles from AMS at FL400?