Incident with KLM 747-400 in early 1989, the passenger perspective

[FreqFly]

I've tried to find a record of an indicent that me and a colleague experienced as passenger on a KLM flight from Houston to Amsterdam in early 1989. At the time we were given very little information as to the cause of the incident and I thus wonder if someone in this forum would be able to shed some light on it for me?


The KLM flight originated in Mexico City, picked up us and another 100+ passengers in Huston and then headed for Amsterdam. We were flying business class and were seated on the lower deck just to the left of the staircase to the upper deck. If memory serves me correct the initial brief from the crew was that the plane was brand new and that it was their first 747-400 delivered to KLM only a week prior.


Initially the fight proceeded as any other flight, snacks and drinks were served and the stewards and stewardesses were fussing about as usual. After some hours someone on the flight deck got on the PA an announced that we were passing New York on the left and we were actually able to see the Statue of Liberty. Everything fine so far.


However, about half an hour later we realized that we hadn't seen anyone from the crew for a while. After another half hour we were getting a bit concerned and someone took a stroll back into the tourist class area and came back saying that there seemed to be no crew in attendance there either. Shortly afterwards it was announced on the PA that we were over Newfoundland and had unfortunately developed an issue with one of the engines. This issue were said to be of a nature that prohibited us from crossing the Atlantic and that we would therefore turn around and head for New York and be landing at JFK.


The plane then went into a very lazy left turn that seemingly 'took forever'. After a while pairs of crew members came around handing out cups of orange juice from trays. Any questions about the situation were answered with a reference to the PA announcement an hour earlier and the crew members seemed to be somewhat uptight.


When nearing JFK we could see the lights of quite of lot of planes that were decending in some kind of spiral awaiting their turn to land. We, however, did not have to wait and we thus headed straight for a runway. We were not told to brace for an emergency landing, but the landing was rather rough and the subsequent braking was extreme. I.e. we were actually "hanging" folded in our seat-belts during the worst of it. Once on the ground the plane was directed to a large open well lit area, parked in the middle of it and, after a while, turned off the engines. At the same time a huge number of various types of vehicles turned up and formed a circle around the plane approx 400m out. People came out of the vehicles and stood staring at the plane. And then nothing happened for the next three hours. Over the PA we were instructed to remain in our seat, but no other info were given during this period.


Eventually we were told to leave the plane, were processed through immigration and provided accomodation etc.... Exactly 24 hours later we boarded the very same airplane and completed the flight to Amsterdam.


Ever since this experience I've been wondering what was the real reason why we had to return to JFK and perform something akin to an emergency landing. Anyone?

[Liffy 1M]

Just for information, KLM's first 747-400, PH-BFA, was delivered on 18 May 1989. I noted it crew training at Shannon at the beginning of June 1989 and I think it entered revenue service that same month.

[FreqFly]

Yeah, looked into that question myself and found the date of delivery to be 18.May 1989. Given that this incidence took place a good many years ago it could be that I'm somewhat off on the time-line as I've have had to base that on what projects I was engaged then. Your info has made me look into the time-line a bit more thoroughly and I now find it likely that the described incident took place sometime in Feb-Mar 1990.

At the time the aircraft felt brand new with its, then ultramodern, winglets. It was definitely an upgrade over the older 747 (assuming that was a 200 as it was not a 300-combo) that brought us from Amsterdam to Houston two weeks prior.

[S.o.S.]

Hello FreqFly and welcome to the Cabin of PPRuNe.

That is a very interesting question! Certainly sounds security related, due to being parked away from the main buildings. Thank you Liffy 1M for begin able to clarify the date.

[DaveReidUK]

Ever since this experience I've been wondering what was the real reason why we had to return to JFK and perform something akin to an emergency landing. Anyone?

What reason do you have to distrust the PA announcement about an engine problem ?

[FreqFly]

At the time I was a very frequent flyer and did experience a few other incidents that were handled so very differently by the planes' crews. The described incidence was the odd one out in that respect;
a) for longer duration little to no info was provided,
b) the cabin crew vanished from the passenger areas for a prolonged period,
c) the landing was surprisingly rough and subsequent braking extreme, and
d) the three hours of non-activity on JFK with seemingly no activity inside or outside the plane.

As for the first point I've never been particularly impressed with KLM and their handling of things that doesn't go according to their plan. Other airlines have, in my opinion, been much better in that respect. Even when the full complement of passengers were booked into one hotel in the evening no follow-up info were provided by KLM. The 'only' good thing was that they provided a free bar, an opportunity that quite a lot of us passengers took advantage of while discussing what had happened.

It cannot be normal that the cabin crew simply vanishes and leave 300+ passengers to fend for them selves for nearly an hour in the middle of a flight. If it was a real and substantial technical issue with the plane I can understand that some of the cabin crew would have to switch their focus to the pressing matters, but not that all of fhem should vanish. A theory that came up in the bar that night was the it could have been an attempted hi-jack, a medical emergency on the flight-deck, or a more severe technical issue that we were told.

If, say, one engine were out as the PA-message could indicate I cannot see that it would necessitate such a rough landing and hard braking. On another occasions I've been passenger on an airplanes that had to land with one engine out ( birds were sucked into one engine on take-off), and that landing was problably the softest landing I've ever experienced. If there was a medical emergency that caused us to turn around that could explain the direct approach and 'quick' landing as it would allow medical personell to attend sooner. I once was a passenger in a helicopter when a guy got a heart attack mid-flight. The pilot did his utmost to meet up with an ambulance in time and that landing was rather rought too.

The main reason I have some doubts about the content of the PA-message is what not took place during those three hours we were sitting on the tarmac surrounded by a ring of cars and people 400m out. It would have been normal for the cabin crew to circulate in the passenger areas and explain what we were waiting for. That didn't happen. Also, why that 'ring' so far out. During those three hours no car or person were observert anywhere between the plane and the 'ring'. Admittedly, there might have been some activity on the other side of the plane that we didn't see, but why keep that 'ring' in place for so long? By the way, the 'ring' seemed to comprise various emergency services, police, service-trucks and what seemed to be civilian cars.

[redsnail]

I have no knowledge of this incident. Sounds like a bomb threat of some kind. They were pretty common in the '80s.
A few cities have airports designated to accept bomb threat/security threat flights. On those fields there are designated areas the aircraft is sent to.

[Background Noise]

A bit odd that you would remain on the aircraft for 3 hours after landing if it was a bomb threat maybe?

I was on a Miami-London PanAm 747 in 1985 - we turned round over the Atlantic and diverted to Gander. We vacated the aircraft out in the middle of the airfield, where it remained until after the deadline. Later we were all asked to identify our checked baggage, which was reloaded, and we continued on home the next day - with plenty of unaccompanied bags staying behind. The crew were informative throughout including stating that it was bomb threat during the initial diversion.

[Ancient Observer]

I have very little long haul experience of KLM. But I have a lot with BA.
When BA introduced the 747-400, it had lots of problems with it on long haul flights.At that time I was "commuting" to Singapore. Due to the problems with the 747-400's introduction, I was 1. Very late in to Singapore, 2. Flown to Athens, instead of LHR, flown to Schiphol instead of LHR, flown by SQ to Manchester, instead of by BA to LHR.
Eventually, they sorted the problems out.
Maybe your issue was just KLM's version of BA's struggles?

[Asturias56]

"What reason do you have to distrust the PA announcement about an engine problem ?"

Agreed - I was on an Air Canada 747 out of LHR late 80's where exactly that happened - the plane sort "wallowed" 2 hours out and then a very wide turn and back to LHR - we sat on the aircraft for about 90 minutes while they fixed something on the starboard outer and then took off for a successful trip to Toronto