AC 1174 emergancy landing in YYZ
Thread Starter
AC 1174 emergancy landing in YYZ
Good Morning All:
Please find the link below on an exchange between AC 1174 which had a flap/slat jam on approach. From recollection an "interesting" abnormal which is caused when the flap/slats do not extend into proper position which degrades the flight protection laws, increased speed on approach, increase in runway distance in landings along with a busy check list to follow along with associated ECAM procedures.
It shows the great working relationship between the flight crew and YYZ arrival and YYZ tower.
Well done to all concerned!
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/ucou5811pv/AC1174Jul20.mp3
Please find the link below on an exchange between AC 1174 which had a flap/slat jam on approach. From recollection an "interesting" abnormal which is caused when the flap/slats do not extend into proper position which degrades the flight protection laws, increased speed on approach, increase in runway distance in landings along with a busy check list to follow along with associated ECAM procedures.
It shows the great working relationship between the flight crew and YYZ arrival and YYZ tower.
Well done to all concerned!
http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/ucou5811pv/AC1174Jul20.mp3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only a slat problem but for some reason when the slats jammed the thrust went into thrust lock at only 63%, hence the comment about being unsure whether they could maintain their altitude. Also, there were conflicting ECAM messages. Apparently the ECAM was also directing them into a flaps jam situation.
Kudos to the crew. They sorted out the conflicting ECAM, regained manual thrust, actioned the appropriate checklist, and hand flew the approach. Well done!
Kudos to the crew. They sorted out the conflicting ECAM, regained manual thrust, actioned the appropriate checklist, and hand flew the approach. Well done!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one goes to the "other site", which claims to be a Canadian Aviation site, but is in fact American, one can find folks questioning the use of "Mayday" in this incident! If one has ever experienced an Airbus "Cascading Failure" as they were called when the outfit I flew for first operated the aircraft, a "Mayday" prefix to ones call sign is the only prudent thing to do. Well done the crew!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was working when this happened.
There were a LOT of phonecalls and coordination going on between the terminal and the enroute and the tower at this time.
The weather did not help matters when the pilot asked for VFR.
The departures were not affected by the mayday and left as normal, the enroute had been holding arrivals during the emergency and they still accepted departures so they would not be delayed.
A job well done by aircrew and controllers.
There were a LOT of phonecalls and coordination going on between the terminal and the enroute and the tower at this time.
The weather did not help matters when the pilot asked for VFR.
The departures were not affected by the mayday and left as normal, the enroute had been holding arrivals during the emergency and they still accepted departures so they would not be delayed.
A job well done by aircrew and controllers.
A big 'attaboy' to all concerned, well handled. 
Ain't that something? Some people oughta give their heads a shake. 
...one can find folks questioning the use of "Mayday" in this incident!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one can find folks questioning the use of "Mayday"
We usually just get told "we are declaring an emergency".
I have to admit to being surprised at first when the pilot declared Mayday in this incident as I thought that meant they would want to land ASAP.
What it does do though is have everyone on this side of the mic on full alert and pretty much the sky is cleaned out making sure everything is available. This is what happened in this instance.
I have never heard a pilot declare a PAN in Canada...only "emergency".
Can the flying community here enlighten as to circumstances that might warrant a "Pan Pan" call...or is it more customary just to declare an emergency.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definition of both terms below, copied and paste here.
JD
A Mayday radio call should be reserved for life threatening situations. These may include, but are not limited to:
Loss, or imminent loss of aircraft control for any number of different reasons
aircraft upset by turbulence;
pilot incapacitation;
spatial disorientation;
control surface or structural failure;
engine failure that will lead to a forced landing/ditching/ejection/bailout;
Or, an onboard fire.
Pan-Pan-Pan
A Pan-Pan call should be used for urgent situations that are not immediately life threatening, but require assistance from someone on the ground. These include, but are not limited to:
Becoming lost;
A serious aircraft system failure, that requires an immediate route or altitude change;
Other emergencies that require immediate attention and assistance from the ground.
This is what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say about using Mayday and Pan-Pan on the radio.
6-3-1
c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.
d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.
JD
A Mayday radio call should be reserved for life threatening situations. These may include, but are not limited to:
Loss, or imminent loss of aircraft control for any number of different reasons
aircraft upset by turbulence;
pilot incapacitation;
spatial disorientation;
control surface or structural failure;
engine failure that will lead to a forced landing/ditching/ejection/bailout;
Or, an onboard fire.
Pan-Pan-Pan
A Pan-Pan call should be used for urgent situations that are not immediately life threatening, but require assistance from someone on the ground. These include, but are not limited to:
Becoming lost;
A serious aircraft system failure, that requires an immediate route or altitude change;
Other emergencies that require immediate attention and assistance from the ground.
This is what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say about using Mayday and Pan-Pan on the radio.
6-3-1
c. The initial communication, and if considered necessary, any subsequent transmissions by an aircraft in distress should begin with the signal MAYDAY, preferably repeated three times. The signal PAN-PAN should be used in the same manner for an urgency condition.
d. Distress communications have absolute priority over all other communications, and the word MAYDAY commands radio silence on the frequency in use. Urgency communications have priority over all other communications except distress, and the word PAN-PAN warns other stations not to interfere with urgency transmissions.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canadian, I'm getting a bit concerned about you agreeing with me again, this will only get you into trouble, suggest you go back to being an argumentative Brit! On a more serious note, most posters I think have not flown into parts of the world in which the ONLY thing which will be treated as an emergency is "Mayday "Nothing else will get the attention of some ATC units in certain parts of the world, I recall a friend of mine who had number four engine fall completely of the wing on take of, this in full view of the tower, BUT, until his F/O said the magic word they refused to give him priority to return and land, all ended well, but for those in ATC whose first language is not English, the magic word is a must!{that could by the way apply to the streets of Toronto these days methinks}
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married A Canadian
We need in Canada to do a better job of R/T. CAP 413 would be an excellent source document to use in an effort to get away from the "cutesy pie" Americanization of the airwaves we've witnessed in North America for the past several decades. (PD to 4?)
A true professional will stick to proper R/T.
Kudos to the crew of 1174 and the YYZ ATCO. Well done!
Willie
We need in Canada to do a better job of R/T. CAP 413 would be an excellent source document to use in an effort to get away from the "cutesy pie" Americanization of the airwaves we've witnessed in North America for the past several decades. (PD to 4?)
A true professional will stick to proper R/T.
Kudos to the crew of 1174 and the YYZ ATCO. Well done!
Willie
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie and Clunck
I have always thought "Mayday" and "Pan" to be more appropriate because it conveys the seriousness of a situation. We often get a pilot telling us they have some problem (control, electrical)..and we have to ask "do you wish to declare an emergency?"
As a side note...what do you think of the term "fuel emergency". To my understanding it was only brought in because pilots used to say they were low on fuel to try and get short cuts or a quicker approach. In ATC an aircraft will only get priority in a fuel situation if they declare a fuel emergency.
I have always thought "Mayday" and "Pan" to be more appropriate because it conveys the seriousness of a situation. We often get a pilot telling us they have some problem (control, electrical)..and we have to ask "do you wish to declare an emergency?"
As a side note...what do you think of the term "fuel emergency". To my understanding it was only brought in because pilots used to say they were low on fuel to try and get short cuts or a quicker approach. In ATC an aircraft will only get priority in a fuel situation if they declare a fuel emergency.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Married a Canadian
In my experience, it's rare (at least in the type rating training that I've received) that training providers give a proper QRH briefing that includes a healthy discussion on what constitutes an emergency and what constitutes an urgency. I've also been told not to bother setting 7700 in the xpndr despite it being a QRH item directing a crew to do so. Especially if an emergency is declared. Apparently, (according to one instructor I had) if you're on radar talking to ATC, it isn't absolutely necessary if you tell ATC you have a system problem and need to run a checklist. I'd say this kind of instruction is what MIGHT be creeping into the system more and more. Not sure...
I'm not sure either, why crews intentionally avoid the proper use of these terms. The AIM is quite clear on the use of and requirement for "Mayday" and "Pan Pan" during certain situations.
It may be due to a greater interest in wanting to sound cool, calm, and collected with a touch of "this is no big deal" thrown in. I honestly couldn't answer your question.
In my estimation, a fuel emergency says it all. In other words, it's at least a "Pan Pan" call. "Mayday" if the fuel state is critical.
My experience flying for a Canadian charter operator, several years ago now, especially westbound from Europe to Toronto. We always took flight plan fuel which, depending on winds, wasn't necessarily enough to make our destination, YYZ.
Entering Canadian airspace a fuel check was made over a predetermined waypoint and if we didn't have the required fuel for YYZ, we re-filed YUL with YYZ as our alternate or landed short. Common everyday practice at that airline. In fact, I've declared min fuel lots of times going into Toronto. Never once (back then) used the term "Mayday" or "Pan Pan" when doing so either. I wouldn't say it was a strategy for cutting into line but it usually worked out that way.
There's also the SMS aspect to all of this. I'd imagine many pilots don't wish to be involved or named in an SMS incident nor do they wish to write reports. The contradiction of course, is in the reality a report will still have to be submitted.
In for a penny, in for a pound, sez I!
Willie
In my experience, it's rare (at least in the type rating training that I've received) that training providers give a proper QRH briefing that includes a healthy discussion on what constitutes an emergency and what constitutes an urgency. I've also been told not to bother setting 7700 in the xpndr despite it being a QRH item directing a crew to do so. Especially if an emergency is declared. Apparently, (according to one instructor I had) if you're on radar talking to ATC, it isn't absolutely necessary if you tell ATC you have a system problem and need to run a checklist. I'd say this kind of instruction is what MIGHT be creeping into the system more and more. Not sure...
I'm not sure either, why crews intentionally avoid the proper use of these terms. The AIM is quite clear on the use of and requirement for "Mayday" and "Pan Pan" during certain situations.
It may be due to a greater interest in wanting to sound cool, calm, and collected with a touch of "this is no big deal" thrown in. I honestly couldn't answer your question.
In my estimation, a fuel emergency says it all. In other words, it's at least a "Pan Pan" call. "Mayday" if the fuel state is critical.
My experience flying for a Canadian charter operator, several years ago now, especially westbound from Europe to Toronto. We always took flight plan fuel which, depending on winds, wasn't necessarily enough to make our destination, YYZ.
Entering Canadian airspace a fuel check was made over a predetermined waypoint and if we didn't have the required fuel for YYZ, we re-filed YUL with YYZ as our alternate or landed short. Common everyday practice at that airline. In fact, I've declared min fuel lots of times going into Toronto. Never once (back then) used the term "Mayday" or "Pan Pan" when doing so either. I wouldn't say it was a strategy for cutting into line but it usually worked out that way.
There's also the SMS aspect to all of this. I'd imagine many pilots don't wish to be involved or named in an SMS incident nor do they wish to write reports. The contradiction of course, is in the reality a report will still have to be submitted.
In for a penny, in for a pound, sez I!
Willie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines that I've been associated with train to use "Panpan" or "Mayday", but if you are dealing with ATC while working a problem and haven't yet decided to declare any kind of emergency then stating it in clear language shouldn't be a problem in North America. However if you want their attention out of the blue then prefacing your transmission with those words will have ATC paying very close attention to what you say next and shut everybody else up at the same time. Also anywhere else on the planet with the exception of the UK declaring as per the AIM is a very good idea because it may be the only words ATC understand.
"Not only a slat problem but for some reason when the slats jammed the thrust went into thrust lock at only 63%, hence the comment about being unsure whether they could maintain their altitude."
With a flap/slat problem the AP and A/THR automatically disengage. Since it is an uncommanded A/THR disengagement the FADEC is programmed to lock the thrust in the last position. The crew still had full control of the thrust in manual mode, however it required them to actually move the thrust lever. Once the FADEC detects thrust lever movement following thrust lock the thrust is set to the lever position. When the crew got around to completing the ECAM procedure for thrust lock they discovered this.
"Not only a slat problem but for some reason when the slats jammed the thrust went into thrust lock at only 63%, hence the comment about being unsure whether they could maintain their altitude."
With a flap/slat problem the AP and A/THR automatically disengage. Since it is an uncommanded A/THR disengagement the FADEC is programmed to lock the thrust in the last position. The crew still had full control of the thrust in manual mode, however it required them to actually move the thrust lever. Once the FADEC detects thrust lever movement following thrust lock the thrust is set to the lever position. When the crew got around to completing the ECAM procedure for thrust lock they discovered this.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the early "bus drivers" we questioned this "feature" in discussion with Airbus, all we got got was the sort of answer parents give their five year old kids, "because I said so", I understand their PR has improved a bit once they discovered that other nations don't have a lot of time for this attitude when it comes to customer support.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually a really good feature. As you know the thrust levers are set to the "climb" detent for everything but takeoff and landing, and with two engines operating represents the range at which the FADEC will control the thrust between idle and climb thrust depending on the vertical mode selected.
If the pilot disengages the autothrust then the FADEC says to itself "ok, you want control of the engines so here you go" and the thrust moves to the thrust level corresponding to the thrust lever angle. If the thrust levers are in the CLB detent then it gives you climb thrust, move the thrust levers back and the thrust behaves normally and decreases according to thrust lever angle.
If the autothrust has an uncommanded (by the pilot) disconnect rather than give you a thrust rating you probably don't want (CLB Thrust) it freezes the thrust at the level it was when the autothrust disconnected and warns you about it. All the crew has to do is take over manual control of the thrust levers like they used to do in airplanes with servos instead of thrust lever detents.
Yes, it's an ECAM action that is prioritized down the list, and ECAM discipline is drilled into every Airbus pilot so they might not actually get to that procedure until a little later. But a little system knowledge goes a long way too. Simply moving the thrust levers forward would have made their life a lot simpler. That is not a criticism, just an observation.
If the pilot disengages the autothrust then the FADEC says to itself "ok, you want control of the engines so here you go" and the thrust moves to the thrust level corresponding to the thrust lever angle. If the thrust levers are in the CLB detent then it gives you climb thrust, move the thrust levers back and the thrust behaves normally and decreases according to thrust lever angle.
If the autothrust has an uncommanded (by the pilot) disconnect rather than give you a thrust rating you probably don't want (CLB Thrust) it freezes the thrust at the level it was when the autothrust disconnected and warns you about it. All the crew has to do is take over manual control of the thrust levers like they used to do in airplanes with servos instead of thrust lever detents.
Yes, it's an ECAM action that is prioritized down the list, and ECAM discipline is drilled into every Airbus pilot so they might not actually get to that procedure until a little later. But a little system knowledge goes a long way too. Simply moving the thrust levers forward would have made their life a lot simpler. That is not a criticism, just an observation.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire left, our suggestion to Airbus was that moving the thrust levers/throttles/ or whatever the current name is, should be either a memory item or closer to the start of the ECAM action, but as we found out, Mr. Ziegler is not very receptive to any thing which is not from him, the trick is convincing him that it was his idea in the first place,{ you know, a bit like dealing with a five year old} Its interesting that Sully went straight to APU start when things went pear shaped, thus he preserved Normal Law and all that other "nice to have" stuff, however, like the jammed slat/flap actions the "close ditching valve" was too far down the list and didn't get done before they got wet.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your point as far as this specific case is concerned, but how do you prioritize for every scenario? In this case they had to do a go-around immediately and it was a problem, but if it happened straight and level it wouldn't have been.
The Basel airshow crash happened because the pilot (test pilot no less) didn't know enough to put the levers forward when he needed to, and much the same thing happened many years ago in the Potomac with a B-737. In my opinion it's a training problem rather than a systems problem. At any time, in any airplane if the engines aren't giving you the power you need move the levers forward.
That shouldn't have to be a formal recall item.
The Basel airshow crash happened because the pilot (test pilot no less) didn't know enough to put the levers forward when he needed to, and much the same thing happened many years ago in the Potomac with a B-737. In my opinion it's a training problem rather than a systems problem. At any time, in any airplane if the engines aren't giving you the power you need move the levers forward.
That shouldn't have to be a formal recall item.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That shouldn't have to be a formal recall item", Agreed, but neither should putting the gear down before landing but a two crew aircraft recently landed gear up" because they missed that line on the checklist" [ no kidding!} You are correct, the problem is a combination of "rote" training, checklists longer than the Dead Sea Scrolls and a lack of basics drilled into students early on in their training. Way back when a Super Constellation was staggering down 28 in Dorval, the FE reached up to retard the throttles a smidge as they were in slight over boost, the guy in the left seat, who was known for a rather penetrating high pitched voice yelled at the top of his lungs, "don't touch those, that's what makes it go" seems the truth of this is getting lost!
