AirFrance 7700 777ER

[TShan1]

Anyone know why the AirFrance 777ER was squawking 7700? Believe it was last night, landed safely. AFR454 was the flight number.


Thanks.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Sick passenger?

[lobby]

Strange reply. Answer a question with a question!

[nitpicker330]

Sick pax would not require 7700 which means "a/c in grave and imminent danger requires assistance...."

[BN2A]

Depends on the nature of the sickness..... 7700 is our equivalent of the Blues and Twos that ambulances use, remember.

[aztecghost]

I heard over twitter that Air France had declared that a 'technical problem' was the cause. But I cant find anything direct from them Can't have been too bad, they were undergoing controlled descent at over 1000fpm for some time.

[nitpicker330]

Incorrect use of 7700 in my opinion.

Advising ATC you have a sick pax on aboard and require priority is ALL that is needed to get on the ground ASAP. I know as I've done it quite a few times and ATC are always accommodating.

No need to press the "grave and imminent danger" 7700 button!!



IMHO.

[BN2A]

Depends also on the part of the world that you're in....

[Centaurus]

No need to press the "grave and imminent danger" 7700 button!!

Unless you are an Asiana 777 contemplating a visual approach to SFO

[Evey_Hammond]

From observations 7500 & 7600 are rarely used - it always seems to be 7700 these days

[FLYDHC8]

So was the 7700 Squawk really because of a sick passenger or are we all assuming at this point

[aztecghost]

There was mention on twitter of a 'technical problem' but the sources aren't reliable and I cant find anything from AF themselves. Must have been something to cause concern considering the rate of descent.

Edit: just checked again, AF are saying;"#AF454 false indication but application of precautionary principle. Safety always comes first. Passengers taken care of by AF"

So basically "woops"

https://twitter.com/AFnewsroom/statu...32180462108672

[TShan1]

That would have been a nice afternoon for the managers when they were counting the pennies (francs/Euros/whatever) it cost to turn it round and check.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Sick pax would not require 7700 which means "a/c in grave and imminent danger requires assistance....">>

Well, that's news to me as I have often seen 7700 employed in the circumstances discussed on here.

[DX Wombat]

Sick pax would not require 7700

Precisely what medical or nursing qualifications do you have in order to make this assertion?

[PPL Hobbyist]

Greetings all, I am new, as the little sign below my name says. I hope that I contribute something useful to this forum rather than pee people off with a load of ignorant comments. I will most likely be asking more questions than giving answers. I hope you won't mind that. On the subject above however, I do have something to say rather than ask.

I am not so sure any pilot would ever want to squawk 7700 unless he and his plane were in some deep poop. Somebody I know had an emergency not too long ago. He was caught in a bad hail storm as he tried to land at Lanseria (FALA), South Africa. He had his radar taken out, he had no nose cone left, the leading edges of his wings were badly damaged and other minor damage to the fuselage. How his propellers survived, I don't know. He was flying a King Air E90. He landed safely at ORT (FAOR), previously known as Johannesburg International (FAJS) after ATC at Lanseria declared an emergency on his behalf.

He told me the paper work IE: filing reports took hours. Not to mention landing costs, parking costs and all the other charges and so on, which was the other half of the paper work.

Note that I said, ATC at Lanseria declared the emergency on his behalf and handed him over to ORT. He didn't want to declare an emergency because he knew what was coming if he did. That is why I can't understand why any pilot in his right mind would squawk 7700 and/or declare an emergency unless he felt his plane was in mortal danger.

I agree with Nitpicker300. Informing ATC that there is a sick passenger on board and asking for priority would have been a much better option in a perfectly functional undamaged plane.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

But we don't know if there was a sick pax on board do we - hence the question mark after my original posting.

7700 is for use in an emergency situation. If someone on board, passenger or crew, becomes dangerously ill that is an emergency in my book. Maybe in some countries life is not so precious?

7700 is very useful in a busy traffic area because everyone can see it and will assist in moving traffic out of the way.

The guy flying the King Air in Africa sounds like a 100% cup cake. I'm not surprised that ATC declared the emergency - they knew what they were doing!!

[wiggy]

Informing ATC that there is a sick passenger on board and asking for priority would have been a much better option in a perfectly functional undamaged plane.

All fine - in theory. However in some parts of the world the minute you ask ATC for priority because you have a sick passenger the controller will:

1. Ask "are you declaring an emergency"?,

(Some agencies insist you declare at least a PAN to get priority. Also at some airports the emergency medical services will not attend the aircraft side ASAP unless an emergency is declared - as a FWIW I once had to declare a Pan whilst parked on the gate at LHR to get an amubulance and paramedics to the aircraft... )

2. If you then reply with an affirmative ATC will tell you to squawk 7700.

Personally I wouldn't be inclined to enter into a philosophical debate with ATC about the use of 7700 if they told me to "wear" it, especially if I had a passenger with chest pains, but maybe that's just me being gash...

Meanwhile, do we know what AF's problem was

[spottilludrop]

Toilets not working according to my source

[DaveReidUK]

From observations 7500 & 7600 are rarely used

Given that 7500 indicates "Unlawful Interference" (e.g. hijack) that's not altogether surprising.