AC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 785 posts, RR: 13 Posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10154 times:
DL flight 59, a 767-332ER from LGW-ATL made a full emergency landing last night in YYT due to smoke in the cockpit. The registration was N187DN.
From what I was told, the crew declared a mayday and not a Pan Pan.
I'm not sure of how many pax were on board.
A replacement a/c was sent up with maintenance personnel to check 187 and to pick up the passengers to continue the flight to ATL, however, due to fog in ATL, the flight was diverted to JFK.
AC serviced the a/c and we dispatched 187 around 1250 local time today with just flight crew and maintenance personnel on board.
In life, some days you are the bug..... some days you are the windshield!
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8785 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 9991 times:
Wow that is so absolutely horrible. Having your flight divert due to smoke in the cockpit. That would unnerve you, and then to have a new plane take off, but have to divert again this time due to weather. I bet there will be some people on that plane not wanting to fly again after that ordeal because they would feel that they are cursed.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9763 times:
Sorry to hear that as I've flown on N187DN many times...I will be flying a DL 767-300ER in about two weeks, so hopefully no trends are begining here...
Regards and glad everyone's ok
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9704 times:
I had a smoke in the Cabin emergency landing on a DL MD11 from AMS-ATL in December 2002, let me tell you that was a very nerve wracking expereience.
I hope they didn't have to fly too long in that condition.
We diverted to IAD in my case but I was a little freaked out wondering if it had happened between Keflavik and Gander how those extra minutes would have been spent.
IMatAMS From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9294 times:
Quoting Airgeek12 (reply 7): Do we know what the cause of the "smoke in the cockpit" is?
Well usually it means something's burning...
No, seriously....In the most (in)famous case of smoke in the cockpit - the Swissair MD-11 that crashed of Nova Scotia - The smoke was caused by flammable insulting materials that caught fire due to bad cockpit wiring I believe...Guess their could be lots of reasons, though i'd speculate that cockpit wiring would be a likely cause...
4Left From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 81 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 7787 times:
Pan Pan is an urgent radio message regarding the safety of people and property. A Pan Pan message is not used when there is an immediate threat of life and property, instead a Mayday call is used. As with Mayday, Pan Pan messages have priority on the radio channels and are not interupted.
Source Everything Sailing Book pg. 303
Planes aren't busses, put service back into the air!
Milan320 From Poland, joined Jan 2005, 866 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6211 times:
Quoting Gearup (reply 11): I thought it was bad wiring from the IFE system.
Correct, it was, but the wiring in question was near the cockpit.
Not only that, but from a documentary I saw, the wiring initially passed the FAAs flammable tests years ago. However, those tests were flawed originally the way they were setup. In fact the wiring burned faster than it should have.
The documentary showed that had the wiring been tested today, with different procedures, it would never have passed the test.
I believe it was a Nova documentary.
Anyway, I might have gotten some facts off, but below is a link to the TSB report regarding that awful crash:
JFKviaPHX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 194 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6097 times:
DL just had a bad day yesterday. Especially at JFK.
L1011Lover From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 971 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5724 times:
Great job DL!!!
The only right thing to do with a smoke problem on an aircraft is to declare emergency and bring that ship down at the nearest suitable place, with the least possible delay!
Who knows if SR111 might have had a better ending if they would have had declared mayday instead of the pan pan...
CURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 923 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4408 times:
Who knows if SR111 might have had a better ending if they would have had declared mayday instead of the pan pan...
They might have had a better ending if the crew had decided to land overweight instead of circling for dumping fuel, that's the way they lost precious minutes. This is the fact i can't give an answer to when i think about the SR111 tragedy, if only they had landed immediately... How could they underestimate a smoke source that forced them to wear oxygen masks? We'll never know, and it's so sad
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
B707Stu From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 918 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
I'm sure the IFE wiring will be the first source lead in the investigation. Does anyone know if passengers made emergency exit through the shoots? I'm assuming if they called a Mayday they did but it would be interesting to know. I wonder how much time it took to evacuate. Where do we go to find the report on this incident?
Mconway From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3747 times:
They might have had a better ending if the crew had decided to land overweight instead of circling for dumping fuel, that's the way they lost precious minutes.
IIRC, the TSB determined that had SWR111 made an immediate diversion to YHZ when they first became aware of the seriousness of the problem with the intent to make an overweight landing, they still would not have made the airport in time to save the plane. I guess there's no way to say with absolute certainty if this would have been the case though.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3554 times:
Still it's not lost on many crews flying today that SR111 lost time that might have made the difference. Remember the SR111 crew did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, had they known what we know today I bet they'd have made straight for Halifax and dumped what fuel they could on the way.
IMatAMS From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
Quoting SATL382G (reply 19): Still it's not lost on many crews flying today that SR111 lost time that might have made the difference.
Considering that, as far as I know, it took them a while to figure out how serious it was, and considering how close the crashsite is to Halifax, i'm sure just minutes would have made LOTS of difference....I was at the crashsite memorial some years ago...sad story indeed...
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3055 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3032 times:
"Considering that, as far as I know, it took them a while to figure out how serious it was, and considering how close the crashsite is to Halifax, i'm sure just minutes would have made LOTS of difference....I was at the crashsite memorial some years ago...sad story indeed..."
I believe that's because after they initially fired off the "Pan, Pan, Pan" they wanted to divert to Boston. Only when they realized the gravity of the situation was when they decided to attempt Halifax.
CURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 923 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
I believe that's because after they initially fired off the "Pan, Pan, Pan" they wanted to divert to Boston. Only when they realized the gravity of the situation was when they decided to attempt Halifax.
They asked a diversion to Boston but the ATC immediately suggested Halifax as the nearest airfield available. Shortly after, the Swissair crew agreed YHZ was better. The thing i don't understand is why they decided to turn south for dumping fuel... i mean they had to wear oxygen masks well before their ability to control the aircraft started deteriorating quickly, when the fatal decision to go for the fuel dump was taken they already had a lot of smoke in the cockpit. My guess is that they could have thought that smoke was coming along the bleed air from engine 3 (that was infact shut down moments before impact), when instead there was a fire from burning insulation in the cabin. An engine fire would have been a serious problem but not as deadly as a cabin fire. Maybe they were misled by this wrong interpretation of the smoke source...
If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
Hardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
SR111 simply had too much fuel to land safely, they were going to dump fuel over land I believe, but ATC stated they had to go over the ocean. Plenty of whatifs with this tragedy, it just would have been impossible for the pilots to realize how serious things really were. I've been to the crash site twice, may they all RIP
Hardkor
25 SATL382G: If you land overweight, you do a overweight landing inspection & maybe some paperwork. Dump as much gas as you can on the way in. Beats diving it into
26 Skateruk: I suspect most flight crew would now get their aircraft on the ground asap now! I know at BA that's what they're instructed to do... you've got a much
27 B707Stu: SATL382G I didn't follow your criticism about the shoots. Can you explain why my asking the question is irrelevant. I'm open to be educated. Is it man
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 785 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8785 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 298 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jan 2005, 866 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 971 posts, 
From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 923 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
