Birdwatching
Topic Author
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:46 pm

I've noticed that KL602, scheduled to fly LAX-AMS, made a U-turn over Colorado and returned to LAX, landing after 3:10h in the air. This seems strange to me. If it was anything urgent, they could have gone down in DEN, SLC or LAS. Does anybody know the background story here?

Here's the track. It was on a 747.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM ... /KLAX/KLAX
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
george77300
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:49 pm

Birdwatching wrote:
I've noticed that KL602, scheduled to fly LAX-AMS, made a U-turn over Colorado and returned to LAX, landing after 3:10h in the air. This seems strange to me. If it was anything urgent, they could have gone down in DEN, SLC or LAS. Does anybody know the background story here?

Here's the track. It was on a 747.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM ... /KLAX/KLAX


Engine 3 failure. No emergency declared. I guess they chose LAX as best options for PAX and maintenance I guess.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23634
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:57 pm

Maintenance issue. (shutdown engine #3)
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Birdwatching
Topic Author
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:01 pm

Thanks for the quick responses! I assume they wouldn't have returned to LAX but landed someplace closer had this been on the 777 they also have on this route?
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
Antarius
Posts: 1554
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:03 pm

Birdwatching wrote:
I've noticed that KL602, scheduled to fly LAX-AMS, made a U-turn over Colorado and returned to LAX, landing after 3:10h in the air. This seems strange to me. If it was anything urgent, they could have gone down in DEN, SLC or LAS. Does anybody know the background story here?

Here's the track. It was on a 747.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM ... /KLAX/KLAX


Typically if the problem isn't an emergency, they will try to return to an airport that the airlines flies to. They have ground staff/support staff etc. to handle the issue there.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN DEN DOH BLR MAA KTM YYZ MEX
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1361
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:32 pm

Since it wasn’t a life threatening emergency they’ll fly to an airport which is staffed with KLM or Skyteam staff. Also since an engine will need to be repaired/replaced it they would fly to an airport with the proper mx crew.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:18 pm

I doubt KLM does their own maintenance in LAX, it’s either Delta or a vendor.

Just that LAX has better facilities to perform an engine change.

And they can always fly in their own mechanics.

As the engine and tooling must make its way to LAX.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1361
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:31 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
I doubt KLM does their own maintenance in LAX, it’s either Delta or a vendor.

Just that LAX has better facilities to perform an engine change.

And they can always fly in their own mechanics.

As the engine and tooling must make its way to LAX.

Well that’s what I meant. LAX is setup for 747 maintenance. DEN and SLC are not. They probably could have made it to MSP, but would probably have had the same issues.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:47 pm

Looks like the inbound from AMS had some issues as well since it left AMS 2 hours late.

Made more sense to go back to LAX than any other airport since there are more options for accomodating passengers the next day on other flights like DL, KL and AF - not possible at SLC or DEN.
 
astaz
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:41 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:49 pm

They were also probably significantly overweight for an immediate landing, so 90 or minutes of flight time buys them the opportunity to lose some fuel and get everything else together.
 
User avatar
jsnww81
Posts: 2509
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:29 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:55 pm

I saw the 747 sitting at the remote pads last night as I drove by on Pershing Drive, and wondered what was up. Good to know.
 
User avatar
Bjm0517
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:33 pm

DTWLAX wrote:
Looks like the inbound from AMS had some issues as well since it left AMS 2 hours late.

Made more sense to go back to LAX than any other airport since there are more options for accomodating passengers the next day on other flights like DL, KL and AF - not possible at SLC or DEN.


Denver not as much, but SLC is a Delta hub, they could have sent a Delta 767 or something to AMS for those 744 pax, but then you have the issue of tools not being there to repair the 747 and no maitnince backs near by (LAX,ATL,etc)
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:39 pm

Doesn’t work that way. Delta can’t operate a KL flight and a 764 doesn’t hold as much as a 747.

And there are slots etc to deal with.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13026
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:40 pm

I took KL604 later yesterday, saw it taxiing by and wondered about it..
Last edited by keesje on Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Redbellyguppy
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:57 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:03 pm

They buy everyone a hotel room if they divert somewhere. At LAX a good chunk of passengers just go home.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 910
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:56 pm

Bjm0517 wrote:
Denver not as much, but SLC is a Delta hub, they could have sent a Delta 767 or something to AMS for those 744 pax, but then you have the issue of tools not being there to repair the 747 and no maitnince backs near by (LAX,ATL,etc)

DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:48 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
I doubt KLM does their own maintenance in LAX, it’s either Delta or a vendor.

Just that LAX has better facilities to perform an engine change.

And they can always fly in their own mechanics.

As the engine and tooling must make its way to LAX.


KLM can probably lease tooling at LAX for an engine change at LAX. There are multiple MROs that can probably do the work such as Qantas if KLM doesn’t fly in their own team. I don’t know if KLM would fly in their own team or not. Existing 747 operators tend to cooperate quite a bit as the worldwide fleet shrinks.
 
Flanker7
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:55 pm

Klm will most likely fly in some of there own tec crew to oversee the repairs
Flying blue only if possible
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:03 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
I doubt KLM does their own maintenance in LAX, it’s either Delta or a vendor.

Just that LAX has better facilities to perform an engine change.

And they can always fly in their own mechanics.

As the engine and tooling must make its way to LAX.


KLM can probably lease tooling at LAX for an engine change at LAX. There are multiple MROs that can probably do the work such as Qantas if KLM doesn’t fly in their own team. I don’t know if KLM would fly in their own team or not. Existing 747 operators tend to cooperate quite a bit as the worldwide fleet shrinks.

They won’t lease tooling, there are fly away engine change kits, no US based airline who has maintenance has 747 tooling anymore.

And I’d bet to say those kits have been shipped to LAX. They will need to lease a mini crane or hangar space.

I once took two flatbeds and a box truck to LAS from CLT, worked 20 years aircraft maintenance at US.
Last edited by Boof02671 on Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
mmo
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:05 pm

astaz wrote:
They were also probably significantly overweight for an immediate landing, so 90 or minutes of flight time buys them the opportunity to lose some fuel and get everything else together.


Of course, you do realize, a 747-400 or any transport category, can land at their MTOW. (Assumed the go around requirements are met for obstacle clearance) so if you land 1,000 kilos overweight or 100,000 kilos overweight an overweight landing inspection will be completed.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:24 pm

Birdwatching wrote:
Thanks for the quick responses! I assume they wouldn't have returned to LAX but landed someplace closer had this been on the 777 they also have on this route?

Yes. FARs require an immediate diversion to nearest suitable airport if you encounter a degraded engine. Of course a 747 has more than two engines so it’s not deemed an emergency.
SFO
 
User avatar
Bjm0517
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:04 am

DTWLAX wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
Denver not as much, but SLC is a Delta hub, they could have sent a Delta 767 or something to AMS for those 744 pax, but then you have the issue of tools not being there to repair the 747 and no maitnince backs near by (LAX,ATL,etc)

DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.


Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother
 
Nola
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:37 am

Bjm0517 wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
Denver not as much, but SLC is a Delta hub, they could have sent a Delta 767 or something to AMS for those 744 pax, but then you have the issue of tools not being there to repair the 747 and no maitnince backs near by (LAX,ATL,etc)

DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.


Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother


It's beyond codeshare here. With the Transatlantic JV between DL/KLM/AF, they are essentially one airline. KL could easily put passengers on DL metal to get them to their final destinations. The issue would probably be whether there is sufficient capacity to handle all of the passengers.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:58 am

The same thing happened to a British Airways from Los Angeles to London back in 2005. They elected to continue as far as possible with three engines and ended up landing in Manchester:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... Flight_268
 
User avatar
Bjm0517
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:01 pm

Nola wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.


Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother


It's beyond codeshare here. With the Transatlantic JV between DL/KLM/AF, they are essentially one airline. KL could easily put passengers on DL metal to get them to their final destinations. The issue would probably be whether there is sufficient capacity to handle all of the passengers.



Yeah, capacity is defiantly an issue, a 747 defiantly holds more than a 767 or A330
 
User avatar
GlobalAirways
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:03 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:04 pm

Don't they have spare parts up in Victorville, pretty close if so? Probably Qantas or United could do the repairs onsite? Maybe half the flyers could go home for the night if needed?
There is little difference in people, but that little difference makes a big difference. The little difference is attitude. The big difference is whether it is positive or negative. ~ W. Clement Stone
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:40 pm

Bjm0517 wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
Denver not as much, but SLC is a Delta hub, they could have sent a Delta 767 or something to AMS for those 744 pax, but then you have the issue of tools not being there to repair the 747 and no maitnince backs near by (LAX,ATL,etc)

DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.


Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother


KLM chartering a Delta rescue flight is very unlikely. A rescue flight is very expensive and DL would not do that for free to help KLM out. There are also a sufficient number of flights that everyone could be reaccomodated within 36 hours. It is fairly easy rerouting people transatlantic.

On the other hand if KLM diverted somewhere incredibly remote and there were no options, they could ask to charter. That still is rare. Usually only smaller airlines charter rescue flights from other airlines.
 
B747forever
Posts: 13760
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:59 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
DL is not going to put extra equipment to cover for a KLM flight. And the only flight to AMS from SLC is not going to accomodate all the KL passengers. That can be done at LAX which had 2 flights to AMS and 3 flights to CDG the next day.


Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother


KLM chartering a Delta rescue flight is very unlikely. A rescue flight is very expensive and DL would not do that for free to help KLM out. There are also a sufficient number of flights that everyone could be reaccomodated within 36 hours. It is fairly easy rerouting people transatlantic.

On the other hand if KLM diverted somewhere incredibly remote and there were no options, they could ask to charter. That still is rare. Usually only smaller airlines charter rescue flights from other airlines.


Didnt DL operate a couple of rescue flights in the AF A380 incident?
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:11 pm

B747forever wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Bjm0517 wrote:

Uhh, are you sure about that? DAL and KLM already codeshare on a lot of flights, I don’t think it would be an issue for DAL to help KLM out, especially with the seamlessness that they advertise with eachother


KLM chartering a Delta rescue flight is very unlikely. A rescue flight is very expensive and DL would not do that for free to help KLM out. There are also a sufficient number of flights that everyone could be reaccomodated within 36 hours. It is fairly easy rerouting people transatlantic.

On the other hand if KLM diverted somewhere incredibly remote and there were no options, they could ask to charter. That still is rare. Usually only smaller airlines charter rescue flights from other airlines.


Didnt DL operate a couple of rescue flights in the AF A380 incident?



Are you referring to the Goose Bay diversion? If so that makes sense. A diversion to SLC, DEN or LAX is less likely to require KL to charter a rescue flight from a partner. Delta could probably help with seats and in those circumstances KL will usually interline with anyone they can to get people home. You cant interline an A380 worth of people from goose bay
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:16 pm

If QF or UA mechanic’s aren’t given training from KL, they aren’t allowed to touch the plane.

And KL would need to use an engine they own or lease due to specifics.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:17 pm

And you also forget DL just can’t pull a plane and crew into action quickly.
 
astaz
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:41 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:15 am

mmo wrote:
astaz wrote:
They were also probably significantly overweight for an immediate landing, so 90 or minutes of flight time buys them the opportunity to lose some fuel and get everything else together.


Of course, you do realize, a 747-400 or any transport category, can land at their MTOW. (Assumed the go around requirements are met for obstacle clearance) so if you land 1,000 kilos overweight or 100,000 kilos overweight an overweight landing inspection will be completed.


I do realize that, but given the relatively non-urgent nature of losing an engine on a 747, it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible. Obviously the severity and how time critical the emergency is usually dictates this.
 
mmo
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:44 am

astaz wrote:
I do realize that, but given the relatively non-urgent nature of losing an engine on a 747, it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible. Obviously the severity and how time critical the emergency is usually dictates this.


Really? And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Just to point out a few things you might have missed in your initial 747-400, I assume you are a rated pilot on the 400 to make such a statement.

First of all, with the engine fail return, the aircraft isn't going anyplace for several hours. An overweight landing inspection on the 400 is a relatively straightforward inspection which starts in downloading the landing data from the CMC. If all is within limits, then it is just a simple visual inspection. Every airline I have worked for flying the 400 has always had the philosophy to get the aircraft on the ground at the earliest opportunity. If that means an overweight landing so be it.

Perhaps you could provide a reference or other evidence to support your statement of "it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible." with an engine out scenario.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
astaz
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:41 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:35 pm

mmo wrote:
astaz wrote:
I do realize that, but given the relatively non-urgent nature of losing an engine on a 747, it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible. Obviously the severity and how time critical the emergency is usually dictates this.


Really? And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Just to point out a few things you might have missed in your initial 747-400, I assume you are a rated pilot on the 400 to make such a statement.

First of all, with the engine fail return, the aircraft isn't going anyplace for several hours. An overweight landing inspection on the 400 is a relatively straightforward inspection which starts in downloading the landing data from the CMC. If all is within limits, then it is just a simple visual inspection. Every airline I have worked for flying the 400 has always had the philosophy to get the aircraft on the ground at the earliest opportunity. If that means an overweight landing so be it.

Perhaps you could provide a reference or other evidence to support your statement of "it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible." with an engine out scenario.


So by your assessment the crew did a poor job by not immediately landing the aircraft at say DEN, SLC, LAS, PHX etc?

Obviously they felt the airplane was flying just fine, and felt that getting to LAX provided operational advantages, which I’m sure if they were worried about the aircraft itself, and it’s ability to fly, they would not have even been considering.

Here is an interesting article from Boeing on decision making when it comes to putting the aircraft down immediately, versus holding, or jettisoning fuel. Obviously at the end of the day it’s the Crew’s decision, to ensure a safe outcome.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html
 
777Mech
Posts: 751
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:27 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
And you also forget DL just can’t pull a plane and crew into action quickly.


They can and they have before. Numerous times VS has set a bird down in Goose Bay/St. John's etc and DL has ferried an aircraft there to continue the flight.
 
Birdwatching
Topic Author
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 10:48 am

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:32 pm

Thanks for all your comments, I didn't expect this thread to get 35 replies. I'm still wondering why they haven't continued to MSP or ORD, where they have their own staff too, and lots of onwards connections to get the pax home to AMS and beyond, and less distance from AMS to bring in technicians, tools and parts. But then someone wrote that they might save on accommodation cost since a good amount of passengers can go back home. But I can't imagine this outweighs the cost of bringing an engine to LAX vs ORD. Anyway, they made their decision to turn around very quickly. On flightaware it's 5 minutes from the moment the speed dropped (which I assume is the moment the engine shut down) to the time they commenced their very wide left turn.
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
 
mmo
Posts: 1764
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:37 pm

astaz wrote:

So by your assessment the crew did a poor job by not immediately landing the aircraft at say DEN, SLC, LAS, PHX etc?

Obviously they felt the airplane was flying just fine, and felt that getting to LAX provided operational advantages, which I’m sure if they were worried about the aircraft itself, and it’s ability to fly, they would not have even been considering.

Here is an interesting article from Boeing on decision making when it comes to putting the aircraft down immediately, versus holding, or jettisoning fuel. Obviously at the end of the day it’s the Crew’s decision, to ensure a safe outcome.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html


First of all, you might want to review what I wrote. I didn't say anything about the crew's job performance. I was questioning your comments about "it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible." and questioned where you came up with that advice. If you think I did not agree with the crew's assessment, then you completely misread what I wrote. I was questioning your experience to make such broad stroke comments as if you had thousands of hours experience.

Boeing's article really doesn't give any advice, it merely points out the areas for consideration. My guess is with the air turnback of the KLM flight, it was probably close to MGW when it landed. The problem with such broad stroke advice you give is every situation is different. Look at the Swiss Air MD-11 incident. Did the crew make the right decision then? We can say with 20/20 hindsight probably not, but we weren't in the cockpit.

Personally, all things being equal, I am in the camp of get the aircraft on the ground safely as soon as possible. If I have already declared an emergency then I will land over weight, all things being equal. Overweight landings are practised in the sim and should not be a big deal. In this case, the "most logical" decision was to divert back to LAX. But SFO might have been closer. Again, dispatch will have their input but the Captain is the one making the decisions.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1672
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:24 am

mmo wrote:
astaz wrote:

So by your assessment the crew did a poor job by not immediately landing the aircraft at say DEN, SLC, LAS, PHX etc?

Obviously they felt the airplane was flying just fine, and felt that getting to LAX provided operational advantages, which I’m sure if they were worried about the aircraft itself, and it’s ability to fly, they would not have even been considering.

Here is an interesting article from Boeing on decision making when it comes to putting the aircraft down immediately, versus holding, or jettisoning fuel. Obviously at the end of the day it’s the Crew’s decision, to ensure a safe outcome.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html


First of all, you might want to review what I wrote. I didn't say anything about the crew's job performance. I was questioning your comments about "it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible." and questioned where you came up with that advice. If you think I did not agree with the crew's assessment, then you completely misread what I wrote. I was questioning your experience to make such broad stroke comments as if you had thousands of hours experience.

Boeing's article really doesn't give any advice, it merely points out the areas for consideration. My guess is with the air turnback of the KLM flight, it was probably close to MGW when it landed. The problem with such broad stroke advice you give is every situation is different. Look at the Swiss Air MD-11 incident. Did the crew make the right decision then? We can say with 20/20 hindsight probably not, but we weren't in the cockpit.

Personally, all things being equal, I am in the camp of get the aircraft on the ground safely as soon as possible. If I have already declared an emergency then I will land over weight, all things being equal. Overweight landings are practised in the sim and should not be a big deal. In this case, the "most logical" decision was to divert back to LAX. But SFO might have been closer. Again, dispatch will have their input but the Captain is the one making the decisions.


But kind of surprised they didn't dump fuel if they were overweight of course it's the crews call you're right overweight landing is not a big deal but usually see it more in airplanes like the 757 which don't have fuel dump capability. Also was the Swiss Air MD-11 an incident? I thought it was an outright crash but iv'e been known to be wrong.
 
astaz
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:41 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:38 am

mmo wrote:
astaz wrote:

So by your assessment the crew did a poor job by not immediately landing the aircraft at say DEN, SLC, LAS, PHX etc?

Obviously they felt the airplane was flying just fine, and felt that getting to LAX provided operational advantages, which I’m sure if they were worried about the aircraft itself, and it’s ability to fly, they would not have even been considering.

Here is an interesting article from Boeing on decision making when it comes to putting the aircraft down immediately, versus holding, or jettisoning fuel. Obviously at the end of the day it’s the Crew’s decision, to ensure a safe outcome.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_3_07/article_03_1.html


First of all, you might want to review what I wrote. I didn't say anything about the crew's job performance. I was questioning your comments about "it’s generally considered to be preferable to land below MLW when possible." and questioned where you came up with that advice. If you think I did not agree with the crew's assessment, then you completely misread what I wrote. I was questioning your experience to make such broad stroke comments as if you had thousands of hours experience.

Boeing's article really doesn't give any advice, it merely points out the areas for consideration. My guess is with the air turnback of the KLM flight, it was probably close to MGW when it landed. The problem with such broad stroke advice you give is every situation is different. Look at the Swiss Air MD-11 incident. Did the crew make the right decision then? We can say with 20/20 hindsight probably not, but we weren't in the cockpit.

Personally, all things being equal, I am in the camp of get the aircraft on the ground safely as soon as possible. If I have already declared an emergency then I will land over weight, all things being equal. Overweight landings are practised in the sim and should not be a big deal. In this case, the "most logical" decision was to divert back to LAX. But SFO might have been closer. Again, dispatch will have their input but the Captain is the one making the decisions.


I do have thousands of hours of experience, thank you for your assessment of my experience. I don’t feel that my comment was broad stroke, because in the event of a critical emergency I would happily land overweight every time. If I am over Colorado, and making the decision to go back to LA, and the ability to jettison fuel is available to me, I would much rather land under MLW than above it. Based on the fact they decided to go back to LA, they obviously didn’t feel getting the aircraft on the ground as quickly as possible was a necessity, or a diversion elsewhere would have been conducted. Given the time available to the Crew, why not attempt to make that landing underweight? That was my only point. If you have the time, and it is safe to do so, I still argue it is preferable to land below MLW, than above it, but if the nature of the emergency is time critical, I would land overweight all day long.
 
Flanker7
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Why did KL602 return to LAX yesterday?

Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:18 am

Part reason to return to LAX is that there are two flights a day on there own flights and the Delta flights so getting stranded pax out makes it that bit easier. LAX has a lot crew available so getting crew home makes it that bit aswell.
Flying blue only if possible

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos