Monday’s KLM flight from Amsterdam to Toronto, flight 691, turned around a couple of hours into its journey. The Airbus A330-300 PH‑AKA returned to Amsterdam – because the airline realized it wasn’t legal to fly.
As one passenger relays,
KL691 Amsterdam to Toronto today. Started with 1,5 hour delay due to AC of original plane not working.
Then literally mid-flight we got the announcement that the plane they got was not supposed to fly and needed big maintainace that was due today unable to perform in Toronto, so back to Amsterdam..
Pilot and crew were very apologetic, but thinking about it this is a major flaw and their procedures if this is possible..
KL691- Mid-flight return to Amsterdam
byu/East-Alternative-819 inKLM
Dispatch failed to flag that there was required maintenance on the aircraft. This was noticed after the plane was already underway across the Atlantic. There was no airworthiness issue. The aircraft was believed to be safe. However deferred maintenance rules required the work prior to flight.
Of course, if it could operate three hours back to Amsterdam… it could have flown four hours to its destination without inconveniencing passengers. But KLM wanted the plane back in Amsterdam to perform the maintenance. They would have had to fly the plane back from Toronto without passengers.
Everyone onboard is due 600 Euros in EU261 compensation. They can argue (likely, eventually, unsuccessfully) that maintenance was unavoidable rather than their fault but they literally chose to send the plane that hadn’t gotten required maintenance out over the ocean.
Earlier this month American Airlines sent the wrong plane across the Atlantic and had to divert to Rome because it was too big to land. Apparently the Naples, Italy airport was miscoded in American’s system. And several years ago that airline also famously sent the wrong aircraft to Hawaii – not certified for extended overwater operations as well (no rafts).
(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)
presumably, they stand to be fined for operating a plane past its maintenance due date/time; the question is just whether they might have mitigated that fine by returning to AMS vs. operating to YYZ.
It is indeed very possible that KL couldn’t find someone to do whatever work needed to be done – to KL’s operating specs – in YYZ, let alone w/o leaving the plane there for an extended period of time.
Hard to believe their dispatch systems don’t inhibit stuff like this – which is the same thing many said about the AA incident
I’m gonna ask the important question: If flying Business Class, did they still get to select their Delft Blue House? Because I’d be most disappointed, not at the operational failure, thanks to EU261 compensation, but rather if I were denied my selection of the over 100 cute-as-hell little houses. Gotta keep adding to my collection. 15 strong! Does anyone have a favorite number? I’d say 87, Het Peperhuis (the Pepper House). KLM even has an app dedicated to the houses so you can track your collection, avoid duplicates, learn more about each place. Hehe.
Is it just ME?? Or, are there way too many FU’s in aviation in the recent past. Some slight, “sorry DL, didn’t see you, clipped your wing… I was ugh, NOT PAYING ATTENTION “ to a Blackhawk basically landing on an AA plane MID AIR! As anyone reading this comment knows there are so so many more BAD and completely unnecessary to horrific tragedies and great loss of life. IMO, ANY position within (or has any part of the FAA world) be vetted more closely and pass an EXTENSIVE physical, oral and written training. In addition, shadowing a key member in their position for a minimum of three months if not, six.
@Theresa L.B. — “Safety first. Always.”
Good points, all-around, but did you consider following rules and regulations, actually prioritizing safety and maintenance, properly investing in equipment, workers, etc., all cuts into profits. Aren’t profits more important than people? Aren’t we all capitalists here? Sheesh!
The EU 261 rule is going to be very expensive for KLM lol
Theresa – Can’t do it. The standards must be flexible, as people’s abilities are flexible.
In the article you presume that they could have just as safely continued to YYZ. Continuing west would have put them into the ETOPS (oceanic) portion of the flight. The maintenance requirements for that are more strict so it would definitely be safer to turn back to mainland Europe.
Seems to me that the aircraft was airworthy but had low time maintenance work that needed to be fixed that night and could not be completed in Toronto. So, they turned around as not to strand the aircraft in YYZ.
Buddy Lou: Flexibility has no place in the realm of passenger and safety.
removing “and”
Talking about safety, The White House Taco has nominated a guy, who doesn’t possess a commercial pilot’s license, to be the chief cook and bottle washer of The FAA. Is anyone surprised?
@1990: “If flying Business Class, did they still get to select their Delft Blue House?” Literally came here to ask the same question!! OR if they got an extra house for being obedient sheep.
@Steven M. — I mean, I’d expect a mutiny on-board if they didn’t. And throw in a few stroopwaffle for my troubles, sheesh!
@MIAZiggy: Not all the FAA administrators have been pilots. Jane Garvey, who was appointed head of the FAA by Bill Clinton in 1997, didn’t have a pilot’s license.
@1900
“I don’t get it… we have all these rules and regulations about safety, but they’re all pointless because accidents are so rare! Let’s just get rid of them to streamline business.”
It’s like the 90s Head and Shoulders commercials, except stupider.
@Joshua K…
But that doesn’t count to @MIAZiggy because it doesn’t fit his ideological narrative.
@Joe Smith — Y’all still blamin’ DEI? Surely, getting rid of the women and brown people doesn’t make fix anything either. As if there ever was a ‘meritocracy’ in the USA to begin with… money (and the friends of those with it) seem to run the show here.
This happens occasionally. As a 35 year AMT at a major US airline, I’ve made several overseas trips to perform an inspection on an aircraft that “fell out” on the leg out of the US. The decision was either fly a few technicians to the aircraft or ferry the aircraft home empty. I suspect that wasn’t an option on this KLM flight.
The MDM (maintenance dispatch manual – sometimes referred to as “BOB” or “Big Orange Book”…now on the iPad) is checked against the dispatch papers prior to every flight. I suspect that the pilots did check and noted no discrepancies between the papers and the MDM. It was airborne when KLM’s dispatch and/or maintenance noted that the jet “escaped” AMS. I’m betting that maintenance went looking for the plane and couldn’t find it. They check with dispatch and an “OH CRAP” was sent out to the aircraft. In consultation with the pilots, who could be found culpable, they chose to return rather than carry on. They made the right choice and the passengers are NOT happy campers. There was really no better option.
The article makes it sound like the cost of flying the aircraft back empty was the decision driver.
My gut feeling is that the ramifications of flying that aircraft to/from and the fallout would be far worse.
What if a malfunction occurred? Does anyone think not a single passenger would hold the airline liable? I’m sure there would be no shortage of lawyers lined up as well.
Why else do we often hear “out of an abundance of caution”?
I am due to take my klm fights, my 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 85th with tem of my 678 total so far. No issue so far. Great airline.
Maintenance/technical issues are not exempt from EU261 unlike weather or ATC issues.
Ensuring aircraft are technically robust and ready for service comes under the obligation of the airline as this is deemed by the European regulators to be within an airlines control. A strike by airport workers, weather or ATC delays are deemed outside an airlines control and therefor do not qualify for EU261.
@Duck Ling — Correct, Mr. Ling. Yet another reason why the US should follow Canada and the EU/UK’s lead and pass similar passenger right legislation as EU261, so that passengers receive compensation for the inconvenience of extreme delays and cancellations under the airline’s control, as here. The airlines can get insurance for this, and it doesn’t bankrupt them (see European carriers like Ryanair who still offer dirt cheap fares while also obligated under EU261). Passengers can also self-insure, but many consumer policies only cover delays over 72 hours or affecting more than 50% of the Trip, which is unreasonable and unhelpful for most (read that ‘fine print’). Regrettably, we in the US do not have a consumer friendly administration at the moment, but someday I hope our leaders take up this issue and pass meaningful protections for us passengers.
Had to be a DEI hire. EU is getting dumber
This is why skilled Project Managers and Program Managers are needed. Technical ones and not just your regular Joe’s,Harry and Chad buddies from Middle School
@Andras Nagy — It’s bigoted, but you might as well just say ‘black’ or ‘woman’ or ‘non-binary’ or whatever more raunchy hate speech you prefer, like words with ‘n’ and ‘c’ and ‘f’ because at least then, you’d be honest. I think what bothers me most is the dishonesty of folks like you. Like, the veil is so darn thin these days. Express your supremest feelings openly, like @Walter Barry, so at least we know you’re a lost cause, instead of having to guess. Like, do ya got a spicy ‘theory’ on eugenics to share with us? Go! Go! Go!