Air Transat A310 with cracked windshield diverts to N.L.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Transat A310 with cracked windshield diverts to N.L.
Jet with cracked windshield diverted to N.L. - Yahoo! Canada News
A passenger jet headed to Britain made an emergency landing in eastern Newfoundland this morning.
The Air Transat A310, en route from Toronto to Gatwick, was diverted to St. John's because it had a cracked windshield.
The aircraft, carrying 254 passengers, landed safely at 5:30 a.m. local time.
Emergency crews were standing by.
Airport spokesman Bob Nurse says the airline has dispatched another plane to take the stranded passengers to Gatwick.
Air Transat is also flying in a repair crew to fix the damaged jet.
A passenger jet headed to Britain made an emergency landing in eastern Newfoundland this morning.
The Air Transat A310, en route from Toronto to Gatwick, was diverted to St. John's because it had a cracked windshield.
The aircraft, carrying 254 passengers, landed safely at 5:30 a.m. local time.
Emergency crews were standing by.
Airport spokesman Bob Nurse says the airline has dispatched another plane to take the stranded passengers to Gatwick.
Air Transat is also flying in a repair crew to fix the damaged jet.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info Brenoch. I should really delete mine before hetfield realises that if he deletes his then the second post becomes mine, The second post isn't very clever; not clever at all.
S*d it. Why bother.
S*d it. Why bother.
Well I liked it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it change on an A310?
@ Spunky monkey; it grows old at an incredible rate...
Hetfield apparently has loads of issues, he/she apparently feels he/she has nothing left to learn and I for one call him as either a shenanigan or the one who we most probably read all about in a AAIB (or similar as I somehow can't believe he act's within the Kingdom in his role as portrayed to fellow Ppruner's in his profile) long before soon. You Sir, you are slightly out of order.
I dare you, without knowing anything about the event as such, how do you pass judgement on this crew for landing? Do you know which pane was shattered? Do you know whether they still had proper pressurisation? What exactly do YOU know. I urge you to come forward and judging from your previous posts I'm sure we are all going to learn quite a few things about your flights in the Airbus and your aspirations to fly a proper aircraft for a change.
I'm terribly sorry about the rant dear moderators but at some stage someone needs to speak up. I'm a qualified TRE/TRI on most Boeings and also an AAIB investigator. The person in question constantly puts forward theories that ridicules the crew in control and constantly second guesses the handling of the aircraft without knowing any of the "facts" or as we prefer to call them 'contributing causes/factors'.
You dear Sir, need a slap on your fingers and a healthy helping of humbeling pie.
I sincerely hope you don't fly G- registered aircraft since I've seen your attitude before and I do not have a craving for scraping the remains of you from a mountainside. (That said I wouldn't mind just now)
@ Spunky monkey; it grows old at an incredible rate...
Hetfield apparently has loads of issues, he/she apparently feels he/she has nothing left to learn and I for one call him as either a shenanigan or the one who we most probably read all about in a AAIB (or similar as I somehow can't believe he act's within the Kingdom in his role as portrayed to fellow Ppruner's in his profile) long before soon. You Sir, you are slightly out of order.
I dare you, without knowing anything about the event as such, how do you pass judgement on this crew for landing? Do you know which pane was shattered? Do you know whether they still had proper pressurisation? What exactly do YOU know. I urge you to come forward and judging from your previous posts I'm sure we are all going to learn quite a few things about your flights in the Airbus and your aspirations to fly a proper aircraft for a change.
I'm terribly sorry about the rant dear moderators but at some stage someone needs to speak up. I'm a qualified TRE/TRI on most Boeings and also an AAIB investigator. The person in question constantly puts forward theories that ridicules the crew in control and constantly second guesses the handling of the aircraft without knowing any of the "facts" or as we prefer to call them 'contributing causes/factors'.
You dear Sir, need a slap on your fingers and a healthy helping of humbeling pie.
I sincerely hope you don't fly G- registered aircraft since I've seen your attitude before and I do not have a craving for scraping the remains of you from a mountainside. (That said I wouldn't mind just now)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope you don't fly G- registered
Until today I thought G - registered flyers or should I say pilots, do have a a so called GB humour. I'm afraid that's not always the case
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gangster Paradise, RSA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know which pane was shattered? Do you know whether they still had proper pressurisation?I'm a qualified TRE/TRI on most Boeings and also an AAIB investigator. The person in question constantly puts forward theories that ridicules the crew in control and constantly second guesses the handling of the aircraft without knowing any of the "facts" or as we prefer to call them 'contributing causes/factors'.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could appreciate the humour of the picture the first time it was posted on this site, and it was in the context of a complete non-event. However, this event is a possible ETOPS-diversion (we do not know at what stage the windshield shattered and to what extent) so it must be treated as an incident involving fare-paying passengers. I enjoy a good laugh as much as you probably do but this is not an incident to be laughed at. Crossing the pond with two donkers is a laugh when all is fine, however, when things start to go horribly wrong, they have a tendency to stay that way.
I can't blame anyone who decides to divert on a crossing, the ones I blame are the ones who press on and wouldn't miss an opportunity to ridicule the once who didn't.
It's oh so simple sitting at home in the comfort of your settee to pass judgement but you really know nothing of what happened.
Save your funny pic's for later when we know if it is a rice bag that infact has fallen over or if it was something slightly more sinister. And don't ever blame anyone for initiating a diversion, we are all working toward a more safe culture, aren't we?
I can't blame anyone who decides to divert on a crossing, the ones I blame are the ones who press on and wouldn't miss an opportunity to ridicule the once who didn't.
It's oh so simple sitting at home in the comfort of your settee to pass judgement but you really know nothing of what happened.
Save your funny pic's for later when we know if it is a rice bag that infact has fallen over or if it was something slightly more sinister. And don't ever blame anyone for initiating a diversion, we are all working toward a more safe culture, aren't we?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Maurice Chavez
As i just stated we don't know. Quoting canadian newspapers is not facts. We just don't know, and rest assured I know the difference between a shattered and cracked windshield as I'm confident the handling crew did...
As i just stated we don't know. Quoting canadian newspapers is not facts. We just don't know, and rest assured I know the difference between a shattered and cracked windshield as I'm confident the handling crew did...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gangster Paradise, RSA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not that I don't want to believe, but in all my years of flying never seen or heard of " a shattered" inner pane, I have had "a cracked inner pane" and I have had "a shattered outer pane", the latter, a non event, normal 250IAS below 10 apply...Kinda hard to determine at night, what you have, unless you know what you're talking about... But then again, what do I know...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concern: 757 Window Heating Systems | AVIATION WEEK
Cockpit window heating system units on Boeing 757--as well as 747s, 767 and 777-series aircraft--will undergo intense scrutiny as the NTSB's probe of American Airlines Flight 1738 gets underway.
The event is prompting the NTSB to voice concerns about the FAA's delay in implementing board recommendations that would require Boeing 747, 757, 767 and 777 operators to install redesigned window heating systems.
On Jan. 30, American Airlines Flight 1738, with 139 passengers and seven crew on board, was forced to make an emergency landing when smoke started filling the cockpit and cabin. The 757-200 was at cruising altitude, en route from Puerto Rico to Philadelphia, when smoke emanated from the window heating unit system that is connected to the first officer's windshield, NTSB said.
The flight crew donned oxygen masks and smoke goggles and diverted the aircraft to Palm Beach (Fla.) International Airport. During the descent, the inner pane of the copilot's windshield shattered (see photo), but the 757 landed without incident and no fire was reported. Seven people were treated for smoke inhalation and released.
The NTSB is examining Flight 1738's digital flight data recorder and has removed the windshield and heating unit for detailed analysis.
Investigators stress the cause of this smoke incident has not yet been determined, but cautions that five events occurred in 2004-2006 in which smoke, and in some cases fire, was reported originating from window heating systems on 757-200 aircraft, three involving American Airlines:
Cockpit window heating system units on Boeing 757--as well as 747s, 767 and 777-series aircraft--will undergo intense scrutiny as the NTSB's probe of American Airlines Flight 1738 gets underway.
The event is prompting the NTSB to voice concerns about the FAA's delay in implementing board recommendations that would require Boeing 747, 757, 767 and 777 operators to install redesigned window heating systems.
On Jan. 30, American Airlines Flight 1738, with 139 passengers and seven crew on board, was forced to make an emergency landing when smoke started filling the cockpit and cabin. The 757-200 was at cruising altitude, en route from Puerto Rico to Philadelphia, when smoke emanated from the window heating unit system that is connected to the first officer's windshield, NTSB said.
The flight crew donned oxygen masks and smoke goggles and diverted the aircraft to Palm Beach (Fla.) International Airport. During the descent, the inner pane of the copilot's windshield shattered (see photo), but the 757 landed without incident and no fire was reported. Seven people were treated for smoke inhalation and released.
The NTSB is examining Flight 1738's digital flight data recorder and has removed the windshield and heating unit for detailed analysis.
Investigators stress the cause of this smoke incident has not yet been determined, but cautions that five events occurred in 2004-2006 in which smoke, and in some cases fire, was reported originating from window heating systems on 757-200 aircraft, three involving American Airlines: