Originally Posted by
ploughman67
Really? You know that for sure? That's a 25s video, no-one (here) knows whether that went on for 1, 10 or 110 minutes.
It's possible that the video was the immediate aftermath and that once secure the vibration was not as severe. We don't know, we weren't there. How about we credit the crew with the fact that the decision made to return to Perth was made with the full facts at their disposal at that time and was the best option of those they considered.
You are of course quite correct; we do not know exactly what happened.
However just to raise a couple of points;
1. The video is 41 secs in two clips - presumably spanning more than 41 secs
2. The gentleman on the left at about 25 sec mark says "about half an hour to go" leading me to suspect that it may well have been shaking for > 1 hour at that time.
This is supported by quoted passenger accounts ... eg "After the explosion it started to shake, it started to bounce, but overall the captain did a very good job" and "It was literally like you were sitting on top of a washing machine. The whole thing was going. We could see the engine out the window which was really shaken on the wing.". The latter remark also supported by a brief glimpse in the video.
3. Reported that "marine emergency services north of Perth were put on standby to prepare for a possible water landing" so you would have to presume that some level of emergency had been called.
4. In the thread
SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit, of the 226 posts a fair proportion were firmly in support of that crew landing in the middle of the tundra rather than carrying on to a maintenance base.
So which is it? Nearest suitable or nearest convenient. Both arguments can't be correct.