XL Airways new 737 diverts to LCA

[ETOPS]

I see XL's latest bird had an unscheduled stop in Cyprus last night. Reported to be Boeing 737-900, registration G-XLAR. Fresh out of the box last month - hope it's nothing serious..........

[A330ETOPS]

There was quite a mess coming out of the engine!!

[G-STAW]

thats correct, thats going to mess XL's MAN operations up abit, they might have to draft their 767-200 up to cover, kudos to the crew.

btw the FO wasnt you "stue" was it?


G-STAW

[yamaha]

Cannot understand why after losing an engine so close after take off and declaring an emergency they didn't land at the nearest airport. Instead they flew for more than an hour before landing in Cyprus.

Such disrespect for passengers and their safety deserves an occurance report.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, has XL by any chance got its own maintenance in Cyprus?

[fireflybob]

Cannot understand why after losing an engine so close after take off and declaring an emergency they didn't land at the nearest airport. Instead they flew for more than an hour before landing in Cyprus.

Such disrespect for passengers and their safety deserves an occurance report.

yamaha, are you in possession of all the facts then? If not how are you able to pass such a judgement on the crews' actions?

[stue]

G-STAW, no mate, wasn’t me, was a good friend of mine though.

Such disrespect for passengers and their safety deserves an occurance report.

You were not there and don’t have all the facts and info, so passing judgment like that is simply not needed.

Yes we do have maintenance in Larnaca. It’s not for me to discuss the crew’s actions. But in my opinion a bloody good job well done to all the crew. :D

Will make interesting conversation next time we go out for a beer......;)

[oliversarmy]

Yamaha - you dont have any facts to support your allegation of "disrespect for passengers and their safety", be very careful posting such tosh.


I know for sure that it happened in the cruise therefore Cyprus was the closest airport and by luck XL also have maintenance support there, perhaps not by luck considering the volume of overflying XL aircraft to SSH and also the amount of traffic they have into Cyprus.

:ugh:

[yamaha]

Yes, actually fireflybob you are correct I am jumping the gun.

Does XL have it's own maintenance in cyprus? (already answered as yes)

Is there any significant difference in runway length between say...Cairo and Larnaca? (again yes. Cairo is much much longer)

So that only leaves where were they when it happened....

[G-STAW]

You were not there and don’t have all the facts and info, so passing judgment like that is simply not needed.




ditto.

I was chatting to an XL engineer this morning, he seemed in abit of a rush, he was under the impression he was on the next flight the cyprus, he didnt have the full details at hand but he said it maybe just a teething problem, and not an engine write off.

G-STAW

[Human Factor]

Don't know if you can land overweight on a Boeing like you can on an airbus, procedures permitting.

Not sure about the -900 but on the -3/4/500, you can if necessary. However, if there is no need to (for example, if there is an engine rundown with no fire), you should burn off the fuel to get the weight down below MLW. If that takes an hour, you can perhaps consider other options as your nearest suitable airport. For non-ETOPS aircraft, this can be anywhere within an hour's single-engine flying time.

[yamaha]

But as it's been deleted what is so controversial about being 15 minutes from Cairo?

Or is there something to hide here?

[stue]

Something to hide where? The fact was they were not 15mis from Cairo and you were not on the flight deck.

I don’t understand where you are going with this……?
:rolleyes:

[yamaha]

ok if you say so.

But would it be considered perfectly normal and without any additional risk
if I were to suffer engine failure on a 737 15 mins from Cairo but decided to fly for an additional 70 mins to Larnaca which has a much shorter runway after twice declaring an emergency?

[MuddyBoots]

yamaha

No offence mate, and while this is a rumour board, there is no point getting all worked up until all the facts are known. I am unsure if AAIB will be involved, due to the nature of the emergency they will probably be interested. After all the facts are out then you can get on your soapbox.

Regards

Muddy

[Mr @ Spotty M]

The CAA will be involved, if not the AAIB.

[yamaha]

none taken muddyboots.

It isn't just a rumour board though is it.

It is the PROFESIONAL Pilots Rumour Network

[Todders]

It is professional so lets keep it professional. I know for a fact that the crew will and are looking into and evalualting evrything they did and they would appreciate your comments in a positive way so that they could confirm with themselves that they did the best they could. This is after all what everyone of us professoinals aim to do.

You may well have been 15mins from Cairo but i doupt the XL aircraft was and the fact they did have to declare an Emergancy twice to the Cairo Controller may sugest a reason why you might want to divert to a Familiar airfield within single engine cruise distance with company support on the ground.

[fly-half]

Guys, the facts are it happened at the top of climb and not just after take-off. And they were not just 15 mins from Cairo. It really is shocking to read the statements that have been written before all the facts are known. Larnaca is a great choice because the runway is completely satisfactory and there is excellent emergency cover, plus we have a base there so the pilots are more familiar with this diversion choice.

The engine is awaiting a boroscope inspection but it is most likely a write-off with a replacement coming from France or Germany. A 767 is picking up the flights for the time being.

The captain and first officer and really good guys and we're proud of the crew.

[fireflybob]

Sounds like a job well done by a professional crew!

[yamaha]

Guys, the facts are it happened at the top of climb and not just after take-off. And they were not just 15 mins from Cairo.

Thanks for some solid information. Out of interest though, where approximately would "top of climb" be out of SSH enroute MAN?

[G-STAW]

please let it go, you still seem to be talking nonsense....remember the flight crew knew what they where doing, like explained above they diverted to cyprus for many reasons, of which, made it the perfect diversion airport....

btw this thread was started so professionals and onlookers alike could get an insight into what happened with this aircraft and follow the outcome.

Please lets stick to that shall we......

again kudus to the crew!!great job.

G-STAW

[Kempus]

well done to the guys involved for getting it down safely!

I know the f/o, he's a top lad, I may buy him a drink if he ever gets a night out sorted which he's been promising for around the last 6 months!

[yamaha]

btw this thread was started so professionals and onlookers alike could get an insight into what happened with this aircraft and follow the outcome.

Please lets stick to that shall we......

Couldn't agree more. As a professional I wish to know if I have an apple in my hand or a pear. The difference is important otherwise you could end up with all sorts of conspiracy theories or even a cover up!

So where would top of climb place me out of SSH?

[Todders]

TOC would have been Cairo didn't happen at TOC was into the cruise past the coast line approaching the IFR boundry.

No cover up I'm sure once the company has all the answers they will be spread we all want to learn as much as we can.

[Lafyar Cokov]

errrr I can't believe you are feeding this troll!!!

The guys put the aircraft down safely. End of story, tea and medals.

I'm sure if they had done something wrong then we could be having a massively un-informed discussion about what they should have done etc etc etc and how, as superior pilots with all the facts at our fingertips we would have done it completely differently and grappled with this stricken aircraft - but they didn't, they made the correct choices (given passenger/flight safety, local knowledge, atc implications and airline economy) and they and their passengers are here to tell the tale....

Well done crew!

[Nashers]

could have decided larnica instead of Cairo for a few reasons:

-decending will require idle thrust as there is no need for an emergency decent for an engine failure, unless its blown up and taken half the wing with it. it will take time to decend which could be the same amount as flying to another airfield

-passed the turn around point so decided time to continue to different alternative. dont forget it takes time to turn around an aircraft in the air.

-need to burn fuel inorder ot land under MLW

-as stated earlier possable ATC understanding issues so went somewhere else where they can get better assistance

-company base, better fire cover, more familiar airfield

edit: forgot to say i know nothing about what happend here but just stating possibilities as some people just jumped to conclutions and passed very strong comments without having any idea what, where, when how it happend, and by the looks of it no realy understanding of the decission making involved.

the fact that a one runway may be shorter than another is not a problem providing that it is long enough for a single engine landing which is calculated before the flight with the other performance data.

an engine failure is major event but not as serious as suddenly having half the roof rip off, so you do the emergency drills for shut down then refer to the checklist for the rest of it.

if im not mistaken, last year a thomsonfly lost an engine on takeoff and was flying for over 2 hours before landing.

[yamaha]

Thank you nashers for an excellent response.

[BOAC]

I cannot see what the fuss is about - this is just an interesting 'News' item! We do NOT have enough information to hold a 'court of law'. The actions of the crew will be looked at in detail by the company and CAA/AAIB if necessary. Captain's decision is ALWAYS final and he/she has to justify that.

Whilst this (from Boeing) is FAR based, it still applies to UK a/c I believe.

The rules regarding an engine failure are specific. The FARs specify that the pilot-in-command of a twin engine airplane that has an engine failure or engine shutdown shall land at the nearest suitable airport at which a safe landing can be made.


Note:
If the pilot-in-command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, the FARs require a written report from the airline stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport.


A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator by guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain minimum weather and field conditions. If required to divert to the nearest suitable airport (twin engine airplane with engine failure), the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an
examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport.

My bolding

[oversteer]

Out of interest if the engine failed due to some manufacturing fault, how long is it "warrantied" by the manufacturer? Or does such a thing not exist in the airline industry.

3 years and 36,000 miles? :ok:

[stue]

Think i heard that its something like 2000hrs?

(may have just made that up though, went out for a beer last night.........)

[sleeper]

I sense that a lot of people commenting on this thread seem to be confused with the term "suitable".
First of all, yes a Boeing 737NG can land overweight and burning of fuel, just to reduce weight, is not done after an engine failure.
Second, you are required to land at the nearest suitable airfield. This means to consider: runway lenght, weather, terrain. In other words get it down as soon as possible on the nearest airport that is capable of taking your aircraft. This does not mean the nearest suitable economical, maintenance or company airfield.

See BOAC's post:
Quote, the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.”...........................................
For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport. unquote. Unquote.

[fireflybob]

Not commenting on the specifics of this case but notwithstanding the "land at the nearest suitable airport" statement it is surely part of a professional pilot's remit to take the a/c to an airport which is suitable in every way. Ok yes safety comes first but get real ETOPS can fly circa 3 hours on one engine!

Is anybody seriously suggesting that flying a few more minutes on one engine having secured the failed engine is really that much of an additional risk?

[yamaha]

I thought it was clear in my head but now there are more questions.

So after reading this additional information I am confused.

It has been clarified that the aircraft was at TOC out of SSH enroute MAN, which must put the aircraft in the vicinity of Cairo. Cairo therefore must surely be considered as the next suitable airport according to the posted Boeing (FAR)?

the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position.

The above really gets me confused.
15 minutes from Cairo, weather and facilities good but the aircraft continues over water at night for allegedly a further 60 minutes???????

Or does the regulation mean that you can continue until convenient maintenance facilties are found? According to sleeper not so.

[sleeper]

Fireflybob,

Quote: ... but get real ETOPS can fly circa 3 hours on one engine! unquote.

Yes it can (theoretically), BUT it does not mean that you can fly happily for 3 hours to a diversion field that suits (company) you. Only if there is no other diversion field available, you can plan up to a maximum of three hours away from that field. Don't forget Etops is mostly a planning tool. In flight, also while under etops rules, You still have to divert to the nearest suitable airport and that is not necessarily the planned diversion field.

If you have a choice of airports that are not too far apart then yes, a few more minutes don't matter. But passing by an airport to fly another 60 minutes is not legal.

Yamaha,

Facilities in this case means approach aids, ATC (radar vectoring capability)and such.

[A330ETOPS]

This is getting a little out of hand! In my opinion from a professional point of view, the flightdeck did everything right, and can not be faulted. Firstly, the maximum time from an ADEQUATE aerodrome that a two engined turbo-jet aeroplane, without ETOPS approval, with more than 19 seats and MTOM of 6813 kgs is 60 minutes flying time at a one engine inoperative cruising speed in still air conditions. You've also got to take in account not just the proximity of the alternate field, but other facotrs such as the availability of ATC facilities, and let down aids etc. Then you've also got to take into account the weather, as being at or above minima for a 'reasonable' time before & after the ETA. I'm not too sure what the Wx was at Cairo, so i'm not saying it was below minima, but theres a lot more than 'proximity' that flightdeck have to take into account when deciding on a SUITABLE alternate field. I think LCA was the right choice in my opinion, and im sure any other professionals reading this post would. Plus the fact that XL have tech support around the area is a huge advantage.

[yamaha]

are xl financially sound?

[sleeper]

A330Etops,

I am not commenting on this case. It was their decision and they landed safely.
Basically on a general term I fully agree with your summary.

[Rananim]

Good posts from sleeper and BOAC.
If the Captain felt that he wasnt going to get helpful and timely ATC from Cairo,I think he could convince the authorities that his course of action was acceptable.Perhaps Larnaca truly was nearest in point of time.We dont know.

[zoigberg]

Are you on this planet?

[HXdave]

very interesting readin this thread being SLF. first of all - well done to the crew for doing the most important thing of all - they landed the plane safely and there were no casualties.

one thing that has constantly come up in this thread is why LCA and not CAI, even though it appears CAI was closer. perhaps someone would like to answer the following question / query for me. if indeed they had chosen to divert to CAI, how easy or even how safe would it have been to manouver the aircraft around that much on a single engine to safely make an approach into CAI? my views are that whilst LCA may / may not have been further away, in order to line up for approach would have allowed the aircraft to have made much gentler turns than CAI would have (ie CAI may have needed a full 180 degree turn).

as i said earlier, i am only SLF, but with a vested interest.

[BOAC]

For ****'s sake - the Captain is going to have to answer to greater minds than ours on this 'knitting circle'. Let's leave " 'e did right/'e did wrong" to them, eh? WE have literally NO IDEA!

Otherwise I'm sure a useful thread to get people thinking.

[angels]

Another humble SLF here.

Firstly, I'm interested in the fact that what appears to be a brand new engine goes TU. I'd certainly want my money back, or a new engine gratis, and am interested in the question about who coughs for the replacement and if there is are x amount of hours whereby an engine is considered to have endured the aeronautical equivalent of 'fair wear and tear.'

Also, this is just a personal view, but when I board a plane my life is in the hands of the Captain. I assume my Captain also values his life and wants to get back in one piece to his wife and kids and Rolex collection as much as I do (although I lack the Rolex collection).

Therefore, rightly or wrongly, I trust the captain to make the right decision and it seems to me he made the right decision.

[yamaha]

I was a passenger on an aircraft that attempted to fly from Crete to Germany with the gear down. It ran out of fuel and had to make an emergency landing.

Although I respect your "band of brother's" attitude, I do not appreciate "Professional pilots" playing god with my life.

If it happened,15 mins or 70 mins in a 737 on one engine is a big difference. The over riding priority however should be my life. The aircraft may well have remained safe the whole time but most certainly the risk factor had increased considerably. An avoidable increase in risk that as a passenger I am not consulted upon. I cannot ring the bell and just jump off so it is left up to you professionals to be professional.

Get down in 15 is the only response if you have any respect for the lives and safety of others.

And yes the financial/maintenance aspect was a major factor in the gear incident. I am not yet convinced that this isn't the case here as well.

@Angels

never assume, check

[A and C]

Post #24 states that the failure happend near the FIR boundary, at that position the options for a diversion are Iraklion or Larnica. As Iraklion is a shorter runway with loss of high ground to get in the way of the go around from a VOR approach. Larnica on the other hand has a long runway with none of the go around issues from an ILS approach. Larnica is the best airfield in this situation based on airfield factors alone, the maintenance backup is just a bonus.

Your assumption that TOC would be at Cairo is flawed, out of SSH the max FL that you are likely to reach would be FL340 and the position of the aircraft near the FIR bondary is likely to be the point at a climb to the FL360 cruise would take place.

Even if the engine failed overhead Cairo by the time the QRH items are actioned the aircraft is going to be equaly placed for Cairo or Larnica and for reasons outlined by others Larnica is the best option.

The comments about the company's financal state shows how little you know about the way decisions are make on the flight deck when a problem such as his happens, I hope this dispells your "red top" attitude and flawed thinking.

So to finish this post on a high note I would like to say to the crew "a professional job well done!!"

[samax]

totally agree spot on :ok:

[Lou Stulewater]

Yamaha you are a Knob.:ok:
What is it with this place. Time to shut it down.
Full of Brit knowall blue jumper wearing enthusiasts with a subscription to transair pilot shop and an airband reciever
They did their job as it says on the tin so bugger of you plonker.:ok:

[HXdave]

totally agree with all those who think that Yamaha is a total K:mad:B. as said, the flight crew did the job they are there to do and made the most essential part of the flight - to get the aircraft safely on the ground! giving Yamaha's view on the aspect of safe air travel, it would seem to me that he would take an aircraft out of service even if 1 of the many toilets on board was unservicable.

Lou Stulewater, can i please advise you that not all us Brits are as arrogant & pig headed as Yamaha is - thankfully. unfortunately, it is just the few that paint a very disappointing picture for the rest.

[glider12000]

Yamaha

Have you also considered that the additional time to divert to LCA would give the cabin crew more time to ensure that all passenger preparation is completed for an emergency landing?

Having done 2 SSH`s this week, the TOC is indeed close to the FIR boundary and the decision to go to LCA and not CAI I believe was the right one.

[yamaha]

no I hadn't and good point but it seems to conflict with FAR's posted by BOAC

(who says I am british, thanks for the compliments about my language capabilities though)

[Todders]

From Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual.
Section 8.34
ie Non-Normal Operations

Landing Airport

The following items should be considered when selecting an airport for landing:


Weather Considerations (VMC preferred).
Enroute time.
Length of Runway available.
Emergency services available.
FLIGHT CREW FAMILIARITY.
Other fators dictated by the specific situation.

[Afinehelmet]

There is some absolute crap being posted here.

Until we know the facts then quite frankly, there is nothing to discuss.

The only facts we know for certain and not " a friend of a friend of a mate down the pub told me" are,

1. A/C suffered an engine problem/failure

2. Crew made a decision to land at LCA

3. Crew landed the aircraft safely and no one was hurt.

Anything else is just second guessing. And yes, it may be a "rumour website" but please have some consideration for the crew involved who will now surely be going over every minute detail of every action they carried out to prepare themselves for the forthcoming enquiry.

If I were i their position I would hate to reading some of the absolute crap (Yamaha in particular) posted on here.

Lets wait for the FACTS.

[25 HUNDRED]

Here are the facts to put and end to the unknown information.

Incident occured on awy UL617 between IMRUT and ASNIR.

From Google Earth:-

Cairo Approx 200nm

Larnaca Approx 300nm

Heraklion Approx 325nm

Sharm Approx 425nm.

Reason for choosing Larnaca over Cairo:- 1 Egypt!!!!!!!
2 Cairo ATC!!!!!
3 Cairo ATC!!!!!
4 Familiarty with Larnaca!!!!!
5 Engineering Cover!!!!!

Hope this clarifies the situation.

[Evanelpus]

Am I the only one smelling journalist here?

[smudgethecat]

Best policy with yamaha is dont feed him ,he used to lurk on the engineers forum winding people up until they wised up to him, turned out he wasnt a pilot after all (surprise surprise) and actually worked in a shop at either LGW or LHR

[Thrush]

25Hundred.

Thank you for that info. It will put paid to all the nonsense and Yamaha's attempts at stirring it.

LCA was well within the 400 nm single engine range, (which surely is for planning purposes only) so a very good descision made by the crew. I think most of us in the IT world would rather go to Cyprus (which we know and love) than CAI or ALY....!

Well done to all involved.

[A330ETOPS]

I couldnt have put it better myself, too many people 'i.e. Yamaha' have too much time on their hands!

[Nightrider]

A most interesting thread very much diverted into a personal yamaha issue; I also smell more the journo than a a pro of our profession with a complete lack of understanding.

Of course is any 737 capable to take the stress of an overweight landing.
My Ops Man recommends even this procedure in the given case.

At night, with obviously not too many minutes of difference to a known environment, much easier terrain, well known ATC procedures, all ground-support available as one may want in these circumstances, I cannot see anything bad in the crew's decision.

I do not know the XL aircraft, there may have been even company support for the decision via Acars or HF.

Hope the DFO invites all crew on company expense for a nice dinner as it appears for 'real' professionals that the job was done as the books teach us.

yamaha, please back off until you and we others know more as the facts revealed here are not even enough to start guessing if there would have been a better solution.

[Nashers]

about the point of pilots playing with their pax life:

yes pilots have a duty of care to take into consideration the pax life, but surely they will not put them into a "dangerous situation" as one obvoius non pilot has put it, when the pilots own life is at risk??

why would a pilot take a more risky decission as whatever outcome that happens to the passengers, will be the same outcome for him. he is in the same tube as them at the end of the day...

i suggest you stop saying what you think of the situation when you have proved that the only knowledge of the airline industry you have, is that you sit down and wait for cabin crew to ask if you want chicken or beef.

[yamaha]

who's guessing?

no problem I can wait. Will be interesting debating the results of this report.

In the meantime what would be more worthy of being fired, inviting a professional footballer to the cockpit on a perfectly serviceable aircraft or flying for an additional unnecessary 60 minutes on one engine to get to a maintenance base?

[VAFFPAX]

The former.

S.

[lederhosen]

Lets wait for the report. But I cannot follow Yamaha's maths, my company operations manual defines 60 minutes single engine flight on the NG as 375 NM. If they were 300 miles from LCA and 200 from Cairo the difference is 16 minutes in theory, in practice probably less. The theoretical time to landing in Larnaca is 48 minutes. What is all this about flying an additional unnecessary 60 minutes?

In any case the Boeing flight crew training manual specifically says: 'The pilot in command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an examination of relevant factors that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport.'

[daikilo]

From the info I have seen, it is not clear to me that this was an ETOPS sector hence any discussion on this aspect may be sterile.

d

[HXdave]

based on post #54 by smudge the cat, i would petition the MODS to permanantly exclude yamaha from this forum, or maybe limit the forums he can discuss in.

anyone with me?

[Rainboe]

What seriously disturbs me about this incident, and it appears to be the greatest problem of the whole saga, is actually how it has run to 4 pages in Pprune! A simple engine problem/diversion has itself been diverted by trolls and irrelevant contributions from non aviation people into 'my hide is so valuable (to me) in any incident we MUST land IMMEDIATELY!'.

This section is perhaps the last refuge of a Professional Pilots forum where Professional Pilots can discuss incidents in the news. This section is one of 3 under the title Flight Deck Forums, there are only 3 in this section, so please can non-pilots refrain from chucking in their oars and giving us their opinion on something they know and understand little about? Every Tom, Dick and Harry is jumping in with idiocy. This really has to stop if real pilots are to continue a dialogue here. maybe with incidents like this, a separate thread can be started in the Passenger Forum for non-pilots to vent their horror? Some of the contributions here (and elsewhere) are keeping real pilots out. I was afraid to come here and view it, I wish I hadn't!

[A and C]

It would seem that you can't understand that even if an airliner is overhead an airfield it can't instantly land, from FL300 it will take you about 25 min to get the aircraft on to the ground if all the other factors are in your favour.
This time is used to set the aircraft up for the unexpected landing and by the cabin crew to get the cabin ready for the landing and brief the passengers.

It is much less trouble to do this decent on a direct track to some point as it takes a lot less flight crew effort to do this rather than the constant attention of one flight crew member that would be required to circle downwards, the flight deck time time that is saved by getting the aircraft on to a direct track can be used in preperation for the landing.

So to put this in terms that you can understand if you are at FL300 any airfield with in 120 miles is the same distance away in terms of track miles that the aircraft will fly and time taken to get on the ground.

This is all IF you have full co-operation from ATC. Cairo have got a lot better over the last few years but it is a busy place and this would mst likely delay a landing, Larnica on th other hand is not to busy and the ATC is first class.

Most of the last paragraph is accademic as the failure to this aircraft happened at a point where Larnica was the nearest airfield with a good approach.

[Cambrian man]

To be fair to Yamaha (if permitted), it took over 40 posts before someone got off his high horse and answered the question.

[Rainboe]

Which question?
are xl financially sound?
That was another gem! One could say, 'what has that got to do with it?'

I'm a little concerned about Yamaha. Reading his history, I suspect he is a ground engineer of some sort. Nothing wrong with that, but if he is not a pilot, he should really not try and lead the discussion where he is, and certainly not give employment advice to a German pilot. So are you one, Yamaha?

[smudgethecat]

Yamaha is certainly not a ground engineer , he is in fact a shop assistant who has attempted on numerous occasions to pass himself off as a pilot on the engineers forum before being "outed"

[BOAC]

it took over 40 posts before someone got off his high horse and answered the question. - actually someone dismounted much earlier at post #26 I think you'll find?:)

NO reflection on this occurrence, but for Rainboe we should not pretend that 'financial soundness' of an airline does not sometimes influence 'decisions', not least depending on who is flying it:hmm:

[barry lloyd]

I have no qualifications to comment on the actions of the crew in this instance. The fact that some of the posters are unable to spell the diversion destination of this aircraft correctly perhaps reveals how little the commentators know. For the record it's LarnAca, not Larnica. Pedantic? maybe, but how is one to believe what is posted here when those concerned cannot spell the name of the airport correctly?

[d71146]

I am with you on this one Rainboe

[Starbear]

I was a passenger on an aircraft that attempted to fly from Crete to Germany with the gear down. It ran out of fuel and had to make an emergency landing.Whilst Yamaha has quite rightly been flamed for some of his more ridiculous postings, whether he was a passenger or not on this flight, his highlighting of the Hapag-Lloyd fuel starvation near Vienna reminds us that we are not perfect or free from criticism and some pilots do make incorrect and sometimes even bad decisions. This reply is in no way intended as a comment on this XL incident as it seems to me on the info so far that LCA was a perfectly reasonable choice.


Dave to answer your question of post #40
how easy or even how safe would it have been to manouver the aircraft around that much on a single engine to safely make an approach into CAI?This is just not an issue at all as the aeroplane is fully manoeuvreable on one engine. A small exception to this statement is that in the event of an engine failure just after take-off, pilots will limit the bank (roll) angle whilst the airspeed is very low i.e. at or close to that just after lift-off (known as V2) This is to enable the maximum performance of the airraft is available and utilised for climbing away from the ground or obstacles nearby. Above a certain height e.g 1,000 ft the aeroplane will then be accelerated by lowering the nose and when airspeed increases above a particular value, there will be no further limitations on bank angle. Procedures on exactly how all of this achieved will be provided by each airline for each aircraft type and even for each runway where necessary

[A and C]

If you had been to the Greek islands you would know that it is not uncommon to see place names will more that one spelling. However my excuse is the cr@p state education that I recived, despite this I have managed 4000 hours command on the B737 without major inccident.

I find that those who pick holes in posts for minor spelling mistakes have very little to offer to the debate apart from spellcheck.

[stue]

Just to bring this thread back to something to do with the title…….

Said -900 is being brought back from Larnaca tonight, all fixed (I hope!):p

Looks like I shall miss Top Gear then……….:sad:

[yamaha]

If you would actually go back and read my posts and in fact some of my responses to the more professional answers that I did receive (few and far between) it is you that is making pprune what it is not me.

I am sensitive to these issues for the reasons given and I do not believe in nine lives I believe in one. I also believe my initial questions were completely valid but drew in the main only angry responses. I thought aviation had an open culture?

It actually took until A and C's post #66 to supply a reasonable sensible answer and complete the picture. I am now relatively happy (not that anyone has to please me) and look forward to the report should it ever become public.

If you don't want to see this forum go to ruin just answer the question no matter how stupid it may seem to you "professional pilots" without the abuse or aggression. If you don't want to answer then ignore. That way SLF and other as you put it "unwanted persons" would leave more quickly.

Rainboe I do have to question how in touch you are with the real world for you to make fun of the financial question. All industries and not just this one bow to the dollar or the pound or the yen or whatever. However on checking your history you appear to be respected so I will assume you jumped on the bandwagen and went along with everyone else and hit someone whilst they were down.

If lou stulewater is genuinely a pilot he should be absolutely ashamed of his pathetic childish post. I hope you do take a better attitude with you in the cockpit.

To those who remained civil no matter how much I may have unintentionally raised your blood pressure thank you. Now where was that other thread that grabbed my interest..........................

[Lou Stulewater]

Yamaha,I most certainly am a pilot . Therein lies the probem. There are too few of us on these boards and we are having to put up with sad little trolls like you, so get back to selling whatever it is you sell in your LHR shop or go for a flight in your vitual airline.....muppet.

[G-STAW]

stu its a crap episode anyway!ha........

i think the 767-200 has served its purpose, its being flown back to gatwick either tomorrow or wednesday for a well earned rest.

the -900 is all set for service after wednesday one engineer was saying this morning, they've been under the kosh for the last week or so...

G-STAW

[paris13e]

I've really enjoyed this thread, as ex-crew and current SLF... It has brightened up my day - especially Yamaha, but for all the wrong reasons! My only point is that as crew or SLF I would be much happier landing in Larnaca than Cairo....regardless of maintenance availability. The A/C landed in one piece, without casualties - isn't that really all that matters? No doubt the flight crew will have spend countless hours explaining their actions rightly or wrongly - is there still an element of guilty of error until you prove otherwise within our airlines?

[stue]

G-STAW, yeah it was the 767 that took us down there, I was talking to the crew and I think they need a rest too, good job done!:D

We brought the engineers back too, from talking to them, and from what I could understand (and this is pure speculation) they where talking about the N1 and N2 being fused together by under lubrication of one of the bearings. Therefore, the two spools started turning together when it went pop. Let me just say though, they haven’t examined it yet, I don’t even know if it would be our engineers that would do? So the above is by no means hard and fact truth! (I know what this place is like…….)

[G-STAW]

yes they did are fantastic job, saw the captain today looked completely drained, hes got a few days off now though,kudos to them.....


in regards to the engine, i heard about the same happening a few years ago on a 737 in asia, this is very rare though,(if all bearings are lubed up that is). The engine must of came to a striking hault, a big grinding would of been heard i guess....

could of been a lot worse though mate.....

G-STAW

[fly-half]

Lou I think you make a good point about perhaps not enough actual experienced pilots adding an input to this and wierdos like Yamaha unsatisfied by our answers.

I have spoken to the crew on board and the incident happened approx 15 mins into the cruise whilst the Purser was actually in the flight deck speaking to the crew about a sick passenger. Therefore they were definitely past Cairo and headed towards Iraklion (or Heraklion [I]sic[I]) and Larnaca. The aircraft was hard to control laterally but it certainly was not falling from the sky plummeting towards the ground (therefore get me to THE nearest airport Cairo). Instead, the crew made the first in-flight engine shut-down in the history of Sabre/Excel/XL Airways. They went to Larnaca where we have an engineering base and is an airport familiar to the flight deck, excellent fire cover and ATC. They spent over 30 mins over the airfield burning fuel to get under MLW and to allow the cabin crew to prepare the cabin for a precautionary landing. Contrary to press reports there was no emergency evacuation after landing, instead lots of applause from the passengers. A good job done and carried out to training requirements.

Have I opened a can of worms getting some more facts out? There can always be arguments about the necessity to get under MLW, the choice of diversion airport etc but all that was evaluated by the crew and the end result was good. I just wanted to answer once and for all Yamaha's silly persistence about why the crew did not divert to Cairo.

[G-STAW]

thanks for the insight fly-half its much appriciated mate.....

once again kudos to the crew:ok:



G-STAW

[Nashers]

If you don't want to see this forum go to ruin just answer the question no matter how stupid it may seem to you "professional pilots" without the abuse or aggression. If you don't want to answer then ignore. That way SLF and other as you put it "unwanted persons" would leave more quickly.

i would suggest using a different forum to post then such as the quwstions forum or the SLF part of PPrune.

It actually took until A and C's post #66 to supply a reasonable sensible answer and complete the picture. I am now relatively happy (not that anyone has to please me) and look forward to the report should it ever become public.

i would say post 26 would have answered all your questions.

with all due respect yamaha, its ok to ask a question but please do not comment when you have no knowledge as you have made some pretty strong statements that seriously undermine the pilots role and responsability.

many pilots have spent 50-90K in just getting trained how to fly then go onto getting trained on a type of aircraft so they know what they are doing. no airline will let a pilot onto a flight deck if they dont know what to do. procedures are put into place for problems just like this (and an engine failure is one thing pilots practice for day in day out) so pilots take the best option. no airline will want to have a hull loss that will cost the price of the aircraft, the price for every pax, the price for the cargo and the price for the sectors the aircraft has booked after the flight in question. the pilot is in the aircraft for exactly this sort of thing. on a normal flight the pilots watch over the computers which fly, but when a problem comes up they decide what to do.

the pilot will want to do the best thing as at the end of the day whatever happens to the people in the back will happen to him as well. the understanding and logic you have put into your thought process quite frankly makes no sence.

saying that, i think the crew did the job as expected. nobody hurt, aircraft still flying i presume and everyone happy. so well done!

[Rainboe]

Don't feed the trolls! Doubt he's even read it! How sad a relatively minor incident handled perfectly correctly and apparently magnificently well by the crew involved gets put under the spotlight. How do we think it made the pilots (in this case) feel seeing doubt thrown on their actions by ignoramuses who don't know what they are talking about! I'm really getting to resent uninformed opinion being thrown around here ('after all it's Rumours, innit mate? You can say anything!'). I have lately seen some awful postings here- the worst being a totally scurrilous rumour about the BA038 Captain that was admittedly removed fairly rapidly. I really do wish lawyers would become involved more often to stop this barrage of accusations and innuendo!

So step forward for this week's prize, Mr. Yamaha! You truly are an idiot.

[yamaha]

nashers, I thanked you for your post 26 but didn't consider it as specific enough to these circumstances because you also wrote forgot to say i know nothing about what happend

However your other point is interesting

the pilot will want to do the best thing as at the end of the day whatever happens to the people in the back will happen to him as well. the understanding and logic you have put into your thought process quite frankly makes no sence.


You know this just doesn't hold up to scrutiny and so the logic you use makes no sense.

All the following taken from this website.

Pilots of course have full command and authority and do not bow to commercial pressure I hear. Yet we have discussions on fuel load. Of course pilots always take enough fuel. So why do aircraft land with remaining fuel below the legal minimum then?

Of course pilots wouldn't fly an unsafe aircraft. Yet engineers claim they do.

Of course pilots highlight faults as they occur, yet engineers and some pilots?posting here are also suggesting they do not.

There are of course a million more examples on pprune.
So who is really the idiot here rainboe?

Those who read digest and question in order to get to the real truth or those muppets who always maintain everything is fine no matter what.

Time to take off your funny coloured specs rainboe or is your real name in fact bungle?

[Rainboe]

So you can question the motivation and methods of the pilots in this minor incident, but you cannot take criticism of your motivation and methods in this thread?
You are a waste of space and join the ignore list immediately! I will not even read any more of your garbage. You are in an area you should not even think of trespassing!

[BOAC]

I'll stick with you, Yamaha - no reason at all for anyone not to 'question' the way things are done, as long as the 'questioning' remans reasonable and in the correct forum, and I believe that is the 'intention' of pprune. If indeed you were on that ?Hapag Lloyd' a/c I can understand your concerns, and whether you are a greengrocer or ace pilot matters not.

The problem is you 'queered your pitch' at post #4, although you did retract your 'speculative scaremongering' at post #8. Let's compound the mistake by having so-called 'professional pilots' coming in with all sorts of questionable info about where it happened etc. Then some of them aggravate the situation by talking tosh about how far you are allowed to be from an airport - that in fact has nothing to do with an in-flight emergency but relates to route planning. My post #28 gives Boeing/FAR guidance on landing at the 'nearest suitable' and you will note leaves the Captain discretion in the choice. 'Todders' post (#50) is slightly misleading as it comes from another section concerning any 'non-normal procedure' such as flap failure, etc, whereas the 'nearest suitable' section definition is different and as you can see generally points to 'time' as a significant factor.

As I said at post#28 and #41, the various 'parties' will look at this, rest assured.

Taking your latest comments:-

Pilots of course have full command and authority and do not bow to commercial pressure I hear. Yet we have discussions on fuel load. Of course pilots always take enough fuel. So why do aircraft land with remaining fuel below the legal minimum then? - of course they don't. Your own claimed experience tells you that. In that case although they probably departed with enough fuel, the decision to continue was made for 'other' (company pressure?) reasons. Departing with 'enough' fuel is a difficult definition. We are allowed to leave with less than required for the normal route with the option of 'reviewing progress as we go', so that may be why crews are arriving with less than 'legal'. We often have to leave with less than desired. En-route diversion is always an option. Often performance factors limit the amount you can lift and you may not have what you want.Of course pilots wouldn't fly an unsafe aircraft. Yet engineers claim they do. - sadly aviation history is littered with examples where they have. HOWEVER, professionally run UK airlines do not put pressure on crews to fly 'unsafe' aircraft. This is not so everywhere in the world. There are innumerable 'failures' which can occur with no effect on safety.

So, in summary - as I see it, the decision in this case was sound and will, I suspect, be supported by company and authority. Had the wing been 'falling apart' due damage it would probably have been found to be the wrong decision. I endorse your right to ask questions, but ask that they are based on facts - although those are often difficult to establish.

[Rainboe]

Well I think you misplace your support! Pprune has made a subtle change over the last few years where any incident has not been discussed as an incident, but become a Courts Martial for examining fault by the pilots involved. Any incident is closely questioned for any chance of pilot culpability. This is not what Professional Pilots want out of this forum. By all means examining where neglect or incompetence may be involved, but in an incident such as this where an extraneous event occurred, I feel uncomfortable that every action of the pilots is questioned closely by uninformed outsiders. That is not what this place is for....or is it? Myself, I think it is becoming weird. But then you Moderators are allowing all areas of this board to become a place for dissaffected passengers to demand explanations for their grievances like go-arounds, sharp jolts, heavy landings etc. Perhaps you should work harder to keep it more a place for pilots to discuss aviation than every Tom, Dick or Harry to start pointing fingers first! The recent 'discussions' on BA038, the LAX-LHR flight, and now this perfectly reasonable diversion becoming 5 pages of drivel has not done Pprune any professional benefit at all. No wonder so many professional pilots avoid the place- they laughingly refer to it as a 'jungle'. You, as a Moderator, should be cleaning it up of this extraneous and unnecessary 'foliage'!

[BOAC]

You, as a Moderator - bit out of date. old chap? BTW, I don't see any 'Court Martial' here, merely possibly misguided 'questions'. Has anyone actually charged the Captain here?

[Rainboe]

Nonsense like this amounts to an accusation (or charge).
Cannot understand why after losing an engine so close after take off and declaring an emergency they didn't land at the nearest airport. Instead they flew for more than an hour before landing in Cyprus.

Such disrespect for passengers and their safety deserves an occurance report.
(A classic case of the loaded question: 'for how long have you been beating your wife?')

IMO, ruthless editing of such idiocy needs to take place if the vast majority of professionals here are not to be offended and disgusted by this sort of writing. It's all very well having outsiders here, but more positive control needs to take place of their postings rather than ruthlessly eliminating pleas to illiterates to try and improve their English!

[Rananim]

Rainboe,
Just argue the case.If you believe that the pilots acted within the law say so,just as you did over BA's 3 -engine transatlantic "ferry"(sorry,passenger) flight.If we put people on an ignore list simply because we dont like what they say,what would be the point of these fora?Yamaha had a valid question,he said what was on his mind,and people have answered him.I agree with you when discussing incidents that we should avoid,wherever possible, direct criticism of the crew as if we're entitled to stand in judgement.We're clearly not,none of us.However,discussion of these incidents can be very educational on safety and technical issues so I believe they're important.

[Rainboe]

Discussion of the incidents by all means yes. but so often these threads kick off with accusations first, and the thread becomes a defence of current procedures rather than any discussion of issues. The BA038 thread, although examining technicalities in fine detail had a minority of posters maintaining an undercurrent of finger pointing and innuendo that has proved totally unjustified. Some of them, through their ignorance of procedures and practice, take over 'discussions' with the loudest voice and turn them into virtual accusatory tribunals. That is when my back gets up, and that is what keeps a vast number of real pilots away from here.

[BOAC]

RB - why not use the link at the bottom of the page and tell Danny what he is doing wrong rather than froth on here? I'm sure he'd be pleased to hear.....

[Rainboe]

I'm sure he takes enough interest to follow discussions for himself! BTW, are you not a Mod any longer? It still says so in your profile.

[yamaha]

if you got off your hobby horse for just a few seconds you would realise that you are talking nonsense rainboe.

I may have been educated as to why they didn't land elsewhere but I think it has been pretty much confirmed here that Larnaca wasn't the nearest airfield.
Therefore I have made no accusations but just asked why. You will find had you read all the posts correctly that nobody questioned the timings.

Therefore it was a fair question which has been answered. The rest was totally unnecessary.

Unfortunately you seem to be old fashioned and out of touch. The days of the secret brotherhood are long gone.

[Rainboe]

Blow me down, someone has encouraged him now! No doubt he will become a regular self-appointed aviation prosecutor!

[BOAC]

I'm sure he takes enough interest to follow discussions for himself! - then I'm sure we can also assume that he is content, at this time anyway, with the way the site runs and this forum in particular?

Profile edited. Never was good with 'paperwork'..:)

[Charley B]

And you went to Collyers---SHAME ON YOU!!:)

[Rainboe]

Collyers? Is that a bar?

[cargosales]

My other half recently got herself a Yamaha.

It was pretty cheap and at first glance seemed to produce a moderately believable sound.

However, when you actually listen to it in any detail or depth it reveals a complete lack of substance and she's realised now that it just isn't the genuine article :-(

[AMEandPPL]

What a fantastic observation from cargosales ! ! Laughed my socks off ! !

Might be a high point on which to close a thread, which, frankly, served its useful purpose a long time ago.

Interesting to note how moderators differ in their approaches to different forums. This one has dragged on and on, seemingly interminably, yet in M & H ( where I more usually lurk ) any little bit of dissent is stamped on and deleted forthwith.

Perhaps a little more uniformity of protocols is called for across the whole site !

[yamaha]

However, when you actually listen to it in any detail or depth it reveals a complete lack of substance and she's realised now that it just isn't the genuine article :-(

Sorry cargo sales but that happens quite often when buyers "think" they know what they are talking about but in fact don't.

My suggestion next time you want to buy something or make a comment is take someone along who does know what they are talking about.

[Charley B]

Rainboe

Collyers was in BOAC'S day( and mine!!) a Boys Grammar school in Horsham.

I went to the girls one(now demolished and a housing estate!!)

[maddes]

why fly further than necessary when engine malfunctioning?
Any quick (defensive) answers ?
Yamaha's main point is valid. Well done to the crew anyway - jobs intact, pax breathing.

[Rainboe]

God save us- another instant aviation expert. Learned from an armchair? Did we post without bothering to read the rest of the thread- hmm....a valid first posting? Because- look at a map! 15+ minutes into the cruise puts you almost at the midpoint to Larnica (as some of the other aviation experts here like to spell it). By the time you have handled the problem, got weather reports and made a decision where to divert, and allow for a 180 degree turn, you are fast approaching midpoint, so a very valid decision to continue to Larnaca IMO.

End of discussion?

Collyers still sounds to me like a Crawley hot nightspot!

[AMEandPPL]

End of discussion?

Let's hope so. There's enough discord in this world of ours,
why are we deliberately creating more ?

[cargosales]

My suggestion next time you want to buy something or make a comment is take someone along who does know what they are talking about.


Well, as it happens, I'm suddenly in the market for a new Irony Meter as mine's just exploded.

You seem to have some experience of the retail world so could you suggest a good make / model please? Or perhaps come along to help me choose one?

I'm not fussed about looks, size or colour as long as it doesn't make me look like an airline pilot nor give the impression that I have any intimate knowledge of flying airliners beyond what I have gleaned on these hallowed pages.

Any advice would be gratefully received :ok:

[yamaha]

bungle (rainboe) I am sorry but your "figures" just don't add up.

How about we get away from the incident which has been very thoroughly explained and talk solely about time and distance.

My informant in Egypt tells me that a flight time of 15 mins to Cairo but 45 mins to Larnaca does not correspond to the same plot on a map as you state. So please stop you constant attempts at blocking the truth.

From my standpoint I am more than happy with the explanations received here as to why they went to Larnaca but it doesn't change anything as regards where it happened. Or are you now claiming that Egyptian ATC is so incompetent they don't know where it happened?

sorry cargo don't deal in irony only facts.

[3REDS]

The more time I spend on Pprune the more I think that this circus is a waste of time and effort, there are too many armchair pilots on here who haven't a bloody clue what happens in the real world but feel that because they have 3000hrs on flight sim they are informed enough to give their opinion/view as fact.:mad:
Like it or not, this is a site for professional pilots and I feel the sooner we make it that the better and the more informative Pprune will become. Until then I think Danny should refrain from calling this a professional pilot network or set up a new site called microsoft flight sim 2008 rumour network.:D

I think this topic has run its course and would ask the mods to close it.

[763 jock]

yamaha-have you ever operated a jet transport aircraft through the Cairo FIR? Ever landed at SSH, LXR, HRG?

If not, you are any badly placed to offer any opinion on the subject. Trust me.

[yamaha]

it is quite amazing how many of you just do not read the print.
My last post was quite clear that I appreciated all the responses explaining why they went to Larnaca and accept that.

That does not however give anybody poetic licence to waffle about where the incident took place. They are 2 separate issues. So jock I do not understand your response.

[Todders]

To ans you and hopefully put this six page load of drivel to bed.....


FL320, Airway UL617, between Pos. IMRUT and ASNIR.

Get yourself a European High Level IFR chart think it might be chart 10 but please don't quote me on that fact(i do;t have them infront of me)and have a look. Laymans terms well off the northern coast line of egypt.

[yamaha]

Thanks Todders, I really do not understand the problem with just telling the truth.

I'll check my flt sim to see where that is.

[yamaha]

Ok these are the actual figures rounded off.

Depending of course where exactly between IMRUT AND ASNIR it took place.

Max distance to Larnaca = 295 nautical miles
Min distance to Larnaca = 285 nautical miles

Max distance to Cairo = 216 nautical miles
Min distance to Cairo = 126 nautical miles

So taking my initial figures 15 mins from Cairo and 45 from Larnaca I would suggest it happened nearer to IMRUT. Which puts the figures at
Cairo 126 nm, Larnaca 295nm

It also confirms that my figures were pretty accurate and justifies the initial question which has been thoroughly answered.

[763 jock]

yamaha-I'm not going to spell it out for you!

[Rainboe]

Yamaha, what a clown you are! I actually un-ignored you for the entertainment value you are supplying here. Your figures are wrong!
Ok these are the actual figures rounded off.

Depending of course where exactly between IMRUT AND ASNIR it took place.

Max distance to Larnaca = 295 nautical miles
Min distance to Larnaca = 285 nautical miles

Max distance to Cairo = 216 nautical miles
Min distance to Cairo = 126 nautical miles

So taking my initial figures 15 mins from Cairo and 45 from Larnaca I would suggest it happened nearer to IMRUT. Which puts the figures at
Cairo 126 nm, Larnaca 295nm

Allowing handling time and assessment of the situation and review of alternates and weather obtained, it shows a good call, doesn't it? Why don't you let it go- are you on a personal crusade to crucify the pilots, based on your extensive flightsim experience? Or are you just providing entertainment value? You are the exact example of what is wrong here- your questions have been answered many times this thread- back on the ignore list you go! Get back to your joystick and flightsim.

[danishdynamite]

yamaha how long do you think it takes to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing?

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

rainboe. I'm almost speechless, coming back to this thread & seeing you bothering.

Trolling.
Better things to do with life.
Ignore button

[Rainboe]

Done. Losing patience though.

[yamaha]

@danishdynamite

I really have no idea, 15 mins as a guess???

@bungle (rainboe) I really do not understand what you think you are protecting. May be boring for you, incredibly informative for others (not including the childish posts)

Again if you had read the posts from a neutral perspective all I would like to know is why? The answer without your's and others cretinous input's could have been achieved in 5 or 6 posts.

I say it again. You are whats wrong with this forum behaving as if you have copyright on what is allowable, what is asked and what is posted.

[MikeAlphaTangoTango]

Congratulations Yamaha, you now make up 50% of my ignore list. Can we get back to the point please?

[danishdynamite]

If you do a full preparation it takes at least one hour.
Securing cabin - pax brief and so on.
If your aircraft is not falling out of the sky you take the time you need.
B737 flying on one engine is not falling out of the sky.

[Nashers]

I really have no idea, 15 mins as a guess???
this is exactly why people are telling you to shut up and where to go.


I say it again. You are whats wrong with this forum

if you look on the to left of your web page is clearly says PROFESSIONAL PILOTS in big bold letters. there is no harm in asking a question but when you make it a point to lead a thread when as you have clearly admitted you dont have a clue what you talking about, thats where everyone is saying what they think of you.



I'll check my flt sim to see where that is

thats some detailed reasurch you got there...........

if you read the post one person put up after talking to the crew, you would have read that the aircraft still had to fly about a bit overhead LCA to burn of fuel so it makes no difference to where they landed as airtime would have been the same. you also found out for you detailed reasurch the ground distance which is very good.... but what about head/ tail winds? im sorry to say all this flight sim reasurch you have done is a waste.

LASORS usualy has answers to alot of question, i wonder if they will have any answers on how to make people sit down and pipe down.

[yamaha]

The Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe) is a community of professional pilots and people who work in aviation, both experienced and inexperienced. Your behaviour here, and ours, can be summed up in four words: “Mi casa, su casa” (my house is your house).

I think you are the ones with a problem. You are being arrogant, pompous and unfriendly. I have only been inquisitive, honest and open. Furthermore I have not broken any rules and do not claim to have sole rights over who can do or say what. I also openly state I don't know.

I do seem to have upset a few precious ego's though because I dare to ask.....why?

I read the rules upon registering......have you?

[Scimitar]

I've never felt the need to block anyone before but Yamaha, you've managed to be my first!
You seem totally unable to listen to advice from people who Do know what they are talking about. Ask questions by all means - but when you've received a reply, well, just SHUT UP!!!! Right through this thread you have failed to take heed of anything you've been told and clearly demonstrated that you are merely a stirring d==khead.

[Rainboe]

Time to take a vote?
Yamaha....shut it! Horrid noisy squealy things anyway!

[cargosales]

yamaha, congratulations. When it comes to digging a hole you are even quicker than this thing YouTube - Komatsu excavator digging (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwz3yzu5DGs)

[Rainboe]

Yamaha, 22 August 2005....you won't believe this:
Can we now please close or lock this extremely boring and totally unhelpful thread.

This really does nothing more than highlight the negative aspect of forums and really doesn't do our reputations as professionals any good at all.

The named individual has done absolutely nothing to deserve this.

You're just stirring trouble here! Here is another gem from you:
This isn't about military types or heroes.

This is about a human being, behaving in a human manner.

It is a sad day when most here seem to want strict adherence to the rules to come before sensible human interpretation of them.

How short a memory you have.

And did you really write this....especially the last line?
Its about whether one should allow common sense to be used.
Pablo applied common sense, behaved like a well balanced human being and attempted to assist a fellow human being with a fear of flying.

Quite clearly nobody absolutely nobody was at any risk whatsoever and to imply anything other is PATHETIC.

MYT on the other hand showed a complete lack of common sense, dealt with the problem in an inappropriate amateur way and thats for them to worry about.

History documents quite clearly where you end up as a society by accepting and implementing a policy of blind acceptance of any rule.
Your posting history shows you to be very confused.

[yamaha]

rainboe really, have you nothing better to do. But unfortunately you will be disappointed.

The first quoted post was in response to nothing more than a pack of wolves wanting David Learmounts blood. As now it was a pathetic display of behaviour from so called professionals.

The second was supporting Pablo's actions. There are many out there who have a fear of flying. If you are trying to justify your behaviour by highlighting a comment I made about sticking to rules, surely you can do better than that.

The subject matter does not in any way compare.
I think you are confusing me with someone you need to impress. And I have to say it's not working.

[Rainboe]

Give it a rest now. You obviously have judgement issues. It's a good job you are not a real pilot because your decision making process is profoundly flawed, so please stop pointing any more fingers of blame. Bye loser.

[Duck Rogers]

*blows whistle*


Good evening/morning/afternoon folks. The original topic is over here on 'this' side. The whinging, mithering and point scoring is on 'that' side.

All those not wanting a thread ban or worse stand on this side please.

Thank you.


Duck.

[Litebulbs]

As of last night, they still had not found anything wrong with the engine. Not my company, but I was told by an engineer from XL.

One benefit from this is that at least the crew reported the defect on landing in LCA! I hope I am not banned for this rumour?

[Duck Rogers]

It's on topic so why should you be? I could click the 'ban' button if you like though?

[Fg Off Kite]

Hey, Rainboe - thought you'd added Yamaha to your ignore list - you're talking to him!!

With regard to pilots consideration of passenger's welfare; occupants of the flight deck tend to be the first to arrive at the scene of the crash so it is in their interest to make sure that safe decisions are made.

Notwithstanding that, some other considerations may have been overlooked;

At what time did the incident happen?
When do the bars close?
Do I have an 'Aunty' at div airport?
Have I finished Soduku/crossword?

To be fair, we tend to start planning a normal approach and landing about 20-30 minutes out, with a donk out isn't an everyday occurrence so to allow 60 minutes to cross the T's and dot the I's is not unreasonable.

Yamaha, are you Pablo's love child - or a professional footballer?

[Litebulbs]

Up to you old chap. I was concerned as I am not a professional pilot and would not like to upset anybody, honest!

[Duck Rogers]

Litebulbs.


The issue here is not who posts but what is posted. Some feel only professional pilots should be allowed but in fairness to them it is the lunatic fringe with their barmpot ideas and armchair expertise that has brought them to call for such a restriction.

For my part anyone goes, just not anything.

Duck

[Litebulbs]

Duck,

The interesting thing to me is how these armchair lunatics have managed to get the professional pilots so wound up. 99% of the flying types agree that the correct decision was made, so enough said. If I was on the flight as a pax, I would agree that the correct decision was made using my knowledge of how airlines work and how safe you pilots are.

[3REDS]

Duck

Why dont you just end this thread, I think it has run its course now and is geting a little silly

[fly-half]

Yamaha, do you think that when an engine fails in flight that the aircraft suddenly falls out the sky, plummeting towards the ground? Perhaps this is what you allow to happen when you play on your flight simulator but professional pilots would, if they could be bothered with you, explain how this would not normally be the case. The a/c involved in this incident flew on for approximately 1.5 hrs on one engine like the aircraft is designed to be able to do in this situation and the crew is trained to cope with.

If the a/c was on fire or there was any smoke at all in the cabin or flight deck which could not be removed or source found then the actions must always to be to get the a/c on the ground as quickly as possible. With love from Mr Boeing.

Yamaha, you must clearly see how you are winding people up in this thread by asking questions (fair enough) but later dismissing the answers by still harping on about the distance comparisons between Cairo & Larnaca and referring to your "Egyptian source". Please just wait for the report and take on board the reasons and explanations provided to you by us professionals.

I hope you continue to enjoy rescuing your aircraft from certain disaster on the flight sim by turning 180 degrees and getting on the ground within 5 mins. Perhaps you could ask your councelor or asylum guard to simulate being the cabin crew and liasing with them about preparing the cabin. Then they could be your co-pilot and help run the checklist, balance the fuel, obtain weather information, get the plates out for your best two alternates and all the while flying the aircraft and hoping that on some crummy internet forum somewhere people won't be questioning your decisions!