Delta Airlines B777 Divert to Ascension

[Dak Man]

Anyone heard anything about this event?

Being discussed here, somewhat srange :ooh:

[Hotel Tango]

Can't be bothered to register. What's so "srange" (sic) about it then?

[Dak Man]

Reported as landed in Atlanta (from JHB) but getting social media reports of passengers being accomodated in Ascension due to an engine failure.

Sounds all very srange to me.

[toffeez]

Johor Bahru to Atlanta is a very long flight.

[Machaca]

Delta flight 0201 departed JNB 8:58pm on Jan 9 for ATL, diverted to ASI and landed 1:25am Jan 10.

Relief B777 dispatched from ATL has arrived ASI 5:14pm.

Estimated departure from ASI 7:00pm Jan 10, arrival ATL 12:53am Jan 11.

[FE Hoppy]

They'll love the accommodation on ASI :ok:

[enicalyth]

And Two Boats plus the Saints and the Obsidian...

Delightful, I love it. Must ring Johnnie [the dentist], he'll have all the news.

The turtles will be at about their peak now.

[enicalyth]

On arrival it seems the southbound Hi Fly A330 [probably LK3621] "dinged" the B777! Just had to happen.

AFIK the A330 has gone on further south. Traditionally the aircraft will then receive a second ding to even things up.

The Delta pax are still up at Traveller's Hill no doubt enjoying the Mountain View Club and TriStar village. A replacement engine will be sent down [tomorrow?] and the Delta pax will depart again once refuelled. Leaving the engineers the problem of how to hoist the GE90-110 without weakening the bolts like the MD escapade.

Never a dull moment. Always a pleasure, never a chore at Sirius Cybernetics Airways.

[FE Hoppy]

love it! Things never change :-)

[farefield]

Nobody will even have to post what the actual was because I can guess:

FHAW 140/10 9999 sct 025 25/20 1013 ;)

[FE Hoppy]

With a notam about donkeys :ok:

[Wycombe]

I hope it didn't rain for those pax lucky enough to be accommodated in T* Village - they would have got no sleep at all.

The last a/c I saw having an engine change at ASI was an RAF L1011, and yes it was ZE705! (and yes....it was quite a while ago!)

[Uncle Fred]

he last a/c I saw having an engine change at ASI was an RAF L1011, and yes it was ZE705! (and yes....it was quite a while ago!)

I remember going in mid 1992. Was showing a newer copilot how to land on the sloped runway after doing the NDB. Needless to say it was a very firm landing so the rest of the trip down to Africa was not in the instructor mode :O


The next day before old Sol even was putting in an appearance we were rounding the end of the runaway in a van when the RAF L-1011 was landing. None of us were paying attention to what could possibly be on short final. Scared the lights out of all of us--I could have sworn the outer ply of the tire was scraping the top of the van...Good way the Brits had of scaring the Yanks I guess.

Needless to say I have a bit of respect for the place...

[RobertS975]

Incident: Delta B772 over Atlantic on Jan 9th 2013, engine trouble (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45bee9df&opt=0)

Apparently, one of the world's worst golf courses is on this island... laid out over volcanic rock and rubble. Reportedly, you get a small piece of synthetic turf to put down on the rubble to play your next shot.

[enicalyth]

FE - donkeys!!! at their worst near One Boat pumps
Farefield - yup, who needs a METAR
Wycombe - not called Damian for nothing!
Uncle Fred - that is some upslope! You did an NDB? From ASN?? You're utterly mad but approve your madness.

[The SSK]

If the pax complain about the facilities, just remind them that it's a good job the island was there in the first place.

[Connetts]

Unplanned island break after engine failure | News24 (http://www.news24.com/Travel/Flights/Unplanned-island-break-after-engine-failure-20130111)

[ian16th]

Unplanned island break after engine failure | News24 (http://www.news24.com/Travel/Flights/Unplanned-island-break-after-engine-failure-20130111)

The article doesn't say what day this happened or how long the pax were stuck in their 5* accommodation.

[Spitoon]

Beeld reports that the Delta Airlines Boeing 777's most important engine failed, forcing the flight to make an emergency landing on Ascension Island... I can see why the aircraft landed - I mean, it's not as if if was an unimportant engine! :D

[illusion]

The remaining engine becomes the most important one.......

[The SSK]

Beeld reports that the Delta Airlines Boeing 777's most important engine failed, forcing the flight to make an emergency landing on Ascension Island,
That one should go into the archive.

[enicalyth]

Their stay was one day. If the reportedly rough landing means anything the unexpected upslope was probably a factor. It catches even the wary. By night you can expect a thump and it'd be a first-time for the crew. By day the non-standard lighting looks especially pink! Thump again.

The A330-200 and L-1011-500 do it well; the B747 not so dusty for a large dowager; the B777-200LR is not what I'd prefer but she'll do nicely.

The island exerts a strange magic as you can gather from the response. Once bitten... it is not half so basic as we kid on... it is merely a ruse to keep grackles at bay. Beer of choice is "Castle".

Normal pax load is 185 which is dictated by the "accommodation" on Long Beach in the Chapel of Rest aka the fridge! Up to 25 tourist pax can fly there with 27kg bags in addition to the miltary/contractors. Do not pack more than 18kg for the hold. UK mains. You need 3 weeks to do the walks justice. Sod the golf.

[Speed of Sound]

Beeld reports that the Delta Airlines Boeing 777's most important engine failed,

Which one would that be then? :ugh:

SoS

[The SSK]

I'd be inclined to say that the most important one was the one that carried on working ...

[Connetts]

SLF here -- a retired legal academic with some published research into criminal law aspects of flight safety and, I hope, enough understanding of the issues to ask a question which is not totally lacking in sense and relevance.

It appears to me that at one level of discourse this incident was only barely newsworthy because it was handled appropriately by a skilled crew which was trained for precisely such eventualities. It thus reflects the reason why flying by a scheduled carrier is safe.

However, it occurs to me to ask -- what would the situation have been had Ascension Island been unavailable for a diversion?

Of course, it hardly needs stating that if the other engine (ie, the one which was not the "main engine") had failed, then errrh.... well..... yes..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif!

[Type1106]

Just thinking......
What was the route frm JB to Atlanta? Both are north of the equator - JB not much, Atlanta quite a lot - and the last time I was at ASI (25 years ago admittedly) it was south of the equator, not a lot but a bit.
Now, unless things have changed in the world of navigation, a great circle route - allowing for routing restrictions - would take you well north of the equator all the way...
Oh, I should add that I am aware of ETOPS requirements but I still have trouble seeing how ASI was in contention as an ETOPS en route alternate for this sector.
It obviously happened but I'm interested if anyone with more inside info can fill in the gaps.
Cheers
1106

[SeenItAll]

what would the situation have been had Ascension Island been unavailable for a diversion?

The answer is to have diverted somewhere else. The B777LR is certified up to (I believe, don't know whether Delta's birds have gained this) 330 minute ETOPS. This provides a huge radius for landing. Look at the map in the following link Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=820nm@ASI%0D%0A1230nm@ASI%0D%0A1640nm@ASI%0D%0A2255n m@ASI&MS=wls&DU=mi). Ascension Island is the dot with (@410 knot) 120, 180, 240 and 330 minute circles around it in the middle of the South Atlantic. The worst case scenario would have been a failure right over where ASI is located, but with no airport at that location. As you can see, many other airports are within the diversion range.

[BOAC]

Both are north of the equator - JB not much - you are right there!:confused::confused:

[barry lloyd]

Both are north of the equator - JB not much,

Which JB are you referring to? :confused:The point of departure was Johannesburg, which is definitely well south of the equator. ASI lies almost directly on the great circle route between Johannesburg and Houston.

[RobertS975]

What a pity that the moderators have moved such an interesting thread. I guess if the plane didn't crash, then it is not newsworthy.

The rescue 777 carried mechanics down to Ascension. Apparently, DL has also chartered an Atlas 747 which will depart ATL with a 777 spare engine and whatever equipment needed to make the engine swap down on the island. There is also reportedly some damage from the plane clipping its wing after landing.

Good job by the DL crew... single engine landing at night, VOR/DME approach, no approach lights.

[Uncle Fred]

Connetts

A most worthy question. There is specific language that describes the process, but the first step is to divide the flight into the planning phase and the operational phase. During planning a number of factors govern the decision about which en-route divert fields to use. For a twin like the 777 one would consider the mechanical status of the aircraft and the weather and accessibility of the proposed divert field (Is the runway open? Can the aircraft be safely handled?). Other factors along with these determine whether the flight will be 60, 120, or 180 minutes from a suitable alternate. There is a special 204 minute etops used for North Pacific/Alaska but it is very much a case by case decision). I do not know of any operator of the 777 who has more than a 204 minute etops allowance. I know Lindbergh flew for hours on one motor over the water, I prefer not to...

Great. You launch off and now in operation before you enter the etops area you and the dispatcher make sure that the proposed alternates are still usable. If not, you make another plan.

If you are already in the etops area and one of the alternates becomes unusable, you again make a new plan. This of course raises the question of what to do if another suitable alternate is not available. Different companies have different language for this but the overarching intent of the rules is that the captain and dispatcher are required to determine if the flight can safely be continued on its current routing--a different track might be required.

Long answer I realize but it is something that crews and dispatchers pay particularly keen attention to during the planning and operational phase of the flight. Not only is it legally mandated to do so, but it has to already be in mind when dealing with an emergency.

Had Ascension not been available for the Delta diversion, the crew would have had another field in mind--Liberia etc. St. Helena does not yet have an airport.

Apparently there are statistics out that show that more diverts are caused by problems other than engine difficulties. Perhaps, but having shut an engine down in flight on a 777 I would prefer to review the mathematics from a nice comfortable chair on the ground.

[Connetts]

Thank you, Uncle Fred, for the patient, avuncular and informative reply. I am grateful. ETOPS regulations have long intrigued me.

It seems, if I understand Uncle Fred correctly, that the possible diversions must be the subject of at least two explicit conversations -- the first, before the engines are even started, and the second immediately before entering what Uncle Fred calls the ETOPS area. On both occasions the dispatcher and crew must bend their minds consciously to the status and availability of the designated diversions. Is that right?

SeenItAll (Post #27) writes: "The worst case scenario would have been a failure right over where ASI is located....."

This, and Uncle Fred's comments, put a further thought in my mind. Does it not follow that, as a matter of prudent planning when ETOPS is relevant, one would require a minimum of two suitable designated diversions? I ask this, because it seems to me that if one is obliged to divert then one has in effect a new destination which itself requires a diversion as a matter of normal planning.

With apologies for troubling busy people further, I would like to read comments on a thought that I've long had -- that the decision to build the 777 with two engines was taken by the actuaries and accountants.

The more engines one has the greater the operating costs. It is now more profitable to an operator, over the serviceable life of a modern jet aircraft, to pay higher premiums on a two-engined aircraft than on a three or four engined aircraft with a similar capacity and performance. This is because the modern jet engine is now so reliable and powerful that the risk of a loss due to the failure of one engine has become so low that it is commercially insurable. A loss due to the failure of more than one engine is so improbable that it is simply not even worth worrying about, so two engines will do.

But I wonder... if this is right, then surely the optimum number of engines, with an eye to ETOPS issues, is thus three?

There is some judicial recognition for the reliability of jet engines. I've lost my notes over the years, but I think I have this case right.......In the prosecution arising out of the incident involving Cessna 560 V-WCIN dealt with by the UK's AAIB (easily found), the pilot was charged with endangering etc etc etc. This, of course, does not appear in the report.

When taking off from Gibraltar one of the two jet engines was damaged but when the commander found that it would deliver reduced power he flew it to his destination (I think it was Bournemouth) for repair. There was defence evidence showing the astronomical number of hours over which identical engines had run faultlessly, and it was claimed that it was thus not an unreasonable risk to continue the flight relying on the remaining sound engine. The defence succeeded.

Still and all, we have the makings of a great disaster movie..... Our hero pilots set off in their 777 from JNB having done all the right planning, and in mid-Atlantic sustain engine failure. They divert to Ascension (making coolly frantic MAYDAY calls), dumping fuel to enable them to execute the difficult landing safely -- note what RobertS975 said (the posting immediately before Uncle Fred's): "......single engine landing at night, VOR/DME approach, no approach lights". But...... ! As they near Ascension someone makes a nasty mess on the runway they are about to use and the runway is closed.......... "Shirley, we have a problem...!"

Oh, I can see it all........

[Uncle Fred]

Connetts

On the run at the moment so I will have to tuck into a couple of the your questions in the next few days. You did however, bring out a good point. Even with all the good planning and situational awareness of divert fields, if an ETOPS divert is made and at the last moment the chosen field comes to grief, then it will get very interesting...and that means problematic.

Say for instance that all was well with the Delta flight until such time that they had to shut down one of the engines. For discussion purposes (this real divert might have been very different) say they flew for two hours to Ascension, dumped fuel, and then prepared to land. Whist circling around, say our good friends from the RAF land and have a serious malfunction that closes the runway. Well, it would be too late for the Delta flight to pursue a course to another airport and thus the problematic nature of the planning.

Granted I doubt the tower would have allowed any movement whilst Delta was inbound with an emergency, but I use this only to show the thought that at some point during the divert other options will be closed for good.

ETOPS flights do, and should, require attention to detail as you never know when you are going to need a safe harbor.

The other point that you mentioned is a bit trickier and deserves some good input from those who fly under a lot of different governing authorities.
That point of course is what to do when you have to shut down an engine on a two engine transport. For U.S. air carriers we have to land at the nearest suitable airport in time. Now there is a lot of meat in the word "suitable" that is open to pilot and dispatcher discussion, but the idea is that one must land the airplane as soon as it is safe and reasonable to do so. If one overflies suitable airports there is going to be a tea and biscuit time in the office. This applies to ETOPS flights as well.

3 and 4 engine aircraft have different rules as do flights that are not "airline" (Part 121 in the U.S. for example) operations.

Yes, the ETOPS discussion is an interesting one and often teases out some very subtle points to consider.

[Connetts]

Thank you again, Uncle Fred, for the instructive comments and the courtesy they came with.

On reflection, I think that I have probably been throwing dust in my own eyes by raising the hypothetical "worst case". I think that I displayed enough ignorance to mislead myself and to demonstrate that I have confused myself and misunderstood what little I do know.

The short point is that there are now so many two-engined aircraft flying under ETOPS rules (and the number is increasing), and they have been doing so for so many years, that the incident is scarcely merits the adjective "hypothetical" -- it would already have happened, and it would be common knowledge in your profession. Over time, the longer it hasn't happened has made it less likely that it might; what was planned to be unlikely eventually became wholly improbable, and is now for all practical purposes impossible.

Moreover, there is an absurdity: planning a diversion for a planned diversion leads logically to a regression ad infinitum which can be avoided only by deciding to stay on the ground: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have decided any flight such as the one we originally proposed to undertake is too dangerous. This aircraft is in perfect condition but will be dismantled and sent as deck cargo to Atlanta, and at your choice you will be issued with tickets either for the same voyage or for an exciting overland safari....."

Seriously, however, does anyone watching this topic know of a case where a flight was delayed, or re-routed before entering the ETOPS area, because a planned diversion had become unavailable? The mind boggles at how one would explain this over the PA!

[BOAC]

Moreover, there is an absurdity: planning a diversion for a planned diversion leads logically to a regression ad infinitum - reminds me of the Irishman in the 707 when the Captain says they have 'lost an engine and the flight to New York will now be 40 minutes longer'. Shortly thereafter they lose another engine with another 40 minute extension. "BeJeezus", says Paddy - "I hope the other two don't fail or we'll be up here all day".:)

[SeenItAll]

say they flew for two hours to Ascension, dumped fuel, and then prepared to land. Whist circling around, say our good friends from the RAF land and have a serious malfunction that closes the runway. Well, it would be too late for the Delta flight to pursue a course to another airport and thus the problematic nature of the planning.

Uncle Fred: This statement intrigued me. I assume you are assuming that because so much fuel was dumped, heading for an alternate would have become impossible. Is this reasonable? Under what conditions would a pilot choose to dump so much fuel that reaching an alternate would be impossible? Indeed, this scenario seems to raise the question of whether it is safer for a two-holer with one out ever to choose a dodgy land-ASAP location rather than continuing on on one engine to a far more assured airport.

[wiggy]

Is this reasonable? Under what conditions would a pilot choose to dump so much fuel that reaching an alternate would be impossible? Indeed, this scenario seems to raise the question of whether it is safer for a two-holer with one out ever to choose a dodgy land-ASAP location rather than continuing on on one engine to a far more assured airport.

:uhoh: Well presumably the choice was either dump to get below max landing weight or accept the possible consequences of making a landing above Maximum Landing weight.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the two holer comment, seems to me you could get the same problem on a three/four holer if you were dealing with a diversion to a remote/isolated alternate.

[Uncle Fred]

Good catch Wiggy. I did not mean to give the impression that the crew just shows up over the station and dumps fuel willy nilly. You aptly brought out the good point that this would be done only if the crew wished to bring the aircraft down to max landing weight. Even that assumes that the aircraft was still over MLW upon arrival at the ETOPS divert staion.

Wiggy also brings out the point that this would be a choice--some emergencies would not allow the luxury of dumping down to MLW. A post flight overweight landing might at that time be the very least of anyone's worries and so a beeline would be made for the approach and landing. Aircraft land just fine overweight.

What I was trying to bring out is the fine balance of communication between crew and dispatcher and the captain's judgement. Taking a course to one diversion field will, of course, close to the door to others.

I also agree with Wiggy that one should not get too drawn into this being solely a "two engine" issue. Diverts have occurred on all types of transports and it is the mindset that goes into this planning and, if need be, executing that is important. A 747-400 with a cargo fire that one suspects did not go out for example would require this type of planning/diversion.

I cannot speak for all ETOPS routes around the world, but yes, for flights over Alaska to Asia from the United States there are sometimes reroutes if one of the ETOPS alternates is not usable. We also see this on the Polar Routes (over the top of the world) but that is usually known ahead of time and allowance and planning is made before the flight even leaves the ground. In other words if Polar 1,2, and 3 are not looking good, it might just be a flight over Alaska and onward--adding a lot of time to the flight.

The North Atlantic planning can be stretched around before one enters the ETOPS area--particularly if one has the has the luxury of using 180 minute ETOPS so that something like Shannon and Goose Bay are all that is needed--with Kef being left out.

Also, for those who do not know--ETOPS is more that 60 minutes from a suitable so just because one is "feet wet" over the water does not mean that one is yet under ETOPS rules. I know the pilots all know this but it is a common misconception for our guests and interested parties. In fact, over the real far North Atlantic the actual time in ETOPS can be relatively short.

[Uncle Fred]

SeenItAll

Under a very good many (not all by any means) ETOPS diversons if one makes the choice of going to that field, then there are no other options. I will have to do the old string over the map to come up with an accurate example for you but parts of the Pacific see this.

If one loses an engine, has to descend to the single engine optimum or max range altitude (depending on how your company plans this out) and you fly for a three hours to the divert field, it very well might be the only option at that time. Just look at a place like Wake Island.

That is why so much planning is put into this--to ensure the best possible outcome.

[Connetts]

I am watching this discussion with avid interest, and I'm grateful for the "company" of Uncle Fred, Wiggy, and SeenItAll..

It is now clear to me that my musings in #34 are -- not to put too fine a point on it! -- rubbish and reflect the depths of my naivete.

Something, however, that remains unclear to me is what the advantages are of a two-engined transport aircraft over one with three engines (or four, I suppose) of similar performance, when it comes to marketing an aircraft suitable for long oceanic or polar routes over barren terrain.

In the 1990s I was most courteously welcomed into the jump-seat on the flight deck of a British Airways 747 between Beijing and LHR. I had recently started my academic research into the criminal law aspects of safety and seized every opportunity to interview pilots. The 777 was either not yet or just recently in service -- I can't recall now.

I explained to the captain what I was doing and had already published. He was a large, tough-looking, good-natured bloke with hands the size of dinner-plates and as interested in my work as I was in his.

I asked him how he felt about crossing the Atlantic in a two-engined aircraft. His reaction is imprinted clearly on my memory still, for it was abrupt and forceful.

He lost his good humour in a flash, twisted himself around in his seat, jabbed at me with a finger the size of a substantial piece of good boerewors, and snarled, "When they invent a five-engined airplane I want an immediate transfer!"

Would he have been typical of the time, and would he still be?

[BOAC]

Connets - its economics. That is why R Branson "4 engines for long-haul" is now operating 2-engined a/c on those routes.

[SeenItAll]

Thanks to all those that replied. I always learn something new.

I think this thread makes evident that while we may think that decision rules for ETOPS/"land at the nearest suitable airport" are clear, they are far from it. What is "suitable" can be open to debate based on runways, weather, fuel, MLW and distance to the next-best "suitable" airport. This seems so complicated that it is unlikely that a comprehensive a priori decision tree can be established. In the end, the decision must rely on the circumstances of the particular incident, and the decisionmaking prowess of the flight crew and dispatchers. That's why you guys should get paid as much (or more :)) than you do.

Note: I only referred to ETOPS/two-holer decisionmaking because at least it does start from some baseline rule of general applicability (land at the nearest suitable airport). As we all know from BA B747 ex-LAX, permitted decisionmaking for 3's and 4's is even more untethered from predefined rules.

[Uncle Fred]

Indeed the rules are different for two engine aircraft as opposed to 3 or 4. With the loss of an engine in a twin there is an immediacy to landing that is reflected in the rule of landing at the nearest suitable. It is what constitutes suitable at that time that is the matter of some consideration and thinking. One has to be VERY careful in overflying a suitable airport in that situation if one is down to a single motor. Doing so would involve a lot of explaining at the tea and biscuit time that would be sure to follow such a decision.

As far as the discussion of the evolution toward large long-range twins economics do play a significant role. Three and four engine aircraft of course do not need to comply with the absolute rigor of twin operations and thus are afforded some savings for the planning, not to mention, the expense of an actual divert. We only need to look at the cost that Delta surely must have incurred during the Ascension divert. If they had to hire out a 747F to bring in a new engine that alone would have been expensive to state the obvious. Add to that the cost of the discomfited passengers, the aircraft launched to come and get them, and that two airframes are not (at least for a couple of days) in the normal rotation of generating revenue and the one side of the balance sheet takes a bit of a hit.

I always like to remark that long-range twins share a lot in common with quantum physics. Both are predicated on probabilities and translated from the indeterminate through the language of statistics! There is a trade-off that each carrier must make for the planned routes.

I actually enjoy the finer point inherent in that trade-off. When I tour an air museum with guests I always remark, whether it be a Beech Staggerwing or the Concorde, that an aircraft is a compromise. Perhaps a wonderful and ingenious compromise, but a compromise nonetheless. The same applies for the trade-off of the twins to four motors--there is some compromise being made.

As far as being far over the Laptev Sea on a twin in the middle of winter, well...the airplane does not know (so to speak) whether it is over land or water but I sure do!

Speaking of statistics, I am still trying to grasp Boeing's position that more diverts are made for reasons other than engine failures. I can understand that, but having chatted with one of the gents who was on the 3 hour Mid-Pacific Odyssey on one engine, the statistics take on a different meaning at that time. It is often difficult for humans to overcome the counter-intuitive. In other words, sure more diverts are made for sick passengers or hydraulic failure, but the question is what happens on those few, and perhaps not so happy times, when an engine does fail? Do I really wish to be 204 minutes (or more if Boeing and the other manufacturers -prevail in this discussion) from an aerodrome? There does need to be some comfort level after all...

[enicalyth]

Can you confirm "No approach lights"?

The lights are tech mains from the Cat Hill power station'.

Or do you mean "non-standard".

[Uncle Fred]

As we know, the actual divert to the field is only 75% of the task. What to do is just as critical in some cases and good communication is prt and parcel of the event. Sometimes more work once one lands...anxious to see the preliminary on this one,

[enicalyth]

"Wideawake Airfield was the scene in the early hours of Thursday 10 January of an emergency landing by a Delta Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft that had lost all the power to one of its two engines.

The aircraft, which was en route from Johannesburg to Atlanta declared an emergency and safely landed at 0100 hours. There were no injuries amongst the 291 passengers and crew on board.

The UK and US Bases, with Ascension Police, worked closely together to provide accommodation and meals to all 291. Delta Airlines sent a relief aircraft to pick up and take all of the passengers onto Atlanta, departing at 1900 the same day.

By coincidence, the RAF Airbridge to the Falkland Island clipped the wings of the Delta Airlines flight at 0800 resulting in a delayed departure for those going southwards while the plane was checked and found to be fit for service.

Delta Airlines sent a 747 aircraft in on Saturday 12 January with a replacement engine for their stranded aircraft to enable it to finally complete its journey to Atlanta.

Ascension Island and its military bases worked well to provide emergency assistance to the aircraft and its many passengers. Emergency requests like the one handled on 10 January are thankfully very rare indeed."

[Uncle Fred]

A couple of points from the article. Did not Delta have to contract out to Atlas to carry in the new engine? A Delta 747 was mentioned but they need a freighter for an engine carry. I know this is a small point and I certainly do not mean to sound pedantic, rather I just like to know how the various carriers put together their recovery plans.

The second talked about a clipping of the wing tips. On which Delta aircraft? The one that had diverted in or the one that came in to pick up the passengers? It would seem to be the former according to the time-stamp given.

Either way, one can readily see the orchestration involved in one of these diverts. To say that there is a lot involved is a definite understatement.

Now picture one of these diverts into one of the really cold fields that are used for Polar and Northern Pacific flying. Ascension has good weather, good communications, and the passengers are in safe conditions. Drop a distressed/ single engine aircraft into a place like Svalbard, Thule, or Barrow in the middle of winter and the complexity is astounding. Challenging to say the least as the cold alone is nothing short of dangerous.

[enicalyth]

It was the incoming A330 referred to as the 0800 flight [ASI keeps Zulu time] which struck the parked B777. Hence the banter between FE and myself regarding the dings and references to Damian.

If you look at http://www.the-islander.org.ac/art_10511_16_0.html you will see the "stones" celebrating 1AMW in the foreground - that is Round Hill SH 449ft with the tower visible; South Gannet Hill is further on with VORTAC ASI.

I can think of better places to park than than where DAL left it! Shurely shome mishtake. And of course in come Hi Fly and it's time for tea and biscuits. Ah well, at least it was not an oggie who did it.

You made a good point back there a bit. When crossing N23 00.0 it is customary to call Ops c/s Haven. If you pass Dakar and Conakry without assurance that the runway is clear........ not pretty.

I won't get into this and that, its not the time and place but I have views on what constitutes "suitable". I will say I'd prefer to be a wee bit closer to Accra should it have happened to me.

Lovely place. I can hear the breakers thumping on Long Beach even now.

[airliner747]

I have played there --