VS25 diversion to Gander, passengers overnight in terminal

[Super VC-10]

BBC reporting VS25 diverted to Gander, Newfoundland. No hotel accommodation available for 250 passengers.

BBC News - Virgin passengers left stranded overnight in Canada (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23747391)

[DaveReidUK]

Also reported on PPRuNe:

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/521705-virgin-diversion-gander.html

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

Reports saying "in flight engine failure".

[Eclectic]

Diverted aircraft was A330-300 G-VRAY
Rescue aircraft is A340-600 G-VYOU

G-VRAY also operated VS25 on 11AUG, and turned back to LHR after experiencing engine issues.

[TOWTEAMBASE]

I'm sure they much rather a night on terminal floor than something much worse mid Atlantic !!

[Sean Dell]

Maybe VS should emblazon the sides of their 330's with

"Two few engines for long haul"

:ouch:

[DaveReidUK]

"Two few engines for long haul"So an engine failure on a 747 wouldn't have resulted in a diversion, then ? :ugh:

[A Squared]

So an engine failure on a 747 wouldn't have resulted in a diversion, then ?

Not necessarily. With 4 engines you're legal to continue to destination.

A extreme example of that was an British Airways 747 that shelled an engine taking off at LAX and continued on toward Heathrow. Now they had to divert into Manchester due low fuel, so it might be wise to give your OEI performance charts some extra scrutiny before launching across a big cold ocean. But the point stands that it's not a mandatory divert to the nearest suitable airport as it is in a twin. You might at least be able to stagger on to a place with hotels.

[WHBM]

If the engine failure happened over the ocean, wonder why they didn't divert into St Johns, on the Atlantic coast and a significant city, rather than Gander, in the middle of nowhere (or middle of Newfoundland, which is pretty much the same thing).

If they were past St Johns then they had already made landfall and so all this stuff about ETOPS and mid-Atlantic is irrelevant.

[DaveReidUK]

A extreme example of that was an British Airways 747 that shelled an engine taking off at LAX and continued on toward Heathrow.Yes, and we all know the repercussions of that event.

My point was specifically in relation to the flight in question, not a general observation on 2 vs 4.

It's inconceivable that VS would have carried on another 1000+ miles to their scheduled destination, overflying a dozen potential diversion airfields in the process, whether legal or not.

[rog747]

interesting etops scenario comments

a/c dep LHR 2030L and landed Gander 2238L (0200 UK L)

so she was flying less than 5 hrs or so and on way to the icy north...a rather lonely place on one engine

Virgin Atlantic (VS) #25 ? 17-Aug-2013 ? EGLL / LHR - CYQX Flight Tracker ? FlightAware (http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/VIR25/history/20130817/1905Z/EGLL/CYQX)

then diverted south immediately by the looks of the track and Gander looks the closest?
the divert distance looks close to 500m give or take.. (same as LHR-GLA)

Halifax is much further as is Bangor
FlightAware ? Flight Tracking Map ? Virgin Atlantic #25 (http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight_track_bigmap.rvt?ident=VIR25-1376545270-airline-0022:0&airports=EGLL+CYQX&height=528&width=400&departuretime=1376767800&arrivaltime=1376788096)

does VAA have ETOPS 180 mins for their A333?
does that mean in event of an engine failure you still should land at nearest airfield rather then carry on for the full 180 mins should you think it is ok to do so?
thanks

[slowjet]

Rog, engine failure on a twin means land at the nearest suitable alternate. There is no option to "squeeze" a few more miles within the Etops time limit."nearest" means, er, nearest. Clever chaps love to start a debate on the definition of "suitable". Gander looks fine to me. Looks like VS did a good job.Nobody hurt or wet, hardware in tact . Good job fellas.

[rog747]

hi slowjet, many thanks indeed,

thank you for answering my question very clearly which is what from my rather rusty old ETOPS (20 years ago almost) experience meant to me also...
ie land at nearest....

cheers for that, and yes looks like he went straight for the nearest being Gander,

a shame that Hotac was non-existent for the pax, but there's not much there,

[LiveryMan]

Maybe VS should emblazon the sides of their 330's with

"Two few engines for long haul"

Such thinking went out with the dinosaurs. :ugh:

Not necessarily. With 4 engines you're legal to continue to destination.

Legal perhaps, but with exception of the BA flight (which was decided upon due a misunderstanding of the then new money for delays rule), an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same. It is only prudent.

[WHBM]

Rog, engine failure on a twin means land at the nearest suitable alternate. There is no option to "squeeze" a few more miles within the Etops time limit."nearest" means, er, nearest. Clever chaps love to start a debate on the definition of "suitable". Gander looks fine to me. Looks like VS did a good job.Nobody hurt or wet, hardware in tact . Good job fellas.
Based on the track shown, then, Goose Bay looks to have been significantly closer.

[Hotel Tango]

Good old PPRuNe and all those armchair FS pilots who know better than the Captain who was actually involved and, no doubt speaking with company too, made his decision. Most of you clowns appear not to have the faintest idea of what is involved. Jeez :ugh:

[prozak]

Legal perhaps, but with exception of the BA flight an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same. It is only prudent.

Just SLF here, but about two years ago I was on a BA 747 (CPT-LHR) that had an engine failure (so we were told) just north of Windhoek. Flew on to London anyway, which surprised and purely from a practical point of view delighted me. Welcomed by Fire Trucks next morning.

[Locked door]

LiveryMan

You talk total tosh, both on the reason for BA continuing and that an engine failure on a four engine aircraft means a diversion.

I can only speak for the 747, not other quads, but as long as you can satisfy the flight continuation policy (suitable alternates en route, high terrain, 2nd engine failure at critical point, know cause of failureand whether the engine is damaged and health of other engines etc) it is permitted and positively encouraged to continue.

FWIW the BA LAX crew ended up in Manchester but could have gone to heathrow, and the FAA had to formally apologise to BA for their handling of that incident.

LD

[wiggy]

Locked Door

:ok:

LiveryMan

an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same.

Not according to the rule set many of us operate under.

[Bearcat]

Are Rollers the power plants?

[rog747]

yes Trent 700 and i understand same a/c turned back to LHR a week before,
reason?

and i forgot about Goose Bay too in my OP...

[Ancient Observer]

locked door,

Are you sure that there was a formal FAA apology for the BA 747 incident?
I know the nice FAA Safety/liaison folk based (then) at Sipson and London were very apologetic, but I thought that the FAA refused to formally apologise?

It is a continuing problem with the FAA's dual mandate.......some of the more politically motivated non-safety folk at the FAA see the need to promote USA based airlines as a reason to be rude and wrong about other airlines.

[slowjet]

BEARCAT: Yes. Although some aircraft are controlled by Pratts (Prat & whitney for those with no sense of humour.) I recall news of a well know operator managing to shut down both engines over New York while performing a simple Xfeed operation. I asked if they were Rollers. Boeing Guy I was being tested by said; " NO, I believe on that aircraft, they were a couple of pratts!". WHBM: Here comes the "suitable " bit I was hoping to avoid. Goose on four engines is unattractive. On one engine, I would argue that Gander was more suitable. DAVID REID, you wonder if engine failure on a 747 does not mean a diversion (?). No it doesn't. Others answered the point. You state that your question was specific to the incident; an Airbus A330. Why mention B747 then? I only flew the big twins and , across the Atlantic, regularly, quietly, reviewing drift down profiles, range on one, should I attempt a re-start, what was the actual Wx doing it ERA alternates etc, etc, I longed for 4 engines. One out of four failing what hardly concern me.I pondered whether or not I would even bother telling the pax that we were going to be a bit late at destination. ROD, thanks, I thought we wrote the book on big twins flying the Atlantic (?). It was called EROPS then. I suffered a two day groundschool, a few sim scenarios and then at least two actual crossings. Big brain ache & I asked my Fleet Captain if I could just do the Banjules' ! Nah, wound up doing 78 NA crossings, almost without a break ! Safe flying chaps. Well done VS.

[rog747]

slowjet were you on BY Britannia 767-200's?

then again in our day it was also air2000, monarch and air europe 757's all
starting erops/etops across the NA which commenced summer 1988


UK leisure came later in 1993 with 767-300 by which time everyone else joined in

[DaveReidUK]

You state that your question was specific to the incident; an Airbus A330. Why mention B747 then?Simply playing Devil's Advocate in response to the original post

"Two few engines for long haul"by questioning the implication that the outcome (i.e. a diversion) in this instance would necessarily have been different had the flight been a VS B744 (or an A346, come to that).

It might have been, it might not have been, since it's a hypothetical scenario neither I not the OP knows for sure. :O

[voyageur9]

A question:
Assuming the crew decided Goose Bay was was not the nearest 'suitable' airport for diversion after losing an engine, why couldn't they also have decided, perhaps sequentially, that Gander, then Halifax, then Bangor, were also 'unsuitable" and got to JFK.
Or was Goose Bay really not an option?

[WHBM]

How can Goose not have been an option given their position ?

Two 10,000 foot runways at right angles. Established transatlantic diversion point. Benign midsummer weather on the day in question. Flat terrain. Full set of lighting for night ops. And looking at their track they appear to have been routing overhead it. Obviously, given what subsequently happened at Gander, ground facilities (for it is equally remote) for pax were not taken into account.

Not a criticism; I'd like to know.

[JW411]

WHBM:

Can you give us a run-down on the hotel situation at Goose?

[BOAC]

How can Goose not have been an option given their position - we need to think about descent track miles too - this topic has often been aired with no real conclusion. Don't forget also that Gander may well have been an ETOPS alternate, ready plates, etc.

[FIRESYSOK]

Assuming the crew decided Goose Bay was was not the nearest 'suitable' airport for diversion after losing an engine, why couldn't they also have decided, perhaps sequentially, that Gander, then Halifax, then Bangor, were also 'unsuitable" and got to JFK.
Or was Goose Bay really not an option?

Continuing in that vein, why not overfly JFK and go on to Miami? Better beaches, nightlife, palm trees, etc...

'suitable' means many things, but the crew take the information they have and proceed with the best alternative. What those things are, are really not up for discussion at this point considering everyone is safe albeit a little bleary eyed.

In the US, 'nearest suitable' means closest suitable "in point of time".
Being overhead an airfield does not mean (unless a fire or other very urgent condition warrants) it is the nearest suitable. Track miles, wind, familiarity, etc., etc...

Furthermore, just because despatch wants the airplane in Atlanta, does not mean you overfly Raleigh for another hour and then land.

[rog747]

the long and short of it, does losing one engine on a twin on etops means
''land soon as''

yes/no?

in this case if that was the situation, Gander was 'as soon as' with St John's
also a nearby alternate

Goose has no alternate close by although it may have been closer on their track but they still had to descend as BOAC says...

[WIDN62]

Very little HOTAC at Goose Bay, plenty in Gander but occasionally fills up with various conventions, etc.
St John's has lots of HOTAC and good airfield facilities, but not the best of places from a weather point of view - frequent low cloud and also wind shear warnings on the approach plates if the wind is reasonably strong.
Having operated to the area for many years and without knowing all the details of the weather, I would suggest a diversion to Gander would be very logical and they were just unlucky with the HOTAC (or lack of!).

[West Coast]

Locked door

Do you have a reference to said apology?

Tango
Spot on.

[rog747]

thinking back to Court Line Tristar RTO at Ibiza then blew 5 or 7 more tyres during the stop...

you try and find rooms for 400 pax in the middle of the night in high season and then try and get 3 one-elevens down there to rescue them plus another with the bits on to repair her...what fun

[A Squared]

an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same. It is only prudent.

Nope, not a given. I've been operating 4 engine airplanes since 2000. At a previous employer I was flying DC-6's and had the opportunity to expereince the engine failure thingy on more then a few occasions. It depends on load, fuel, terrain, and weather. On some occaions I did indeed divert. On many other occasions I continued on to destination, overflying airports which were very much "suitable" diversion options. Airports, I would have been required by regulation to divert to, (and would have done happily) had I been in a two engine airplane on one engine.

All perfectly legal. It is very clearly and explicitly allowed by US Part 121 regulations.

[A Squared]

It is a continuing problem with the FAA's dual mandate.......

AO, apparently you missed the fact that the "dual mandate" was removed from the FAA's charter a while ago. In fact it was quite a while ago. It wasn't last decade that it was removed but the middle of the decade prior to that.

But by all means; contuinue pontificating on things that ceased to exist sometime in the previous Millenium.

[Speed of Sound]

why couldn't they also have decided, perhaps sequentially, that Gander, then Halifax, then Bangor, were also 'unsuitable" and got to JFK.

What's wrong with Boston? :*

[SeenItAll]

I hate to break up this never-ending ETOPS vs. 4-holer dispute, but the reason for this diversion is being reported as the result of a fuel leak, not an engine failure. Thus if true, any bird (no matter how many wings) had better get it on the ground with reasonable swiftness.

Stranded Virgin Atlantic Passengers Sleep 'All Over the Floor' at Airport | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo! (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/stranded-virgin-atlantic-passengers-sleep-over-floor-airport-121433323.html?vp=1)

[spannersatcx]

But engine had to be shut down because of the fuel leak, did it not?

[Basil]

Well done, VS! Got it on the ground. All the rest is just talk.
Re 4 - if the rules say it is OK to continue on 3 then, subject to the commander's decision it's OK to continue. What's so difficult about that?

[LiveryMan]

Nope, not a given. I've been operating 4 engine airplanes since 2000. At a previous employer I was flying DC-6's and had the opportunity to expereince the engine failure thingy on more then a few occasions. It depends on load, fuel, terrain, and weather. On some occaions I did indeed divert. On many other occasions I continued on to destination, overflying airports which were very much "suitable" diversion options. Airports, I would have been required by regulation to divert to, (and would have done happily) had I been in a two engine airplane on one engine.

All perfectly legal. It is very clearly and explicitly allowed by US Part 121 regulations.

OK, I admit.. I should have said "could" not "will".

[westcoastflyer]

I see no problem crossing a big ocean or mountain range on 2 engines,provided they are under each wing

[visualwith737]

PAX should be more than happy that they still have the ability to moan about the lack of hotels, and I bet the terminal was much warmer and drier than bobbing (at best) in the ocean! ... any landing to can talk about was a good one! ... 'Damn those pilots for getting us down safely!'

[Flightmech]

I'm sure with the use of SATCOM or ACARS the decision was made jointly to go to Gander. On the ground safe, noboby hurt. Should be left at that.

[Ancient Mariner]

visualwith737, with your attitude towards paying passengers I sure as hell hope your not flying for one of my preffered airlines. I will leave it at that.

[FLCH]

Well done, VS! Got it on the ground. All the rest is just talk.
Re 4 - if the rules say it is OK to continue on 3 then, subject to the commander's decision it's OK to continue. What's so difficult about that?


Exactly, who cares about the choices being made, it was done with the available info at the time and was based on the safest outcome in the Captains mind, the speculation seems like a pointless exercise.

[visualwith737]

Ancient Mariner - Stick to the sea mate the air isn't for you, nor is my point!

[Super VC-10]

Incident: Virgin Atlantic A333 near Gander on Aug 17th 2013, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=4671d2e0&opt=0)

[Gumpied]

Was stuck in Gander with a Court Line L1011, G-BAAB the Pink One, on January 25th 1974 for 4 days with 400 Jamaicans who had been home for Christmas. Very little HOTAC as I recall but fun days!!

[slowjet]

Exactly. Break out de J'maican rum mun & party on ! Rog 747-Post 243-yeah, with one of them but trying to preserve my anonymity ! But your post 31 requires clarification. Yes, by implication, you would want to land as soon as poss. Few of us would land at an "unsuitable " aerodrome though, just because it was "closer". Here goes the discussion I was trying to avoid. Look, I lost an engine overhead Larnaca. The nearest "suitable" airfield was right under my ass. I took up the hold, completed drills & landed at the nearest suitable airfield, er, Larnaca. In the hold, completing drills, thinking about a re-start, Company contacted but requested I go to Damascus where my company engineers were waiting, a replacement engine was in the hangar &, by the way, a tail wind existed meaning that I was likely to be on the ground, Damascus, sooner than drifting down in the hold & landing at Larnaca. I told them to stuff off. Too many "iff's" coming along & as the Commander, I made the Command decision (the only one, frankly, ) & in accordance with all regs. Commercial decisions do not enter into, what is, after all, as clarified earlier, a "MAYDAY" situation ! Can you immagine if the tailwind to Damascus diasappeared ? Oh, and on the way to Damascus, the other engine quit ??????,

Guys look at the other thread re Delta into Dublin. GREAT JOB. What is the problem ? Engine quits, if on two, a mayday, but, ease off , let us just request emergency services on SBY alert, declare the problem but as we are descending into the destination airfiel, er, easy (?). I think so.

Let me close with this. B737, LGW to CDG. Engine quits almost overhead CDG. Capt returns to LGW !!!!!! CP at the time (didn't last much longer) applauded the decision & sent a memo to all pilots asking them to review their thinking of "suitable". LGW was considered to be "more" suitable than a full blown , international airfield under that twerps ass ! Oh, they were ex RAF squadron buddies !

[xray one]

So...pilots deal with emergency, get the aircraft safely on the ground. Job done. No HOTAC? This is the last thing we as pilots should be thinking about.

A nothing story...move on.