United Airlines flight UA929 London to Chicago makes emergency landing

[AmericanFlyer]

https://www.rt.com/news/350752-ua929-plane-emergency-turn/

[PersonFromPorlock]

BBC says a fuel leak.

Plane makes emergency landing in Edinburgh after fuel leak - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36773635)

[Jet Jockey A4]

My first question is...

Did they ask for the fire equipment to be standing by the runway for their landing? :-)

[Null Orifice]

Nice picture of a (ahem!) B763 in AF's link!

Dream on, journo!

[crablab]

Did they ask for the fire equipment to be standing by the runway for their landing?

I wouldn't have thought so; apparently the new SOP is to sit tight and watch the bonfire out the window :E

[ImbracableCrunk]

There's something ironic about having to dump fuel because of a fuel leak.

(Yes, balance, overweight, blah blah.)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Did they ask for the fire equipment to be standing by the runway for their landing?
Jet Jockey A4 is online now Report Post >>

They wouldn't have to. ATC would have made that decision.

[LEGAL TENDER]

They wouldn't have to. ATC would have made that decision.

...which isn't a decision. It's standard procedure / response to a PAN or MAYDAY

[Capn Bloggs]

apparently the new SOP is to sit tight and watch the bonfire out the window
SOPs are about to be rewritten to accommodate plastic wings! :}

[KelvinD]

It was not a good day for trans-Atlantic flights from Heathrow yesterday. AA105 departed for JFK at around 16:55L, got as far as Swindon, squawked 7700 and returned to LHR where it remains this morning. It has been rescheduled for departure today at 19:30.

[MATELO]

United Airlines flight UA929 London to Chicago makes emergency landing

Looks like she is returning back to EDI again squawking 7700.

[nie2000]

UAL2081 returning to EDI squawk 7700
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36785899

[Porrohman]

UAL2081 returning to EDI squawk 7700
Plane makes second emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36785899)
UA2081 appeared to climb normally until it was in the vicinity of Glasgow but then stopped the climb at FL220. It then continued straight ahead and descended to FL180, taking up a holding pattern south of Tiree, After a number of orbits it began heading back towards EDI at which point it began squawking 7700. It didn't circle Edinburgh for ten minutes as reported in the BBC. It returned over Fife for an immediate approach and landing on runway 24.

[phiggsbroadband]

Looks like the Gaffer-Tape fell off.

[philbky]

There were a number of points about the original diversion which are interesting. The diversion commenced near Lochgilphead northwest of Glasgow close to the ocean. United have flights and support at Glasgow yet the diversion was to Edinburgh where there they have a similar set up.

The flight then proceeded to orbit at between 12000 ft and 9000 ft for a substantial time over southern Fife, Edinburgh and the Lothians before approaching Edinburgh after one eastbound leg extended over the North Sea.

Two questions arise With plenty of over water airspace seemingly available for dumping available close to Lochgilphread and Glasgow, why go to Edinburgh? When Edinburgh was chosen why was the dumping not carried out over the North Sea given the CAA's latest guidelines dated April 2015? viz:

Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 Civil Aviation Authority, Section 5 Chapter 1 page 12.
(1) the route to be flown which, if possible, should be clear of cities and towns,
preferably over water and away from areas where thunderstorms have been
reported or are expected;

As there were no restrictions over water to the west or east as far as could be seen and Edinburgh arrivals and departures had to be sequenced between orbits, what was going on?

[DaveReidUK]

When Edinburgh was chosen why was the dumping not carried out over the North Sea given the CAA's latest guidelines dated April 2015?

Notwithstanding the BBC report, has it been confirmed that they did actually dump fuel, rather than burning it off to get down to a suitable LW? Not all 767s have a fuel dump capability - early ones certainly didn't , and this was a 25-year-old airframe.

[philbky]

Good point Dave. Without seeing the wings, we probably won't know but the number of orbits and time taken points to burn off rather than dumping.