PDA

View Full Version : 777 emirates diversion


widgeon
15th Feb 2022, 19:08
https://simpleflying.com/emirates-777-300er-winnipeg/

Curious it would choose winnipeg , sure there were other closer better served airports.

India Four Two
15th Feb 2022, 19:15
Looking at the track, Winnipeg would have been the closest suitable airport.

Churchill would have been a choice if it was a “land immediately” situation, but very few technical facilities or hotels to handle that many passengers.

White Knight
15th Feb 2022, 22:09
Widgeon, you obviously havenít flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless itís a dire emergency I think most of us would pass Thule, Sonderstrom, Yellowknife, Fort McMurray for the delights of Winnipeg or Edmonton!
I think they did a good job!

India Four Two
16th Feb 2022, 03:14
I agree with White Knights. I’ve paxed many times from Western Canada to the UK and back. About half the trip is over Canada and most of it is desolate country until you get to within an hour of your destination.

I’ve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldn’t want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.

Edmonton and Winnipeg are the only appropriate choices, although if a bit earlier in the trip, Keflavik would be an option.

tdracer
16th Feb 2022, 04:01
Iíve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldnít want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.

Just to be clear, Iqaluit as an airport is perfectly capable of handling a big jet - both the A380 and the 747-8 did extreme cold weather testing there. However, the passengers would be another issue - we took about 50 people to Iqaluit to support the 747-8 testing, and I think we took a large percentage of the available hotel rooms...

wiggy
16th Feb 2022, 06:42
Just to be clear, Iqaluit as an airport is perfectly capable of handling a big jet - both the A380 and the 747-8 did extreme cold weather testing there. However, the passengers would be another issue - we took about 50 people to Iqaluit to support the 747-8 testing, and I think we took a large percentage of the available hotel rooms...

Agreed.

Been used on and off over the years by some in my former company…from memory types involved 744, 777, 787.

As you say accommodation could be an issue.

Here’s an example. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/second-ba-flight-lands-in-iqaluit-1.4822263)

andrasz
16th Feb 2022, 07:32
Looking at the ADS-B track it appears that their original intention was to continue to destination, the track goes towards Chicago for a good two and a half hours following the occurrence, then abruptly turns west towards YWG over the middle of Hudson Bay, 3 hours from ORD and 2 from YWG. Next days' flight which landed in YWG with technicians had its track shifted towards the west already over Greenland, roughly where the incident happened. Apparently something happened en-route that made them change their mind.

The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).

procede
16th Feb 2022, 10:39
Apparently the same aircraft (A6-EQD) as the one that diverted to St. Petersburg last month due to control problems: Incident: Emirates B773 over Barents Sea on Jan 18th 2022, control problems (http://avherald.com/h?article=4f35d137&opt=0)

I think this aircraft deserves it's own thread: Where in the world is A6-EQD?

widgeon
16th Feb 2022, 16:49
Widgeon, you obviously havenít flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless itís a dire emergency I think most of us would pass Thule, Sonderstrom, Yellowknife, Fort McMurray for the delights of Winnipeg or Edmonton!
I think they did a good job!
Sorry , was thinking south end of greenland was closer to HFX , but the track they took clearly has WPG as the closer airport . They could have chosen Gimli if they were short on fuel ;<).

Bksmithca
16th Feb 2022, 17:59
Sorry , was thinking south end of greenland was closer to HFX , but the track they took clearly has WPG as the closer airport . They could have chosen Gimli if they were short on fuel ;<;).
Widgeon, Gimli wouldn't work as Air Canada has it booked for glider training

Herod
16th Feb 2022, 18:02
Gimli wouldn't work as Air Canada has it booked for glider training
Nice one!. You have to be of a certain vintage to understand that.

YRP
16th Feb 2022, 19:42
Nice one!. You have to be of a certain vintage to understand that.

Some of us actually flew gliders there. :)

Dingleberry Handpump
16th Feb 2022, 20:16
Looking at the ADS-B track it appears that their original intention was to continue to destination, the track goes towards Chicago for a good two and a half hours following the occurrence, then abruptly turns west towards YWG over the middle of Hudson Bay, 3 hours from ORD and 2 from YWG. Next days' flight which landed in YWG with technicians had its track shifted towards the west already over Greenland, roughly where the incident happened. Apparently something happened en-route that made them change their mind.

The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..

sorvad
16th Feb 2022, 20:27
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..

Flight Control Problems, as stated in the link

albatross
16th Feb 2022, 20:29
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Would that limit be valid if you were experiencing control difficulties?

India Four Two
16th Feb 2022, 20:50
tdracer et al,

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. When discussing northern aerodromes, I was thinking of passenger handling limitations rather than runway limitations. All the aerodromes I mentioned are capable of handling large aircraft.

andrasz
17th Feb 2022, 06:41
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

FLT CONTROL QRH checklist. Also approach speed vref+ 20kt.