VS25 diversion to Gander, passengers overnight in terminal
RR engines
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...
reason?
and i forgot about Goose Bay too in my OP...
Last edited by rog747; 19th Aug 2013 at 10:05.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Last edited by rog747; 19th Aug 2013 at 11:30.
You state that your question was specific to the incident; an Airbus A330. Why mention B747 then?
"Two few engines for long haul"
It might have been, it might not have been, since it's a hypothetical scenario neither I not the OP knows for sure.
Suitable?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by whbm
How can Goose not have been an option given their position
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Or was Goose Bay really not an option?
'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.
Last edited by FIRESYSOK; 19th Aug 2013 at 15:04.
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...
''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...
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!).
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!).
Hotac problems?
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LiveryMan
an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same. It is only prudent.
All perfectly legal. It is very clearly and explicitly allowed by US Part 121 regulations.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer
It is a continuing problem with the FAA's dual mandate.......
But by all means; contuinue pontificating on things that ceased to exist sometime in the previous Millenium.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel leak, not engine failure
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!
Stranded Virgin Atlantic Passengers Sleep 'All Over the Floor' at Airport | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo!
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?
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?