VS25 diversion to Gander, passengers overnight in terminal
 

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

BBC News - Virgin passengers left stranded overnight in Canada

Also reported on PPRuNe:

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...on-gander.html

Reports saying "in flight engine failure".

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.

VS25 diversion to Gander, passengers overnight in terminal
 

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

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

"Two few engines for long haul"

:ouch:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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,

Such thinking went out with the dinosaurs. :ugh:

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.

Based on the track shown, then, Goose Bay looks to have been significantly closer.

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:

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.

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

Locked Door

:ok:

LiveryMan

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

Are Rollers the power plants?