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 |
|
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: |
"Two few engines for long haul" |
So an engine failure on a 747 wouldn't have resulted in a diversion, then ? 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. |
A extreme example of that was an British Airways 747 that shelled an engine taking off at LAX and continued on toward Heathrow. 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, |
Originally Posted by Sean Dell
Maybe VS should emblazon the sides of their 330's with
"Two few engines for long haul"
Originally Posted by A Squared
Not necessarily. With 4 engines you're legal to continue to destination.
|
Originally Posted by slowjet
(Post 8000617)
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.
|
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:
|
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. |
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 an engine failure on a 4 holer will result in a diversion all the same. |
Are Rollers the power plants?
|
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... |
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. |
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 |
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. :O |
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? |
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. |
WHBM:
Can you give us a run-down on the hotel situation at Goose? |
Originally Posted by whbm
How can Goose not have been an option given their position
|
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? '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. |
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... |
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!). |
Locked door
Do you have a reference to said apology? Tango Spot on. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
why couldn't they also have decided, perhaps sequentially, that Gander, then Halifax, then Bangor, were also 'unsuitable" and got to JFK. |
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! |
But engine had to be shut down because of the fuel leak, did it not?
|
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? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.