XL Airways new 737 diverts to LCA
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please let it go, you still seem to be talking nonsense....remember the flight crew knew what they where doing, like explained above they diverted to cyprus for many reasons, of which, made it the perfect diversion airport....
btw this thread was started so professionals and onlookers alike could get an insight into what happened with this aircraft and follow the outcome.
Please lets stick to that shall we......
again kudus to the crew!!great job.
G-STAW
btw this thread was started so professionals and onlookers alike could get an insight into what happened with this aircraft and follow the outcome.
Please lets stick to that shall we......
again kudus to the crew!!great job.
G-STAW
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UAE
Age: 44
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done to the guys involved for getting it down safely!
I know the f/o, he's a top lad, I may buy him a drink if he ever gets a night out sorted which he's been promising for around the last 6 months!
I know the f/o, he's a top lad, I may buy him a drink if he ever gets a night out sorted which he's been promising for around the last 6 months!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
btw this thread was started so professionals and onlookers alike could get an insight into what happened with this aircraft and follow the outcome.
Please lets stick to that shall we......
Please lets stick to that shall we......
So where would top of climb place me out of SSH?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Where would you like me to live??
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOC would have been Cairo didn't happen at TOC was into the cruise past the coast line approaching the IFR boundry.
No cover up I'm sure once the company has all the answers they will be spread we all want to learn as much as we can.
No cover up I'm sure once the company has all the answers they will be spread we all want to learn as much as we can.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
errrr I can't believe you are feeding this troll!!!
The guys put the aircraft down safely. End of story, tea and medals.
I'm sure if they had done something wrong then we could be having a massively un-informed discussion about what they should have done etc etc etc and how, as superior pilots with all the facts at our fingertips we would have done it completely differently and grappled with this stricken aircraft - but they didn't, they made the correct choices (given passenger/flight safety, local knowledge, atc implications and airline economy) and they and their passengers are here to tell the tale....
Well done crew!
The guys put the aircraft down safely. End of story, tea and medals.
I'm sure if they had done something wrong then we could be having a massively un-informed discussion about what they should have done etc etc etc and how, as superior pilots with all the facts at our fingertips we would have done it completely differently and grappled with this stricken aircraft - but they didn't, they made the correct choices (given passenger/flight safety, local knowledge, atc implications and airline economy) and they and their passengers are here to tell the tale....
Well done crew!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London, Berlin, Bucharest
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could have decided larnica instead of Cairo for a few reasons:
-decending will require idle thrust as there is no need for an emergency decent for an engine failure, unless its blown up and taken half the wing with it. it will take time to decend which could be the same amount as flying to another airfield
-passed the turn around point so decided time to continue to different alternative. dont forget it takes time to turn around an aircraft in the air.
-need to burn fuel inorder ot land under MLW
-as stated earlier possable ATC understanding issues so went somewhere else where they can get better assistance
-company base, better fire cover, more familiar airfield
edit: forgot to say i know nothing about what happend here but just stating possibilities as some people just jumped to conclutions and passed very strong comments without having any idea what, where, when how it happend, and by the looks of it no realy understanding of the decission making involved.
the fact that a one runway may be shorter than another is not a problem providing that it is long enough for a single engine landing which is calculated before the flight with the other performance data.
an engine failure is major event but not as serious as suddenly having half the roof rip off, so you do the emergency drills for shut down then refer to the checklist for the rest of it.
if im not mistaken, last year a thomsonfly lost an engine on takeoff and was flying for over 2 hours before landing.
-decending will require idle thrust as there is no need for an emergency decent for an engine failure, unless its blown up and taken half the wing with it. it will take time to decend which could be the same amount as flying to another airfield
-passed the turn around point so decided time to continue to different alternative. dont forget it takes time to turn around an aircraft in the air.
-need to burn fuel inorder ot land under MLW
-as stated earlier possable ATC understanding issues so went somewhere else where they can get better assistance
-company base, better fire cover, more familiar airfield
edit: forgot to say i know nothing about what happend here but just stating possibilities as some people just jumped to conclutions and passed very strong comments without having any idea what, where, when how it happend, and by the looks of it no realy understanding of the decission making involved.
the fact that a one runway may be shorter than another is not a problem providing that it is long enough for a single engine landing which is calculated before the flight with the other performance data.
an engine failure is major event but not as serious as suddenly having half the roof rip off, so you do the emergency drills for shut down then refer to the checklist for the rest of it.
if im not mistaken, last year a thomsonfly lost an engine on takeoff and was flying for over 2 hours before landing.
Last edited by Nashers; 11th Jul 2008 at 10:19. Reason: a few dumb typos
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see what the fuss is about - this is just an interesting 'News' item! We do NOT have enough information to hold a 'court of law'. The actions of the crew will be looked at in detail by the company and CAA/AAIB if necessary. Captain's decision is ALWAYS final and he/she has to justify that.
Whilst this (from Boeing) is FAR based, it still applies to UK a/c I believe.
Note:
Whilst this (from Boeing) is FAR based, it still applies to UK a/c I believe.
The rules regarding an engine failure are specific. The FARs specify that the pilot-in-command of a twin engine airplane that has an engine failure or engine shutdown shall land at the nearest suitable airport at which a safe landing can be made.
Note:
If the pilot-in-command lands at an airport other than the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, the FARs require a written report from the airline stating the reasons for determining that the selection of an airport, other than the nearest airport, was as safe a course of action as landing at the nearest suitable airport.
A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator by guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain minimum weather and field conditions. If required to divert to the nearest suitable airport (twin engine airplane with engine failure), the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an
A suitable airport is defined by the operating authority for the operator by guidance material, but in general must have adequate facilities and meet certain minimum weather and field conditions. If required to divert to the nearest suitable airport (twin engine airplane with engine failure), the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position. The pilot-in-command may determine, based on the nature of the situation and an
examination of the relevant factors, that the safest course of action is to divert to a more distant airport than the nearest airport. For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport.
My bolding
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest if the engine failed due to some manufacturing fault, how long is it "warrantied" by the manufacturer? Or does such a thing not exist in the airline industry.
3 years and 36,000 miles?
3 years and 36,000 miles?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sense that a lot of people commenting on this thread seem to be confused with the term "suitable".
First of all, yes a Boeing 737NG can land overweight and burning of fuel, just to reduce weight, is not done after an engine failure.
Second, you are required to land at the nearest suitable airfield. This means to consider: runway lenght, weather, terrain. In other words get it down as soon as possible on the nearest airport that is capable of taking your aircraft. This does not mean the nearest suitable economical, maintenance or company airfield.
See BOAC's post:
Quote, the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.”...........................................
For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport. unquote. Unquote.
First of all, yes a Boeing 737NG can land overweight and burning of fuel, just to reduce weight, is not done after an engine failure.
Second, you are required to land at the nearest suitable airfield. This means to consider: runway lenght, weather, terrain. In other words get it down as soon as possible on the nearest airport that is capable of taking your aircraft. This does not mean the nearest suitable economical, maintenance or company airfield.
See BOAC's post:
Quote, the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.”...........................................
For example, there is not necessarily a requirement to spiral down to the airport nearest the airplane's present position if, in the judgment of the pilot-in-command, it would require equal or less time to continue to another nearby airport. unquote. Unquote.
Not commenting on the specifics of this case but notwithstanding the "land at the nearest suitable airport" statement it is surely part of a professional pilot's remit to take the a/c to an airport which is suitable in every way. Ok yes safety comes first but get real ETOPS can fly circa 3 hours on one engine!
Is anybody seriously suggesting that flying a few more minutes on one engine having secured the failed engine is really that much of an additional risk?
Is anybody seriously suggesting that flying a few more minutes on one engine having secured the failed engine is really that much of an additional risk?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was clear in my head but now there are more questions.
So after reading this additional information I am confused.
It has been clarified that the aircraft was at TOC out of SSH enroute MAN, which must put the aircraft in the vicinity of Cairo. Cairo therefore must surely be considered as the next suitable airport according to the posted Boeing (FAR)?
The above really gets me confused.
15 minutes from Cairo, weather and facilities good but the aircraft continues over water at night for allegedly a further 60 minutes???????
Or does the regulation mean that you can continue until convenient maintenance facilties are found? According to sleeper not so.
So after reading this additional information I am confused.
It has been clarified that the aircraft was at TOC out of SSH enroute MAN, which must put the aircraft in the vicinity of Cairo. Cairo therefore must surely be considered as the next suitable airport according to the posted Boeing (FAR)?
the guidance material also typically specifies the pilot should select the nearest suitable airport “in point of time” or “in terms of time.” In selecting the nearest suitable airport, the pilot-in-command should consider the suitability of nearby airports in terms of facilities and weather and their proximity to the airplane position.
15 minutes from Cairo, weather and facilities good but the aircraft continues over water at night for allegedly a further 60 minutes???????
Or does the regulation mean that you can continue until convenient maintenance facilties are found? According to sleeper not so.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fireflybob,
Quote: ... but get real ETOPS can fly circa 3 hours on one engine! unquote.
Yes it can (theoretically), BUT it does not mean that you can fly happily for 3 hours to a diversion field that suits (company) you. Only if there is no other diversion field available, you can plan up to a maximum of three hours away from that field. Don't forget Etops is mostly a planning tool. In flight, also while under etops rules, You still have to divert to the nearest suitable airport and that is not necessarily the planned diversion field.
If you have a choice of airports that are not too far apart then yes, a few more minutes don't matter. But passing by an airport to fly another 60 minutes is not legal.
Yamaha,
Facilities in this case means approach aids, ATC (radar vectoring capability)and such.
Quote: ... but get real ETOPS can fly circa 3 hours on one engine! unquote.
Yes it can (theoretically), BUT it does not mean that you can fly happily for 3 hours to a diversion field that suits (company) you. Only if there is no other diversion field available, you can plan up to a maximum of three hours away from that field. Don't forget Etops is mostly a planning tool. In flight, also while under etops rules, You still have to divert to the nearest suitable airport and that is not necessarily the planned diversion field.
If you have a choice of airports that are not too far apart then yes, a few more minutes don't matter. But passing by an airport to fly another 60 minutes is not legal.
Yamaha,
Facilities in this case means approach aids, ATC (radar vectoring capability)and such.
Last edited by sleeper; 11th Jul 2008 at 09:44. Reason: addition
This is getting a little out of hand! In my opinion from a professional point of view, the flightdeck did everything right, and can not be faulted. Firstly, the maximum time from an ADEQUATE aerodrome that a two engined turbo-jet aeroplane, without ETOPS approval, with more than 19 seats and MTOM of 6813 kgs is 60 minutes flying time at a one engine inoperative cruising speed in still air conditions. You've also got to take in account not just the proximity of the alternate field, but other facotrs such as the availability of ATC facilities, and let down aids etc. Then you've also got to take into account the weather, as being at or above minima for a 'reasonable' time before & after the ETA. I'm not too sure what the Wx was at Cairo, so i'm not saying it was below minima, but theres a lot more than 'proximity' that flightdeck have to take into account when deciding on a SUITABLE alternate field. I think LCA was the right choice in my opinion, and im sure any other professionals reading this post would. Plus the fact that XL have tech support around the area is a huge advantage.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good posts from sleeper and BOAC.
If the Captain felt that he wasnt going to get helpful and timely ATC from Cairo,I think he could convince the authorities that his course of action was acceptable.Perhaps Larnaca truly was nearest in point of time.We dont know.
If the Captain felt that he wasnt going to get helpful and timely ATC from Cairo,I think he could convince the authorities that his course of action was acceptable.Perhaps Larnaca truly was nearest in point of time.We dont know.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very interesting readin this thread being SLF. first of all - well done to the crew for doing the most important thing of all - they landed the plane safely and there were no casualties.
one thing that has constantly come up in this thread is why LCA and not CAI, even though it appears CAI was closer. perhaps someone would like to answer the following question / query for me. if indeed they had chosen to divert to CAI, how easy or even how safe would it have been to manouver the aircraft around that much on a single engine to safely make an approach into CAI? my views are that whilst LCA may / may not have been further away, in order to line up for approach would have allowed the aircraft to have made much gentler turns than CAI would have (ie CAI may have needed a full 180 degree turn).
as i said earlier, i am only SLF, but with a vested interest.
one thing that has constantly come up in this thread is why LCA and not CAI, even though it appears CAI was closer. perhaps someone would like to answer the following question / query for me. if indeed they had chosen to divert to CAI, how easy or even how safe would it have been to manouver the aircraft around that much on a single engine to safely make an approach into CAI? my views are that whilst LCA may / may not have been further away, in order to line up for approach would have allowed the aircraft to have made much gentler turns than CAI would have (ie CAI may have needed a full 180 degree turn).
as i said earlier, i am only SLF, but with a vested interest.