Virgin A320 Diverts back to LGW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Virgin A320 Diverts back to LGW
TUESDAY EVENING
A vs A320 had to rtn to LGW just after it passed the Belgium coast. It had to hold at LYD for approx 1 hour to burn off fuel, FL80 at 280kts .... yes 280kts .... any ideas at to problem as they didn't declare an emergency....???
A vs A320 had to rtn to LGW just after it passed the Belgium coast. It had to hold at LYD for approx 1 hour to burn off fuel, FL80 at 280kts .... yes 280kts .... any ideas at to problem as they didn't declare an emergency....???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heard him on the maastricht freq wanting to turn back and then asking for the hold. Didn't declare an emergency, but just said he had a technical prob that he didn't want to take to his dest. Not going to partake in the rumour mongering by trying to suggest what problem might be. I'm as clueless as anyone else!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Harvey SM, you're wrong! We're the first to know about "a technical problem" and/or "diversion" and the last, if at all, to know the details. Controllers responsible in handling an emergency of some sort are naturally curious as to what it was. We are not however part of the need-to-know chain nor do we have "contacts" with all departments of all companies. I find PPRuNe my best source of info.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Nr. 1, you have to understand why pilots are a bit reluctant to divulge the full details of a technical problem. Unless stating the exact problem will help ATC handle the situation better, I don't think it is necessary to divulge the details.
With all the VHF Airband receivers around, the conversation could be easily heard by some technically-challenged journo of one of the trash tabloids of which the UK is so plentiful. One can only imagine what the ensuing headline would look like, with the resulting damage to the airline's image, even if in actual fact the techical fault could have been something very minor.
It is very probable that the aircraft could have continued safely to destination but then the aircraft would be grounded away from Base due to Minimum Equipment List despatch requirements. In this case, the crew would have liased with their Engineering/Operations section to see what would the more viable of action.
With all the VHF Airband receivers around, the conversation could be easily heard by some technically-challenged journo of one of the trash tabloids of which the UK is so plentiful. One can only imagine what the ensuing headline would look like, with the resulting damage to the airline's image, even if in actual fact the techical fault could have been something very minor.
It is very probable that the aircraft could have continued safely to destination but then the aircraft would be grounded away from Base due to Minimum Equipment List despatch requirements. In this case, the crew would have liased with their Engineering/Operations section to see what would the more viable of action.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once had a spurious LAND ASAP message not accompnaied by any other ECAM warning which was later found out to have been caused by a faulty smoke detector in the avionics bay. We followed the QRH overweight landing checklist and landed back at base. Not a big deal at all. If touchhdown ROD is 360 fpm or less and no sideloads are experienced, the Engineering checks to clear an aircraft after an overweight landing are minimal.
