Easyjet Emergency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern skyport
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet Emergency
At 1445 today a Easyjet A320 took off from Liverpool bound for Lanzarote. It immediately went into a three circuit holding pattern just west of Chester and then dived into Manchester landing downwind against the traffic pattern.
Any ideas ?
Any ideas ?
Ppruners, please this is not a spotters forum. Give us some facts, substantiated speculation, then it might be news or rumour.
If you want ideas then post in the questions or spotters area.
If you want ideas then post in the questions or spotters area.
sounds like a ho-hum event
Perhaps the clue to their actions are defined by two simple statements -a transponder code of 7700 which will immediately give them priority handling by all ATC units as that gave them some time to consider their actions to get the best result and Manchester giving them clearance to land the way they did -points to correct use of the 7700 transponder code to get them straight into the most appropriate airfield to handle their emergency ---system worked as it should ---the why is a different question ---
With the ARFFS on hand, in case said passenger burst into flames ? 
EasyJet flight from Liverpool to Lanzarote makes unscheduled landing at Manchester airport
EasyJet flight from Liverpool to Lanzarote makes unscheduled landing at Manchester airport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well its a flight control issue, so i dont see why not, better to be safe than sorry, some aircraft are a pig to land without flap.
Why not be over cautious and then downgrade if needed, as a full emergency you will get full attention, seems like a good idea in my eyes
Also ATC sometimes require you to set 7700 when you have an issue even if you only declared a PAN
Why not be over cautious and then downgrade if needed, as a full emergency you will get full attention, seems like a good idea in my eyes
Also ATC sometimes require you to set 7700 when you have an issue even if you only declared a PAN
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the ARFFS on hand, in case said passenger burst into flames ?
If you do not land in a normal config or something allowed under the MEL then it is at the very least a Pan.Having visited Latcc they think it mildly amusing when pilots report they have a small problem because it is usually much more.
So you’d refuse to set 7700 when politely requested by ATC? I’ve had a moderate tech fault requiring a return and again was asked to set 7700, simply for controller workload and so other sectors had an idea that we weren’t going to follow the standard departure flow.
Really not an issue.
Really not an issue.
FFS even if the problem is minor and atc “ask” you to squark 7700 why would you just not do it instead of having a p@##&)g contest about who is in charge, command, the boss etc!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i have a issue, declare a pan and ATC ask me to squawk 7700 im not going to refuse, they are trying to help you, and we don't know whats happening on their end.
I had a flap issue once, declared a Pan and ATC requested I set 7700 and was given full priority to my diversion and a sterile runway, never once used the M word.. sounds great to me
I had a flap issue once, declared a Pan and ATC requested I set 7700 and was given full priority to my diversion and a sterile runway, never once used the M word.. sounds great to me
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear me!
Somebody reported something he found unusual and what is the response:
"Post it in a different forum". Really? Well, perhaps the OP had "heard" of this event; Rumour.
Or perhaps the OP thought this was an event so unusual that it constituted something noteworthy; News.
Meanwhile a fight breaks out over who says to squawk 7700 or otherwise. Strange attitudes here such as "My aeroplane, I will squawk 7700 when I want to, not when told to." What a shock that pilot would get if ATC responded with "And my airport and you're not landing after all!"
Meanwhile, everyone seems to have missed the elephant in the room. Per the original post, the flight landed from the opposite direction to what was currently in effect at the airport at the time. Flights were landing and departing toward the South West, yet this flight landed from the South West. Didn't anybody think that was unusual? It seems to lend some weight to the argument that the pilot thought there was some urgency and he wanted to land as soon as possible, and probably unlikely that this was due to an unruly passenger. As far as I can tell, the aircraft is still on the ground at Manchester, 8 hours after landing.
Somebody reported something he found unusual and what is the response:
"Post it in a different forum". Really? Well, perhaps the OP had "heard" of this event; Rumour.
Or perhaps the OP thought this was an event so unusual that it constituted something noteworthy; News.
Meanwhile a fight breaks out over who says to squawk 7700 or otherwise. Strange attitudes here such as "My aeroplane, I will squawk 7700 when I want to, not when told to." What a shock that pilot would get if ATC responded with "And my airport and you're not landing after all!"
Meanwhile, everyone seems to have missed the elephant in the room. Per the original post, the flight landed from the opposite direction to what was currently in effect at the airport at the time. Flights were landing and departing toward the South West, yet this flight landed from the South West. Didn't anybody think that was unusual? It seems to lend some weight to the argument that the pilot thought there was some urgency and he wanted to land as soon as possible, and probably unlikely that this was due to an unruly passenger. As far as I can tell, the aircraft is still on the ground at Manchester, 8 hours after landing.