777 emirates diversion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 70
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777 emirates diversion
https://simpleflying.com/emirates-777-300er-winnipeg/
Curious it would choose winnipeg , sure there were other closer better served airports.
Curious it would choose winnipeg , sure there were other closer better served airports.
Looking at the track, Winnipeg would have been the closest suitable airport.
Churchill would have been a choice if it was a “land immediately” situation, but very few technical facilities or hotels to handle that many passengers.
Churchill would have been a choice if it was a “land immediately” situation, but very few technical facilities or hotels to handle that many passengers.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 53
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widgeon, you obviously haven’t flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless it’s a dire emergency I think most of us would pass Thule, Sonderstrom, Yellowknife, Fort McMurray for the delights of Winnipeg or Edmonton!
I think they did a good job!
I think they did a good job!
I agree with White Knights. I’ve paxed many times from Western Canada to the UK and back. About half the trip is over Canada and most of it is desolate country until you get to within an hour of your destination.
I’ve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldn’t want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.
Edmonton and Winnipeg are the only appropriate choices, although if a bit earlier in the trip, Keflavik would be an option.
I’ve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldn’t want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.
Edmonton and Winnipeg are the only appropriate choices, although if a bit earlier in the trip, Keflavik would be an option.
Originally Posted by India Four Two
I’ve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldn’t want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.
Originally Posted by tdracer
Just to be clear, Iqaluit as an airport is perfectly capable of handling a big jet - both the A380 and the 747-8 did extreme cold weather testing there. However, the passengers would be another issue - we took about 50 people to Iqaluit to support the 747-8 testing, and I think we took a large percentage of the available hotel rooms...
Been used on and off over the years by some in my former company…from memory types involved 744, 777, 787.
As you say accommodation could be an issue.
Here’s an example.
Looking at the ADS-B track it appears that their original intention was to continue to destination, the track goes towards Chicago for a good two and a half hours following the occurrence, then abruptly turns west towards YWG over the middle of Hudson Bay, 3 hours from ORD and 2 from YWG. Next days' flight which landed in YWG with technicians had its track shifted towards the west already over Greenland, roughly where the incident happened. Apparently something happened en-route that made them change their mind.
The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).
The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the same aircraft (A6-EQD) as the one that diverted to St. Petersburg last month due to control problems: Incident: Emirates B773 over Barents Sea on Jan 18th 2022, control problems
I think this aircraft deserves it's own thread: Where in the world is A6-EQD?
I think this aircraft deserves it's own thread: Where in the world is A6-EQD?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 70
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by White Knight
Widgeon, you obviously haven’t flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless it’s a dire emergency I think most of us would pass Thule, Sonderstrom, Yellowknife, Fort McMurray for the delights of Winnipeg or Edmonton!
I think they did a good job!
I think they did a good job!
Originally Posted by widgeon
Sorry , was thinking south end of greenland was closer to HFX , but the track they took clearly has WPG as the closer airport . They could have chosen Gimli if they were short on fuel ;<
.
."Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Gimli wouldn't work as Air Canada has it booked for glider training
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Hk
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by andrasz
Looking at the ADS-B track it appears that their original intention was to continue to destination, the track goes towards Chicago for a good two and a half hours following the occurrence, then abruptly turns west towards YWG over the middle of Hudson Bay, 3 hours from ORD and 2 from YWG. Next days' flight which landed in YWG with technicians had its track shifted towards the west already over Greenland, roughly where the incident happened. Apparently something happened en-route that made them change their mind.
The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).
The WX at Keflavik was 30+ winds gusting to ~40, well over their limited x-wind capability (20kts). From where they seem to have made the diversion decision, YWG was the closest suitable (not counting Churchill, which indeed is just a land asap option, a T7 cannot even turn on the runway).
With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?
With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?
With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
tdracer et al,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. When discussing northern aerodromes, I was thinking of passenger handling limitations rather than runway limitations. All the aerodromes I mentioned are capable of handling large aircraft.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. When discussing northern aerodromes, I was thinking of passenger handling limitations rather than runway limitations. All the aerodromes I mentioned are capable of handling large aircraft.
Last edited by India Four Two; 16th Feb 2022 at 23:11. Reason: Spelchecker!
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?
