Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

777 emirates diversion

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

777 emirates diversion

Old 15th Feb 2022, 19:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 69
Posts: 797
777 emirates diversion

https://simpleflying.com/emirates-777-300er-winnipeg/

Curious it would choose winnipeg , sure there were other closer better served airports.
widgeon is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2022, 19:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saigon Vietnam
Posts: 5,941
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.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2022, 22:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 53
Posts: 2,825
Widgeon, you obviously havenít flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless itís 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!
White Knight is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 03:14
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saigon Vietnam
Posts: 5,941
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.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 04:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by India Four Two View Post
Iíve flown into Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Churchill and Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) and you wouldnít want to take a widebody into those airports unless you had to.
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...
tdracer is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 06:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,322
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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...
Agreed.

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.
wiggy is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 07:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 58
Posts: 845
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).
andrasz is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 10:39
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 279
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?

procede is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 16:49
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 69
Posts: 797
Talking

Originally Posted by White Knight View Post
Widgeon, you obviously havenít flown up in that part of the world! It is BLEAK and heavy jets with 400 plus passengers are not well served! Unless itís 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!
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 ;<).
widgeon is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 17:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Alberta
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by widgeon View Post
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 ;<.
Widgeon, Gimli wouldn't work as Air Canada has it booked for glider training
Bksmithca is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 18:02
  #11 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 75
Posts: 3,734
Gimli wouldn't work as Air Canada has it booked for glider training
Nice one!. You have to be of a certain vintage to understand that.
Herod is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 19:42
  #12 (permalink)  
YRP
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
Nice one!. You have to be of a certain vintage to understand that.
Some of us actually flew gliders there.
YRP is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 20:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Hk
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
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).
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Dingleberry Handpump is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 20:27
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump View Post
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Flight Control Problems, as stated in the link
sorvad is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 20:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump View Post
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?

With braking action good or dry, 777 limit is 38kts..
Would that limit be valid if you were experiencing control difficulties?
albatross is online now  
Old 16th Feb 2022, 20:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saigon Vietnam
Posts: 5,941
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.

Last edited by India Four Two; 16th Feb 2022 at 23:11. Reason: Spelchecker!
India Four Two is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2022, 06:41
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 58
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by Dingleberry Handpump View Post
20kt limit? Was that due to runway condition?
FLT CONTROL QRH checklist. Also approach speed vref+ 20kt.



andrasz is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.