SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of BBB VOR
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit
Flightradar24 reporting:
Latest report (5 hrs. ago):
Screenshots of statement from Swiss International Air Lines and Flightradar24 attached.
LX40, Zurich-Los Angeles, diverted to Iqaluit due to an engine issue. The aircraft landed safely, but was unable to exit the runway. The runway is currently closed while the Swiss 777 is towed to the apron. The airport is scheduled to reopen shortly.
LX7002 (Airbus A330-300 from JFK) now on its way to collect passengers from the diverted LX40 in Iqaluit.
Last edited by India Charlie; 2nd Feb 2017 at 12:43.
It even made the local news (headline item - may change with time)
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I've been out of the loop for a while, but do these modern wonder-jets have engines that shut-down automatically? Sounds scary to me; I'm an old Luddite who would like to be able to make my own decision about engines.
Not that I've ever heard of, and yes, we do !
This could have been a fuel leak or engine fire, leading to a shut down, hence the divert. One would always keep an engine running - even just at idle if one could - to provide electrics, hydraulics and air.
Re Iqualuit, would you really want to fly past a perfectly sevicable airport on one engine, and cross more sea and frozen tundra with almost no suitable airports ?
This could have been a fuel leak or engine fire, leading to a shut down, hence the divert. One would always keep an engine running - even just at idle if one could - to provide electrics, hydraulics and air.
Re Iqualuit, would you really want to fly past a perfectly sevicable airport on one engine, and cross more sea and frozen tundra with almost no suitable airports ?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a video of the all-snow landscape landing:
https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/83556...-angeles-.html
https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/83556...-angeles-.html
The A330-300 is on its way to JFK as LX7003. Wonder whether the pax are headed to JFK.
JFK-YFB-LAX perhaps too far for one crew duty ?? Probably logistically faster to bring the pax back to JFK and distribute from there on flights to the West Coast. Expensive recovery exercise underway whichever way you look at it !!
JFK-YFB-LAX perhaps too far for one crew duty ?? Probably logistically faster to bring the pax back to JFK and distribute from there on flights to the West Coast. Expensive recovery exercise underway whichever way you look at it !!
Quote:
"Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?"
What planet do you live on? Try looking at a map.
Every long-haul crew's nightmare, particularly on a twin. The relief after the successful landing would have been palpable. But then the music starts...
[EDIT]
On reflection, the suggested extra one hour extra to YYR (Goose Bay), compared to YFB (Iqaluit), was not as far adrift as I first thought.
The extra 650 nm or so would perhaps have taken about 90 mins at single-engine cruise speed? Unacceptable in view of the availability of YFB, however.
"Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?"
What planet do you live on? Try looking at a map.
Every long-haul crew's nightmare, particularly on a twin. The relief after the successful landing would have been palpable. But then the music starts...
[EDIT]
On reflection, the suggested extra one hour extra to YYR (Goose Bay), compared to YFB (Iqaluit), was not as far adrift as I first thought.
The extra 650 nm or so would perhaps have taken about 90 mins at single-engine cruise speed? Unacceptable in view of the availability of YFB, however.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 2nd Feb 2017 at 23:10.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?
In any event what Chris said;
Looking at the map if Iqaluit was acceptable (weather, etc) then anyone deciding to press on elsewhere, ( e.g. Goose) in a twin, with one shut down, for another x hours would probably be best advised to think about looking for another job this morning.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done . Iqaluit is not easy , the terminal cannot handle that much pax, but everyone is safe. the rest is only paperwork...and good training for the mechanics to change an engine by - 30 degr... No hangar that can accept a 777 in Iqaluit last time I was there...
As to the armchairs critics here : why Iqaluit? : closest airport, period. Imagine if they got into trouble after having overflown it and decided to go somewhere " more comfortable" .
As to the armchairs critics here : why Iqaluit? : closest airport, period. Imagine if they got into trouble after having overflown it and decided to go somewhere " more comfortable" .
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy,
It's 30 years since I operated that route, and I was no expert then. Looking at my world globe, Iqaluit (formerly Frobisher Bay) looks easily the strongest candidate from the point they diverted.
Half-decent weather for the time of year, I guess:
CYFB 011900Z 32006KT 4SM -SN SCT034 BKN055 M21/M24 A2964 RMK SN3SC1SC3 SLP042
CYFB 011800Z 31004KT 5SM -SN SCT035 BKN051 M21/M25 A2962 RMK SN2SC2SC3 CIG RAG SLP037
CYFB 011730Z 32004KT 5SM -SN SCT034 BKN050 BKN100 M21/M25 A2961 RMK SN2SC2SC2AC1 SLP033
CYFB 011700Z 32004KT 8SM -SN SCT042 BKN100 BKN140 M22/M25 A2961 RMK SN1SC3AC2AC1 SLP033
Having originally departed Zurich at 1230Z, I'm assuming it would have landed around 1800Z (1300L)?
There seems to be an ILS on Rwy 34, which is about 2600 metres (8600 ft) long.
It's 30 years since I operated that route, and I was no expert then. Looking at my world globe, Iqaluit (formerly Frobisher Bay) looks easily the strongest candidate from the point they diverted.
Half-decent weather for the time of year, I guess:
CYFB 011900Z 32006KT 4SM -SN SCT034 BKN055 M21/M24 A2964 RMK SN3SC1SC3 SLP042
CYFB 011800Z 31004KT 5SM -SN SCT035 BKN051 M21/M25 A2962 RMK SN2SC2SC3 CIG RAG SLP037
CYFB 011730Z 32004KT 5SM -SN SCT034 BKN050 BKN100 M21/M25 A2961 RMK SN2SC2SC2AC1 SLP033
CYFB 011700Z 32004KT 8SM -SN SCT042 BKN100 BKN140 M22/M25 A2961 RMK SN1SC3AC2AC1 SLP033
Having originally departed Zurich at 1230Z, I'm assuming it would have landed around 1800Z (1300L)?
There seems to be an ILS on Rwy 34, which is about 2600 metres (8600 ft) long.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
land at next available airport or wording to that effect
"Plan to land at nearest SUITABLE airport", slight difference..
Without knowing the details like type of failure, weather and runway conditions of both YFB and YYR, company SOPS, it is hard for to make an assessment..
Especially runway condition is interesting, thought that callout time in YFB in winter is significally longer then in summer..
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now that I think of it, with their historical background, I really understand a Swiss crew's mindset not to bypass an usable airport on their way to one slightly better but an hour further...