Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit

Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit

Old 2nd Feb 2017, 07:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of BBB VOR
Posts: 52
SWISS LX40 [ZRH-LAX] diversion to Iqaluit

Flightradar24 reporting:
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.
Latest report (5 hrs. ago):
LX7002 (Airbus A330-300 from JFK) now on its way to collect passengers from the diverted LX40 in Iqaluit.
Screenshots of statement from Swiss International Air Lines and Flightradar24 attached.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_1141.JPG (115.2 KB, 663 views)
File Type: jpg
IMG_1142.JPG (112.7 KB, 569 views)
File Type: jpg
IMG_1143.JPG (200.4 KB, 569 views)

Last edited by India Charlie; 2nd Feb 2017 at 12:43.
India Charlie is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 07:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?
Bearcat is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 07:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of BBB VOR
Posts: 52
I thought so too. Imagine changing engines in those conditions! Wonder if Air Canada has any support there.
India Charlie is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 08:20
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colchester, Essex. UK
Posts: 50
It even made the local news (headline item - may change with time)
drichard is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 08:28
  #5 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 72
Posts: 2,929
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 08:32
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,172
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 ?
Uplinker is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 08:51
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 64
Posts: 84
Here's a video of the all-snow landscape landing:
https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/83556...-angeles-.html
guadaMB is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 08:59
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
No.1 Eng shut down?
Bearcat is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South of BBB VOR
Posts: 52
The A330-300 is on its way to JFK as LX7003. Wonder whether the pax are headed to JFK.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_1147.jpg (614.7 KB, 352 views)
India Charlie is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:15
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,641
Originally Posted by Bearcat View Post
No.1 Eng shut down?
Yes, "l'arrêt automatique du réacteur gauche".
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:27
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 369
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 !!
Logohu is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:29
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 72
Posts: 2,052
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.

Last edited by Chris Scott; 2nd Feb 2017 at 23:10.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:51
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Age: 53
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Bearcat View Post
Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?
QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.
billysmart is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 09:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,354
Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?
Errr, and the rest.......

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.
wiggy is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:03
  #15 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,609
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" .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:09
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Age: 53
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Bearcat View Post
Must have been very serious to go into Iqaluit.......YYR would have been another hour I suppose extra ?
QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.
billysmart is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 72
Posts: 2,052
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.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:26
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 561
land at next available airport or wording to that effect
In our handbooks, it actually is:
"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..
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:38
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 561
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...
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2017, 10:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by billysmart View Post
QRH = land at next available airport or wording to that effect.
I think the word you are looking for is "suitable"
Bearcat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.