AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic
Part of the issue is this happened on a Saturday. Anybody who has taken it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what to do in such a situation will invariably work Monday to Friday, 0900-1700 (leave earlier on Fridays). Anything that happens outside these times has to either wait until Monday morning, or not deviate from a handful of restrictive rules. The days of initiative by those on the ground, on shifts, have gone.
I don't know anything about the current Canadian Premier, but the family had some distant contact with his father, who was also Premier a generation ago. He would have had a FIT if the Canadian Government authorities had acted like this.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You appear to be assuming that the Canadians did not allow the pax off.
It may well be, on the other hand, that AF did not want to let them off the plane and then have to round them all up for onward travel when the relief A/C arrived.
(On the fresh air point, I have heard that the doors were opened).
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were two relief planes. The first was a 737 chartered from Nolinor that took F and J PAX to Los Angeles (with a refueling stop in Winnipeg). The second was an AF 777 that took the rest of the PAX to Atlanta, where Delta presumably took them to LAX or other of their final destinations.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the missing parts have been found (or at least spotted by a Danish helo):
Air France engine that fell off mid-flight found in Greenland - CNN
Air France engine that fell off mid-flight found in Greenland - CNN
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there known cases when pax have been cleared at an airport which otherwise does not normally provide that service?
Oh, now we are inventing health issues as well. And then saying that if anyone was in need, they can stay on the aircraft.
Contrary to much misleading information above, Goose Bay, clustered around the airfield, is a significant town. population over 8,000. It has a range of commercial premises (including of course a Tim Hortons - hey, it's Canada), restaurants, hotels, etc. It's even got a proper hospital, and a university campus. It's the largest town in Labrador. Go and have a look down on Google Maps to see the extent of the development. And Goose Bay has seen a good number of 747s over the past 50 years - despite all the hype the A380 is really not that much larger, a charter 747 would have had more seats.
Contrary to much misleading information above, Goose Bay, clustered around the airfield, is a significant town. population over 8,000. It has a range of commercial premises (including of course a Tim Hortons - hey, it's Canada), restaurants, hotels, etc. It's even got a proper hospital, and a university campus. It's the largest town in Labrador. Go and have a look down on Google Maps to see the extent of the development. And Goose Bay has seen a good number of 747s over the past 50 years - despite all the hype the A380 is really not that much larger, a charter 747 would have had more seats.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i did post what I thought was a relevant thread that got deleted PDQ re the above discussion about Goose Bay and also re steps for 380's and pax welfare on the ground at these remote unscheduled alternate airports that now seem to be used with increasing frequency due to Tech reasons, medi-evacs and air rage diversions.
i also asked the question as to why perhaps they did not continue to gander (whom they were talking to on ATC with their mayday)
the runway is 1000' shorter at Gander v Goose Bay's 11000' but Gander does have better airport handling and pax facilities plus a few hotels in town
the flying distances difference between Goose and Gander from
the mayday position declared over Greenland were about 100-200km more to get to Gander - just a thought
i also asked the question as to why perhaps they did not continue to gander (whom they were talking to on ATC with their mayday)
the runway is 1000' shorter at Gander v Goose Bay's 11000' but Gander does have better airport handling and pax facilities plus a few hotels in town
the flying distances difference between Goose and Gander from
the mayday position declared over Greenland were about 100-200km more to get to Gander - just a thought
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@r747 well this time it was YYR and not Gander, so be it. I am however interested to know if/how the conditions could have been better for pax _and_ crew once at YYR. So far I have not seen anything specific (what was requested, what was denied). There is this:
Goose Bay Airport | Directory of CBSA Offices and Services | Canada Border Services Agency
which I understand as, YYR cannot serve as airport of entry for commercial traffic - correct ?
Now what could be the exceptions and protocols in place, I do not know.
Goose Bay Airport | Directory of CBSA Offices and Services | Canada Border Services Agency
which I understand as, YYR cannot serve as airport of entry for commercial traffic - correct ?
Now what could be the exceptions and protocols in place, I do not know.
i also asked the question as to why perhaps they did not continue to gander (whom they were talking to on ATC with their mayday)
As for airport choice the 380 is not my type but looking at some company documentation Gander and Goose are both given equal status for that fleet when it comes to suitability to diversion. If AF use similar then maybe given the visible damage to the engine and possibly unknown damage elsewhere the crew made the choice to divert to the "nearest suitable"...which would have been Goose. I wouldn't ignore that 1000 foot difference in runway length either....given the way the engine let go there could have been issues with flaps/slats that might have compromised the roll out.......
TBH despite the grumbles about ground handling given what the crew knew at the time I think it is difficult to argue with their choice of airport.
Last edited by wiggy; 10th Oct 2017 at 07:53.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree wholeheartedly with that, no way the crew could have known the exact damage, they would certainly have had QF32 in mind (I know different engine). As a passenger I would encourage all the professional crew on this forum to never compromise reasonable safety for comfort or profit, I'm sure you don't.
Yep, I think some here now (with the benefit of hindsight) that seem to be a feeling that there was a minor error of judgement made in the use of Goose because the pax might perhaps have been much more comfortable going to Gander. How Goose handled it on the ground is something that the authorities at Goose can look at ( as someone above rightly mentioned). From a flight crew POV if you are faced with a potentially serious emergency ( and I'd suggest a visibly "blown" engine that might have caused collateral damage falls into that category) you simply can't compromise the whole shooting match just because folks think it would be a smart idea to fly 15 more minutes to somewhere that might have a Hilton. If you are just dealing with an engine run down or similar then passenger comfort on the ground might start to enter the thinking (on a 4 holer).
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 needs more runway to take off than to land. Maybe the option of flying it out with 3 engines played a part in deciding to go to Goose Bay, in addition to what has already been mentioned.
TBH in the case in question if the crew had the luxury of having time available to be able to factor in a subsequent three engined ferry into the decision making process my guess is they wouldn't have diverted into Goose or Gander at all.
There's a danger of Monday AM quarterbacking this to the n'th degree.
Number one priority is the old chestnut of the safety of passengers and crew. Not commercial considerations, not even comfort of passengers and crew.....just safety.
We know the engine failed in a spectacular manner, accompanied by vibration. If I had looked out of window after the WTF I would be wondering how well the engine was still hanging on and wondering if there were going to be any more probs (hydraulics, especially once gear and flaps start moving....fuel leaks?..)so personally I would be inclined to get the thing on the ground as soon as I safely could, at the nearest suitable airfield. Goose may or may not be great for passenger comfort beyond the basics, it may make a three engined ferry out easier than Gander or not, but frankly that's the least of my worries.
There's a danger of Monday AM quarterbacking this to the n'th degree.
Number one priority is the old chestnut of the safety of passengers and crew. Not commercial considerations, not even comfort of passengers and crew.....just safety.
We know the engine failed in a spectacular manner, accompanied by vibration. If I had looked out of window after the WTF I would be wondering how well the engine was still hanging on and wondering if there were going to be any more probs (hydraulics, especially once gear and flaps start moving....fuel leaks?..)so personally I would be inclined to get the thing on the ground as soon as I safely could, at the nearest suitable airfield. Goose may or may not be great for passenger comfort beyond the basics, it may make a three engined ferry out easier than Gander or not, but frankly that's the least of my worries.
Last edited by wiggy; 10th Oct 2017 at 14:41.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOWEVER if somebody says I want to get off now, I'll take it from here, AF is off the hook, see you next time ... then I think he/she "should" be allowed to do that. (But I have not read the Contract of Carriage).
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggest issue to let people off the plane would be immigration... Goose Bay only has capacity to handle small planes (15 occupants or less) and they would be overwhelmed with a 380. I expect that in case of an emergency evacuation a way would be found to herd pax and crew into a building, but in this case it is safe to keep the passengers in the hull that brought them and feed them there.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggest issue to let people off the plane would be immigration
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Moscow
Age: 51
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reuters reports about the procedure to fly the plane back to France:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ai...-idUKKBN1CF2R6
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ai...-idUKKBN1CF2R6
Interesting that "a spare engine will be mounted on the right wing in the same outer position as the damaged one. But this will only be used to balance the weight during flight and that engine will not be operable." I guess that assumes that the pylon is in a state to hold a whole engine, and that the aircraft can be ferried despite the damage to the wing (or that the damage can be repaired on-site before the ferry). At first sight it seemed odd to bring a whole engine with all its complexity, if they're not going to run it but just use it for balance – anything weighing the same would do. But I suppose an engine is easiest in some ways: it's the right weight and it's designed to be hung on the pylon.