By: Moondance
- 15th June 2006 at 23:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can anyone answer why they used BHX?
No.....however.......overnight work at STN means approach aids/lighting significantly downgraded, high probability of diversion if fog about at dawn. LTN is the obvious alternate for STN, but this is closed overnight due runway work. That would make BHX/EMA the favourite alternates for STN.
Look at the speculation on pprune (yes I know we shouldn't really)...but allegedly an unsuccessful attempt at autoland in fog at EMA, allegedly causing damage to the aircraft. BHX CAVOK and 35 miles away, know where I would have gone at that stage.
By: Skymonster
- 16th June 2006 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most logical explanation, based on all the heresay here and elsewhere, seems to me to be:
* TNT Liege-Stansted-Edinburgh elects to diver to EMA based on low vis (or reduced runway length, depending on who you believe) at Stansted, given that EMA is a TNT station
* EMA also low vis, but during an autopilot coupled approach at very low level the autopilot disengaged, resulting in a touchdown on the grass at EMA during which the right main gear was ripped off and damaged the flaps, followed by a pilot initiated go-around (this sounds like the most plausible explanation of the EMA part of the story to me, given that I find it hard to believe any crew would go that far below MDA without the runway in sight, or that the systems on the a/c would be that far off)
* Due to either (a) continued low vis at EMA and the previous problem and that BHX was CAVOK, or (b) concern about state runway at EMA due to previous go around and potential damage, crew elect to divert again to BHX, where they land without a right main gear resulting in the now familiar to most runway blockage.
By: jasop
- 17th June 2006 at 19:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely that's a good thing jasop. Must have been a nightmare for the ground staff at BHX today
Yep seems your right, was back in fri morning and still suffering the knock on effects.
Talking to the lads n lasses they had a very hard time, lots of offloaded angry passengers (one swearing and demanding to know why there wasnt a second runway :confused: ) and were doing turn arounds all night
New
Posts: 1,614
By: philgatwick05
- 17th June 2006 at 19:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What was the initial reason for diversion in this incident?
Fog at Stansted seems to be the generally accepted version.
Posts: 1,089
By: OneLeft - 15th June 2006 at 21:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely that's a good thing jasop. Must have been a nightmare for the ground staff at BHX today.
1L.
Posts: 683
By: Moondance - 15th June 2006 at 23:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No.....however.......overnight work at STN means approach aids/lighting significantly downgraded, high probability of diversion if fog about at dawn. LTN is the obvious alternate for STN, but this is closed overnight due runway work. That would make BHX/EMA the favourite alternates for STN.
Look at the speculation on pprune (yes I know we shouldn't really)...but allegedly an unsuccessful attempt at autoland in fog at EMA, allegedly causing damage to the aircraft. BHX CAVOK and 35 miles away, know where I would have gone at that stage.
Posts: 186
By: Matt K - 15th June 2006 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Air India diverted to LHR,
Emirates diverted to EMA,
Continental diverted to MAN.
Posts: 186
By: Matt K - 15th June 2006 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes it was a nightmare for us!! Working on check-in! (working for Servisair).Horrible atmosphere and all the moaning!
Posts: 1,953
By: Skymonster - 16th June 2006 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most logical explanation, based on all the heresay here and elsewhere, seems to me to be:
* TNT Liege-Stansted-Edinburgh elects to diver to EMA based on low vis (or reduced runway length, depending on who you believe) at Stansted, given that EMA is a TNT station
* EMA also low vis, but during an autopilot coupled approach at very low level the autopilot disengaged, resulting in a touchdown on the grass at EMA during which the right main gear was ripped off and damaged the flaps, followed by a pilot initiated go-around (this sounds like the most plausible explanation of the EMA part of the story to me, given that I find it hard to believe any crew would go that far below MDA without the runway in sight, or that the systems on the a/c would be that far off)
* Due to either (a) continued low vis at EMA and the previous problem and that BHX was CAVOK, or (b) concern about state runway at EMA due to previous go around and potential damage, crew elect to divert again to BHX, where they land without a right main gear resulting in the now familiar to most runway blockage.
Andy
Posts: 1,064
By: wozza - 16th June 2006 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What was the initial reason for diversion in this incident?
Posts: 61
By: jasop - 17th June 2006 at 19:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep seems your right, was back in fri morning and still suffering the knock on effects.
Talking to the lads n lasses they had a very hard time, lots of offloaded angry passengers (one swearing and demanding to know why there wasnt a second runway :confused: ) and were doing turn arounds all night
Posts: 1,614
By: philgatwick05 - 17th June 2006 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fog at Stansted seems to be the generally accepted version.