Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 28765 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6358 times:
It was a false fire warning in a wheel well. Following from the Transport Canada occurrence report.
The Cathay Pacific Airways Limited Boeing 747-800 (operating as flight CPA095) was on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (CYYZ) to Anchorage (PANC). NAV CANADA staff at Winnipeg ACC advised NAV CANADA staff at Toronto ACC that the aircraft was returning to Toronto due to a fire indication in a wheel well. The flight crew confirmed that there was no fire and the aircraft returned to Toronto, landing on runway 15L at 1353Z. ARFF services were called out for the landing and the aircraft taxied in without incident.
davidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 4138 times:
Many incidents related to CX in this 2 weeks.
A 777W going to London was landed in Wuhan, China after smoke was found in the cookpit.
A 343 going to Rome, one of the engine failed 5 hours after take off. Continued to Rome with the remaining 3 engines...
Together with the disagreement with the union of cabin crew,
really a bad Dec for CX
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5874 posts, RR: 43
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 2775 times:
Quoting B777LRF (Reply 7): Perfect example of an engine failure on a 4-holer being a nuisance, whereas on a 2-holer it would have been an emergency.
True, but with twice as many engines, you have twice the chance of an engine failure. (Actually more than twice, as ETOPS engines are maintained to a difference standard, but we wont go there!)
But operationally, when an engine is lost in a quad, the aircraft continues to where maintenance is easily available, or returns to the point of departure. It is not usually just a "nuisance" of which the passengers are not aware.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!