LX40 operating ZRH-LAX diverted to YFB.
One engine had to be shut down apparently.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircr ... nd#c551e56

Video: http://www.airlive.net/live-swiss-lx40- ... shut-down/

Looks about as inviting as Cold Bay, AK where DL diverted a couple of weeks back. At least the sun was out. What do they do w/ the pax until a sub aircraft can pick them up or that 77W is repaired? I looked at Iqaluit on Google Maps... not a whole lot there.

Looks like they picked the perfect February day for it...
CYFB 012100Z 35007KT 5SM -SN OVC054 M22/M25 A2966 RMK SC8 SLP051

Would they be able to take off again with all of the pax/luggage/cargo with only an 8600 ft runway, will it require a different plane(s) come in for the passengers, or could they take off but with a fuel stop before LAX?

I'm assuming some of that may be decided based on the non-fuel payload weight (i.e. full flight).

It might be able to takeoff again, but with the runway at YFB being only 8600 ft long, it would have to start at the edge of the threshold with a full-power standing start for the roll.

YYZSpotter1991 wrote:

It might be able to takeoff again, but with the runway at YFB being only 8600 ft long, it would have to start at the edge of the threshold with a full-power standing start for the roll.

8600' and -22C it won't be a problem at all. Standing on the brakes gains you a negligible amount of runway compared to a rolling takeoff. You just make a lot of noise and waste fuel.

Yes, it would easily be able to make it the remainder of the way tk LAX off of an 8,600 ft runway.

1. It's not that far

2. It's nowhere near MTOW given the remaining distance

3. It's rather cold in Canada, which helps performance.

It won't have to 'start at the edge of the threshold with a full-power standing start'.

It will be a normal takeoff and likely derated at that.

Iqaluit would be quite the adventurous diversion for people intending to go to LAX. I hope the packed sweaters. I'm sure the people there will be very welcoming anyway.

Also that was an awesome video of the landing!

Wow - awesome video - thanks for sharing OP! Did they let the pax off the plane or are they stuck onboard? I imagine Iqaluit has very limited facilities to handle a full 777. But then again Canadians are quite hospitable so I'm sure everyone will be taken care of well until their replacement a/c arrives!

There are a surprisingly large number of facilities if passengers get stuck. Several hotels, a few restaurants, a hospital, college and government buildings. I suspect they could take care of the passengers for a night if necessary. Way better than getting stuck in Cold Harbor, Wake or Midway Islands, or many other diversion spots. Since the passengers are coming from Zurich, I suspect that they can handle the cold if they need to be transported. Except messing up schedules, I'd quite like to try a night there.

Rescue flight SWR7002 from EWR on its way shortly.

Iqaluit is the capital city of the territory Nunavut, with a population a little under 7000, I believe. It often hosts conferences and trade shows. Unless there's a giant conference happening right now, there would be more than enough hotel rooms for a full 777. It regularly sees 737's, but it does see the occasional larger plane: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/huge-jet- ... s-1.596546

Sorry! Actually it's from JFK.

lowfareair wrote:

Would they be able to take off again with all of the pax/luggage/cargo with only an 8600 ft runway, will it require a different plane(s) come in for the passengers, or could they take off but with a fuel stop before LAX?

I'm assuming some of that may be decided based on the non-fuel payload weight (i.e. full flight).

I would doubt the same plane would be ready to be put back in service before charter planes could come in and take all the passengers and cargo to a another airport. Would it even be legal to put the plane back in service without the engine being swapped out and flying a test flight?

I wonder how many passengers were on the flight, seems to be an a330-300 going to the rescue. Could just be wrong info on the interweb though.

216 passengers on an aircraft that seats 340.

usflyguy wrote:

216 passengers on an aircraft that seats 340.

Cool, thanks for the info! I knew there was a difference of 100 odd seats between Swiss' layout of the two which just made me think of the number of travellers

Even if Iqualuit has hotels to take care of passengers, unless they have a jetbridge that can dock a 777, I would rather sit cooped inside a presumably heated plane than step out in -22 C brrrrrr.

Looks like LX15 was cancelled this evening so it could be used for the rescue mission.

The video wont work for me (firewall I assume).

The satellite image shows X's on the runways in several spots. Why? Dated photo? Or is the airport not used commercially on a regular basis?

Thanks.

Now that LX 7002 is inbound to YFB and about 3 hours out, any guess where it will head on departure from YFB? I assume that it was the fresh crew from LX 15 so they would have enough duty time left to go back to JFK for sure, depending on the delay in departure.

m0ssy wrote:

Or is the airport not used commercially on a regular basis?

Thanks.

The airport has regular daily 737's flights along with a 767 freighter flight.

travaz wrote:

Now that LX 7002 is inbound to YFB and about 3 hours out, any guess where it will head on departure from YFB? I assume that it was the fresh crew from LX 15 so they would have enough duty time left to go back to JFK for sure, depending on the delay in departure.

It's going back to JFK, suppose to arrive in the Big Apple at about 0630hrs.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

3. It's rather cold in Canada, which helps performance.
.

Funniest blanket statement I've ever read on here.....

Maybe you should say......"it's rather cold in Iqaluit this time of year, which helps performance!"

Why is the A333 returning to JFK...why would it not just fly them straight to LAX?

BG777300ER wrote:

Why is the A333 returning to JFK...why would it not just fly them straight to LAX?

Maybe it's going to operate JFK-ZRH tomorrow, to take all the LX15 passengers stranded at JFK when tonight's flight was cancelled. Between B6, AA, and DL, there are lots of options to get the LX40 passengers to LAX once they get to JFK.

Thanks for posting video of landing. Any pilots out there know whether or not reverse thrust is used differently, or at all, when landing with one engine?

Swiss cnld LX15 operating JFK-ZRH and sent the A333 to YFB. Looks like they're flying everybody to JFK (LX7002/LX7003).

flyingclrs727 wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

Would they be able to take off again with all of the pax/luggage/cargo with only an 8600 ft runway, will it require a different plane(s) come in for the passengers, or could they take off but with a fuel stop before LAX?

I'm assuming some of that may be decided based on the non-fuel payload weight (i.e. full flight).

I would doubt the same plane would be ready to be put back in service before charter planes could come in and take all the passengers and cargo to a another airport. Would it even be legal to put the plane back in service without the engine being swapped out and flying a test flight?

Normal scheduled engine changes do not need a test flight, just a verification flight before the aircraft goes ETOPS but the flight to lax wouldn't be ETOPS anyways.(If they even need to swap the engine) However the time required to put the aircraft back in service will most likely take days, passengers wouldn't like be stranded that long.

m0ssy wrote:

The satellite image shows X's on the runways in several spots. Why? Dated photo? Or is the airport not used commercially on a regular basis?

The google satellite image is out of date. There was maintenance being done in 2015. One side of the runway was open for a reduced length, and temporary rwy edge lights were installed. The maintenance work has been completed now.

If the person who posted this is quoting accurately, here is the NOTAM from that time:

150221 CYFB IQALUIT
CYFB WEST 100 FT RWY 16/34 FULL LEN CLSD DUE RESURFACING.
TEMPO RWY EDGE LGT INSTALLED ALONG EXISTING RCL
1507250148 TIL 1508061130

For those of you on Twitter, check out my buddy @tattuinee for some cool coverage of the incident.

It sounds like the passengers were given tours of the town and perhaps the new, yet to be opened boondoggle of a terminal.

It's a good thing it was relatively warm today.

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Even if Iqualuit has hotels to take care of passengers, unless they have a jetbridge that can dock a 777, I would rather sit cooped inside a presumably heated plane than step out in -22 C brrrrrr.

I would't be sure its going to be heated very long. All you really need to do is wrap a blanket around yourself and walk down the stairs into a bus I presume is waiting. I've been outside at -30 (F, but nearly the same as -30C) and walking to my car was no problem. I was wearing a sheepskin coat and jeans. My only mistake was taking a deep breath since I was a bit tired coming out of the gym. That hurt. I have often walked my dogs in the low negative numbers dressed a bit better. The dogs used fur coats.

gpasternak wrote:

Thanks for posting video of landing. Any pilots out there know whether or not reverse thrust is used differently, or at all, when landing with one engine?

On Boeing airplanes you use reverse normally unless directional control is an issue, then you return the thrust level to reverse idle detent.


Would be interesting to know what exactly the issue was and why he didn't pick a more "suitable" airport?

7BOEING7 wrote:

Would be interesting to know what exactly the issue was and why he didn't pick a more "suitable" airport?

Yes, it would be interesting to know the issue, and at some point, the info will probably make its way here. As to suitability, correct me if I'm wrong, but with an engine out, isn't procedure to find the nearest diversion airfield, and head there? With relatively few options available when flying over Northern Canada and Greenland, I don't think the rules allow much debating of choices. Besides, what is not suitable about YFB? It's got enough runway, enough accommodations for passengers, and enough airport infrastructure to handle large WB's. Even the A380 did cold-weather testing there. By the sounds of it, YFB is a lot more "suitable" than CDB where DL diverted to recently.

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

Can an An124 operate from an 8600 foot runway? May have to go with a 747.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

Can an An124 operate from an 8600 foot runway? May have to go with a 747.

I dont know about the Antonov. If they use a 747F they will need to remove the fan module from the core to load it, meaning they will need to be re-installed once on site.

This all depends on what happened; they may not need to replace it at all. Engines can be shut down due to reasons that don't affect the actual core engine, such as IDG overheat or oil pump failure or whatever. The core engine and fan may be fine.

kivalliqboy1 wrote:

For those of you on Twitter, check out my buddy @tattuinee for some cool coverage of the incident.

It sounds like the passengers were given tours of the town and perhaps the new, yet to be opened boondoggle of a terminal.

It's a good thing it was relatively warm today.

What's your definition of relatively warm?

flyDTW1992 wrote:

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

Can an An124 operate from an 8600 foot runway? May have to go with a 747.

IL76 can ferry GE90.

ExDubai wrote:

kivalliqboy1 wrote:

For those of you on Twitter, check out my buddy @tattuinee for some cool coverage of the incident.

It sounds like the passengers were given tours of the town and perhaps the new, yet to be opened boondoggle of a terminal.

It's a good thing it was relatively warm today.

What's your definition of relatively warm?

One of the definitions I heard is that it is warm if you can pee outdoors without the help of a second guy who breaks off ice...

aerolimani wrote:

m0ssy wrote:

The satellite image shows X's on the runways in several spots. Why? Dated photo? Or is the airport not used commercially on a regular basis?

The google satellite image is out of date. There was maintenance being done in 2015. One side of the runway was open for a reduced length, and temporary rwy edge lights were installed. The maintenance work has been completed now.

If the person who posted this is quoting accurately, here is the NOTAM from that time:

150221 CYFB IQALUIT
CYFB WEST 100 FT RWY 16/34 FULL LEN CLSD DUE RESURFACING.
TEMPO RWY EDGE LGT INSTALLED ALONG EXISTING RCL
1507250148 TIL 1508061130

Cheers, thanks for this!

BG777300ER wrote:

Why is the A333 returning to JFK...why would it not just fly them straight to LAX?

If I had to guess, it's mostly about crew hours and scheduling. LX likely schedules LX 15 (from which the aircraft made up the rescue flight) with two pilots and it's unlikely they could fly JFK-YFB-LAX while staying within duty hour limitations for the pilots (the out-and-back from JFK is close to three hours shorter). Also, the deadhead for the crews to bring the rescue aircraft back to ZRH (assuming they wouldn't use the rescue flight's crew the next day) is shorter and a ferry from LAX to ZRH would also require an additional pilot.

kalvado wrote:

ExDubai wrote:

kivalliqboy1 wrote:

For those of you on Twitter, check out my buddy @tattuinee for some cool coverage of the incident.

It sounds like the passengers were given tours of the town and perhaps the new, yet to be opened boondoggle of a terminal.

It's a good thing it was relatively warm today.

What's your definition of relatively warm?

One of the definitions I heard is that it is warm if you can pee outdoors without the help of a second guy who breaks off ice...

Thx, I'll not ask about your def. of freaking cold....

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

It's a bit confusing that you bring up the need to fly in a GE90 but don't know why it was shut down.

For all we know, it might not need an engine swap.

aerolimani wrote:

7BOEING7 wrote:

..... As to suitability, correct me if I'm wrong, but with an engine out, isn't procedure to find the nearest diversion airfield, and head there? .....

Can't speak to Swiss Air's operations, but the wording in the Boeing QRH is "Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport" (not "nearest diversion airfield") and that's a decision the flight crew/dispatch/maintenance come up with together. In this case the "nearest suitable airport" was also the nearest airport they could divert to. Remember the BA 747 that lost an engine on takeoff out of LAX but continued on to LHR -- perfectly legal.

Revelation wrote:

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

It's a bit confusing that you bring up the need to fly in a GE90 but don't know why it was shut down.

For all we know, it might not need an engine swap.

True, it's more than likely a part/black box that can be changed. In fact based on the maintenance reporting capabilities of the 777 (or at other modern airliner), I'm guessing the mechanics that went north with the "rescue" airplane had spare parts with them and are in the process of fixing it right now.

7BOEING7 wrote:

Remember the BA 747 that lost an engine on takeoff out of LAX but continued on to LHR -- perfectly legal.

Except for the fine that BA had levied on them by the FAA.

Am I correct in seeing that the rescue A333 spent about 5 hours on the ground at YFB?

dopplerd wrote:

7BOEING7 wrote:

Remember the BA 747 that lost an engine on takeoff out of LAX but continued on to LHR -- perfectly legal.

Except for the fine that BA had levied on them by the FAA.

No fine. The FAA ended up dropping the charges against BA. Said that whatever conclusion their UK equivalent, the CAA, came to, the FAA would accept. And the CAA found no wrongdoing, the aircraft was not found to be "not airworthy".
And if I recall correctly they never made it to LHR, but had to make do with MAN.

Revelation wrote:

77west wrote:

There is the matter of getting a GE90 to this location, and then installing it. Any ideas why it was shut down?

It's a bit confusing that you bring up the need to fly in a GE90 but don't know why it was shut down.

For all we know, it might not need an engine swap.

In light of the very recent Qatar Trent XWB engine swap ( great pics btw ) isn`t only fitting, & far more exciting
to have speculation that indeed we can expect a new GE90 to be flown in? Where is your party spirit tonight?!