Looks like CX Cargo is back on the ground in YYZ,
Anyone know the problem? A buddy has a pic on his facebook account, Flightaware has it routed back as well
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA95
G
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- northstardc4m
- Posts: 3526
- Joined:
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
Couldn't of been anything serious, they would of diverted to MSP, YWG or something from there if it was...
[Edited 2012-12-13 07:45:28]
[Edited 2012-12-13 07:45:28]
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
I don't see a diversion on flightaware. CP95 regularly stops at YYZ 2-3x a week JFK-YYZ-ANC.
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
Our Fueler friend said it left at 5am or so and came back at 9am or so... he has a picture on his facebook,
Its the "Hong Kong Trader" , says on Facebook that a "fire indication sensor" came on over YWG, so it returned to YYZ to swap out the sensor and some seals, no fire obviously
G
Its the "Hong Kong Trader" , says on Facebook that a "fire indication sensor" came on over YWG, so it returned to YYZ to swap out the sensor and some seals, no fire obviously
G
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
Ah cool. Thanks Grant. It's rare to see the 748 in YYZ in daylight. It usually arrives at 1am and leaves at 3am.
Looks like flightaware does not reflect the YYZ-YYZ segment.
Rgds
Neil
Looks like flightaware does not reflect the YYZ-YYZ segment.
Rgds
Neil
-
- Viscount724
- Posts: 19316
- Joined:
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
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.
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
- Posts: 373
- Joined:
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
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
[Edited 2012-12-14 05:55:58]
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
[Edited 2012-12-14 05:55:58]
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
| Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 6): A 343 going to Rome, one of the engine failed 5 hours after take off. Continued to Rome with the remaining 3 engines. |
Perfect example of an engine failure on a 4-holer being a nuisance, whereas on a 2-holer it would have been an emergency.
There is some truth to the saying "4 engines 4 long-haul".
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
RE: CPA95 748 Returns To YYZ - Emergency
| 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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 24Whiskey, aileron1999, akelley728, alancostello, alasizon, arfbool, boxer7, Brickell305, CaliguyNYC, capejet, cleair, CrewBunk, Cxtl1na, DEN1895, dk44, eagleheart87, hdb, hongming, Iemand91, IndEagle, IrishAyes, kilopapa1, LAXdude1023, LH506, LHUSA, malev2012, matt, Metchalus, mn2018, NZ321, OKCDCA, onwFan, ordbosewr, Pantonov22, Password, piedmontf284000, retiredmx, SilverShrimp0, smi0006, Someone83, SWDC, Tailwinds13, TexasAirCorp, TFdude15, Thule, Tolbs, USPIT10L, VS11, Zbogart757 and 299 guests