Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Inquirer
Posts: 2088
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by Inquirer »

Looks like a lot of sidewind!
Did they try a second time, or went for another runway/airport instead?

CRJ 900
Posts: 139
Joined: 13 Oct 2010, 13:21
Location: Antwerp Area
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by CRJ 900 »

Looks like the Flybe pilot did a great job after all!
Check hln.be or youtube and see the movie of the EK flight trying to land twice at BHX and didn't succeed. Diverted to Gatwick afterwards.
Rgds,
CRJ 900

SFM
Posts: 127
Joined: 11 Jan 2013, 17:21

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by SFM »

SN3291 (BRU-TLV) OO-SNB returned to BRU; was already past Munich... any info?

Bel33
Posts: 137
Joined: 18 Feb 2012, 18:36

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by Bel33 »

Safe landing without emergency procedures and the back flight (speed and altitude) to Brussels seems to be normal

Atco EBBR
Posts: 129
Joined: 21 May 2012, 13:11

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by Atco EBBR »

Smell of smoke in the cockpit...

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3085
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by jan_olieslagers »

Like someone else asked recently: why return to the point of departure? Either it was urgent, in which case they could have landed nearby; or it wasn't urgent, and then they could have continued to destination.

fcw
Posts: 610
Joined: 01 Nov 2006, 23:20

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by fcw »

jan_olieslagers wrote:Like someone else asked recently: why return to the point of departure? Either it was urgent, in which case they could have landed nearby; or it wasn't urgent, and then they could have continued to destination.
The problem is, Jan, that the aircraft would need maintenance before the next flight. So if you land at an airport where there is no maintenance available you will be stuck for some time. You will fly 150 passengers to their destination but your aircraft could be stuck for a day or so, leading to some cancelled flights. In such a case the better solution is to return to home base to fix the problem.

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3085
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by jan_olieslagers »

Thanks for your patient explanation. So I must understand that the airline's first concern is the least expensive repair, rather than their pax/customer's convenience? I can't help sympathising with low cost carriers, who at least admit to such a policy frankly.

JAFflyer
Posts: 196
Joined: 06 Nov 2006, 14:36

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by JAFflyer »

@ Jan, it means the passengers at the original destination (TLV) will get another aircraft, which will take them to BRU. They will suffer a delay, but that is still better than a cancelled flight. Having a plane stuck in outstation means also disruption for days to come, causing more inconvenience to passengers. This looks like a decision where the passengers and the company's wellbeing was put up front. If it really was because of a smell of smoke in the cockpit, this would look strange to me, as this would mean, land asap...

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3085
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by jan_olieslagers »

Thank you for confirming my observation...

SabenaForever
Posts: 497
Joined: 24 Dec 2003, 00:00

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by SabenaForever »

A lot of flights to the US are delayed... US to Philadelphia, UA to Chicago, DL to Atlanta and the UA to Washington is cancelled! Wheater issues above the Atlantic?

teddybAIR
Posts: 1613
Joined: 02 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Steenokkerzeel
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by teddybAIR »

convair wrote:Interesting. Thank you teddybAIR!
You're welcome. An additional reasons to return:

> EBBR was probably already a planned departure alternate, so the crew had al the necessary info on board
> in an emergency/urgency, it is always comfortable to land at a familiar aerodrome with known procedures
> highest likelyhood of qualified maintenance staff & spare parts
> best chance of spare aircraft
> ...

But rest assured: the crew made a thorough analysis of internal and external factors with primary objective to guarantee everyone's safety.

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by teach »

jan_olieslagers wrote:Thank you for confirming my observation...
He's not confirming your observation, he's explaining why it's wrong. The solution SN chose meant one group of passengers suffered a delay of a few hours, a second possibly a smaller delay. Your solution would have resulted in a cancelled return flight, meaning delays of possibly days for some passengers, and inconveniencing everybody on the return flight far more than was now the case. Not to mention the knock-on effect having an aircraft stuck in Africa for a few days would have on the rest of the long-haul network: more delays and possible cancellations, more inconvenienced passengers.

The solution chosen here was the best for the passengers and the company.

sean1982
Posts: 3273
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by sean1982 »

I wonder why people who don't have a clue about aviation always THINK they know better then the crew who had countless hours of training and years of experience :roll:

Pocahontas
Posts: 186
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 15:26

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by Pocahontas »

Well said!!!

convair
Posts: 1815
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 00:02

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by convair »

In this particular case, everyone was wrong as no replacement aircraft did the flight, nor of course the return flight, so that both passengers departing from BRU and those departing from TLV suffered a one day delay, unless they switched to other airlines of course. And, BTW, it was not a flight to Africa, contrary to what an "expert" said here.
teach wrote: The solution SN chose meant one group of passengers suffered a delay of a few hours, a second possibly a smaller delay. Your solution would have resulted in a cancelled return flight, meaning delays of possibly days for some passengers, and inconveniencing everybody on the return flight far more than was now the case. Not to mention the knock-on effect having an aircraft stuck in Africa for a few days would have on the rest of the long-haul network: more delays and possible cancellations, more inconvenienced passengers.

The solution chosen here was the best for the passengers and the company.
The lesson given by "teach" in completely wrong!

Passenger
Posts: 6942
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by Passenger »

From The Aviation Herald:

On 29th Nov 2013, Jet Airways 9W-228 (A333) from Brussels to Newark was enroute at FL370 over the Atlantic Ocean about 150nm southeast of St. John's (Canada). Swiss LX-16 (also A333) from Zurich to New York was enroute at FL380 along the same track, though offset to the right by 1nm, right above the Jet Airways A330.

At that time, 14:14Z, air traffic control issued a clearance to 9W-228 to fly direct to TOPPS and climb to FL380. The Swiss crew almost instantly reported a TCAS resolution climb at which point the air traffic controller recognized the error and cleared 9W-228 back down to FL370.

More details:
http://avherald.com/h?article=46cbe51e&opt=0

sdbelgium
Posts: 4055
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 13:32
Location: Gent
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by sdbelgium »

Some diversions:

RYR6213 ALC-NRN div CRL
LGL9304 FRA-LUX div LGG
TCW3327 BRU-(LPA-)ACE div FUE
JAF3113 BRU-TFS div LPA (787)
Last edited by sdbelgium on 11 Dec 2013, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by teach »

convair wrote:In this particular case, everyone was wrong as no replacement aircraft did the flight, nor of course the return flight, so that both passengers departing from BRU and those departing from TLV suffered a one day delay, unless they switched to other airlines of course. And, BTW, it was not a flight to Africa, contrary to what an "expert" said here.
teach wrote: The solution SN chose meant one group of passengers suffered a delay of a few hours, a second possibly a smaller delay. Your solution would have resulted in a cancelled return flight, meaning delays of possibly days for some passengers, and inconveniencing everybody on the return flight far more than was now the case. Not to mention the knock-on effect having an aircraft stuck in Africa for a few days would have on the rest of the long-haul network: more delays and possible cancellations, more inconvenienced passengers.

The solution chosen here was the best for the passengers and the company.
The lesson given by "teach" in completely wrong!
Just to clear up any confusion: I was talking about the KGL flight. Mistakenly thought the discussion was still about that.

But nevertheless thank you for the arrogant tone of your response, convair. Much appreciated.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 37757
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Abnormalities in BRU-ANR-CRL-LGG-OST in 2013

Post by sn26567 »

sdbelgium wrote:Some diversions:

RYR6213 ALC-NRN div CRL
LGL9304 FRA-LUX div LGG
TCW3327 BRU-(LPA-)ACE div FUE
JAF3113 BRU-TFS div LPA (787)
And JAF3181 BRU-LPA-ACE div FUE. I know, I was on board. The plane tried twice to land in ACE, but vthe wind was too strong. The pilot decided to return to LPA, but halfway he was instructed not to land there due to thunderstorms. He finally decided to land in FUE. After two hours on the ground waiting for better weather conditions at ACE, the rest of the trip (FUE-ACE-BRU) was cancelled (probably because the pilots would exceed their time) and passengers sent to a nice local hotel.

Now waiting at what will happen tomorrow...
André
ex Sabena #26567

Post Reply