17th July 2017 at 16:22 #819233
An Air Canada Rouge flight to Toronto had to return to Gatwick earlier today following a burst tyre on take-off.
The airport is currently using its back-up runway for take offs and landings. Gatwick is updating its Twitter feed here:17th July 2017 at 16:43 #819234
Mark CaswellKeymaster17th July 2017 at 22:03 #819244
AMcWhirterParticipant18th July 2017 at 09:38 #819290
A friend of mine flew from Genoa to LGW yesterday. The flight took off on time but, because of the chaos at LGW, the flight was diverted to Bournemouth.
BA paid for transport to LGW but they were still 8 hours late arriving.
I assume that because the flight took off on time they are not entitled to EU261 compensation?18th July 2017 at 09:51 #819298
It’s the arrival time that triggers compensation, not the departure, but in this case I do not think a claim for EU261 would succeed since it was clearly (a) an extraordinary circumstance and (b) beyond the control of the airline. I cannot see that even the smartest lawyer could argue differently.18th July 2017 at 15:02 #819392
When an airline/aircraft causes a runway blockage or similar the airline insurer is responsible for all other carriers costs incurred by the problem.
So BA would probably pay out happily knowing they can recharge Air Canada Rouge. When the boots on the other foot…..!!18th July 2017 at 15:57 #819414
Now, I wonder how LGW could have minimised the severity of the delays and cancellations their passengers have had to endure…….
Answers on a postcard please…FAO Theresa May, 10 Downing Street!!19th July 2017 at 12:41 #819545
Correction: answers on a postcard please to The Maybot, 10 Downing Street.
We’ve got a robot suffering software failure in charge so you should expect a reply in the same vein.19th July 2017 at 13:17 #819556
Would it not have made common sense for the Air Canada flight to be diverted to a “maintenance airport” instead of blocking the main runway at one of the busiest airports in the UK.
Does anyone know whether the emergency was a mayday or a pan…19th July 2017 at 13:52 #819567
@martynsinclair It returned to a major airport…LGW…due to the emergency coverage on hand to cope with a potential major incident, involving possible loss of life. Very sensible and the only option. The detrimental effect of delays to other carriers does not come into consideration.19th July 2017 at 14:34 #819578
There are many non “major airports” with comprehensive emergency & maintenance equipment. This was a burst tyre, the aircraft was in the air for just under the hour to presumably access the damage and dump fuel.
I accept any airport accepting this emergency, would realise there would be a high likelihood of the aircraft being stuck on the runway and the runway needing to be repaired. As controversial as this may sound, it was a burst tyre, not an inflight fire.
Was there really a need to bring this aircraft back to Gatwick, knowing the chaos it would cause..19th July 2017 at 15:39 #819584
I’m with you on this one Martyn, once it was confirmed that it was a burst tyre, with no risk of fire, possibly do a low flyover for a visual check, why couldn’t it then continue on to Toronto ?
And why not divert to LHR where AC must have their own maintenance people?
Having said that, if it was only a burst tyre why couldn’t it taxi off the active runway?
So maybe, a wee bit more serious than 1 tyre going bang.19th July 2017 at 16:16 #819585
My son was caught up in this, inbound to LGW but was one of the lucky ones as he got there with only 2.5 hours delay, so fared a lot better than many others.
I accept that they probably needed to land SASPO to inspect for damage, rather than continue to YYZ but why they had to do a turnback to LGW where with its single runway it was going to cause massive disruption, rather than a multi-runway alternate (MAN/DUB/AMS) is beyond me. That said, I suppose they evaluated alternatives and that was the least bad.19th July 2017 at 19:16 #819596
As there is a designated airport for hijackings there should be a designated airport for emergency landings, where the Captain deems it possible and safe for the aircraft to continue. Where there is an emergency on take off, there is usually always the need to dump fuel before making a return.
Arguably, diverting to a designated emergency airport could create a far more efficient disaster recovery for injured passengers getting them to hospitals and medical care without the need to fight already congested roads.
Not wishing to sound callous, but is it really necessary to use Heathrow / Gatwick for an emergency landing bearing in mind the mayhem that will follow…19th July 2017 at 22:19 #819605
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.