[AMcWhirter]

When Zurich passengers boarded their Swiss B777-300ER non-stop flight for Los Angeles yesterday they never realised they would end up in the Canadian wilderness.

Yesterday’s twin-engined flight LX40 had to close down one engine whilst overflying Northern Canada.

It headed for Iqaluit airport which is a recognised diversion airport and, I believe, also featured as a diversion airport for the Space Shuttle.

The flight was lightly loaded. CBC reports of just 216 passengers plus 17 crew.

With one engine closed down the Swiss flight was unable to continue to Los Angeles. CBC reports that another aircraft was being sent from Los Angeles to rescue the stranded passengers.

News pieces including a video of the landing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/swiss-air-emergency-landing-iqaluit-1.3962634

Los Angeles-bound flight makes emergency landing in not-so-balmy Iqaluit

[maxgeorge]

I’d have been thrilled.

An exotic destination at no extra cost!

I’ve been using LX for JNB flights since BA went to the dogs, so a similar diversion on that leg could mean Kinshasa or Khartoum. Preferably the latter, as anyone who has ever been to Kinshasa would probably concur.

[AMcWhirter]

It turned out to be quite an ordeal for the passengers.

The original plan had been for the passengers to disembark at Iqaluit and later continue with a replacement aircraft (which was being sent from Los Angeles) straight to their scheduled destination.

According to reports, in the end they all had to remain onboard the B777-300ER from 15.00hrs on Tuesday February 1 until they could leave (on a replacement Swiss aircraft which was sent from New York) on Wednesday February 2 at 05.00hrs.

Instead of continuing to Los Angeles all the passengers ended up being taken on the replacement Swiss aircraft to New York.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674a_surprise_nunavut_stopover_as_flight_makes_emergency_landing_in_iqalu/

[maxgeorge]

Diverted to New York?

Ag suss, under present circumstances, maybe Kinshasa wouldn’t be so bad…

[MartynSinclair]

I have landed at Iqaluit in the middle of the night as a refuelling stop in a PJ. My memory of the airport was the hot chocolate served by the handling agents whilst the aircraft was being refuelled and the passengers dogs being walked..

Unprepared passengers could be seriously affected by the freezing temperatures & were probably better off in the aircraft than the very bare terminal. Interesting that the airport is used for a heavy jet diversion..

[FDOS_UK]

Martyn

It’s always interesting to interpret what the phrase ‘land at the nearest suitable airfield’ means.

[LuganoPirate]

MaxGeorge, fully agree with you. I’d have loved a diversion like that as well, once on the ground that is. I’d have been biting my nails in abject fear though hoping the second one didn’t fail as well! I’d however feel sorry for those stuck in Economy for 14 hours.

I often do the JNB run as well, but with 4 engines they’d likely carry on. Brazzaville being my preffered diversion though. Much nicer than Kinshasa IMO. Interestingly, if a 340 to Asia goes tech they delay the JNB flight to the morning which means everyone gets put up in a hotel, and you get €700 for the delay with a wonderful day flight across Africa. Lovely Jubbly!

[LuganoPirate]

PS. Must have been exciting for the locals to see a 777 landing there. Looking at the video it was a perfect landing and on reflection I wonder if the pax knew an engine was out?

[maxgeorge]

Brazzaville and Libreville – never seen either, to my regret LP. I like to imagine they still retain an air of the ambience francaise.

As for the Zurich delay, well a stay at the Storchen would certainly be better than the tarmac at Iqaluit.

I’ve only had one armrest gripper, an erratic Cruzeiro descent into Cayenne. I would not want to repeat the experience, even for a view of Inuit territory.

[AMcWhirter]

LP – I doubt if passengers would have been aware. The crew would probably have told passengers it was a “technical issue” or words to that effect.

Had it been a 4-engined aircraft I wonder if the flight would have continued its nonstop flight to Los Angeles ?

I recall that British Airways B747 Los Angeles-London flight in 2005 which flew almost all the way on three engines. (However it had to land in Manchester for refuelling as it flew at a lower altitude).

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/01/local/me-britair1

[LuganoPirate]

Both are very French Max, though it’s been a few years since I was last there.

As for armrest grippers, sometimes I feel like it’s me holding the plane up!!!

I tend to agree with you Alex. I’m not even sure I would have wanted to know!

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=790016]LP – I doubt if passengers would have been aware. The crew would probably have told passengers it was a “technical issue” or words to that effect.

Had it been a 4-engined aircraft I wonder if the flight would have continued its nonstop flight to Los Angeles ?

I recall that British Airways B747 Los Angeles-London flight in 2005 which flew almost all the way on three engines. (However it had to land in Manchester for refuelling as it flew at a lower altitude).

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/01/local/me-britair1

It’s not a question of being a ‘4 engined jet’, but more of whcih 4 engined jet and its certification.

The BA 747-400 was certified for operation on 3 engines and even then, it caused a bit of a stink from the US for reasons that were never entirley clear to me.

In this Youtube clip, a Swiss A340 has to shut down an engine and returns to Zurich. The circumstances are different (it had just left home base, with lots of engineering support available and better able to caref or the pax), but demonstrates that 4 engines doesn’t automatically mean continue.

I really like this video, it shows the deliberate and calm approach that a well trained crew applies in an unusual circumstance and they don’t make things worse by rushing or panicking.In particular, the captain shows quiet leadership and good coordination with his colleagues.

Also, if one listens carefully, the captain says they don’thave an emergency (mayday) but are seeking priority assistance (pan pan pan).

I may be wrong, but IIRC, a twin with an engine failure declares an emergency when shutting down an engine, as there is less redundancy.

[/quote]

[LuganoPirate]

I remember once taking off from LCY in a Swiss BAE 147, there was no mistaking the engine loss as flames came out the back and the plane veered to the right. For a moment I tough we were doomed but the plane was quickly bought under control.

The Captain explained what had happened and told the crew to offer champagne to everyone. We then continued to Zurich getting all the shortcuts and landed just 50 minutes later which was the quickest I’ve ever done.

[AMcWhirter]

An update. AV Herald reported (on February 2) that LX’s B777-300ER is expected to remain on the ground at Iqaluit “for at least five days.”

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a453674

Yesterday (February 4) a huge Russian Antonov An-124 freighter departed Zurich with a spare GE-90 engine. The Antonov arrived into Iqaluit at 15.30 hrs local time.

A video was posted online yesterday showing the Antonov arriving into Iqaluit.

[MartynSinclair]

ref my earlier comment “Interesting that the airport is used for a heavy jet diversion” – I just reviewed some charts & I don’t think there was anywhere suitably close for the aircraft to continue to… Yes the aircraft would probably have made a more suitably equipped airport, but an engine out, in the wilderness…. good decision…

[Author]

Posts