Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Rich46yo on February 04, 2017, 12:20:55 PM
These modern airliners have such incredible ranges if your going to India, Hong Kong, Korea, or the like you are probably going to be flying over some real desolate territory. And they do it on two engines nowadays cause the engines are so dependable and the built in safety margin of flying on one has been increased so much.
Today its nothing to be in the air for 16+ hours flying 8,000+ miles, ending up on the other side of the earth.
Its extremely unusual for a triple to lose an engine. Most of all for an airline like Swiss.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Serenity on February 04, 2017, 01:05:13 PM
So... Beta is a foreign concept to me, but I get it's a HUGE thing for airliners to stop on relatively short runways. How does being single engine affect stopping distance?
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Puma44 on February 04, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
So... Beta is a foreign concept to me, but I get it's a HUGE thing for airliners to stop on relatively short runways. How does being single engine affect stopping distance?
It will increase the landing rollout distance somewhat due to lack of the other reverser, higher single engine approach speed, aircraft weight, wx conditions, etc.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Busher on February 04, 2017, 05:35:30 PM
8605 feet is really not that short for a B777 even at it's single engine Vref.
Maintenance will surely whine about doing the engine repair/replacement in the winter in Frobisher Bay.
CYFB is 63.7 degrees north. :eek:
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Dawger on February 08, 2017, 05:40:56 PM
I have been to that airport.
No problem for a 777.
The problem is there is nothing else up there. Nearest alternate for FroBay is 400 miles south.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: PR3D4TOR on February 08, 2017, 05:44:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1SuK8HRXJk
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Rich46yo on February 08, 2017, 08:41:21 PM
Go to here http://flightaware.com/live/airport/CYFB (http://flightaware.com/live/airport/CYFB) and open up the map a bit. Now if you do this within a few hours of me posting it you'll catch this route during its primes times because many flights are heading to place in the world where its going to be their daytime , or, you'll catch a lot of cargo routes that fly over night. As you can see the near polar routes are very busy nowadays. What surprising is it doesnt happen more.
I finished up at a major airport and it surprised me that diversions due to mechanical were relatively rare. We'd get a couple of mechanicals every week but diversions were rare. I'd say diversions to other reason were more, or as, common. Stuff like riots on airplanes, sickness, people dropping dead. These can and will divert an airplane too. Even a security threat does and will.
Swiss's biggest problem was flying an airplane up there to get the passengers. Or somehow accommodating them. I'd like to know how they dealt with this. They may have very well flew another engine up there if the problem was bad enough and I doubt they have 777 rated techs at this puddle jumper airport.
OK I see its rated as a diversion on Polar routes and has a huge hangar for even the largest people hauler. Nobody got cold fixing this thing. Its also possible they had parts on hand since its rated as a diversion for a huge Polar route that has big planes diverting to. Techs too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport#Facilities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport#Facilities) Kind of fascinating world civilian aviation. I never learned about it until late in life but I'd go out there on the O'hare flight lines and watch 20 jets lined up to take off on one runway and would be in awe of such a big operation going on at once.
And so very few incidents like this one ever even happening. Its amazing.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: ghi on February 08, 2017, 09:35:35 PM
I came across lots of articles lately about the radiation exposure on polar routes /weak magnetic shields, maybe was not know until last years when NASA took some serious measurements . This one is interesting from yesterday Dailymail; "Travelers flying polar routes to Asia or Europe can receive radiation doses that are up to three-times higher than near the equator".
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Busher on February 09, 2017, 10:59:41 AM
OK I see its rated as a diversion on Polar routes and has a huge hangar for even the largest people hauler. Nobody got cold fixing this thing. Its also possible they had parts on hand since its rated as a diversion for a huge Polar route that has big planes diverting to. Techs too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport#Facilities
The FIRSTAIR/AIRNORTH hangar in CYFB can quite easily hold maybe a Twin Otter.
No airline is going to keep thousands of dollars in parts on hand nor retain an endorsed AME (yes Techs have to be endorsed on type as much as the pilots do) in anticipation of a diversion that might occur once in ten or more years.
I, like you mentioned, would like to know how SWISS provided for the diverted passengers.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: icepac on February 10, 2017, 08:55:48 PM
Tough landing when you know you can't really use the one engine you have left to provide much............if any reverse thrust.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Rich46yo on February 10, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Tough landing when you know you can't really use the one engine you have left to provide much............if any reverse thrust.
Airliners use much less runway then people think to land, especially at sea level. At 8,600' thats plenty of runway thus the certification of ETOPs Diversion for the 777. Even a 747 fully loaded only needs about 5,000'. When your flying they hit the brake and reverse thrust more to make a particular taxi way and get to the gate then they do to stop the plane safely.
That single engine on the 777 is the most powerful engine ever put on an airliner. I'd be far more worried about weather then a single 777 engines being able to stop in 8,600'. I finished my career at an airport. Its actually very unusual for an airliner to lose an engine and I never remember a 777 doing so. Normally its a hydraulics problem, occasionally flaps, once we had a Embraer have to slide land on its front two wheels cause the rear one wouldnt go down. The Pilot split the yellow lines and stayed there, a beautiful job.
For some reason its unusual to have a mechanical on a larger airplane. Those 70 to 190 seat CJs, EJs, MDs, 320's, 737's, they keep them flying and making money all day long. They stop, unload, load back up, and are off again all day long. Those routes are where the real moneys made and they squeeze every cent they can out of those airplanes which is why they are the ones with mechanicals most of the time. Probably.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Busher on February 11, 2017, 06:11:00 AM
Tough landing when you know you can't really use the one engine you have left to provide much............if any reverse thrust.
Not really. For exactly the reason you describe... asymmetric reverse thrust can only be used sparingly; reverse thrust is never used in calculating the FAA certified landing distances of airliners.... brakes only. So any reverse the pilot can use is bonus.
Title: Re: Swiss Air 777 diverts to Iqaluit
Post by: Zimme83 on February 11, 2017, 07:10:46 PM