Flightradar24 Thread Part III

CoisFharraige

Mebuntu wrote: »

Is it likely that, if they actually had an engine out, would they circle for 2 hours plus off the Wicklow Coast?

No, in that case they’d likely divert to SNN, as an engine out, while not hugely severe (relatively speaking) it is still quite a danger to the aircraft as further complications could arise.

Take the Aer Lingus A330 that had an engine failure on rotation a while back as an example, was too heavy for DUB so diverted to SNN.

robbie1876

And another slightly different question:

If it was indeed an engine out due to a birdstrike, there would obviously be an increased threat to the aircraft with just the one engine left. The Norwegian entered a hold off the coast of Wicklow at 5,000ft for several hours. Google tells me that the glide ratio for a 737 is around 18:1, so if the sole engine remaining was to quit at 5000ft the aircraft would glide for about 15 nautical miles. That's not enough to make it back to Dublin Airport, so I wonder why would it wasn't holding at a much higher and safer altitude?

faoiarvok

robbie1876 wrote: »

And another slightly different question:

If it was indeed an engine out due to a birdstrike, there would obviously be an increased threat to the aircraft with just the one engine left. The Norwegian entered a hold off the coast of Wicklow at 5,000ft for several hours. Google tells me that the glide ratio for a 737 is around 18:1, so if the sole engine remaining was to quit at 5000ft the aircraft would glide for about 15 nautical miles. That's not enough to make it back to Dublin Airport, so I wonder why would it wasn't holding at a much higher and safer altitude?

I assume they were low as they burn fuel quicker in denser air. I’d also guess they weren’t single engine. IIRC the A330 mentioned above held at DERAG, about 12 miles out from the runway, at 4000

smurfjed

Not being funny but should an aircraft be allowed to take off so heavy that it literally can’t land again for a number of hours ?!

It doesn't, by certification it must be able to land within 15 minutes of takeoff.

§25.1001   Fuel jettisoning system.
(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.

Engine wasn’t shut down till on stand.

Locker10a

robbie1876 wrote: »

Locker10a wrote: »

Sorry if this is ignorant but imagine as they passed over country Galway a passengers had a serious stroke or heart attack ? Would the same sceanario ensue, a 3+ hour wait to burn fuel while the passenger dies? Or could they use SNN as an alternative with its longer runway ?
Not being funny but should an aircraft be allowed to take off so heavy that it literally can’t land again for a number of hours ?!
I know there’s been debate here about “small haul” craft doing very long trips but this to me is pretty serious ? Can anyone enlighten me?

In a life or death situation over Galway, the pilots would absolutely decide to land immediately at SNN (where the runway is longer than Dublin anyway). Being overweight is a riskier landing for the airframe and the passengers. An engine failure is not life or death, so the pilots would take the time to ensure the safest possible landing within their calculated limits. No need to take unnecessary risks in this scenario so it seems.

Looks like they've just departed the hold and are heading for the approach now.

Would there be a significant risk of tyre burst if they did land 15 mins after take off with say a serious medical ?

jamo2oo9

Just saw a BA 777 departing Dublin as I was passing through. Diversion or scheduled?

smurfjed

Yes.

Analysis has determined that, when landing at high gross weights at speeds associated with non-normal procedures requiring flaps set at 15 or less, maximum effort stops may exceed the brake energy limits. The gross weights where this condition can occur are well above maximum landing weights. For these non-normal landings, maximize use of the available runway for stopping.
But the plan would be to maximise the use of thrust reverse rather than brakes.

Shpud2

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Just saw a BA 777 departing Dublin as I was passing through. Diversion or scheduled?

Could be in for paint too.

faoiarvok

Shpud2 wrote: »

Could be in for paint too.

One came in, apparently for painting, so it’s probably taking the departed ones space in the hangar

faoiarvok

faoiarvok wrote: »

One came in, apparently for painting, so it’s probably taking the departed ones space in the hangar

Yeah there is a large list of 777’s and 747’s to be painted in Dublin.

Mebuntu

EI163 LHR-DUB yesterday.


Anyone know what happened here. Looks like after a short hold it made an approach to 10 but broke off and eventually ended up in Shannon.

goingnowhere

Tailwind component on 10 was a problem, not the only go around yesterday afternoon, EI523 went around as well

glenfieldman

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah there is a large list of 777’s and 747’s to be painted in Dublin.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:
When are the 747s in for paint ?

glenfieldman

glenfieldman wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:
When are the 747s in for paint ?

They’ve been in a couple of times but Dublin is competing with Rome and others for them. If a Dublin paint job is late the airline will look elsewhere for availability so as not to throw their own schedules out. I think we’ve missed out on two becuase of delays here like the Air Italy 330.

Irish Steve

goingnowhere wrote: »

Tailwind component on 10 was a problem, not the only go around yesterday afternoon, EI523 went around as well

If I ended up in Shannon rather than Dublin, with the delay implications, I'd be wondering if there was more to it than just a tailwind, to divert after one approach suggests something else going on.

I'm well aware that switching from 10 to 28 takes time, but I'd have thought a landing on 16 would have not been an issue, which should not have caused too many ATC issues.

I wonder what the situation would be in this case with EU261 delay payments.

Kevski

Irish Steve wrote: »

If I ended up in Shannon rather than Dublin, with the delay implications, I'd be wondering if there was more to it than just a tailwind, to divert after one approach suggests something else going on.

I'm well aware that switching from 10 to 28 takes time, but I'd have thought a landing on 16 would have not been an issue, which should not have caused too many ATC issues.

I wonder what the situation would be in this case with EU261 delay payments.

Is EU261 applicable in this situation? I was on a STN-DUB flight a while back which was delayed in STN and then diverted to Shannon without even attempting an approach in Dublin and was told that EU261 didn’t apply.

JCX BXC

Irish Steve wrote: »

If I ended up in Shannon rather than Dublin, with the delay implications, I'd be wondering if there was more to it than just a tailwind, to divert after one approach suggests something else going on.

I'm well aware that switching from 10 to 28 takes time, but I'd have thought a landing on 16 would have not been an issue, which should not have caused too many ATC issues.

I wonder what the situation would be in this case with EU261 delay payments.

We have plenty examples of it occuring before! I doubt it's anything sinister. One could easily listen back to the ATC anyway. As Dublin gets busier before the second runway is built i can only assume these incidents of long holds resulting in diversions will increase.

space2ground1

I flew in on Ryanair yesterday and the approach to Dublin was quite interesting to say the least. I wouldn’t have been surprised if we’d gone around. Landing was immaculate though so can’t complain. We were holding for a few mins before which had done passengers wondering if there was a delay.

Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to replay the track of the flight on the FR app or an alternative?

Irish Steve

JCX BXC wrote: »

We have plenty examples of it occuring before! I doubt it's anything sinister. One could easily listen back to the ATC anyway. As Dublin gets busier before the second runway is built i can only assume these incidents of long holds resulting in diversions will increase.

The FR track seems to imply one full hold and one partial hold, then an approach and immediate diversion. My understanding is that they are supposed to have fuel to hold for 40 minutes, 2 approaches and diversion fuel, so unless they were held somewhere else earlier, this was very much not a "standard" diversion.

smurfjed

My understanding is that they are supposed to have fuel to hold for 40 minutes, 2 approaches and diversion fuel,

May I ask where do you get these requirements?  

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

May I ask where do you get these requirements?

Can't recall a quotable source at this stage, I will have to have a dig around for it

faoiarvok

Irish Steve wrote: »

The FR track seems to imply one full hold and one partial hold, then an approach and immediate diversion. My understanding is that they are supposed to have fuel to hold for 40 minutes, 2 approaches and diversion fuel, so unless they were held somewhere else earlier, this was very much not a "standard" diversion.

I don’t know that this is the case but they may have had that fuel, and Dublin may have told them to expect to hold for longer than that time, causing them to decide to divert straight away.

Alternatively they may have been unwilling to try again on 10, with Dublin unwilling to facilitate them on another runway.

Just a couple of possibilities aside from actually reaching minimum fuel.

NH2013

Only fuel required for a flight legally is:

Taxi
Trip (Climb, Cruise, Descent and One Approach),
5% Contingency,
Fuel to Alternate (Go Around, Missed Approach, Climb, Cruise, Descent and One Approach),
30 Mins Holding (Final Reserve).

If expecting to land with less than that final 30 mins holding fuel you must declare a mayday.

This means in practice if you take off with minimum legal fuel, if you do any holding what so ever (more than the 5% contingency (only 3mins on a 45 minute flight)), then you'll be eating into your alternate diversion fuel and will be committed to landing at the original destination.

As this crew did two and a half rounds of the hold and most of the long arrival the crew likely had at least 15 mins extra fuel above the minimum legally required, if not probably a bit more as no fuel emergency was declared on the way to SNN.

Oscar Bravo

N752TX currently blocking the runway at Cork with a burst nose tyre. All fights diverting to Shannon at the moment.

garclo

Hi, I seen an A330 almost land in Dublin Airport today before the engines roared and it took off again. It was about 2:35pm, Abu Dhabi to Dublin flight. It went around and landed about 15 minutes later.
Anyone know why it had to go around for a 2nd attempt at landing?

JCX BXC

Possible debris on runway. Several aircraft went around. No evidence found after check.

Nothing to worry about anyway, it's not an entirely uncommon event.

Shpud2

Does anybody else see the title of this thread as "Etihad A330 go around at Dublin today" when viewing the forum? Its says "Flightradar24 Thread Part III" when I'm in the thread.

Under His Eye

Shpud2 wrote: »

Does anybody else see the title of this thread as "Etihad A330 go around at Dublin today" when viewing the forum? Its says "Flightradar24 Thread Part III" when I'm in the thread.

Because the mods have moved the posts into the correct thread.

Shpud2

Under His Eye wrote: »

Because the mods have moved the posts into the correct thread.

Oh okay thank you.