LGW runway closed (ish) [17 July 2017] - BA diversions
Jul 17, 2017, 8:25 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: LHR-ish
Programs: BA: ex-Silver, now Blue. VS: Gold
Posts: 87
LGW runway closed (ish) [17 July 2017] - BA diversions
LGW's runway was shut an hour or so ago:
Was idly looking at FlightRadar24 when I noticed BA2238 LIM-LGW was going into LHR. Aircraft seem to be landing at LGW again though; not sure how many aircraft were actually diverted.
14.30: Temporary runway closure
An Air Canada Rouge flight to Toronto returned to Gatwick after experiencing a burst tyre on take-off. The aircraft has landed but our runway is closed to allow for a runway inspection, as is standard procedure in these circumstances.
An Air Canada Rouge flight to Toronto returned to Gatwick after experiencing a burst tyre on take-off. The aircraft has landed but our runway is closed to allow for a runway inspection, as is standard procedure in these circumstances.
Jul 17, 2017, 8:43 am
#2
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: BA GOLD
Posts: 604
Gatwick airport Twitter page now reports runway open again but delays to be expected.
Jul 17, 2017, 8:59 am
#3
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Silver, Iberia Oro, Finnair Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 31
I'm sitting in the lounge, the Air Canada plane is still blocking the runway and aircraft are taking off and landing from the second runway (that's normally a taxiway).
Jul 17, 2017, 9:01 am
#4
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 143
Why did the flight return to LGW?
From my simplistic view.
Landing at LGW or Toronto should be no different with a punctured tyre.
Continuing to Toronto would burn off the fuel and mean a lighter aircraft on landing. Better for the remaining tyres
From my simplistic view.
Landing at LGW or Toronto should be no different with a punctured tyre.
Continuing to Toronto would burn off the fuel and mean a lighter aircraft on landing. Better for the remaining tyres
Jul 17, 2017, 9:16 am
#5
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,110
Other tyres could be damaged, or debris from the tyre could have caused additional damage to the aircraft.
You do not want a damaged tyre exploding in the aircraft, in the wheel well. This is extremely dangerous and has caused several aircraft losses.
You also do not want to discover additional damage later on, further from land, that makes the aircraft difficult or unsafe to fly.
A landing at the starting airport may well be the prudent course of action.
You do not want a damaged tyre exploding in the aircraft, in the wheel well. This is extremely dangerous and has caused several aircraft losses.
You also do not want to discover additional damage later on, further from land, that makes the aircraft difficult or unsafe to fly.
A landing at the starting airport may well be the prudent course of action.
Jul 17, 2017, 2:39 pm
#7
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,110
Non-BA flights are also affected; the last Norwegian CPH-LGW of the day was cancelled, probably after accumulating too much delay earlier.
One might want to try to fly to Heathrow instead :-)
One might want to try to fly to Heathrow instead :-)
Jul 17, 2017, 3:43 pm
#8
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
Given that you were not in the flight deck and were not privy to the information that the flight crew had at the time, I think this one falls under the aphorism, "it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, rather than to open it and leave them in no doubt"
Jul 17, 2017, 4:05 pm
#9
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
Jul 17, 2017, 4:12 pm
#10
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,957
Hopefully it's really a runway and isn't occupied when attempting to land? A reference to this: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-c...r-history.html where it appears they overflew a waiting plane on the taxiway with only 26 feet of clearance before doing a go around.
LGW has two runways. 26L/08R is normally used. 26R/08L is only used when the other is out of action like today. In normal operation 26R/08L is treated as a taxiway so no clearance required to enter or cross.
Jul 17, 2017, 4:31 pm
#11
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,770
Can 26R/08L handle all aircraft types landing at LGW including the larger ones?
I know there have been several diversions today, just wondering if they were all due to capacity or if some were because the aircraft cannot safely land on the shorter runway? (I haven't checked what was/wasn't diverted.)
I know there have been several diversions today, just wondering if they were all due to capacity or if some were because the aircraft cannot safely land on the shorter runway? (I haven't checked what was/wasn't diverted.)
Jul 17, 2017, 4:41 pm
#12
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,746
Jul 17, 2017, 5:47 pm
#13
formerly southsidesilver
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Diego,CA
Programs: BA Gold, UA Silver, HH Diamond
Posts: 996
Jul 18, 2017, 2:42 am
#14
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 143
Given that you were not in the flight deck and were not privy to the information that the flight crew had at the time, I think this one falls under the aphorism, "it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, rather than to open it and leave them in no doubt"
I was simply asking a question about a situation I didn't fully understand. Does that make me foolish or show a curiosity to learn more? I was hoping that a helpful forum on FT would give me some information that would be interesting and enlightening.
The reply from Flatlander was informative (Thanks to Flatlander)
Jul 18, 2017, 3:00 am
#15
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,957
Thank you for highlighting my foolishness. But I need to point out that you have done nothing to educate me about the matter.
I was simply asking a question about a situation I didn't fully understand. Does that make me foolish or show a curiosity to learn more? I was hoping that a helpful forum on FT would give me some information that would be interesting and enlightening.
I was simply asking a question about a situation I didn't fully understand. Does that make me foolish or show a curiosity to learn more? I was hoping that a helpful forum on FT would give me some information that would be interesting and enlightening.
Now I don't know what line of work you are in, but imagine someone was sat over your shoulder constantly giving an opinion on what you are doing and how you should do it despite not knowing anything about it - do you see where the frustration comes from now?
Not that Waterhorse requires any defence from me, but if you look at the "Ask the staff" thread he has answered many questions from FT'ers and provided quite a bit of education and information - so he isn't someone that could be described as unhelpful with regard to this board.