Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion
Oct 22, 2018, 5:26 am
#16
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Really? Why would that be? What about other Airbus aircraft?
Sorry to batter your with questions.
I can totally understand why they'd divert from Linate. It is in the middle of a large housing development and very close to downtown. MXP is miles from anywhere and has long runways. If there was a problem, the one runway was bocked, Linate would close. It would have no option.
Sorry to batter your with questions.
I can totally understand why they'd divert from Linate. It is in the middle of a large housing development and very close to downtown. MXP is miles from anywhere and has long runways. If there was a problem, the one runway was bocked, Linate would close. It would have no option.
The A380 only had fuel dumping added at a late stage in design and can’t dump below 80t of fuel anyway. Fuel dumping in airliners is pretty much only in wide body types.
The location of the airport on number of runways isn’t really relevant in this case. If the aircraft could have landed within the runway available at Linate it would have.
Oct 22, 2018, 5:29 am
#17
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
Really? Why would that be? What about other Airbus aircraft?
Sorry to batter your with questions.
I can totally understand why they'd divert from Linate. It is in the middle of a large housing development and very close to downtown. MXP is miles from anywhere and has long runways. If there was a problem, the one runway was bocked, Linate would close. It would have no option.
Sorry to batter your with questions.
I can totally understand why they'd divert from Linate. It is in the middle of a large housing development and very close to downtown. MXP is miles from anywhere and has long runways. If there was a problem, the one runway was bocked, Linate would close. It would have no option.
Fuel dump systems are an option on A330s and A350s, and standard on A340s and A380s.
Oct 22, 2018, 5:59 am
#18
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London N8
Programs: BA (LTG), Miles&More (whatever the lowest level is), Oyster card (zones 1-2)
Posts: 891
Oct 22, 2018, 6:08 am
#19
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
It's possible in any aircraft, some small aircraft can do it as a matter of routine. Even the A380 can do it if it really has to.
Incident: Emirates A388 at Auckland on Dec 22nd 2013, flapless landing
Incident: Emirates A388 at Auckland on Dec 22nd 2013, flapless landing
Oct 22, 2018, 7:25 am
#20
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
Fuel dumping capability is only needed if you can’t safely land at maximum take off weight which short haul aircraft easily can.
The A380 only had fuel dumping added at a late stage in design and can’t dump below 80t of fuel anyway. Fuel dumping in airliners is pretty much only in wide body types.
The location of the airport on number of runways isn’t really relevant in this case. If the aircraft could have landed within the runway available at Linate it would have.
Oct 22, 2018, 9:33 am
#22
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
Reverse thrust is not factored into the calculations for landing distance. There is no risk. If it was available then a sensible person would use it, but the landing distance required is calculated without reverse.
Oct 22, 2018, 10:29 am
#23
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
In flight landing distance performance is calculated using reverse thrust if you're going to use it.
Oct 22, 2018, 10:45 am
#24
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
Not so. The A320 series only takes account of reverse thrust IF max manual brakes nag is anticipated OR IF there is some failure, normal IFLD using either auto brake setting gives you no credit for the use of reverse thrust, nor does it penalise you for having a reverser inop.
Oct 22, 2018, 11:10 am
#25
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Not so. The A320 series only takes account of reverse thrust IF max manual brakes nag is anticipated OR IF there is some failure, normal IFLD using either auto brake setting gives you no credit for the use of reverse thrust, nor does it penalise you for having a reverser inop.
Contaminated runways also have reverser correction figures for reverse with autobrake should you need them.
Theres a 0 reverser correction on Low and Med autobrake on dry and good runways because reverse makes no difference to the autobrake deceleration rate not because you can’t use reverser credit.
Last edited by Jumbodriver; Oct 22, 2018 at 11:47 am
Oct 22, 2018, 12:38 pm
#26
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
We are talking about a failure case here though.
Contaminated runways also have reverser correction figures for reverse with autobrake should you need them.
Theres a 0 reverser correction on Low and Med autobrake on dry and good runways because reverse makes no difference to the autobrake deceleration rate not because you can’t use reverser credit.
Oct 22, 2018, 1:00 pm
#27
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 113
You guys are overthinking this somewhat. Whilst runway length obviously can be a factor with certain failures, in this instance the runway at Linate was long enough. However Linate airport specifically forbids aircraft to land there with any sort of ‘landing gear issue’. For this flight, the Green hydraulic system was affected which (amongst other things) involves a different procedure to lower the landing gear. Therefore, it was more preferable to go Malpensa. Of course it also helps that MXP is also a BA line station and has 2 massive runways and it’s still the same city in terms of getting passengers home.
champ
champ
Oct 22, 2018, 1:20 pm
#29
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 113
true, I probably should have phrased it better. What I meant was that BA have regular scheduled flights there with the appropriate engineering and GHA infrastructure in place so a diversion there in theory shouldn’t cause as much chaos as a non-BA destination.
champ
champ
Oct 22, 2018, 3:00 pm
#30
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,112
That would be a courageous act, especially in the court of public opinion with the off-airport wreckage still smoking.
Heathrow would really, definitely, quietly prefer you didn't disable an aircraft on their runway but they won't deny approach and landing to an aircraft with gear issues, in fact they provide full assistance as they should. What makes Linate so special?