Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion
Oct 22, 2018, 3:17 pm
#31
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
I’m sure they’d accept an emergency if they had to (they wouldn’t really have a choice).
If MXP had similar weather, time to landing etc, insisting on landing and potentially closing Linate for essentially commercial reasons when there’s an airport with which you are familiar, with 2 longer runways, in the same city, with company staff and engineering may take a bit of justification.
If MXP had similar weather, time to landing etc, insisting on landing and potentially closing Linate for essentially commercial reasons when there’s an airport with which you are familiar, with 2 longer runways, in the same city, with company staff and engineering may take a bit of justification.
Oct 22, 2018, 3:19 pm
#32
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
Oct 23, 2018, 1:59 am
#34
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,112
I’m sure they’d accept an emergency if they had to (they wouldn’t really have a choice).
If MXP had similar weather, time to landing etc, insisting on landing and potentially closing Linate for essentially commercial reasons when there’s an airport with which you are familiar, with 2 longer runways, in the same city, with company staff and engineering may take a bit of justification.
If MXP had similar weather, time to landing etc, insisting on landing and potentially closing Linate for essentially commercial reasons when there’s an airport with which you are familiar, with 2 longer runways, in the same city, with company staff and engineering may take a bit of justification.
I'm finding the idea of the people on the ground denying a landing because of the type of emergency to be ... quite questionable.
Oct 23, 2018, 2:58 am
#35
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
It is not unheard of for airports to be designated for incidents, just like Stansted is used wherever possible for hijack incidents. Nor is it unheard of for airlines to have preferred destinations in the event of technical issues.
Oct 23, 2018, 3:04 am
#36
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
The notes for the airfield state that "Unless in case of emergency, landing for ACFT with any type of landing gear failure is prohibited".
This is perfectly reasonable, there are many types of gear failure that will show up well in advance of having to land, especially when you consider the other airfields within a few minutes flying time from Linate. The hydraulic failure in this case meant several minutes of thinking and planning the approach, given the extra length of runway and proximity of MXP, its a simple decision without the restriction at LIN. You can argue that the G Had fail was an emergency - but was it really? more like a reduced state of capability, but there was no fire or failure of a power unit etc, there was no immediate threat to life and none at all given the nature of the problem.
If they had been on fire or had no diversion fuel left etc then landing at LIN would not be precluded because of airfield restrictions. For example LHR will not accept aircraft on diversion, its too crowded. However, if you are on fire and LHR is not your airfield of landing but the closest one, a MAYDAY call will let you land at LHR, or indeed any airfield you want - you will have to justify your actions at a later date, all perfectly normal and routine.
This is perfectly reasonable, there are many types of gear failure that will show up well in advance of having to land, especially when you consider the other airfields within a few minutes flying time from Linate. The hydraulic failure in this case meant several minutes of thinking and planning the approach, given the extra length of runway and proximity of MXP, its a simple decision without the restriction at LIN. You can argue that the G Had fail was an emergency - but was it really? more like a reduced state of capability, but there was no fire or failure of a power unit etc, there was no immediate threat to life and none at all given the nature of the problem.
If they had been on fire or had no diversion fuel left etc then landing at LIN would not be precluded because of airfield restrictions. For example LHR will not accept aircraft on diversion, its too crowded. However, if you are on fire and LHR is not your airfield of landing but the closest one, a MAYDAY call will let you land at LHR, or indeed any airfield you want - you will have to justify your actions at a later date, all perfectly normal and routine.