Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion

Old Oct 21, 2018, 3:09 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
Malpensa v Linate - technical diversion

I see BA570 diverted to Malpensa from Linate due to a technical issue

Would this be because it was felt the engineers available at Malpensa were better able to resolve the problem?

Last edited by scottishpoet; Oct 21, 2018 at 4:59 am
scottishpoet is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 3:47 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Maastricht, unless I'm out.
Programs: BAEC, Flying Blue, Eurostar, Miles&Smiles
Posts: 320
I think your 'from' and 'to' are the wrong way round.

Assume you meant into Malpensa not Linate? If so would imagine its just more flight options at Malpensa than at little Linate.
maastrichtmouse is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 3:48 am
  #3  
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,556
Originally Posted by scottishpoet
I see BA570 diverted from Malpensa to Linate due to a technical issue

Would this be because it was felt the engineers available at Malpensa were better able to resolve the problem?
Maybe because of the longer runways at MXP?

4000m v 2500m
DYKWIA is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 5:00 am
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
Originally Posted by maastrichtmouse
I think your 'from' and 'to' are the wrong way round.

Assume you meant into Malpensa not Linate? If so would imagine its just more flight options at Malpensa than at little Linate.
Thanks, I have fixed the original post
scottishpoet is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 5:31 am
  #5  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Very much doubt that dispatchers working with ATC make diversion decisions based on rerouting alternatives.

An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
Often1 is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 6:04 am
  #6  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
I would assume the fuel used from LHR to Linate and Malpensa would be roughly the same so I doubt the reason for the diversion to Malpensa was it being too fuel heavy toward the end of the flight
scottishpoet is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 6:09 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,149
Thats only one reason- things like flapless landings, loss of reverse thrust, etc etc, all require a longer stopping distance
nancypants is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 7:01 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 71
Hydraulics issue, longer runway needed for landing.
nancypants likes this.
wingtip428 is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 7:06 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by Often1
Very much doubt that dispatchers working with ATC make diversion decisions based on rerouting alternatives.

An aircraft at takeoff is almost certainly too heavy to land back at a smaller airport. The longer the runway the less time it has to spend in the air and the less fuel it has to dump (a last resort for emergencies). Thus, diverting to a longer runway will always be a priority if all other factors are at least equal.
We don’t have dispatchers, they’re a North American thing not used in many other parts of the world. All decisions are made by the flight crew.

A320s can’t dump fuel.

In the event of a failure affecting landing performance there are a big set of tables which give the new landing distance required. There’s a strong possibility that Linate would be too short for some of these failures especially as there is pretty much normally a tailwind at Linate.

Last edited by Jumbodriver; Oct 21, 2018 at 7:18 am
Jumbodriver is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 7:18 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,587
Originally Posted by nancypants
Thats only one reason- things like flapless landings, loss of reverse thrust, etc etc, all require a longer stopping distance
Reverse thrust is not factored into landing distance required.
rapidex is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 8:36 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,169
Was it a technical issue with the plane, or a situation such as fog? MXP isn't as affected by it as LIN, for instance.

From an engineering point of view, both airports are now outsourced. I think in both cases the line maintenance is provided by Alitalia; their engineers are usually quite good. MXP also has the advantage of a fully-equipped hangar, owned and used by Lufthansa Technik, where they do Line and service checks on EasyJet and various carriers; I don't know, however, if BA has any agreement there with LHT besides the usual spares sharing system.
13901 is online now  
Old Oct 21, 2018, 9:27 am
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,786
according to thebasource it was a technical diversion

return flight was cancelled, aircraft may still be on the ground in Milan but is scheduled to go to reykjavik tomorrow morning
scottishpoet is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2018, 4:46 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,149
Originally Posted by rapidex
Reverse thrust is not factored into landing distance required.
not officially...but if you were on the borderline otherwise and knew you had an issue, would you risk it?
nancypants is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2018, 5:04 am
  #14  
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,085
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver


We dont have dispatchers, theyre a North American thing not used in many other parts of the world. All decisions are made by the flight crew.

A320s cant dump fuel.


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.
PUCCI GALORE is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2018, 5:23 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by nancypants

not officially...but if you were on the borderline otherwise and knew you had an issue, would you risk it?
Thats not actually correct anyhow. You can take credit for use of reverse thrust in landing calculations.
nancypants likes this.
Jumbodriver is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.