|
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? |
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. |
Originally Posted by scottishpoet
(Post 30338655)
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? 4000m v 2500m |
Originally Posted by maastrichtmouse
(Post 30338713)
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. |
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. |
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
|
That’s only one reason- things like flapless landings, loss of reverse thrust, etc etc, all require a longer stopping distance |
Hydraulics issue, longer runway needed for landing. |
Originally Posted by Often1
(Post 30338861)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by nancypants
(Post 30338925)
That’s only one reason- things like flapless landings, loss of reverse thrust, etc etc, all require a longer stopping distance |
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by rapidex
(Post 30339074)
Reverse thrust is not factored into landing distance required.
|
Originally Posted by Jumbodriver
(Post 30339042)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by nancypants
(Post 30342152)
not officially...but if you were on the borderline otherwise and knew you had an issue, would you risk it? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:03 am. |
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.