← Back to Squawk list

48

Swiss Airbus A330 Turns 5 Hours In the Air Before Returning to Zurich

提交时间：3 年以前

Following a technical problem at the left engine, an Airbus A330 from Swiss International Air Lines, which took off from Zurich for Newark, the United States, had to return to its departure airport quickly. But the passengers had to wait five hours before landing. (airlinerwatch.com) 更多...

40 条会员评论

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ryan Lawrence 3 年以前 5

They couldn't cross the ocean on one engine, and that particular A330 didn't have the fuel dumping option, so they had to fly around to burn off excess fuel to lighten the load on the airframe when they touched back down in Zurich. That plane took off with enough fuel to fly to the east coast of the US, 6+ hours away plus a reserve.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Robert Artac 3 年以前 4

99% armchair pilots around here...

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Larry Zimmerman 3 年以前 4

Must not have been much of an "emergency" if they could circle for five hours...

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 3

The incident turned out to be an accountant's nightmare!

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 3

5 hours of generally turning in the same direction, , , , hope all had strong stomachs!

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Mike Williams 3 年以前 3

I did not do the work to see how many left turns /right turns that plane did.

If there were enough left turns the pilots/drivers might qualify to be a round track car driver?

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Carol Steinbrecher 3 年以前 5

One of Airbus's MAJOR design flaws.... NO ability to dump fuel. Experienced this ourselves after departing KHNL for West Coast and had a serious lightning strike right above the cockpit at FL26.5. Thank God were in a Boeing and did not have to circle for multiple hours just to dump fuel! Seen this many times with Airbus products....

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Rob Palmer 3 年以前 4

Probably the grandmotherly European Union doesn't want any fuel vapors to reach the ground, where someone might inhale them. Europe can (and does) do what it wants to, but I hate to see their standards affect our standard of living; E.G. most electronic techs in North America avoid use of their lead-free solder, but we must use it to meet their import standards. The Lead-free solder is so miserable it makes electronic circuit boards less reliable for everyone. Therefore more waste in landfills, thanks to the EU.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

James Simms 3 年以前 0

That was my first thought, trying not to upset the European enviro-wackos

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Supercool Marmol 3 年以前 1

not all boeing aircraft have the ability to dump fuel

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Tony Perez 3 年以前 3

The ones that don't are already below the max landing weight with full fuel tanks.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

belzybob 3 年以前 3

A single generator failure will do that.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Gordon King 3 年以前 3

I flew Swiss last month. Zurich to Cape Town. Awful flight. Very old ,very well used 330 with a $10 paint job. Grumpy crew serving maxed out seating capacity and charging for wine! Their website was only available in Swiss. Delays and chaotic boarding procedures! Bye, Swiss, never again.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

bernard gonsalves 3 年以前 1

This was a design feature of the older A310s, A300s and the very early A330s. As far as I can remember they were certified to land at maximum takeoff weight - in case of an emergency. This of course subject to structural & overweight checks being conducted thereafter. Vertical gradient <360ft/m

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Martin Haisman 3 年以前 1

?

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Ashok Malik 3 年以前 1

Shame

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Supercool Marmol 3 年以前 1

So they were in a 5 hour holding pattern, not one continuous 5 hour turn. The article it stated the length was to burn fuel. why couldn't they do a fuel dump?

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Ryan Lawrence 3 年以前 7

not every A330 has the dump option, it's was an optional accessory for that model from Airbus. The A350 has it standard. the turns were uniform and repetitive indicating an air traffic control holding pattern out of the way of other jet traffic, the engine was functional but had issues where if they went across the pond and then had a problem with the second engine, their flight would become a cruise.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Supercool Marmol 3 年以前 3

Thanks. I remember watching a video of a Swiss Air flight on an A340 that had engine trouble, so they did the shudown sequence, and fuel dump to return to the airport. Since the A330 is essentially the twin engine version of the A340 I would have thought it had dump capability too.

but if it's only an option, that would explain the fuel burn then.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

James Simms 3 年以前 1

Yea, well, we’re coming up on the 106th Anniversary of the first & only competitive meet of the RMS Titanic Swim Club

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 -1

If you take a peek at the flightpath, certainly appears to be one heck of a lot of one direction turns which would also reflect an engine issue on one side.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Tony Perez 3 年以前 1

Holding patterns are typically right turns unless otherwise published or directed by ATC.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 -3

Ouch. Zero for two Supercool.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Supercool Marmol 3 年以前 1

Zero for two?

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 -3

wrong on the fuel dump assumption, wrong on the consistency in turns.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Supercool Marmol 3 年以前 1

more like 0/0?

I asked why a fuel dump wasn't possible. 2 reasons, fuel dump system damaged, or fuel dump system not actually installed on aircraft. i know not all aircraft have dump systems. so i was unsure about the 330.

and i can sorta give you something for holding. i guess industry standard terminology for holding pattern is a single oval shape. here the plane did several holding patterns at various locations. so my use of holding pattern was a general, fly in some area for 5 hours this includes turns and straight segments.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Dan Chiasson 3 年以前 -7

homework helps. let's move along . . . . . . . .

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Owen Plowman 3 年以前 1

This article is an example of "waste of time" news. It's not news at all.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

Bob Harrington 3 年以前 1

From some grammatical irregularities, it reads as if written by someone for whom English was not their first language.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

dee9bee 3 年以前 -1

I have to assume the engine problem wasn't that serious.

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

dee9bee 3 年以前 4

P.S. I just checked another site. The word is that the situation wasn't very serious. They simply couldn't cross the Atlantic in that condition.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

RECOR10 3 年以前 -1

Quad engine coulda.......and probably woulda....

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

belzybob 3 年以前 4

That's stating the obvious, but the accountants probably wouldn't agree on using them.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

belzybob 3 年以前 10

I think you need to find a more suitable forum.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Grahame Budd 3 年以前 17

I'm all for fossil fuels being regarded as solar if you can fix the supply chain problem. Currently the re-order time - millions of years - is a little too long.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

chalet 3 年以前 7

Calm down, man, and rest a bit.

回复 ↓•永久链接•父级•Report

Jonathan T-Cole 3 年以前 -1

How do we prevent such occurencies tomorrow?

回复 ↓•永久链接•Report

登录

本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站，即表示您接受这一点。

退出

您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗？

通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告，您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性，同时不显突兀，以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单，或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.

退出