VS22 diverted to Stansted

Have heard from a very reliable source that todays VS22 was diverted to land at Stansted - due to running out of fuel [V]

Someone will be in deep poo poo [:w]

HG

[honey lamb]

I had seen on the BAA website this morning that VS22 had been diverted. I also noticed that many longhaul flights, especially from the USA were late and that there were also many cancellations on shorthaul routes. Later on a news bulletin over here said that there were serious delays and cancellations because of strong winds at Heathrow. VS22 was obviously a victim of this and hence the diversionary procedure. I don't that that will necessarily mean that someone will be in deep doo doo.

quote:Originally posted by honey lamb
I don't that that will necessarily mean that someone will be in deep doo doo.


Indeed, never heard about the weather (certainly not that windy in centre of London) just heard it was lack of fuel caused the diversion.

HG

quote:Originally posted by hackneyguy
quote:Originally posted by honey lamb
I don't that that will necessarily mean that someone will be in deep doo doo.


Indeed, never heard about the weather (certainly not that windy in centre of London) just heard it was lack of fuel caused the diversion.

HG


But LHR isn't in the centre of London... [:w].

[:p]

The weather which invariably caused the long delays at LHR this morning might not have even been known about when the aircraft left IAD - weather conditions can change very quickly. No one will be in 'deep poo poo' for a diversion caused by longer than normal ATC delays caused by weather.

But LHR isn't in the centre of London... [:w].

I am well aware of where LHR is situated & didnt say it was. I - just made a comment that is wasnt windy in Centre of London i.e. Westminster
[:p]

quote:Originally posted by Tinkerbelle

The weather which invariably caused the long delays at LHR this morning might not have even been known about when the aircraft left IAD - weather conditions can change very quickly. No one will be in 'deep poo poo' for a diversion caused by longer than normal ATC delays caused by weather.[/quote] Again I DID NOT say someone would get into Deep poo poo for a diversion due to ATC

IS it get at HG day today ?

I was speaking with a senior at Virgin today on other matters and he mentioned that this flight, which we needed to get into LHR, had been diverted due to lack of fuel - thats all. No metion of weather or ATC delays. I made an assumption that fuel loading must have been wrong at OAD given what I was told - my assumption may have been wrong so sorry if I have hit a nerve. I will ask him tomorrow when we meet.

HG

Woo Hoo a fight! [B)]

Interesting. Given that the distance between Stansted and Heathrow is 66 miles on the ground, was the margin that tight? [:0] I presume that routings, ATC etc add to this though?

Did VS22 refuel at Stansted and continue on or were the passengers forced to mix with we Easyjet and Ryanair hoi polloi who lurk in this corner of Essex?[}:)]

quote:Originally posted by pjh
Interesting. Given that the distance between Stansted and Heathrow is 66 miles on the ground, was the margin that tight? [:0] I presume that routings, ATC etc add to this though?

Did VS22 refuel at Stansted and continue on or were the passengers forced to mix with we Easyjet and Ryanair hoi polloi who lurk in this corner of Essex?[}:)]


Looking at the arrival time of the VS22 into LHR and having being on a flight diverted due to weather before, the aircraft will have simply been refuelled before taking off again for LHR.

[Scrooge]

quote:Originally posted by pjh
Interesting. Given that the distance between Stansted and Heathrow is 66 miles on the ground, was the margin that tight? [:0] I presume that routings, ATC etc add to this though?

Did VS22 refuel at Stansted and continue on or were the passengers forced to mix with we Easyjet and Ryanair hoi polloi who lurk in this corner of Essex?[}:)]


No, the aircraft takes off with enough fuel for the flight + fuel for a diversion airport + one hours hold time of fuel, so we can guess from this that Heathrow was a mess, the flight started to dip into reserves, at which point the aircraft goes to it's diversion airport, all with an hours worth of fuel still onboard.

quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
quote:Originally posted by pjh
Interesting. Given that the distance between Stansted and Heathrow is 66 miles on the ground, was the margin that tight? [:0] I presume that routings, ATC etc add to this though?

Did VS22 refuel at Stansted and continue on or were the passengers forced to mix with we Easyjet and Ryanair hoi polloi who lurk in this corner of Essex?[}:)]


No, the aircraft takes off with enough fuel for the flight + fuel for a diversion airport + one hours hold time of fuel, so we can guess from this that Heathrow was a mess, the flight started to dip into reserves, at which point the aircraft goes to it's diversion airport, all with an hours worth of fuel still onboard.


Appreciated, thanks[y];

Looks like the airport introduced a 34 minute delay in landing.
VS then put gate arrival back 2 hours.

Winds were not too bad at the original landing time: METAR EGLL 180620Z 22021KT 9999 FEW026 SCT048 13/08 Q1007
and increased for the actual landing with 40mph gusts: METAR EGLL 180820Z 23022G35KT 9999 FEW025 BKN049 14/09 Q1008 NOSIG

Other VS flights were not delayed into LHR that morning.

[honey lamb]

quote:Originally posted by Bill S


Other VS flights were not delayed into LHR that morning.


No, but a lot of other transatlantic flights were delayed into LHR.

Last night over here was very bad and I was awake for a lot of the night thanks to the winds which obviously made their way eastwards in the early morning and screwed up a lot of the schedules. EI710 wasn't allowed to leave until an hour later than scheduled and many others were in the same boat

I was on an VS LAX flight a few years ago that was diverted to Stanstead due to a long hold at LHR and a lack of fuel.

We landed, sat on the tarmac for an hour, refueled and were off for the 10 minute flight to LHR - and a very low pass over London.

FM

If that happened to me (and I wasn't trying to get to a meeting or anything) I think that it would be a great end to a flight.
Not only do you get the brilliant sensation of a take off with a really light fuel load so much better acceleration, you get to see London from very low down.

Maybe I'm just a bit odd and most people would be seething! - Ed

quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Looks like the airport introduced a 34 minute delay in landing.
VS then put gate arrival back 2 hours.

Winds were not too bad at the original landing time: METAR EGLL 180620Z 22021KT 9999 FEW026 SCT048 13/08 Q1007
and increased for the actual landing with 40mph gusts: METAR EGLL 180820Z 23022G35KT 9999 FEW025 BKN049 14/09 Q1008 NOSIG

Other VS flights were not delayed into LHR that morning.



That is what has caused some questions to be asked yesterday at a very senior level. Some colleagues HAD to be in London yesterday morning and missed a three 3 line whip due to this - while others on BA caught a flight at similar time and landed at LHR on time or slightly late c20 mins.

HG

[Nottingham Nick]

quote:Originally posted by hackneyguy
..... Some colleagues HAD to be in London yesterday morning and missed a three 3 line whip due to this...

If they HAD to be there, maybe they should have got an earlier flight. [8D][;)][:D]

Nick

quote:Originally posted by Nottingham Nick
quote:Originally posted by hackneyguy
..... Some colleagues HAD to be in London yesterday morning and missed a three 3 line whip due to this...

If they HAD to be there, maybe they should have got an earlier flight. [8D][;)][:D]

Nick


Or flown with another carrier, such as BA. If only getting an earlier flight was an option for them - it wasnt.

Hey ho - live and learn I guess [:?]

[mcmbenjamin]

Flights are not always ontime. Heathrow has TWO, count them TWO runways for all those flight especially when a great deal of them are large aircraft requiring more spacing on take off and landing. VS made a choice inline with safely and could have been directed by ATC. Flying is a form of public transport. If one MUST be there, then give NetJets a ring and fly into and out of small, under used airports, with fully CATIIIc runways.

In case anyone didn't notice, it was windy as hell, yesterday morning, with a rather strong crosswind element at times.

I flew LCY-AMS yesterday morning, and the climbout was particularly rough in our RJ85. On arrival at AMS, while we rolled out on 18R, a larger aircraft (A321) shooting an approach on the parallel 18C runway went around.

There is a strong chance that VS22 went around from it's first approach due to the gusty winds, having experienced a go around from similar conditions at Heathrow before.

All you need is the wind to gust just at the wrong time and you either exceed the allowed landing crosswind for the aircraft type, or the approach becomes unstable on short final, either of which is a mandatory go-around in most aircraft operating procedures.

Once you've gone around, if you've already held for some significant time, then you've burned more fuel.

The most sensible thing to do, if you expect significant chance of a further go around from a second approach attempt is to either a) request a runway more aligned with the wind conditions - not possible at Heathrow with it's two parallel runways, or b) divert to an airport with a runway which is better oriented into the prevailing wind, to remove the crosswind element, or c) divert to an airport with generally more benign weather.

On the go around I had a couple of years ago on VS12, if we hadn't made the second landing successfully, the pilot informed us while we were holding to make our second attempt, that he had already decided to divert after a further go-around to Glasgow, a) because the weather was slightly more benign, b) the runway there was almost exactly aligned with the prevailing wind, c) everything further south was already backed up with diverts from Heathrow and Gatwick.

Chances are that the crew had already decided that the divert to Stansted, where it's runway was almost exactly aligned with the South Westerly gusts yesterday morning, was the best and safest option, especially if lengthy holding delays reduce the comfort factor enough.

Mike

Flying out of Stansted on Wednesday morning I noticed a VS A340-600 parked at about gate 8. What would that have done there? A diversion because of issues in LHR?

Cheers,
Mike

yes - delays due to wind.

there is a thread about it but I cant find it !

[Neil]

Here is the thread reported by HG. It was the VS22 diverted, due to being low on fuel, we think, due to the delays caused by the winds.

[Nottingham Nick]

Threads merged to prevent duplicate discussions.

Nick