Potholing at Gatwick
Potholing at Gatwick
A minor ripple in the smooth running this afternoon with a few fuel diversions to STN - rumoured to be due to a pothole developing in the runway. Yes, the Airport is looking into it...............
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
Management have said its not too bad.A bit of speedtape will sort it.
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
I noticed a couple of 7700s on EZY inbounds to LGW, thanks for the enlightenment.
- TheGreenGoblin
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 17596
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
- Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
Submarines spotted at Gatwick!
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."
- Ex-Ascot
- Test Pilot
- Posts: 13096
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
- Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
- Gender:
- Age: 68
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
Well they were not carrying the correct amount of fuel then. I bet Squeezy often load absolute minimum, if not less, all the time, and no bit for mother.Capetonian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:17 pmI noticed a couple of 7700s on EZY inbounds to LGW, thanks for the enlightenment.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
Ex-A - I think you are out of touch with aviation regulations and the current world in aviation. Absolute minimum is not unusual nor is is safe if handled correctly. 'Loading less' - what then, do you mean by 'absolute minimum? Are you suggesting EJ are operating illegally? A bold statement.
I do not have enough information to make any judgements on this occurrence - do you? Firstly, Cape's post was misleading - the 7700 was not 'inbound to LGW' but 'inbound to STN' as I understand it.
I do not have enough information to make any judgements on this occurrence - do you? Firstly, Cape's post was misleading - the 7700 was not 'inbound to LGW' but 'inbound to STN' as I understand it.
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
My post was misleading. They were originally inbound to LGW and diverted to STN.
- Rwy in Sight
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
- Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
- Gender:
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
Boac not a pilot here but reading Ex-A's post made me thinking of a creative calculation of the legal minimum. I am probably wrong but I think like AF477 did (obviously not the crashing part) but they dispatched to an airport closer to Paris and they re-dispatched when they were sure about their fuel status. I am not sure how it would work for shorter flights.
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
RiS, in my poling days I believe the technique you describe was known as “enroute alternate” procedure and was hardcopy published as such.
Like ETOPs, I always believed it was aviation’s snake oil and avoided it.
Like ETOPs, I always believed it was aviation’s snake oil and avoided it.
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
I don't think there was any 'skullduggery' here, certainly no 'alternate div' stuff. Multiple flights holding due a closed runway and ?3? EJ flights had reached diversion fuel and elected for STN (in short order). It could have been ATC asked for the squawk - we do not know. The rules on declaring an emergency for fuel state are unquestionable. I would staunchly defend EJ (and RY) for their flight crew's standards.
More to become apparent I expect.
More to become apparent I expect.
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Potholing at Gatwick
It used to be a joke amongst LGW based crews that the contractors who surfaced and resurfaced the main runway were only practising for their next job viz the M25 motorway encircling London.