Weather & Technical Diversions, Delays & Cancellations

[IanFarquharson]

Flew on the EY22 recently, would estimate less than 90% full, so sadly cannot see Etihad wishing to dilute that by starting a BHX service.

Anywhere near 90% is excellent
Etihad have never showed any good interest in BHX but I cannot see how they can ignore the success of EK /QR etc

 

[Coathanger16]

Highly doubt we'll ever see Etihad at BHX. Give it 10 years and I wouldn't be surprised to see Etihad absorbed into Emirates.

And tbh I'd rather see Qatar go double daily and Emirates resume the morning flight than have another ME hub airline.

 

[KJAY 786]

I would rather like to see Gulf Air start Birmingham flights to Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Muscat from Birmingham this will meet all target market needs and compete with Manchester quite well. It would be nice to see Gulf Air in Birmingham

 

[Ray Finkle]

At least we now know that there are no wheelbase issues with the 787-10

And tbh I'd rather see Qatar go double daily and Emirates resume the morning flight than have another ME hub airline.

Definitely

 

[Matt995]

3 Easyjet A319s diverted in tonight from Bristol, due to weather, G-EZBV, G-EZIX, G-EZAG from Newcastle, Madrid and Belfast

 

[andrew.clarkson]

That looks good, the more diverts, the more business Birmingham gets, bring it on.. Andyc

 

[TheLocalYokel]

3 Easyjet A319s diverted in tonight from Bristol, due to weather, G-EZBV, G-EZIX, G-EZAG from Newcastle, Madrid and Belfast

Strange. I don't think that winds were a problem last night and with southwesterly winds the Cat3b ILS runway 27 should have been operative. I wonder what the problem was. Good for BHX perhaps but not so good for the passengers, or the airline and crew.

 

[IanFarquharson]

Strange. I don't think that winds were a problem last night and with southwesterly winds the Cat3b ILS runway 27 should have been operative. I wonder what the problem was. Good for BHX perhaps but not so good for the passengers, or the airline and crew.

Bristol was 300m and clod at 100ft plus 20 knots

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Bristol was 300m and clod at 100ft plus 20 knots

Many thanks. Maybe it was the crosswind then. cI don't know what tolerance is allowed for Cat3b landings. The 300m and 100ft should have been within Cat3b limits for easyJet. Over the years at BRS I've noticed that sometimes Ryanair with its B738s diverts in Cat3b conditions when easyJet Airbuses usually land.

 

[Kevin Farnell]

Bristol was 300m and clod at 100ft

is that better or worse than heavy loam?
On a more serious note, it's not that usual to get low visibility with a wind of that strength.

Kevin

 

[Matt995]

Many thanks. Maybe it was the crosswind then. cI don't know what tolerance is allowed for Cat3b landings. The 300m and 100ft should have been within Cat3b limits for easyJet. Over the years at BRS I've noticed that sometimes Ryanair with its B738s diverts in Cat3b conditions when easyJet Airbuses usually land.

and of course the pilots have to be Cat IIIb trained for these approaches, maybe in these cases one of the pilots wasnt, maybe just starting out on their career and wasnt able to fly these type of approaches yet?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

and of course the pilots have to be Cat IIIb trained for these approaches, maybe in these cases one of the pilots wasnt, maybe just starting out on their career and wasnt able to fly these type of approaches yet?

It's possible but three easyJet aircraft were diverted apparently.

 

[Coathanger16]

Pilots are trained from the start for low visibility operations. More likely in this case it was the crosswind - crosswind limit for CATIIIB auto lands is 20kts for the A320.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Pilots are trained from the start for low visibility operations. More likely in this case it was the crosswind - crosswind limit for CATIIIB auto lands is 20kts for the A320.

They have to be 'current' with the enablement though. It does sound as if the wind was a factor. Usually in mist/fog the wind speeds are low but apparently not the other evening.

easyJet seems to divert to BHX or CWL if its aircraft can't land at BRS, which is no doubt logical. It's usually when the non-Cat3 equipped easterly runway is operational - non-equipped because of the approach topography.

 

[Ryan Kirkpatrick]

BA A319 at BHX following low fuel divert

 

[Matt995]

Pilots are trained from the start for low visibility operations. More likely in this case it was the crosswind - crosswind limit for CATIIIB auto lands is 20kts for the A320.

dont pilots have to do a couple of autoland Cat III approaches in good viz for training to be able to land in LVPs? I remember an Air India 787 on apporach to BHX in the fog, and they need on RVR of 550m , ie a Cat I approach only, so we know the aircraft is fully capable to land, but in this case the pilot(s) wernt fully autoland approved so the flight was diverted.

 

[mullion]

Yes they need to keep current

 

[Coathanger16]

Usually just 1 auto land in good visibility during the initial part of training is the only 'real world' requirement. Pilots then have simulator checks at least every 6 months to remain current.

Some failures of onboard systems can downgrade the level of approach the aircraft can make e.g. CAT IIIB - CAT II

 

[CL44]

UA016 just arrived at BHX on divert from LHR (N671UA)

 

[wolfheze]

What's going on at Heathrow? BA flight was diverted a little while back