AC 'slight elec smell' diversion

[old_man]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/a ... -1.2885198

Question: Just curious why they chose to go all the way to Toronto? I am not second guessing them, just trying to understand why.

[Liquid Charlie]

That would be decided by other powers than the crew as long as there was no immediate threat -- SOC and maintenance obviously thought it was the right decision to bring them back to yyz

[GyvAir]

In the absense of immediate threat, I'm sure the crew wasn't making much noise about landing in Frobisher either, as they flew right over top.

[cgzro]

I'm curious how without knowing the source of smoke or burning smell that it can be deemed safe to keep on flying? Seems like gambling to me. Presumably 999 times out of a thousand its benign but are those good enough odds to keep on flying? Everything else in aviation uses 1 in 10 million odds as a sort of acceptable risk.

What am I not getting here? Do they isolate the cause to some non critical circuit, turn it off and all is ok? or is it just a guess?

No disrepect but I dont get why the risk is acceptable?

For example if they lost an engine what would the SOP be in a twin jet like a 777, is it ok to overfly safe but inconvenient landing sites?

[altiplano]

I don't know where they were, but Frobay was mentioned. Bringing a 777 full of people into Frobay or anything up that way in the middle of -30 winter weather is an emergency in itself. Minimal support for a plane that size or that many people. This is a 208 minute ETOPS aircraft that flies over the most remote corners of the world, hours and hours away from any landing site, and is certified to keep going when major incidents happen. With no actual indication of an issue beyond a faint scent, I'd say they would be reckless to risk the aircraft and passengers at a marginal landing site. They were possibly over max landing weight too.

Yes it's okay to overfly a landing site ie. land immediately vs. land at nearest suitable airport kinda thing. I think this was probably a precautionary "let's turn back while/where we have options rather than get out over the Atlantic/Greenland and have a problem develop with limited options."

Technical Alternates in the north are used all the time for flight planning that you really don't want to see and won't consider them unless the situation is dire.

[monkey]

Landing in frobay in winter is an emergency now? Okay I get it YFB is not a preferred destination hence AC pulled Jazz off that run but coming into a 9000 *200 ft paved strip with 24 hr ATC, MTC, ILS approach, defiantly not an emergency situation. They can accommodate that aircraft.

[altiplano]

Sure thing pal. You must know best.

[Jack Klumpus]

ETOPS and having smoke on board, does not equate to flying for hours and hours. You have smoke, you better start doing something, and doing it now.

No idea what the crew faced, so no comment on their decision.

[cgzro]

What would gave been SOP for an engine failure? Return to Toronto or land at nearest suitable?

[monkey]

easy bud, I'm not criticizing the AC crew. Just the notion that landing in YFB in the winter constitutes an emergency for a 777. I'm not sure why your drawing parallels between ETOPS and electrical smoke but anyways enjoy the new year.

[altiplano]

But they didn't have smoke onboard. Wasn't any mention of smoke. Doesn't sound like any indications of a problem at all beyond a faint electrical scent somewhere. Doesn't sound like an immediate threat at all. There was an experienced crew on board capable to assess and response adequately, judging from the results apparently they did.

Obviously if you're going through the smoke drill or you're on fire you're going to land. But that isn't case here. It's a judgement call anytime you divert. Closest isn't always best depending on what you got. Barrow and blow the tires out? Or go another 20 minutes to Fairbanks? Try to sort out a diversion into Petropavlovsk or go back an extra hour to Narita?

If a flight diverted into BF nowhere every time a flight attendant burnt the coffee or heard a noise...

[altiplano]

easy bud, I'm not criticizing the AC crew. Just the notion that landing in YFB in the winter constitutes an emergency for a 777. I'm not sure why your drawing parallels between ETOPS and electrical smoke but anyways enjoy the new year.

Maybe emergency was a little harsh, but not by much. Middle of the night, -30, maybe 350 people. Doesn't sound like it's going to go well.

I'm not trying to draw comparisons between electrical smoke and ETOPS as there wasn't any smoke. I'm simply saying these planes fly a long way away from stuff and are demonstrated as, and statistically shown to be reliable and capable to handle extended diversions, even with critical system failures. I thought it related to the OPs question. I am not saying that's what you should do in a dire circumstance.

[GyvAir]

Funny how one can hardly ask a question or start a discussion about the handling of a non-standard situation on this forum without raising the ire of other people who also had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand... Is the proper thing after something goes sideways but turns out OK to just head to the bar toast the exploits and success of the day and speak no more of it? Zero discussion about what would you have done, lest risk the dreaded second-guessing hurting of feelings? I really don't think many people on here are suggesting that they would/could have done better than the people involved. I do think however that the majority of people that read these threads would like to benefit from a logical discussion as to what the options might have been, for when they find themselves in a related situation and having to make that judgement call. There are a lot of people on here that have had to make those calls many times. It would be great to have them speak up other than to say "It all worked out fine, so clearly it was a perfect decision that is above being looked at, even, or perhaps especially at a casual level.

At risk of raising still more ire, I also noticed that their choice of alternates resulted in them remaining airborne to within about 15 minutes of the average flight time to their original destination, with roughly the same number of favorable runways along the way. (Of course, flying over solid ground more of the way, heading south)

[GyvAir]

Maybe emergency was a little harsh, but not by much. Middle of the night, -30, maybe 350 people. Doesn't sound like it's going to go well.

I was in Iqaluit once to observe a 747 land there on a medical diversion and then go mechanical after landing. No, not quite a true emergency, but a plane full of tourists on the way to some sunny destination without a winter coat among them in the mere -10 or -15C at the time was quite the circus to deal with and rather miserable for all involved.

[KK7]

Why are you talking about a 777, engine failure and smoke, and landing in YFB??? The aircraft in question was a 767, with a slight electrical smell. Does anyone have any other information indicating smoke, fire or anything more serious than a slight electrical smell? Maybe they identified the source of the smell?

[altiplano]

Someone mentioned 777, so I assumed it was a triple... Similar decision making process on a 767 nonetheless...

Gyv, not sure if that was directed at me but... I Didn't get my ire raised, just trying to put myself in those shoes and what they were thinking... Turn back, YFB is in your pocket and if there is no further issue/escalation as you go by consider continuing... As you continue without incident much more palatable options open up, YYR, YVO, YYB, whatever... I'm sure these guys were ready to go into every strip in reach as they trucked back if the situation mandated.

Anyway, happy new year.

[GyvAir]

altiplano: No, not directed at you, or really anyone in this thread in particular. I was venting as much in reaction to other recent threads where the "Who the **** are you and what are your glorious qualifications, to be questioning the crew's actions?" mentality quickly brews or outright erupts, when people are simply wishing to respectfully discuss what options may have been available in the situation or other similar situations.

Happy New Year to you too

[Diadem]

It seems plausible to me that they identified the source of the smell and determined that it wasn't an emergency, but it was something that needed to be rectified before proceeding across the open ocean. I would suspect they diverted not because of any danger, but because it wouldn't have been smart to proceed without the snag being fixed. There's no point in landing in YFB if that's the case, seeing as they have no maintenance facilities there.

[old_man]

So back to my original question....do you people think this is more a case of 'We figured out what's wrong and all is safe. We are going to be broken when we land. It is better to be broken in Toronto than Heathrow.'?

[cgzro]

I certainly hope this is the case because the alternative "we are not sure what is wrong but odds are only 1 in a thousand its dangerous so well keep going" is unacceptable.