BA633, Return to Athens - now a story!

[mjtibbs]

seen this on bbc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4561558.stm


BA plane forced to land in Greece
A British Airways plane bound for Gatwick has been forced to return to northern Greece after suffering an apparent electrical fault.
The Boeing 737, carrying 95 passengers, flew back to Thessaloniki late on Monday afternoon after pilots noticed a possible problem.

"There was a cockpit indication shortly after take-off. As a precaution it returned to Thessaloniki," BA said.

Passengers from BA 2643 were being put up in a hotel overnight.

The plane was later being inspected to try and find the cause of the problem.

A BA spokesman added: "These things happen, unfortunately. The pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do."

[FlapsOne]

What a complete non-story!

[AMF]

Quote:

A BA spokesman added: "These things happen, unfortunately. The pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, unless it's a Heathrow-bound whale that loses an engine on T/O out of LAX....right, Mr. BA Spokesman?

[Mick Stability]

We had to shut down both engines last night. It followed an indication from the AGNIS system that the aircraft was very close to the airbridge. Following the standard procedures for this kind of incident, we had to apply the parking brake and turn off several aircraft systems.

All the passengers were obliged to leave the aircraft to the safety of the terminal, and the crew had to wait for half an hour in freezing conditions for a bus to take them to the car park.

An airline spokesman said this kind of thing can happen from time to time, although he admitted that it was unusual for a stand to be allocated so quickly.

An enquiry is underway as to why the crewbus left 2 minutes late from the CCO.

[yachtno1]

Nice One MS ! :ok:

[Bumz_Rush]

In GMMX last night a GB bus, declared a possible technical problem, on its arrival....

Is this a PC version of Mayday, (perhaps)....

It was raining, so perhaps the bus was leaking...?????

Bumz

[hobie]

Can you imagine being a PPruNe Mod and having to trawl through this sort of $$$$ every day :{

[ratarsedagain]

well at least AMF's attempt to turn the story into a BA bashing thread fizzled out..............

[Centaurus]

Reminds me of a civil court case brought by relatives of the unfortunate passengers killed in the Silk Air 737 crash a few years ago.

While a series of astounding coincidences gave understandable rise to a suspicion the crash was caused by deliberate pilot input (like full forward electric stab trim among other things), one of the prime expert witnesses for the company defence stated solemnly that, in his professional opinion, the crash was caused by a "progressive electrical fault" that popped the CVR circuit breaker followed six minutes later by the two FDR circuit breakers, followed probably by a crack propogating in the front windscreen that caused one of the pilots to make an emergency descent at full thrust and no speed brake and no radio call.

. His Honour the esteemed judge agreed whole-heartedly with that scenario and the the unfortunate relatives lost all their money that they had sunk into finding the truth....

[Rainboe]

I think I'd better step in on AMF's pathetic posting:
Um, unless it's a Heathrow-bound whale that loses an engine on T/O out of LAX....right, Mr. BA Spokesman?

Quite wrong, Mr. AMF! The crew took the outrageous decision, exactly as I would have done, that it was better and safer to proceed on 3 engines (heavens above, some airlines have been known to set off across the Pond on just two engines to start with!) than dump God knows how many tons of fuel in the LAX area and land back. I shutdown an engine on the N Atlantic and continued to Chicago- where was the risk? 4 to 3 is not like 2 to 1.

Why are you trying to open up that irrelevant discussion again?

[Bus429]

Rainboe,
Is BA approved to continue a revenue service after losing an engine on a 747 well before the PNR (like after take-off)? While the aircraft undoubtedly was safe on 3 engines, the margin for redundancy had been reduced. Was it really the right decision to continue?

The AAIB has had cause to question an operational decisions made by BA regarding the decision to continue a revenue service after experiencing an electrical failure on an A319. Surely that crew was wrong to continue?

[AMF]

Rainboe,

Aha, I knew it! Smoked you out my friend....you're the BA Spokesman!!!

So I guess Santa forgot you bring you a sense of humor again this year?

You are SO easy.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with dumping fuel. What, do you think the atmosphere's going to light-up in a huge fuel/air explosion if someone lights a smoke nearby, or it'll land on the ocean like a kerosene-slick tossed from heaven by angry gods and and smother all the helpless little sea critters? Don't worry, it wont. It's harmless and, in fact, kinda fun.

Bus,

I know on the surface it seems inconsistent, but rest easy because in the case of the A319 continuing after electrical failure as opposed to the B737 turning back which in turn is seemingly opposed to the 747 continuing with reduced performance and as a consequence running short of fuel, BA made the correct decisions because.....

\"....the pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do.\"

And that, boys and girls, comes straight from the mouth of someone of no less stature than a BA Spokesman.

I mean, what more does anyone need?

[TopBunk]

Bus 429

Is BA approved to continue a revenue service after losing an engine on a 747 well before the PNR (like after take-off)? While the aircraft undoubtedly was safe on 3 engines, the margin for redundancy had been reduced. Was it really the right decision to continue?

Quite simply, in a word that even you may understand .... YES

... and BTW, wrt 4 engine ops, define PNR

[Rainboe]

Bus429. It is not disapproved either! Throwing the spotlight onto several totally different incidents in one thread is just clouding the whole issue. In my 34 years paid employment as a pilot and 18,400 flying hours from turboprops to 747s, I am firmly of the opinion that the flight continuation policy is correct.

If AMF can stop playing teasing games and indulge in a serious discussion, don't underestimate the risks of fuel dumping. Pouring out 2 tonnes/minute close to the outboard engines carries separate risks of its own as well as atmospheric pollution- benzene is a carcinogen, and 100 tonnes of jet fuel has to go somewhere. It is an emergency-only procedure and not to be done lightly. The 747 on 3 is almost up there with a trijet on 3- it is a wonderful machine with incredible redundancy. The spotlight should fall instead on allowing the concept of 777s to proceed on 1 engine over the Pacific wastes for hours on end, not a 747 that would still be flyable on 2. I know which I would rather experience.

[Sensible Garage]

Flight Number Departing from Arriving at Scheduled Time of Departure Time of Departure Estimated or Actual

Information updated 1 minute ago.

BA0633 ATH ATH 27 DEC 19:15 27 DEC 19:43 Actual

ATH ATH should be ATH LHR!!!!

late dep, normal t/o, engines went a little quiet, PA announced a/c would return, it turned back, now waiting on the ground, pilot mate on board (I told him to go Olympic....)

[Gonzo]

Maybe I'm being naive but I think you've answered your own question. It's reading ATH-ATH because it returned to ATH. Updated automatically. As to if/when a second attempt will ocurr, who knows?

[Sub rosa]

Garage......

With over 100,000 registered members out of nearly 300,000 readers globally, in as many countries as there are in the world, 57% of readers are Professionals (either doctors, lawyers, pilots, CEO's, or high ranking executives with a large Technical/Engineering readership and a large percentage of university students) PPRuNe readers on average earn over US$50,000 per year. 37% make over US$75,000 and 10% of PPRuNers make over US$150,000 per year etc................

And you want flight information!

Mind boggling :hmm:

[Sensible Garage]

Information updated 1 minute ago.

BA0633 ATH LHR 27 DEC 21:15 28 DEC 11:51 Estimated

seems they try again in the morning.......

[Loose rivets]

Well, there's your answer.:}

[Sensible Garage]

a/c had #2 engine failure due to FADEC.... landed 45 tons as they were tankering

PS, moderator, BA 737s don't do ATH, you merged two different stories I guess

[Final 3 Greens]

\"....the pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do.\" Different context means caution expressed in different actions.

Rainboe and Topbunk have expert credentials that I lack, but the application of basic common sense and logic shows your comment on the quote to be false.

[BOAC]

Can you imagine being a PPruNe Mod and having to trawl through this sort of $$$$ every day - hobie - what can I say?

I didn't think I would, but now 'de boss' has donated this conjoined (see - got a dictionary for Xmas) thread to us, and............................:{

........ SG you are absolutely correct - the flight numbers (see - I have trawled:D ) show the merge. I believe the LHR BA633 was a 767 and the LGW 2643 (EDIT:SKG) was indeed a 737. All complaints to the senior management please.:D Probably got the specs misted up from too much of the good stuff.

Huh! We don't moderate a 'spotters' forum for nothing, err.......or do we...................:confused: Where's my last pay-slip from Danny?

[VP TAA]

Exactly how many engines will it take for these pundits to consider it safe to continue with one out!!!!?
VP TAA

[Bus429]

Topbunk - thanks for info (not quite sure you have to insult me:( ). Could I ask you to define PNR for a 4-engined aircraft? There is a slight risk I was spouting rubbish!

Rainboe - thanks for considered and reasonable response.

[flyer55]

Anybody know what 737 it was that turned and went back into Thessaloniki?

[keithl]

Bus, I don't see how you were spouting rubbish. PNR depends on fuel and distance, no matter how many engines you've got. Topbunk, there can be all sorts of reasons for turning back apart from an engine failure. If you are going from A to B, then the point where you no longer have fuel to get back to A is PNR. If you can go all the way from A to B and back again, then there is no PNR.

And whats this "even you may understand"? No need to be grumpy - season of goodwill, what?

[Bus429]

Thanks, keithl.
I appreciate Rainboe's point of view and his environmental concerns. I feel, however, that the 747 should have turned back. The failure of one engine may have been a link in the chain of an accident.
With regard to the A319 electrical power anomaly, the aircraft should have "Landed ASAP". A UK charter airline had a similar incident in 1998 with an A320 during take-off. The AAIB were very concerned about that incident as well. Their concerns centred on the technical failures rather than crew actions.

[keithl]

You're welcome, Bus, however I won't join you in second-guessing the 747 decision.

I've flown 4-engine aircraft over the Atlantic, too, but under very different rules. On the Nimrod, we used to shut down 2 engines for fuel economy (they still do), then light 'em up again for the return home. That wouldn't translate to Commercial Air Transport but it does illustrate the low risk nature of the situation.

Some statisticians might argue that having had the one-in-whatever-it-is chance of failure actually happen, the chances of another one going are impossibly remote.

Yes, I know about the 747 4-engine flameout, but still...

[BOAC]

I'd REALLY like to keep the 4-engine "is there a PNR" or "can we just run out of fuel/engines/cabin crew/electrics in our BA machine" discussion OFF this thread please as the 'saga' of the BA attempts to leave Greece develop. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=204000)

Quite happy to split the thread so that our friends can carry on arguing about other issues, mind you!

[quickturnaround]

It is still a non-story. In fact BA did NOT return to ATH but to SKG instead. SKG is the IATA code for Thessaloniki Makedonia Int. Airport. Which is served by BA 737's..... BA flies to ATH manly with Airbusses or even heavier stuff.

KALH XPONIA QTA

[BOAC]

OK QTA - still 'trawling through'! Are you saying that this from 'Sensible Garage'

BA0633 ATH ATH 27 DEC 19:15 27 DEC 19:43 Actual

Was in fact the 2643 SKGLGW - or are we all tewibbli confused?

What did this mean?

BA0633 ATH LHR 27 DEC 21:15 28 DEC 11:51 Estimated

Did the 633 on 28/12 divert to FCO?

Who mentioned 'SKG'?

Is there really a Santa Claus?

PS I've edited my error on the Thess Iata code and now know that TSL is in Mexico:uhoh:

[Sonic Cruiser]

quickturnaround, BA did have a flight return back to ATH on Tuesday 27th, the 633 I think. Had a friend who was on it.

[quickturnaround]

YOU ARE RIGHT, I am sorry folks, got confused by all those BA flts returning to good old Greece, I knew the Brits had a crush for mother Hellas, but that it was so strong...................

Well I will not mix fts and fltnrs again after a Tsiporo

KALH XPONIA, QTA:uhoh:

[BOAC]

again after a Tsiporo - sounds good! What is it?

[pilot-320]

BOAC tsipouro is a lovely alcoholic drink !!! usually olympic airways pilots drink it before the flights to keep it calm.. its a company poilicy i guess that is why we get all those high energy approaches!!! u should try but do not overdo it please... as far as the 633 on the 27th of dec yes it returned back to venizelos after a warning. i'm 100% sure about that but not sure about the problem.. happy new year !!!!!

Cheers pilot-320! I'll try to stick with slightly lower-energy approaches I think. It is amazing that I have never heard of it.

I took out an unecessary part of your post - I'm sure you will know why...........
:)