Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)

Old 20th Feb 2005, 16:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Seoul
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA 744 Diversion to MAN

BA 747-400 diverted in to Manchester this afternoon around 15:45 - can anyone in the know shed some light on this? Fire trucks followed the aircraft in, but all looked normal.

Curious to know the reason for the diversion, and why the decision to land at Manchester, rather than LHR.

Over to the lions' den . . .
Mini mums is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 16:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA Divert

Was BA268, Lax-Lhr.

Called "Pan" with fuel problem.

Expected to depart 18.00 to Heathrow.
halwise is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 18:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 490
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Pilot advised London ATC that there was an issue re the "No 2, left inboard" engine (his words).
Liffy 1M is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 20:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northwest England
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Listening in , the pilot declared an engine shutdown followed shortly after by a PAN alert due to fuel shortage. Between 3000 and 4000 ft he declared a MAYDAY with critical fuel and asked for sterile runway as he would to be unable to go-around.
john8b is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 21:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect something may have been lost in the reporting here. Had the the aircraft had insufficient fuel to go around they'd have known about it a lot earlier than 3000 ft and company policy would have been to declare a mayday much, much earlier than that. Sounds a bit unusual that all 3 flight crew were ignorant of company fuel policy or chose to ignore it.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 21:42
  #6 (permalink)  
Couldonlyaffordafiver
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with HS. No knowledge of the incident beyond what I read here but they would certainly have used the M word much sooner if that was the case.

3 donks isn't a big issue on a -400.
Human Factor is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 22:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bolton,Lancs,UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with john8b on this one, aircraft was 8 miles out when he declared a mayday.
ATC had said 10 minutes before in a conversation with OPS 3 that one engine shutdown and to expect an overweight landing.

Egerton Flyer.....
Egerton Flyer is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 22:57
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northwest England
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taken from a Manchester website

BA 268 shut down one engine,the controller on 128.050 asked him if he was
declaring a PAN,he said no,
Then declared PAN PAN,said he couldnt get fuel from the tank,then went to
121.350,called Mayday Mayday,
He didnt have the fuel for a go around,requested a sterile runway.
john8b is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2005, 22:58
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well those two posts don't add up. If you think about it logically, the only way the aircraft could have been over max landing weight was if it was still carrying lots of fuel. That doesn't tie up with the suggestion that the aircraft had insufficient fuel to fly a go around.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 04:03
  #10 (permalink)  
A300Man-2005
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Three flight crew? Does the 744 have an engineer on board, or just a spare pilot for such a long haul sector?


Thanks.
 
Old 21st Feb 2005, 04:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@A300Man

LAX-LHR isn't a party for two, isn't it?

regards
catchup is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 06:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: LGW
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
whay i don't get is why, if he knew fuel was critical, did he not divert earlier in flight. surely it is not worth taking the risk when it comes to fuel.
jettesen is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 06:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would appear from the posts above, that it might not have been a problem of the total fuel onboard being insufficient, but rather the useable fuel.

If it was a problem in the fuel system, then it might not have been clear exactly how much fuel was useable until very late.
Clarence Oveur is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 06:41
  #14 (permalink)  
A300Man-2005
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Sorry, was a genuine question. I am not a pilot and have never flown the route. I assume from your reply that there is a third pilot onboard. Thanks.
 
Old 21st Feb 2005, 06:45
  #15 (permalink)  
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil

Why do so many have to ask the same questions? If you are not familiar with the a/c and the way its systems work then would the spotters please leave us alone on this forum. It sounds like this wasn't just a diversion because of low fuel but there was a technical problem to do with fuel transfer from tank to engine.

Maybe a 'FUEL TANK/ENG' problem?
cargo boy is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 07:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From one of the cabin crew who was on it:

Engine surge on or shortly after take-off at LAX. Engine shut down, all the way on 3 engines but not enough fuel to make LHR. Some suggestion that fuel may have been dumped at some stage ( 3-engine cruise performance?). I'm not and never have been 747 licensed so I can't comment further.
Wingswinger is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 08:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbricht
Posts: 2,193
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Are you seriously suggesting that after shutting an engine down "shortly" after take-off at LAX, the crew would elect to continue a 10 hour flight on three? If this pans out to be true, that'll be BA off my longhaul prefered carrier list! However, methinks and hopes that it's total bulls##t.
Avman is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 09:15
  #18 (permalink)  
Just another number
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Avman

The subject of Flight Continuation Policy has been covered several times on PPRuNe.

Airclues
Captain Airclues is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 09:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Living World
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Avman- Correct! ATC at LAX also reported flames from engine exhaust.
mrcabbage is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2005, 10:02
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that'll be an interesting captains special report!
Bearcat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.