BA 744 Diversion to MAN (Merged)
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: Seoul
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 . . .
Curious to know the reason for the diversion, and why the decision to land at Manchester, rather than LHR.
Over to the lions' den . . .
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Northwest England
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.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
From: Camp X-Ray
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.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
From: The Twilight Zone near 30W
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.
3 donks isn't a big issue on a -400.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
From: Bolton,Lancs,UK
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.....
ATC had said 10 minutes before in a conversation with OPS 3 that one engine shutdown and to expect an overweight landing.
Egerton Flyer.....
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Northwest England
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.
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.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
From: Camp X-Ray
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.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: Europe
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.
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.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
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?
Maybe a 'FUEL TANK/ENG' problem?
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
From: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 60
From: Anderlecht
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.
Just another number
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
From: UK