One day wasn't going well with us. A 727 going MIA to BAQ Colombia. Our alternate was 50 miles away, both were closed, can't get dispatch so ask what destination and alternate airport weather is. Both below minimums. We get a clearance from ATC to Panama City in VMC conditions and land with above minimum fuel. Dispatch a bit panicked but we called in Panama City and told them we didn't descend because we couldn't land at destination or alternate and they were not available.
Next we waited two hours to take off and leave for Baranquilla(sp) and guess what, a 707 Was on the runway that we didn't land at with the 20 knot tailwind with ILS and blew all it's tires. I had a female copilot who was flying the leg and said pretend it is Islip, NY and fly over on the long runway. We got by with it but one passenger leaving said I have never landed over another airplane on the runway before. I said, me either.
This is a typical PPRuNe steaming pile of hot air and nonsense, until someone actually confirms whether it happened or not, and where the light aircraft was sitting.
We have Pilots & Captains to make the decisions that machines cannot. If this Captain decided to land and completed the exercise safely, then I support his judgement on the day. No doubt many will spend days & weeks questioning it but they were not there and they are not under the time pressure he was under.
There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.
Intersection takeoffs. Tailwind takeoffs/landings. Derated/flex takeoffs. Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighbouring cb. Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion. Departing with allowable technical defects. Autolanding without telling ATC Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
In an ideal world the above would not happen. However we live in a real not virtual world where qualified pilots are paid to follow rules and make sensible commercial decisions.
Left Kotoka international yesterday, didn't learn anything, seems as it was a no event, just another busy night with BA KL TP AZ heavies taking off into the night. Nobody heard about it (or want to talk about it)
Approaching Basrah last year, tower advised us that the last 2000m were unavailable as a rocket had landed and blown a hole in it. Quick recalculation of landing distance and autobrake setting, no problem. As said do the maths, then no problem. Our alternate Baghdad also had a 'mystery' hole appear on the main runway! These events as in Accra when correctly handled, make this job what it is. Good work by BA, proving that using commonsense and technical knowledge prove their worth.
Penko, Based on "been there, done that", I'm with you.
The actual case was a Philippine Airlines A-300 ran through the end of 06 at Manila, wound up with it's nose on the South Super Highway.
With suitable information supplied, including the height of the fin, with the nose gear folded up, nose down, we used normal obstacle clearance gradients to calculate the reduced runway available for landing, and landed. QED.
Many years ago, a PanAm B707 went off (just) the end of 34 (now 34L) at YSSY. It sat there for quite some time. The fin was removed very smartly to reduce the height of the "critical obstacle" , so the reduced EOL was minimized.
Many will recall a B747 that went of the end of 15 at Kai Tak, if my memory serves me correctly, the fin was blown off, but the rest of the aircraft was there for some days.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The actual experience ---- it took local officialdom several days to finally raise a NOTAM re. reduced length, the first NOTAM (after we landed) just said what and where, and left it up to operators, as to what they did. We departed 24 the following day, downwind, and had no control over blowing crap all over the poor sods getting ready to retrieve the A-300.
There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.
Intersection takeoffs. Tailwind takeoffs/landings. Derated/flex takeoffs. Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighboring cb. Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion. Departing with allowable technical defects. Autolanding without telling ATC Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
Funny because it's true! Sad because it's true!
(Takes large turd stirring device from drawer)
Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines
tflier, No doubt you are personally familiar with the utter hypocrisy of your statement in reference to the conduct by the "Fleet Manager" of the operation to which you refer (Baghdad Hajj). The list of violations he condoned and participated in is long and varied. Other than a pathetic attempt to promote a small and questionable recruiting agency by means of an article in an aviation journal, his only other talents were to plunder the operation, gain favour by allowing F/O's to fly from the left seat and send incriminating emails that cost the owner thousands of dollars in breach of contract salary payments. Despite your self praise, I believe you are the last person to be able to comment on "using commonsense"
TT, I guess this is one of those which we 'not in the know' wouldn't be aware. I do recollect going in to Basrah at night as FO (ex capt but >60 - thanks France & USA!), with top rate capt & FE, flying B747 for charter outfit. I suggested close in steep circling descent, lights out. We discussed the fact that we had not practiced this procedure in the sim and agreed that (as usual in competent professional ops) anyone could express discomfort. Accomplished successfully. On return to UK, mentioned to boss. Result? Notice to crew that this sort of procedure was not necessary nor was it company policy. Fortunately most of the FD crew were experienced and financially well enough off not to give a sh1t what flt ops said. Why would they not wish us to do a tactical approach? Well what do you think the difference is between the insurance premium for normal ops and that for a war zone?
Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines
I see that the rude comment about Dinosaurs responding to the above, has been "modified " ! Well done.
Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.
I once lost an engine on a 747 on take-off but the departure airfield was situated in what might be described as a distinctly user-unfriendly environment from many angles, passenger immigration requirements and accom., lack of engineering spares, lack of immediate engineering support etc.
As I required nearly an hour to dump fuel to landing weight, I continued on until I had dumped sufficient fuel, then landed 'at the nearest suitable airport' (suitable being significant) where passengers could be housed ( hotelled if you prefer ) and the company had relatively easy engineeing arrangements. I'm on the ground mate, fix it, I didn't even have a Mighty Ocean to cross.
On a subsequent occasion I didn't need to dump fuel, and was back on the ground as soon as we could complete the checks and get the gear down again. When the F/O pointed out that we had sufficient fuel to continue to destination on 3, I also pointed out that we also had to cross a lot of shark infested ocean. Chicken ? you bet.
There was absolutely no excuse for the subject 747 to continue across the pond - as it was described. If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.
I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
If that makes me a Dinosaur - tough. I can live with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 3 engine DC-10's and Tristars cross those same shark infested waters?
And Boeing 767's, Boeing 737's and now Boeing 777's plus a few Scairbuses
(yes, I'm an "If It Ain't Boeing I'm Not Goin " man - I, usually, have a choice and the choice is mine - I pay, now.)
But ........ they are designed to.
Why compromise built in, deliberate, design safety for commercial expediency ?
I repeat ...
Quote:
Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.
I think that if the subject BA crew had asked their passengers opinion, instead of their company bean-counters, they would have been told to make a different decision.
Anyhow, that subject has been hammered to death on a previous thread, I only commented because someone else had drifted slightly.
I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
Would you? . . and how would you have dealt with the fact that he was complying with company policy which was that one could continue to destination on three engines?
Yorkshire tyke He wasn't indicted because...... There was no case to answer. He was not flying over shark infested ocean GC between LAX and LHR! Great idea next time I have a non normal I'll throw away my years of experience as an instructor and take a straw poll of the passengers. Would you facing surgery prefer your opinion over that of a surgeon? You yourself admit through commercial expediency and passenger convenience to not return to your departure airfield. Personally I put my faith in logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots. Comparing you to a dinosaur is a travesty, to dinosaurs.
Speaking from a humble SLF viewpoint, I'm a little disturbed that the disabled bizjet is seen by most as an 'obstacle', to be compared with repair works or a hole in the runway. If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?
overthewing, IF the situation was as reported, there would be no one in the obstructing aircraft. They'd all be long gone. If you read back through this thread, you'll find that we carefully calculate take-off and landing weight (mass) using runway length, over-run and obstruction figures (and numerous other factors).
