PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Incident at Heathrow
View Single Post
Old 25th May 2013, 07:28
  #296 (permalink)  
NigelOnDraft
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So presumably the implication is that ATC cannot "insist" that an aircraft diverts away from a populated area in case --in this instance--the crew might have found themselves committed to a Heathrow approach and the other engine failed.
That piece summed up a lot of what is said above - both for and against. The question was posed "who" is responsible for noting / avoiding built up areas. The response was correctly "the crew" (not ATC), but as also above, crew do not take this into account, at least in my experience.

I have flown out of LHR as main base for nearly 20 years with 2 large operators. Not once has the matter been raised (nor at other similar airfields near cities) in training, publications nor pre-flight emergency briefs at routing clear of built up areas.

It might be a valid question to ask, but if it becomes unacceptable, it basically means LHR is unacceptable as an airport. Unless we develop a special MEL type document for each airport / approach specifiying minimum required equipment (all engines & cowlings fitted / working ) that applies even in emergency I cannot see any progress?

Reverse the situation, and say yesterday's events had turned out to be the worst case i.e. failures mutiplied, and the aircraft did end up in London with loss of life. Who would history "blame"? I doubt the crew, or airline, or ATC. It would have to be the whole "system" had not factored this in. And the end result would be Boris Island, but that's another debate

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline