Thomson 787 returns to MAN
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lon
If by "OEP" you refer to an Oceanic Entry Point, then "53N 010W" isn't.
However, 53N 015W is an OEP: MALOT
The turnback occurred west of MALOT, in Shanwick airspace.
If by "OEP" you refer to an Oceanic Entry Point, then "53N 010W" isn't.
However, 53N 015W is an OEP: MALOT
The turnback occurred west of MALOT, in Shanwick airspace.
Last edited by rab-k; 12th Jul 2013 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance underwriters?
At what stage will the underwriters say 'enough'? All the while there are (western) flight crew and airlines prepared to fly, I for one will fly without concern; no western pilot is going to risk his or her neck, and no insurer is going to cover a bad risk.
I'm no expert here, but from a business point of view surely Thomson would want this plane back on the ground in the UK after hearing of the incident at LHR?
If the 787 were to be grounded again, i'm sure it would save them alot of hassle having the a/c at their base airport, for works to be carried out with minimal disruption? Not to mention the return pax being stranded over in the U.S, they would have to organise for them to be returned, at great cost/delay.
To me, seems a bit of a coincidence for this to be turned back at the same time.
If the 787 were to be grounded again, i'm sure it would save them alot of hassle having the a/c at their base airport, for works to be carried out with minimal disruption? Not to mention the return pax being stranded over in the U.S, they would have to organise for them to be returned, at great cost/delay.
To me, seems a bit of a coincidence for this to be turned back at the same time.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what stage will the underwriters say 'enough'?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps that was their EDTO or ETOPS entry point rather than OEP.
As an aside, with the cost of fuel and the fact the aircraft was going to be on the ground for a while anyway, why not just accept the overweight landing and avoid dumping fuel?
As an aside, with the cost of fuel and the fact the aircraft was going to be on the ground for a while anyway, why not just accept the overweight landing and avoid dumping fuel?
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not just accept the overweight landing and avoid dumping fuel?
I watched it on FlightRadar an it looked like he used al the runway and was stationary at the end for minute or so before going back to the apron.
I think that by not being a bit more open about the cause they are only fuelling further speculation which may be even more damaging to Boeing's tattered reputation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think the Thomson PR machine needs to get organised and feed relevant truthful information to a concerned public and a nervous media who look for any silence on incidents to exaggerate?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points to add.
They wanted the aircraft back in Manchester as that was where the 767 was waiting to take the passengers to Florida.
The extended holding time was to BURN the fuel, not to dump it.
According to the Aviation Herald and other sources, the electrical problem that the aircraft had meant that the fuel dumping system was not available.
They wanted the aircraft back in Manchester as that was where the 767 was waiting to take the passengers to Florida.
The extended holding time was to BURN the fuel, not to dump it.
According to the Aviation Herald and other sources, the electrical problem that the aircraft had meant that the fuel dumping system was not available.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh aye....
Incident: Thomson B788 over Atlantic on Jul 12th 2013, lavatory woes
"Passengers reported that all but 2 lavatories malfunctioned obviously as result of an electrical problem. "
HOWEVER.
Having been one of the teams installing PGE harnesses in tranche one and two A380's I say do not to underestimate the power consumption of these services, even on a "smaller" aircraft.....
"Passengers reported that all but 2 lavatories malfunctioned obviously as result of an electrical problem. "
HOWEVER.
Having been one of the teams installing PGE harnesses in tranche one and two A380's I say do not to underestimate the power consumption of these services, even on a "smaller" aircraft.....
Last edited by glad rag; 13th Jul 2013 at 09:37.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, that explains it then...
Lon - No probs. (10 West may not have known as it stayed clear of his patch and went out via the Shannon FIR to pick up NAT Track 'A', commencing at MALOT. Didn't see him yesterday so he may be on days off).
Lon - No probs. (10 West may not have known as it stayed clear of his patch and went out via the Shannon FIR to pick up NAT Track 'A', commencing at MALOT. Didn't see him yesterday so he may be on days off).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before people start getting carried away with the imagined seriousness of an event or technical fault that may cause an aircraft (ANY aircraft) to divert off the ocean and land ASAP, you may be interested to know that TOILETS are statistically the No. 1 cause.*
Simply - full, blocked, or unserviceable toilets may mean you cannot possibly continue (for obvious reasons), or indeed may mean you cannot even begin the crossing.
Still - despite all the warning signs in every loo, there are people who still insist on putting nappies etc. down there .....
In this case however, clearly there was a fault with the system rather than a blockage. Not a flight safety issue, but a "stopper" nonetheless.
Edit * some aircraft types and/or pax/loo configurations being more susceptible than others.
Simply - full, blocked, or unserviceable toilets may mean you cannot possibly continue (for obvious reasons), or indeed may mean you cannot even begin the crossing.
Still - despite all the warning signs in every loo, there are people who still insist on putting nappies etc. down there .....
In this case however, clearly there was a fault with the system rather than a blockage. Not a flight safety issue, but a "stopper" nonetheless.
Edit * some aircraft types and/or pax/loo configurations being more susceptible than others.
Last edited by Weary; 13th Jul 2013 at 11:38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Alexander de Meercat (post 42)....It was used in the early stages of one of the "Battery" threads (modesty prevents me naming the originator 
@ Legacy Driver...The sheer Fuel efficiency of the airframe , was a compelling reason for adopters...Unfortunately, Boeing management blew that one by their incompetence and lack of ability to manage an AIRCRAFT builder
Load of bull was talked about the impossibility of adapting / using / certifying a more stable and proven Lithium technology, yet they had a vast team of highly qualified engineers , working day and night on.........A tin box with a vent-pipe
Given some decent Quality Control , Management who understand the product and it's market, and Engineers with the power to resist coercion to compromise and Kludge, this aircraft could STILL be a world-beater.
Seems the arrogant tossers are just going to keep taking their no-doubt-generous salaries until the milch cow keels over and dies.
@ Legacy Driver...The sheer Fuel efficiency of the airframe , was a compelling reason for adopters...Unfortunately, Boeing management blew that one by their incompetence and lack of ability to manage an AIRCRAFT builder
Load of bull was talked about the impossibility of adapting / using / certifying a more stable and proven Lithium technology, yet they had a vast team of highly qualified engineers , working day and night on.........A tin box with a vent-pipe
Given some decent Quality Control , Management who understand the product and it's market, and Engineers with the power to resist coercion to compromise and Kludge, this aircraft could STILL be a world-beater.
Seems the arrogant tossers are just going to keep taking their no-doubt-generous salaries until the milch cow keels over and dies.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on land
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's good news, really hope these general electrical systems issues settle down. A shame to see a beautiful and comfortable new aircraft having such potentially dangerous teething problems. Once stabilized and racking up the miles on the line it'll be a win win for all concerned.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titanic?
Some might have said the Titanic was beautiful and comfortable too.
Still contained design flaws, a lack of lifeboats and was foolishly steaming at night into an area with icebergs with a lookout sans binos.
The 787 is badly made and all the more dangerous because so much is riding on it. As we speak Boeing will be applying all of its considerable lobbying muscle to keep this plastic fantastic aircraft flying.
Safety is our highest priority?
Still contained design flaws, a lack of lifeboats and was foolishly steaming at night into an area with icebergs with a lookout sans binos.
The 787 is badly made and all the more dangerous because so much is riding on it. As we speak Boeing will be applying all of its considerable lobbying muscle to keep this plastic fantastic aircraft flying.
Safety is our highest priority?
Last edited by Bigpants; 13th Jul 2013 at 15:55.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once stabilized and racking up the miles on the line it'll be a win win for all concerned.
Though perhaps this will be offset by the view from the windows when the FAs permit exterior viewing?