"Incident" at Heathrow on 27L this morning (22/09/2003)

[Conor.M]

I have been travelling from London to Copenhagen on a weekly basis without any problems for the last several months. This morning however all that good luck finally ran out. The aircraft was delayed twice for technical problems and once due to what the Captain described as an incident on the runway being used for departures.

I was on BA812, the 0655 British Airways flight to Copenhagen. The aircraft was an A320 (and I suspect an older example judging by the lack of those nifty moving map displays that drop down from the overhead lockers, although the aircraft did have wing fences, so not a -100). The flight was initially delayed because of a faulty accumulator on one the aircraft's three hydraulic systems. Once the engineers had fixed that issue we boarded the Aircraft. At 0800 the Captain announced that he had been given a take-off slot and expected to be airborne in 25 minutes.

It was then that the second, and most curious, of the mornings three delays took place. At 0810 the Captain announced that there had been an "incident" on the runway that was currently being used for take-offs (which he later identified as 27L) and that an aircraft was still on the runway. He didn't elaborate on what that meant but the implication was that an aircraft was stranded. Nothing further was mentioned until 0825 when he announced that the incident had been resolved.

So my first question, does anyone know anything about this incident? I was on the flight with five other colleagues and we are all rather curious about this incident.

As if that delay wasn't enough, just as we were about to pushback following the resolution of the runway incident, one of the ground technicians noticed water leaking from the belly of the aircraft. The Captain thought it was "potable" water (not 100% sure what that is, but he did mentioned the Tea and Coffee making facilities). He called out the tech chaps and they determined it was one of the A/C packs. Apparently one of the packs was brand new (he called it the newest pack at the airfield) and was being a little overzealous at removing water from the cabin air. After another 30 minutes or so he announced that he was going to use the new pack only at lower altitudes where the extra water wouldn't freeze and use the second properly functioning pack at higher altitudes (where the air was colder and contained less water he explained) in conjunction with the auxiliary A/C pack. My second question, how many A/C packs does an A320 have? I had always assumed there were just the two.

Tops marks to the captain though, I've never known a captain so willing to explain in detail why the flight had been delayed. While the delay was annoying, it was made easier, for me a t least, by being keep fully informed by the Captain.

EDIT: mix of BST and CET times, all times now in BST

[chippy63]

The first flight to Madrid (456) also had problems, although these manifested themselves after takeoff. We got out about 30 mins late, fair enough,usual Monday morning. Over Brittany, noticed on the map display that the plane was performing a u-turn.
Captain announced he'd been informed that that an oil sample had been taken during the night and had been found to contain traces of debris so a precautionary landing back at LHR would be done. Nice landing at about 0940, but little evidence that anything had been done on the ground to cope with passengers' needs.
Fine, safety first, but I can't believe that the sample wasn't checked before the aircrafy was released for service. Would appreciate any comments to help me understand this.
I was taking my son down for a day trip before he goes to uni, using up two promo Club Europe tickets awarded from an earlier Club World programme. We figured out that the delay in getting another plane would mean we'd get to Madrid in time for two quick beers before we had to head back to Barajas, so decided to bag it. Shame, we'd both been really looking forward to it.
Full marks to the flight and cabin crew for doing their best to keep us informed, though. Less than full marks to the rest of the organisation.

[cirrus01]

As you can probably guess, the reason why the the aircraft was airborne before the oil sample was spectro-anaylised is a simple matter of logistics. Don't know the exact figures but ther would be something like 50 or more samples to process each day. MCDs and oil samples usually routinely taken on nightstopping aircraft, so by the time it has been taken to the NDT facility and actually looked at, your aircraft had already departed. The engineers would have inspected the off-coming MCDs for any large particles or debris and had there been such, the sample would have been treated as a priorty or the aircraft not been declared serviceable .

shame you didn't have better treatment when back at LHR. :*

[chippy63]

Thanks, Cirrus, very helpful. Certainly, it is a logistics issue, not just affecting safety but also the economic effect of a return to base. Just a bit surprised that the logistics aren't set up to ensure prompter analysis.
Thanks again!

[Conor.M]

Back to the BA812 I mentioned above. After we had boarded and the Captain was explaining the problem with the faulty accumulator he mentioned that another A320 had a technical problem at Heathrow that problem and that “the spare” aircraft had therefore already been used.

Now that all BA short haul flights from Heathrow are A320’s or A319’s (I believe BA 737’s have moved to Gatwick) does this mean that BA routinely have spare aircraft available at Heathrow in case an A/C goes tech, and if so how many?

How many Aircraft does BA have technical problems with on an average morning. Assuming you flight to Madrid was also an Airbus that’s at least 3 A320/319 (including the one that used the spare aircraft) that had technical problem on Monday morning.

…and I’m still curious what the runway incident was.

[chippy63]

Yes, Conor, it was an airbus, I think a 319. When we landed, the captain said that a replacement aircraft would be landing shortly and that he and his crew would continue flight 456 using that with an ETD at 1105. It finally got away at 1138, according to the website.

[ATCO Two]

Conor,

I was working yesterday and there was no "runway incident," apart from the return of BAW456 to 27R, which I controlled on Air Arrivals. Aircraft expected to use more runway than usual - fire vehicles and runway checker followed it down the runway as a precautionary measure. End of story.

[BrightonGirl]

Atco Two --

Hope this isn't a very naive question, but why would the Captain expect to need more runway than usual?

[ATCO Two]

Hi BG,

The message we got was that the hydraulic fluid was contaminated. I imagine that there was a possibility of reduced braking efficiency.

[chippy63]

Interesting, my son and I were on 456, as mentioned earlier, and understood that it was engine lubricant that may have been contaminated:confused:
As for the landing, if anything, smoother than usual, and exited the runway after a fairly short landing roll.:ok:

[BrightonGirl]

Thank you, ATCO 2! I probably should have been able to figure that out; I appreciate your answer.

[MD11FAN]

Conor.M,

Just a note to say I saw 2 B737-400s at LHR on 15/9 so there must be a few still operating from there.