View Full Version : To cold in ABZ for BA

mealie puddin
28th Feb 2004, 02:50
Today BA cancelled 3 shuttle flights to ABZ from LHR, because the ILS glideslope was U/S at ABZ, all other flights (BA from LGW included) made it to ABZ without incident.

Rumour has it the Capt of the first service from LHR to ABZ would not wait till a snow shower went through, as there was not a full ILS avail, even though all the other carriers managed Loc only or vis approaches.
The Capt called BA ops said there was a blizzard and not enough ATC to go to ABZ. BA then called off all flights to ABZ from LHR, only frantic calls from ABZ ground staff to BA ops saying every other A/C had managed to get in, made them rethink!

Result 600 pissed off pax .

Does anyone have any other input???


Carnage Matey!
28th Feb 2004, 03:17
Sounds like BS to me. What were the met vis/RVR reports and ceiling at the time? I would say its eminently sensible not to commit oneself to landing at ABZ when a single plausible failure of the Loc would leave you with just a VOR approach which may be outside limits. If you've used up more fuel than you were expecting by holding already I'd be inclined to push off somewhere more southerly with better weather and get some more gas. I find the idea of cancelling the subsequent two or three flights on that basis equally fishy.

28th Feb 2004, 03:23
Under no circumstances would a BA pilot "press on" below minima in the event that the required visual reference is not achieved at decision altitude. BA minima are no more restrictive than anyone elses. I am sure that the BA flight crew would have responded correctly and safely to the conditions encountered. Without the "big picture" it is not possible to comment on decisions by ops to cancel other services.

28th Feb 2004, 03:30
Not exactly "too cold " as per the title then ?

mealie puddin
28th Feb 2004, 04:06
Sorry for not making my post clear

It was not about minima or RVR's, (the four hours I spent in ABZ airport the weather was 10+ with a cloud base at around 1700-2500 ft with tempo 1500m shsn,( much as the Taf )) if there was a shower going through at the time and it was below limits then an approach ban would exist and I would not expect someone to 'press on'. Anyway if it was below limits no other A/C of a similar cat would have made an approach to ABZ either.
As far as Gas goes the flight diverted back to LHR so plenty of fuel. (GLA cavok all day)

It was about the idea to cancel the rest of the services for the day on the say so of one person without looking at the whole picture, the right foot at LHR not taking notice of the left foot of the people on the ground, that things were not that bad as made out, until so far down the road that 3 rotations were lost.

As far as I'm aware the G/S was u/s the day before and when the night-stopping crew at the hotel in ABZ were told of the reason for inbound services being cancelled they could not believe it.

Red Four
28th Feb 2004, 04:54
Perhaps the breaking action after one of those 1500m shsn went through was also being taken into account?

28th Feb 2004, 07:06
Have to agree with some of the above comments;

It is highly unfair to indirectly question a Skipper's decisions without knowing the full facts presented to him at the time.

Have another 'o' by the way...........

no reds
28th Feb 2004, 08:13
this stuff has been done time and again - Loganair would`nt exist without the builder who bought the twin to service the islands in the first place . . . forgive the time scale but BMA + BA equals locals struggling to get to hospital in Inverness.
The ones who need Glasgees Royal Infirmary from there are in deep do does and probably will continue along those lines

28th Feb 2004, 09:00
Eh...................?????????:confused: :confused:

Carnage Matey!
28th Feb 2004, 10:10
Errr...what are you talking about no reds? Speaking as someone familiar with these things, the locals of Aberdeen dont go to hospital in Inverness, the reverse is true, and they go by road generally.


Were you airborne at the time of the reports or was it just your assesment fom the ground? I'm sure you appreciate that info passed to aircraft in flight is often very different from the actual weather conditions. I still think it highly dubious that the aircraft diverted back to LHR as that would require about another 3 tons of fuel, which is sufficent for about 1 to 1.5 hours of holding at ABZ. EDI only requires about a ton to reach so they would still have 30+ mins of holding capability. LHR is also about the sixth commercial alternate on our flight plans, beneath EDI, GLA, NCL, MAN and BHX.

mealie puddin
28th Feb 2004, 17:06
Sorry again for not being clear,

the bug bear is not the decision to divert as much as LHR's decision to cancel the rest of the services for the day on that say so.

Don't know anything about the NHS saga.

28th Feb 2004, 17:37
Quote from 'Press and Journal' todays edition:

"Over 12 cms reported to have fallen at Aberdeen airport by mid morning. Some flights to and from the airport were delayed and cancelled, leaving travellers stranded.

Drifting snow on a runway caused the landing tracking technology to malfunction and forced the cancellation of four Heathrow services" :{

ABZ was closed between 1950 and 2030 last night due to heavy snow.

Saw the EZY arrive about 2050 (45 mins late)


29th Feb 2004, 01:22
Having had personal experience of the Press and Journal and its reporting of aviation matters, I for one would not take everything in it too literally.

29th Feb 2004, 16:23
Always one bites. Good result mealie.