PDA

View Full Version : Full emergency at STN


Paracab
15th Apr 2004, 21:37
I understand that a full emergency occurred at STN earlier this evening involving a BA aircraft (?!)

Not trying to sh1t stir, so please don't, just wondering what happened (other than the thankfully successful landing), and if it really was a BA aircraft.

Have you heard this!
15th Apr 2004, 22:19
Can I just say how insensitive and thoughless this posting is. I have 2 relations who fly for BA, both working around this time along with lots of friends.

Surely you could have got a few more facts, you don't even really know if it is BA aircraft

Try picking up the phone and calling STN if you need to find out, rather than causing panic and worry for some people!

Basic T
15th Apr 2004, 22:29
I was on london freq, when an a/c declared a PAN with a precautionary engine shut down. They requested to divert to STN.

Cheers

chubbs
15th Apr 2004, 22:36
If you panic and worry about such matters I would suggest you shouldn't be opening such a post in the first place?

Paracab
15th Apr 2004, 22:40
Have you heard this,

My apologies for any undue distress, but surely a proper reading of the original thread would have quashed all of your fears.

I clearly stated that it occurred earlier this evening (i.e. it is now all over)

I don't have all the facts, thats why I am asking.

I also stated that the aircraft landed safely (therefore there should be no worries)

I would also like to point out that by the very nature of this site and this particular forum (rumours and news) that this sort of thing will come up occasionally.

And as you point I out could telephone Stansted Airport, But do you honestly think they are likely to divulge details ? With due respect, wake up.

Tinstaafl
15th Apr 2004, 22:54
If a 'pan' was declared, by definition doesn't that make it an 'urgency', rather than an emergency.

BTW, what is a 'full' emergency compared to, say, a standard one?

Basil
15th Apr 2004, 23:17
I'd say Paracab's posting is fair comment. If anyone is too precious to take it then don't look at anything associated with aviation.
Don't usually get into this sort of thing but just in from pub :p

Captain Airclues
15th Apr 2004, 23:37
Have you heard this

I don't think that many PPRuNers would have panicked at that title, even those of us who have worked for BA for a few years.

( Just returned from an evening in t'pub with Basil)

Airclues

Ignition Override
16th Apr 2004, 01:26
Emergency? Big deal. Why do Ppruners often dig so hard for every such declaration on an ATC freq.?

In the US, we would have to declare an emergency on a certain aircraft (such as precautionary landing over max landing wt., or engine failure...), but even for a legal reason (re-certification for noise): for using the original full landing flaps on a slippery runway [and used for over 20 years], because of the non-standard flap setting!

Pilots who worked here for certain freight airlines, i.e. Connie Kallitta, were instructed never to declare an emergency for an engine shutdown or flame-out at altitude. They just told ATC that they need a descent-now! They would be fired in such situations if the company heard about so many emergency declarations. The FAA allowed this situation to be quite commonplace-THEY did not want to know about it...........................

Their employer would have attracted much attention from the FAA (CAA).

A pilot at another US passenger carrier, who had flown for a certain European Navy squadron, told me that he flew a freighter DC-6 with an engine ON FIRE into an airport in North Carolina-he also never declared anything with ATC-this baffled the tower controller who saw the smoke and flames. The infamous company would have fired the Captain because the company cheated on everything possible in order to avoid extra maintenance expenses. He also flew DC-3s, Falcons and Lears. Again, one of the very numerous situations in which the FAA did not want to hear about it-because only freight was carried onboard.:ouch:

Musket90
16th Apr 2004, 07:36
It was Cityjet Bae146 en route EDI-CDG. Quite simply a precautionary diversion. STN probably chosen due good Bae146 maintenance support.

eal401
16th Apr 2004, 07:37
Nice to see once again a genuine query treated with contempt and disregard by individuals.

I suggest for future postings, we stick with:

"I believe something may have happened to an aircraft somewhere."

to kee people happy. Either that, or perhaps PPRuNe should just shut up shop and we'll all go home? Would that be better?

Why do Ppruners often dig so hard for every such declaration on an ATC freq

Er, hmm, could it be curiosity? Interest? Nah, don't be silly!

LGW Vulture
16th Apr 2004, 09:45
Quote

"......STN probably chosen due good Bae146 maintenance support"

This I doubt and quite a cynical remark don't you think?

In any case, all CityJet maintenance done at Norwich so why wouldn't they drop in there if it was a decision of mere choice?

:*

Harrier46
16th Apr 2004, 10:04
Doesn't NWI close at night whereas STN is H24? Might get in okay but what about carrying on to Paris when fixed. Also routing takes that flight much closer to STN than NWI. If a serious problem what flights could you put the pax on from NWI? STN seems a good call to me (purely from a logistical viewpoint).
Luckily I am not a cynic but if I were I might think STN a good choice for a crew to go out of hours and fly home, more so than NWI!

LGW Vulture
16th Apr 2004, 10:12
Don't think you're getting my drift Harrier!

I am saying that STN was a choice made out of neccesity rather than just the fact that STN was a good base for one four sick maintenance! ;)

stan.sted
16th Apr 2004, 14:03
I believe CityJet Bae146 aircraft is now at Inflites Hangar at stansted for engine change.also reliably informed Inflite are a casualty base for CityJet

Flying Mech
16th Apr 2004, 14:13
B.A.E. -Bring another Engine! They should carry at least 2 spares in the flyaway kit just to keep the A/C flying round the route.
Its nearly unheard of to have a "scheduled" Engine change on a 146 as they never last that long. :ok:

simfly
16th Apr 2004, 14:56
BTW, what is a 'full' emergency compared to, say, a standard one?

At airports in U.K, a "full emercency" is where all emergency services nearby the airfield would be expected to attend. During "local standby" just the airfields own fire equipment etc would be attending.

Doors to Automatic
16th Apr 2004, 15:09
I too thought the original posting was reasonable - no need for the curt response that followed.

The original posting also made clear that the flight landed safely so whats the problem even if people on this forum did have relatives on board?

Some people on this forum are incredibly touchy!! :p

Have you heard this!
16th Apr 2004, 16:54
Say your wife or partner was on that flight and you read this post
how would you feel?

My point is THINK about what you post and consider other people!

Is that so difficult?

Harrier46
16th Apr 2004, 17:11
I would have no worries at all if anybody I knew was onboard. As I work in aviation (and presumably most people on these forums do) then I am well aware of these things happening fairly often so I would have less worries reading it here than if it was on the news channels. By the time these things are on PPrune it has all happened anyway and if a serious incident or accident the news channels would have the first reports.
I read these forums to find out what is happening, good or bad. If you don't want to know the bad then just stick to the innocuous titles, don't open anything mentioning accident or emergency.

pilotwolf
16th Apr 2004, 17:54
As I work in aviation (and presumably most people on these forums do)

.... that's the problem - an increasing number don't. They are spotters/SLF/newbies/lowtime PPLs/journos/etc. No disrespect but look at the responses to (yet another) 'Go Around' post. Some work 'around' aviation and like to know whats happening near them when the info isn't publically available.

Too many people make wide ranging statements with no profile - ie. anonomously and then get upset when no one takes them seriously.

outofsynch
16th Apr 2004, 18:08
You may be interested to know that BA 146's are frequent visitors to STN for maintenance at Inflite.

And of course there are several based here too. (Titan)

Spitoon
16th Apr 2004, 18:57
Tinstaafl, in the UK, irrespective of what a pilot reports to ATC, the controller declares one of seven levels of emergency. The words below come from the controllers bible (MATS Part 1):
5.2 The following terms are in general use but individual variations and extra terms may be found in local emergency orders.
5.2.1 Aircraft Accident/Aircraft Accident Imminent
When an aircraft accident has occurred or is inevitable on, or in the vicinity of the aerodrome. (At some units Aircraft Accident covers both situations).
5.2.2 Aircraft Ground Incident
When an aircraft on the ground is known to have an emergency situation other than an accident which requires the attendance of emergency services.
5.2.3 Full Emergency
When an aircraft is known or is suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident.
5.2.4 Local Standby
a) When an aircraft is known or suspected to have developed some defect, but one which would not normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing;
b) When an aircraft is to be searched following a bomb warning;
c) When an aircraft requires inspection by the aerodrome fire service.
5.2.5 Local Standby (Weather) or Weather Standby
When weather conditions are such as to render a landing or take-off difficult or difficult to observe (e.g. strong crosswind, poor visibility, ice or snow on the runway etc.).
5.2.6 Local Standby (Royal Flights)
When a Royal Flight is landing or taking off.
5.2.7 Domestic Fire
Any fire:
a) on the aerodrome, not included in the categories above;
b) outside the aerodrome boundary (other than an aircraft accident) which is liable to constitute a danger to flying or aerodrome property; As the good book says, there may be some local variations but these are normally more specific criteria for declaring a paricular level of emergency or additional categories.

BTW, the controller can declare an emergency even if the pilot doesn't declare a PAN or MAYDAY (or even if the pilot doesn't say anything).


[Edited coz I can't count]

Paracab
16th Apr 2004, 23:00
Say your wife or partner was on that flight and you read this post

I will say again (as I did in the orginal post) that the flight landed safely, and individual flight details were unknown, and therefore not stated, so what part of that is causing you concern ?

I will not repeat myself any further and fuel this disagreement as I feel it is now taking up valuable bandwidth and other peoples time.

Apologies again for any 'panic and worry' felt.

Tinstaafl
17th Apr 2004, 09:28
Ta guys. That's been bugging me for years courtesy of tabloid journalism (just not enough to bother about it until now)

sixmilehighclub
20th Apr 2004, 23:06
I also have to agree there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original post.

'Have You Heard This': I'm sorry but I feel you overreacted. Clarification was asked for, thats all. No panic was raised in the slightest. If you are familiar with aviation, and I'm sure you have picked up from your relative exactly how uneventful some emergencies can be, you should know that emergencies happen daily and it certainly does not mean anything disasterous.

Even if it had have been someone saying, "hey, guess what I've heard....", this is a RUMOUR network after all.

I stood and watched an aircraft go down behind my house once. My first thought was if my housemate was on board as they had left 90 mins before to report for a flight, my second thought was the pax and other crew I may know, and the third was whose house it had crashed on. My first instinct was to jump in my car with my hi-vis, torch and airside pass to drive the 800 yards down the road to see if I can help. I found out as I pulled off the driveway it was a cargo plane with just 4 crew, no pax, no friends. I was overtaken by two airport fire engines so returned home.

Within 15 minutes I had received 6 phonecalls from colleagues and family checking I was ok as it was in my area. Thats how fast news travels.

What I'm saying is if it was serious, ie catastophic, you would have seen many more than one post appear on here i'm fairly sure, or received calls, or there would have been a newsflash. If you reacted this way to a post which did not mention any catastrophic or non-catastrophic outcome, how would you have reacted standing in that same spot I was?

Drap-air
21st Apr 2004, 11:29
Just out of interest, if the a/c didn't land safely, and people were injured / killed, would no-one be allowed to mention it on a 'Rumours & News' forum out of respect???

Surely this site is about posting news!!

Do you use this website regularly to check if your family members and friends had a good day at work?

Perhaps we should get someone to sit at the end of the runway and post a notice after ever flight lands safely, just so you can rest easy!!!

Get a life!!

eal401
21st Apr 2004, 13:04
Have you heard this......ironic name under the circumstances.

You overreacted. If you don't like such posts, well frankly, you shouldn't be on this board.

It's called Rumours and News after!

SLFguy
21st Apr 2004, 16:01
They are spotters/SLF/newbies/lowtime PPLs/journos/etc


Pompous w@nker.