BA 'Crash Landing' at Entebbe

[Stallturn]

When is a crash not a controlled landing, or a landing not actually controlled fllight into terrain? When the Ugandan VP is on board apparently !.... Recently reported by 'New Vision' an Ugandan news website...
British Airways plane crash-lands at Entebbe with VP Bukenya

A British Airways plane carrying among the passengers, Vice President Dr. Gilbert Bukenya, earlier today reportedly made an emergency crash-landing at Entebbe Airport.

Published on: Wednesday, 8th September, 2004

'sall I know they may publish more...if so, you'll find it here..
http://www.newvision.co.ug

[Mark Lewis]

Believe it lost an engine soon after departure and turned back round and came in. I am not lead to believe that it crashed :uhoh:

[itchy kitchin]

but crash landing sounds more exiting from a journo's point of veiw...

...sell dem papers!

[ETTIV]

GBNWI returned to Entebbe approx 40 mins after dep due to engine shut down, as mentioned above not exactly a crash

[dynamite dean]

Okay folks I was on that Aeroplane in fact in seat 38B right at the back here is my account - I am a turbine pilot myself it is a little credible I hope!:ok:

Took off without any problems then somewhere around Lake Kyoga 80dme (ish) thirty minutes into the flight the fuel dumping began, passengers in cattle class didn't seem to notice I did however eventually after around five minutes I called to the Cabin attendant are we going back to Entebbe -Yes was the answer. If there was a a complaint about the whole exercise is that I wish the pax were told much sooner- I guess in cattle class we are just that!

The bird was heavy, not suprising, nice assymetric landing a positive one but none that I am sure a training captain wouldn't have passed a student on. A sort of flare maybe one or two feet above your ideal roundout height. Off course as a result for me it was nearly predictable that two of the outer right tyres should burts as a result of that brake energy. BA was the first time in twenty two years since I have flown on them a bit annoying obvoiusly.

I am trying to get to the UK for a family reunion Africa strikes again! The replcement flight departing HUEN at 2100Z tonight bummer for me as my wife takes the "crashed" aeroplane the following mornig as BA won't let us travel toghter flight is full for friday so I have to make 4 flippin trips to London Sutton In Ashfield ****!
:( :(

[Cpt CadetEntry Pilot]

Well done guys. EBB is 4000ft elevation. From experience it is usually a packs off take off using improved climb data (Increased Vr to improve second segment). The fact that no-one noticed until fuel dumping started is a credit to the smooth handling, is it not?

[noflare]

Sounds like it was well handled, I would however question the decision not to inform the pax prior to fuel dumping, they may not recognise the engine failure but they aint blind!.

;)

[McGreaser]

........any landing you can walk away from is a good landing !:ok:

[L337]

From the Scotsman. Quote.

“As the captain didn’t have the opportunity to dump fuel, the aircraft landed heavy and burst three tyres on landing,” the company said.

The Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3469636)

L337

[Parapunter]

..And any landing where you can use the plane again is an excellent landing!:ok:

[NigelOnDraft]

Might be a bit of each (dumping v overweight)

Dump, if on that 767 (it's not on all) is only from Centre Tank. Doubt emptying Centre Tank necessarily gets you below MLW.

My recollections (off the 767 for 18+ months now) for LH BA 767:
MTOW ~181T
MLW 136T
MZFW 126T
Wings take 36T?

So anywhere near MZFW (takes lots flowers back from EBB as cargo!) means only 10T of fuel for MLW. Still well worth dumping what you can, but it would take hours of droning around on 1 to burn off wing fuel - hardly desirable on 1 eng...

DD - presume the tyres burst sometime after stopping due heat? And not on the Landing Roll?

EBB was always interesting enough with 2 engines...

DD.. any idea "when" the engine actually failed? I reckon if you had one after V1, or shortly after VR, most of the pax would have noticed pretty early on with a low fly over Lake Victoria at low RoC. In that nobody noticed, maybe a more graudal failure a bit later on? Or IFSD after some indications etc...?

[TopBunk]

NoD

From 'elsewhere', they dumped centre tank fuel and landed at 163 tonnes at 174 kts IAS (200 kts gspd). Stopped 500 metres from runway end, brake temps rose and 3 wheels had the fuse plugs go, deflating 3 tyres.

Engine ran down suddenly at 21,500 ft possibly due to gearbox failure.

[gas path]

Engine ran down suddenly at 21,500 ft possibly due to gearbox failure
I believe the first warning was the 'low oil press' followed by the engine running down, so yes, it does look like a g/box failure.

[Captain Magic]

Sorry about the round out that was 1-2 feet too high. It was my fault. I landed my 727 there the day before. It was such a "positive " landing I may have lowered HUEN elevation by 1 - 2 feet. All pilots be advised and please make the necessary adjustments to your Jepp plates.

Once again ... Sorry!

CM

[ou Trek dronkie]

Nice one Cappie M !

Need a bit of humour here

oTd

[leander]

Dynamite Dean

Far from sounding credible you make yourself sound like a bit of a smart alec by damning the captain with feint praise - ' landing a positive one but none that I am sure a training captain wouldn't have passed a student on' - 'one or two feet above the ideal roundout height' - 'a bit annoying' !

Give me strength!

What is your yard-stick for judging the proficiency and accuracy of an asymmetric, hot and high, overweight landing in a large passenger jet?

Did the tyres burst or did they deflate by design following the melting of the fuse plugs?

Attention seeking passengers may be disappointed to learn that rather than surviving a crash they have merely experienced a safely executed single engine landing.

Man and machinery in one piece - job done.

Nice one capt & co.

[mr Q]

SAME SOURCE

http://www.newvision.co.ug/I/8/13


By Yunusu Abbey

OVER 160 British Airways (BA) passengers, whose journey was interrupted on Wednesday due to an aircraft technical fault, were still stranded at Entebbe yesterday.

However, Vice-President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya (right), who was initially part of the group, left on Wednesday night at about 9:00pm aboard a Dubai-bound Emirates flight.

He spent the whole day in an Entebbe hotel waiting for the flight.
Bukenya’s press secretary Simon Kaheru said the VP would be in the US for over a week to woo investors and explore other business opportunities.

BA official Kaine Sabiiti said, “Due to an engine problem en route to Heathrow, flight BA062 returned to Entebbe, from where it had departed. The aircraft landed safely at 0802 local time.”

“Airborne return is a standard procedure, which British Airways pilots are fully trained to deal with. Our pilots are also trained to land an aircraft with one engine.

Engineers are currently investigating the problem,” Kaine said in a statement.

“We apologise for the inconvenience this may cause our customers. The safety and security of our customers, our staff and our operation is our priority and is not compromised,” she said.

Published on: Friday, 10th September, 2004

[pax britanica]

I was interested to read about the 76s dumping capabilities. I happened to be on BA 2232 LGW -BDA on THE sept 11th. We made it to somewhere around the Scilly Isles when word came to turn back and we then spent the next six and half hours holding over Lands End .

Obviously partly to burn off fuel and partly no doubt because we had lots and could be left there while numerous more urgent returns were sorted out. During this time the Capt made some remarks about fuel dumping and a thick white vapour trail billowed out from begind the outboard wing on my side of the plane which was on the outside of the turn( I have seen fuel vented from a 74 and I think can tell the difference from a wing tip vortex) If the venting is only on centre tank could the centrifugal force effect have drifted the centre tank dump vapour out that far as we turned??

We finally flew back to LGW with Flaps, Speed brakes and gear extended -very very noisy and bumpy ( climb power to descend !) At all stages though the Capt tried to keep us advised on what must have been a complex situation for him to deal as I doubt he was told much by anyone with and very alarming for many passengers without an explanation of what was happening with the aircraft.

However for those who grumbled about the Entebbe incident its very different to the situation I faced and there the crew just had to focus on a safe and well managed emergency return. So I am sure that crews-esp BA crews do advise the passengers when time permits but not when it gets in the way of their first priority .to fly the airplane

[TopBunk]

pax

We finally flew back to LGW with Flaps, Speed brakes and gear extended -very very noisy and bumpy ( climb power to descend !)

If you are over max weight for a return, then lowering the gear and extending the speed brakes are ways (along with dumping fuel) of increasing the rate at which fuel is burnt, hence arriving at the airport quicker. The 'bumpiness' may have been due to atmospheric conditions rather than anything else. As for climb power to descend, that is most unlikely, neigh bollox!

[GearDown&Locked]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but an airplane on single engine above MLW has to come down quicker than normal, to keep a smooth descent gradient, right? And the assymetric landing due to fuel imbalance, is it possible?

GD&L

[Human Factor]

GD&L,

...but an airplane on single engine above MLW has to come down quicker than normal, to keep a smooth descent gradient, right...

Depends on the phase of flight. During the descent, more or less standard speeds will be flown (unless during driftdown). For final approach, you are correct in as much as at a higher weight, you need a higher Vref and hence a higher Rate of Descent to maintain a 3 degree slope. Ultimately you have to flare a little higher in theory. In practice, unless you're somewhere extreme, the RoD will only be different by 100fpm or so. Vref is also dependent on your flap setting, which may be different depending on the performance available for the go-around. Hot, high and heavy, for example, you are likely to be forced to use Flap 20 (say) rather than having the choice of that or your normal landing setting. Obviously this is type dependent, I can only speak for the 777.


And the assymetric landing due to fuel imbalance, is it possible?

Not entirely sure what you mean? The only way a fuel imbalance in itself could cause an assymetric landing is if the respective tank has run dry and the appropriate crossflow valves are stuck closed. Pretty unlikely to occur in fact.

In this case, the engine ran down (possibly due to a gearbox failure). Clearly then, this engine will not use the fuel from it's own tank. Not sure about 767 specifics, but there would come a point where a "fuel imbalance checklist" would be used, however the imbalance can often be considerable (several tons) before this is necessary. Different types have different limitations in terms of imbalance. Provided you stay within these limits, the handling won't be compromised.

Hope this helps.

Well done chaps. :ok:

[eTec]

Just back from EBB, I was one of the FD crew on board NWI. Some of the reports are accurate, some not so.

Dynamite Dean for one. I am sorry you did not hear the PA telling the crew that fuel was about to be dumped, however, we did inform the crew, pax, ATC both on 126.9 and EBB control.

From my point of view and that of the cabin crew, a fantastic job was done. Yes I hear you say "well he would say that", but we did. From engine failure to landing was 31 mins (from ACMS)!

"The bird was heavy". Yes it was, 161 T to be precise and a landing into EBB 3900' amsl gave us a TAS of approx 208kts, IAS 174kts.

I do not know if you have knowledge of H & H Apts, but the landing was "text book" straight down the line. An excellent job with full rev on the live engine. The CSD did an excellent job of prepping CC + cabin, the NITS was text book too.

I know we train for such eventualities, but when it happens on the line it does take you by surprise and the then the training kicks in. This all sound far to "yank" speak, so I will sign off.

Finally, thank you Leander for your kind comments.

PS. D Dean, the fues pins in the tyres did their job thus making it safer for the Fire Crews in attendance.

[NigelOnDraft]

PB

During this time the Capt made some remarks about fuel dumping and a thick white vapour trail billowed out from begind the outboard wing on my side of the plane which was on the outside of the turn( I have seen fuel vented from a 74 and I think can tell the difference from a wing tip vortex) If the venting is only on centre tank could the centrifugal force effect have drifted the centre tank dump vapour out that far as we turned?? My understanding / recollection of the 767 is that yes, you can only dump (on some 767s only) the Centre Tank Fuel. However, as you say, that fuel is dumped someway out on each wing. Sounds complex - it is! The fact the fuel is coming from the wing does mean it is coming from the tank(s) in the wing!

NoD

[pax britanica]

Top Bunk and NoD thanks for taking trouble to reply

TB dont think the bumps were atmospheric it was very clear and fine that day and I would assume that the plane wouldnt fly smoothly with all its various extendable bits dangling around . As for the comment about climb power well I may sit behind you guys but I know what the engines sound like in different phases of flight and it certainlywasnt flite idle and sounded louder than cruise. I wont argue with you tho since I used the phrase losely I just meant the engines were working fairly hard but the plane was going down not up.

NoD thanks-am I right in thinking small typo in your reply which seemed to inicate that the centre tank can be dumped but the vents are on the wing itself. That wd seem to fit perfectly since I assume the plane was fairly heavily fueled for the 7 odd hours to Bermuda but plus the fact there is only one runway there and the nearest diversion is 700nm away. So I guess they dumped the centre tank fuel-which I saw and then burned off the rest

Thanks again
PB
Thanks to both for taking the trouble to reply

[Cpt CadetEntry Pilot]

BDA is a tankering sector and the flight would have had anything up to 15 extra tonnes of fuel loaded. Level flight with speedbrakes out and gear down at Vref +100 (Around 250 knots at 145 tonnes) uses nearly Climb Power. The aircraft shakes a lot in this configuration.

Not bollix Top Bunk. Been there.

[JW411]

I would agree with the above. A few years ago I found myself in an aircraft with too much fuel on board for the sector to be flown (there had been an airframe switch).

To get down to landing weight at destination we flew the entire sector using climb power making full use of engine bleeds and air brakes.

Never having tried this before I was somewhat surprised to find that we did not have to reduce below climb power until 10 miles finals at the destination!

[MrBernoulli]

"To get down to landing weight at destination we flew the entire sector using climb power making full use of engine bleeds and air brakes."

Crikey! How long was the sector? Do your airbrakes produce much airframe rumble? On my type we would be crucified for flying continuously at climb power or doing a sector with the airbrakes out ..... or both!

[Notso Fantastic]

This thread is descending into quite bizarre 'Spotters' territory claims!

[openfly]

Well done Etec and crew.....a credit to BA
Looks like a very good professional job carried out under difficult and unusual circumstances...EBB being hot, high (and surrounded by enormous 'sh.tehawks!).

But, sadly, there are some real w.nkers on here who pontificate without knowing the full facts.

[Cap 56]

eTec

"The bird was heavy". Yes it was, 161 T to be precise and a landing into EBB 3900' amsl gave us a TAS of approx 208kts, IAS 174kts.

Isn't PPRuNe a wonderfull forum. It looks to me, as if the tread on the EK adventure in South Africa has been a real eye opener.


208 kts seems a bit high, therefore I assume the readings were taken at a higher altitude some where during the approach.

What is the max tyre speed on the B 767 ?

Human Factor

So how would you combine an engine separation and you fuel imbalance checklist ?

Interesting is it not?

Maybe we should open a tread on this one.

[JW411]

MrBernoulli:

The sector was only around 90 minutes and the Company was very happy at the solution.

The alternative would have involved a long delay and the passengers didn't mind since there were none!

[Jack The Lad]

MrBernoulli, how long have you been in this game, that you can make such statements?

I don't know if you are a Captain or First Officer, but such statements open you to ridicule. As the crew on the day, you make whatever decisions are necessary to achieve the situation you are faced with, according to the airplane limitations.

I once had to fly a sector, gear down, speedbrakes out, just to arrive at destination around max landing weight. We didn't have the option of dumping fuel (aircraft type) , it was well within the airplane operating envelope and it was Operations that changed the schedule after we had fuelled up. Equally the pax were advised what would happen, but they were delighted because we arrived at their preferred destination.

Yes, ity was slightly more noisy than normal, but I think the pax enjoyed their G&T's.

And before you ask, CAP 56, yes, we did check the performace most rigorously, before we departed!

[AfricanSkies]

Cap56,

Don't you think that even if the define maybe could have any effect on the design the people would have gone several times?

Perhaps we should open a thread on that one.

A green one.


:hmm:

[leander]

Never a truer word spoken. :)

[Human Factor]

So how would you combine an engine separation and you fuel imbalance checklist ?

Good point, well made! :ok:

[ukeng]

Anyway, back on topic :)
A/C now back at LHR as of 2230 last night.
Engine shutdown caused by wiring defect to FMU HP fuel shutoff valve. Repair made and FMU replaced.
Nice job by the eng's concerned :ok:

[normal_nigel]

Speculation, half truths, know alls and pomposity.

Eng you seem to have the inside knowledge and also one of the crew posted on here.

However your accounts will no doubt be ignored, called into question and then the know alls will debate the HP valve blah blah blah.

PPrune at its best

NN

[ukeng]

NN, info is straight from the proverbial 'Horses mouth'. PPrune is a great resource and i tend to just filter out the doubters and malingerers from my viewing ;)

[eTec]

Thanks for comments Openfly!

[speed freek]

Is it my imagination or are BA having a hell of a time lately? :eek: