GB Incident this morning

[ILS26L]

Overheard on DX GB aircraft apparently with engine failure over channel islands. Any one have more info ? apparently requested to return to LGW.

[Tommy Tipee]

1. Engine Stall in climb passing FL 250

2. Thrust reduced to idle

3. Engine parameters checked within limits

4. Aircraft returned to LGW for precautionary landing (avoiding all orphanages, hospitals, schools etc.)

5. Aircraft landed uneventfully at 0802 GMT

6. Errr..... That's it

[Dani]

precautionary landing (avoiding all orphanages, hospitals, schools etc.)
Sorry for asking a stupid question, but are you in London given special vectors in case your plane is not safe? Or how would you avoid those sensitive areas?

Dani

[normal_nigel]

Oh dear oh dear

[VectorLine]

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but are you in London given special vectors in case your plane is not safe? Or how would you avoid those sensitive areas?

Dani The response was, I believe, 'Tongue in Cheek' in reference to the usual sensationalsit journalistic reporting of these incidents. eg

"Passengers feared for their lives as an heroic pilot wrestled with the controls of a stricken holiday jet today. He steered the plane clear of [enter appropriate institution here: e.g. orphanages/hospitals/schools etc] to make a full emergency landing at Gatwick".

So, in answer to your question - no, not in a situation as described by Tommy.

[Farmer 1]

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

[forget]

Dimbleby, If your response to Dani was to make you look worldly wise and smart - failed.

Look at his profile - he’s most certainly not a journo. However, he mentions Singapore and Switzerland as his ‘locations’ - neither of which are renowned for their grasp of sarcasm or irony.

Your obvious talent on the keyboard would have been put to better use by an explanation of these two concepts - at which the Brits are the undisputed world leaders. Now apologise to Dani and wish him a good weekend.

[kriskross]

But this is supposed to be the Professional PILOTS Rumour Network is it not?????

[MarkD]

Wasn't BUSJ was it? Someone mentioned recently it has been a bit of a "sicknote" since it came over from BA.

[yachtno1]

Haven't had that many problems with usj, at least not with the engines. ;)

[Speedpig]

It wasn't G-BUSJ

[yachtno1]

Not sure where this post is going.... machines do mal-function sometimes, it's a fact of life. Highly skilled (and paid) pilots engineers ATC and other staff do their stuff when the ****e hits the fan. End of story... unless you can prove a trend .. :ok:

[bustitagain]

Highly paid engineers???? I have never heard of one.. :{

[5milesbaby]

But this is supposed to be the Professional PILOTS Rumour Network is it not?????

Err, as a percentage of the contributers are ATCO's then no.

[Jet II]

Sick bus now having engine change in BA hangar.

[Farrell]

The flaming of posters asking questions has to stop folks.

It's gotten to the point where people are apparently at the risk of being banned from threads, according to BOAC - check the "Emirates 777 Go Around At Birmingham" thread.

We don't know the interest level, or experience level of those who ask questions about go arounds, engine failures, aborted take offs etc - and they will have to learn over time what is 'normal' and what gets the whole forum talking.

I must be the first to stand up and say that I have done it before - on both sides......asked about go arounds and the like, and then as my experience progressed, got overly cocky, jumped the fence and started flaming.

I know some of you have been on here for years and must get fed up answering the same old questions day in day out but....all it takes is a gentle redirection to an appropriate thread or even just a blind eye and hit the "Back" button on your browser.

Have a good weekend!

Farrell

[beauport potato man]

has this GB engine prob yesterday got anything to do with a Titan 757 operating under a GB call sign this morning at LGW?

BPM

[Del Prado]

It is a good question though,
are you in London given special vectors in case your plane is not safe? Or how would you avoid those sensitive areas?

Should aircraft in an emergency be vectored clear of built up areas?

This being an 'engine stall' then no. what about an uncontained engine fire? or multiple engine failure?

Who's responsible for avoiding built up areas? (and where is the guidance?)

[VectorLine]

Del Prado
Should aircraft in an emergency be vectored clear of built up areas?
Usually ATC will ask if there are any problems maintaining height or control of the aircraft. If not, then no need to avoid any built up areas.

If there are problems maintaining height or control, then avoiding built up areas, although a concern, isn't going to be easy since the aircraft won't be doing what the pilots want it to do anyway.

If the problem is serious enough, they probably wouldn't be going to a London airport anyway but the nearest suitable runway.

So the answer to your question, like I said before, is no.

And I would hazard a guess that the answer to:
Who's responsible for avoiding built up areas? (and where is the guidance?)
..would be the commander of the aircraft I suppose.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Having vectored good numbers of commercial aircraft with engine failure (a fair percentage with 50% loss of power) over central London I often wondered about this matter.. However, during my time at Heathrow there were no specific directions to controllers to direct such aircraft on to other than the usual flight paths - may there are such procedures now? For landing on westerlies at Heathrow it would be exceptionally difficult to avoid "built up" areas, which are in some profusion to the east of the airport. And what does one do about the Airbus I once had which did two missed approaches in LVPs and lost an engine on the second. He diverted straight to Manchester on one engine, thereby overflying "built-up" areas much of the way.

ATC radars do not show terrain in any form so it would not be possible to vector aircraft clear of built-up areas with any degree of accuracy.

There was (and probably still is) a procedure for the Airport Authority to request, via ATC, commanders of aircraft with technical problems(s) to consider diverting elsewhere. But, of course, that decision rests with the commander.

[Del Prado]

VectorLine,
And I would hazard a guess that the answer ....would be the commander of the aircraft I suppose.

I'm not sure supposition and hazarding guesses gives me much confidence if things go wrong.

We used to be shown a video from a sim check showing pilots actions in the event of an uncontained engine fire after departure from Heathrow (westerlies). As they are turned downwind the FO asks the Capt if he really wants to take a burning aircraft over central London.
'If ATC are happy with it then yes' was the answer.

We recently had an aircraft lose one engine,ask for a divert to Heathrow and subsequently say they had trouble with the other 3 engines-to the degree that they didn't think they could climb away from a missed approach. There was reason to believe that it was carrying hazardous cargo. Should that have been asked to divert elsewhere?

We (ATC) always accept the Captain's decision at face value. God forbid but if the emergency did end up as a smoking hole in the ground, I don't think "the decision rests with the commander" would provide much defence in a court of law or from the headline writers looking for someone to blame.




There was (and probably still is) a procedure for the Airport Authority to request, via ATC, commanders of aircraft with technical problems(s) to consider diverting elsewhere. But, of course, that decision rests with the commander.

Although that is not be used to aircraft in emergency (MAYDAY)

[Wycombe]

I recall an incident going back a few years now where a DC10F, which had suffered an uncontained engine failure on departure from Shannon (I think) was vectored over London into EGLL.

According to the report, an emergency was declared over Western UK, he was offered Brize as nearest suitable, but continued to EGLL at Capt's request.

Believe there was some structural damage.

[Algy]

This Air Transport Intelligence article tells the story:

Crippled DC-10's London overflight worries AAIB
David Morrow, London (06Sep01, 15:57 GMT, 491 words)


UK accident investigators are urging the country’s CAA to take further steps to reduce the chance of air traffic controllers’ routing crippled aircraft over densely populated areas during an emergency.

The move follows an emergency landing at London Heathrow by a Gemini Air Cargo McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30F after it suffered a serious birdstrike from a heron in its left-hand General Electric CF6 engine shortly after departing from Shannon International Airport in Ireland.

Controllers routed the aircraft over central London after the crew rejected a suggestion to divert to RAF Brize Norton following the 1 October 2000 incident.

The impact from the bird was so severe that large components from the General Electric CF6 engine’s nacelle fell off and damaged the inboard aileron and flap. The crew shut the engine down and informed controllers of its intention to divert to London or Brussels, having decided that returning to Shannon would be unwise because of poor weather there.

During the exchanges with air traffic control the pilot requested a runway at least 10,000ft (3,050m) in length. While acknowledging that he gave this figure in an attempt to keep matters simple, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) says that the landing distance required was considerably less.

“In requesting such criteria he reduced considerably the number of possible airports available,” says the investigators’ report.

Although it accepts that the pilot should have the final decision on where to divert, the AAIB states that the crew should have been informed that an approach to London would mean flying in from the east, taking the damaged aircraft over central London.

“Air traffic control advised the crew that RAF Brize Norton was a potential alternative diversion to Heathrow,” says the report. “But the information was provided more in the context of another airfield capable of providing 10,000ft of runway and suitable weather conditions rather than as an alternate to prevent overflying built-up areas.

“Neither the commander [of the aircraft] nor his crew were familiar with London Heathrow or the surrounding area. If air traffic control had advised the crew that the approach to [Heathrow’s] runway 27 would be over densely populated areas the commander would at least have been aware of the potential hazard and might have reconsidered his choice of diversion airport.”

The AAIB notes that in a similar incident at Los Angeles the previous year, large parts of an identical engine fell onto a beach after a KLM Boeing 747-300 suffered a birdstrike involving a western gull.

The CAA has previously amended its Manual of Air Traffic Services following a May 1993 AAIB recommendation, stating that avoidance of densely-populated areas should be a primary consideration when routing aircraft in an emergency.

But as a result of the incident the AAIB is recommending that the manual’s section on handling aircraft emergencies should be updated to include instructions specifically telling controllers to inform pilots during an emergency if an intended route takes the aircraft over heavily populated regions.


Source: Air Transport Intelligence news