BA010 BKK-LHR Divert [Archive]

whattimedoweland

15th Apr 2006, 16:42

BA010 B747-436 from Bangkok to London Heathrow has diverted into a remote alternate airfield in Kazakhstan after a fire warning light for the forward cargo hold.

Airfield normally only takes aircraft upto 757 size therefore all passengers are being flown back to London Heathrow on three A320/321's whilst all baggage and cargo are being flown back on a chartered frieghter.The aircraft will then fly out empty with minimum fuel and have to tech stop at a larger airfield to take on more fuel.

The warning was just that and all passengers disembarked normally.

WTDWL.

dakar

15th Apr 2006, 17:06

If the airfield only takes aircraft upto B757, do they have equipment to unload the 747. And if the fire bottles have been discharged what state would the forward hold be in?

whattimedoweland

15th Apr 2006, 17:32

Apparently the largest steps available were some 3-4 feet short of the door and passengers had to do a little jump!!:ok:

WTDWL.

AN2 Driver

15th Apr 2006, 17:38

As an aside- what happened to the front end of this thread (or is it just my finger trouble)?

It miraculously disappeared into the Spotters Corner. Heaven only knows why? There's not a single pic of UARR in airliners.net :rolleyes:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221780

Anyhow, wondering on how they are gonna go on from there.

According to http://www.fallingrain.com/icao/UARR.html that place has got one runway 22/04 7874/138 ft concrete, apt elevation 125 ft.

UARR 151500Z 34002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC/// 18/10 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 22090070

So what RTOW would you calculate for these conditions? 2400 x 42 m is a tad narrow and short for a 744 but with the SLF gone, it should be able to get out of there without ripping too much of the furniture? Anyone got some IRT's handy?

As there is no fuel, it will be quite interesting to see how far he can get with what remains after the landing.

From a dispatch point of view, depending on how much fuel he's still got on board, Moscow is about 1:30 hours away, say, about 30 tons block with 200 t ZFW, less if they manage to empty it. So between 210 to 240 tons TOW, will that do for 2400 meters and, conservatively said, 20° C? Obviously, obstacle, 2nd segment e.t.c. to be considered.

old,not bold

15th Apr 2006, 17:55

Bumblebee

15th Apr 2006, 18:30

Anyhow, wondering on how they are gonna go on from there.
According to http://www.fallingrain.com/icao/UARR.html that place has got one runway 22/04 7874/138 ft concrete, apt elevation 125 ft.
UARR 151500Z 34002MPS 9999 SCT050CB OVC/// 18/10 Q1010 NOSIG RMK 22090070
So what RTOW would you calculate for these conditions? 2400 x 42 m is a tad narrow and short for a 744 but with the SLF gone, it should be able to get out of there without ripping too much of the furniture? Anyone got some IRT's handy?

Should quite easily have the performance to get out of there and all the way back to LHR without any pax load. Have personally had to get airborne out of Lagos with 1800m TORA, and a decent load of pax, without the need to tech-stop.

Don't see any reason why it should be a problem.

AN2 Driver

15th Apr 2006, 18:59

Should quite easily have the performance to get out of there and all the way back to LHR without any pax load. Have personally had to get airborne out of Lagos with 1800m TORA, and a decent load of pax, without the need to tech-stop.
Don't see any reason why it should be a problem.

Thought so, but without the data... wouldn't like to guess. So the main problem will be the fuel remaining on board, if it is enough to go where they want. As there is no fuel there, or it's not suitable, I rekon they will need to fly somewhere with decent fuel and take it from there.

Best regards
AN2 Driver

mutt

15th Apr 2006, 19:02

The runway may be long enough, but is it strong enough??

Mutt

TonySimkinson

15th Apr 2006, 19:38

The question may not be do they have too little fuel, but that they have too much on board.

Having had a cargo fire warning near Uralsk, I would suspect that they are still over the max landing weight.

So not only may they have to offload the pallets, but they may have to defuel the aircraft to some extent.

gas path

15th Apr 2006, 20:33

The a/c had circa 40tonnes remaining on arrival at URA. As the fuel there is of questionable quality a tech stop was to be made at Moscow.

TonySimkinson

15th Apr 2006, 20:44

They must have dumped fuel during the diversion then.

OmanAir

15th Apr 2006, 21:12

Kudos to the crew involved. At least they made a decision rather than enter a hold and call the company for advice, like some other airline (not to mention name) did.

Bravo!

blackwidow

15th Apr 2006, 21:58

Wiggy, re your post on the other thread, you'll get no second guessing from this direction.....

The BA10 crew had an indication of a severe problem, got it down safely asap and to hell with what happens next.

BA management is paid well enough to sort out the recovery of pax, crew, and aircraft. Its all perfectly do-able.

Hurray! Bloody good show, well done, bonuses all round.

Please remember its the boys & girls in BA Ops Control who sort out the bulk of the mess, not the "BA Management" that you refer to!!

Round of applause all round, especially to BA rep in Moscow, who without his help - we wouldn’t be talking about an airbus recovery of passenger also spare a thought for the crew have been looking after the pax all day on the a/c...

Joetom

15th Apr 2006, 22:18

Sounds like a typical BA operation.

Problem occours, crew make good decisions and all safe.

BA get the pax and problem aircraft home with min fuss.

All very easy to say.

Well done to all at BA........

EmiratesSandpit

15th Apr 2006, 23:08

Congrats to you BlackWidow and all of your colleagues at BA OPS. Obviously showing professionalism today.

I'm just very interested in what you actually did.

Here's my take from reading here and elsewhere, and do correct me where wrong.

BA876 to DME was cancelled. G-EUUJ (A319) was reconfigured to an all Y seating for 150 pax and flown to Uralsk. It left LHR at 1143 and arrived at 2003 (does it take that long to get there? Did it stop in Bucharest or somewhere else?) It left URA 2152 and arrived 2255. [I've assumed something wrong there] :confused:

BA874 arrived in DME at 2036 flown by G-BZHA (767). I am assuming it flew to URA. It arrived in URA. It left URA. It arrived in DME as BA9203 at 2309 local (2.5 hours from arrival in DME to arrival in DME - I feel a wrong assumption there). It then did what it was supposed to do, BA875 and left at 0112. [Just seems to get worse doesn' it] :confused:

BA886 left for OTP and arrived at 1501. It probably did BA9258 left for URA at 1630. BA887 magically operates 3 hours late at 1849. [Did something happen there?]

BA010 arrived in URA with 354 passengers (98.3%) at 0656 local. It left and is expected in 23 hours later at around 0540 (ba.com).

A good guess from someone who isn't in logisitics yeah?

tangocharlie

15th Apr 2006, 23:25

Nice reply Black Widow - said as was. Dont envy you with certain attitudes from some of your ''bolder'' coleagues!

Golf Charlie Charlie

15th Apr 2006, 23:29

It left LHR at 1143 and arrived at 2003 (does it take that long to get there? Did it stop in Bucharest or somewhere else?) It left URA 2152 and arrived 2255. [I've assumed something wrong there] :confused:

Local times, I'd say. Uralsk probably about GMT + 5 or 6.

Edit : seems it's GMT + 4.

Hand Solo

16th Apr 2006, 00:13

As far as I can gather the 876 to DME was cancelled and routed LHR-URA-LHR on aircraft #1 which would account for some of the pax.

The LHR-OTP is a nightstopping service so operated as normal to OTP. The crew due to return to LHR then operated OTP-URA-DME-URA on aircraft #2. This would shift some pax up to DME to take the evening flight back to LHR on aircraft #3.

A third crew then positioned LHR-DME-URA to operate aircraft #2 back to LHR bringing with them the crew who'd done the OTP-URA-DME-URA leg and they'll be back about 5 am tomorrow!

All in all a good job done by all getting a lot of people out of an offline station at short notice.

View From The Ground

16th Apr 2006, 08:10

I must say that whatever their failings in other areas BA do seem to do a consistently good job of handling 'one off' disruptions....they seem to have understandably more difficulty with the disruptions caused by some of their more bolshey members of staff...witness the last three summers....
I have been on two BA disruptions, the first an engine failure and small fire on take off from MCO. In this case they flew another a/c down from a NE Coast station took us from MCO to SNN and then had another crew there to operate to LHR, they were delayed by fog but that of course is not BA's fault. All the crew and BA staff were exemplary...I really felt sorry for the Captain on the engine failure aircraft when one of the pax started to berate him....I have no idea what for he was perfect....communicated well and of course kept us safe!
Second was a speedy aircraft replacement on an EU flight ex LHR, replacement aircraft found pax and baggage transferred in about 90 minutes. Obviously had the benefits of home base but still great work and again the communication from the flightdeck was great...just what was needed to keep the pax informed.
I am not therefore suprised that they have sorted this one so well and quickly...a great job by all concerned given the remoteness of the airfield!

peeteechase

16th Apr 2006, 09:12

Here's a picture of a similar airfield in winter. Braking action given as good Mu 0.50 Ice patches on runway. Blowing snow is evident on the runway. Turning pans at both ends allow back-tracking the short, very rough runway. These are ice-covered in the picture which makes a tight turn very interesting!
Good job guys:cool:
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1192/uralsk4ux.jpg

Flightrider

16th Apr 2006, 10:39

The problem at Uralsk is not runway length or width, it is PCN. The PCN of the runway is only 20, which is very light indeed and precludes operations by many types of aircraft. It is not an uncommon problem in former Soviet airfields where Russian aircraft tended to have lots of wheels across which to spread the weight of the aircraft, thus reducing the weight footprint of each wheel on the tarmac.

The only European carrier flying there is Astraeus which operates a weekly 757 flight to service a nearby major oil & gas facility. The 757 is OK for ops on this runway due four-wheel main gear bogies. I would imagine that BA would have needed a dispensation to operate A320 / A321 equipment in there from the airport authority and their flight ops people as it is definitely above the ACN which can be supported by the PCN of Uralsk's runway.

The other factor is that the runway is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory - surface (particularly at one end, I think 04) is quite poor.

I can imagine that a 747-400 landing here would create an absolutely huge stir.

CargoOne

16th Apr 2006, 11:08

We have been there many times and never had a problem with fuel quality. Astraeus refuelling there as well.
On the other hand I'm not sure if URA have a deckloader to offload 747 belly.

dakar

16th Apr 2006, 13:29

Spoke to a friend on this flight; she said it was scary. From the time, the Captain told them of the problem the aircraft was on the ground within 30mins.
She also said the aircraft drew alot of attention whilst on the ground. Police, Army, the Mayor all coming onboard, the local press was there. The Russian authorities only allowed 10 passengers off at a time. The airport would only accept US dollars in the terminal, although there was only one small shop.
They had to jump about two feet from the aircraft door onto steps to get off. She could not praise the crew enough, after first and club had been transferred to the first relief aircraft, the cabin crew allowed the remaining passengers to use both club and first cabins to sleep.

Let’s not forget that the support continued back at Heathrow. The ground staff she said were fantastic, alot of passengers had been travelling for 2 days with no change of clothes, they were told their bags would be delivered to them in a few days whilst BA was trying to get them back to the UK. She went to say alot of children on the flight, with no change of clothing and becoming restless.
She also said the ground staff pulled out all the stops on arrival and offered alot of support when they landed, hotels, taxi's, money etc.

BA at its best... Customer Service

Mode7

16th Apr 2006, 16:42

Well done BA - good to see a good professional job done by all in particular the flight crew for what appears to have been a clear and decisive decision. :)

Ignition Override

17th Apr 2006, 00:57

Did the cargo smoke/fire warning go out quickly after both extinguishers were used? Ironically, the only "bonuses for the crew", at a US airline, would have gone only to upper mgmt. :cool:

As for preflight planning, if any aircaft must make a immediate landing, for example, on a route from India to Amsterdam, or from Bangkok to LHR etc, do the Dispatchers only list possible divert airports which are far from mountains and not at high elevations?

The situation might be hypothetical, but from an 8,000' runway at 4,000' msl (even in cold weather at -10*C.) might require an aircraft either to be almost empty or have a very high thrust/weight ratio to safely accelerate and climb out after a flame-out, i.e. the 767 or A-319. How would the A-330 perform?

Ron & Edna Johns

17th Apr 2006, 04:27

This thread has made The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, no less!

Dakar and Flightrider - you're famous....!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/passenger-helps-jet-take-off/2006/04/17/1145126034412.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Red Moyayo

17th Apr 2006, 05:25

A Sydney newspaper has labelled it "A Horror Flight". I would have thought an actual fire in one of the holds might have been a little more 'horrifying'.

Ignorant, inflamatory morons.

chandlers dad

17th Apr 2006, 05:58

Lets not forget the UPS cargo airplane that burned several months ago in the states. From the fire alarm to flames coming through the top of the fuselage was about 20 minutes. Crew escaped through the cockpit windows.

Sounds like the BA crew did the right thing.

CD

Buster Hyman

17th Apr 2006, 07:56

After arriving in Uralsk, passengers were forced to jump "about two feet from the aircraft door" onto a staircase to get off the plane, according to a report on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network website, an online forum for pilots and airline industry workers.

"Spoke to a friend on this flight; she said it was scary," said a forum correspondent named Dakar.

And...

The passenger quoted on the PPRN website "could not praise the crew enough", according to Dakar.

"After first and club had been transferred to the first relief aircraft, the cabin crew allowed the remaining passengers to use both club and first cabins to sleep."

Another correspondent, Flightrider, said: "The runway [at Uralsk] is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory. [The] surface particularly at one end . . . is quite poor.

"I can imagine that a 747-400 landing here would create an absolutely huge stir."

Correspondents no less! I walk amongst immortals!!!!:ooh:

The Controlller

17th Apr 2006, 09:32

I hear all in BA ops are patting themselves on the back for a great recovery job........nice to hear ?

Leclairage

17th Apr 2006, 09:48

The pax must be pleased that they flew an airline who could mount such an efficient and rapid recovery from such a remote station from within their own resources. But that part was presumably fairly 'routine' for an airline who regularly operates ad hoc.
My salute is to the 744 flight crew who clearly discharged their duties in an exemplary fashion.

fmgc

17th Apr 2006, 09:51

do the Dispatchers only list possible divert airports which are far from mountains and not at high elevations

Without wanting to raise the old thorny issue of the fact that we do not have US style dispatchers in the UK and without wanting to second guess exactly what happened or BA sops I would make the following comment.

I would have thought that the pilots would have only contacted Company to let them know that they were diverting if they contacted Company at all. In UK airlines these are decisions that the Captain makes on his own (ie without Company or "Dispatchers" input).

If one suspects that there is a fire on board one aims the aircraft at the nearest runway.

M.Mouse

17th Apr 2006, 10:34

Did the cargo smoke/fire warning go out quickly after both extinguishers were used?

I have been off the B744 for over 6 years now so systems knowledge is fading fast but I do not recall the hold fire suppressant/extinguishing system works on a simple discharge of two bottles.

HotDog

17th Apr 2006, 11:58

As far as I know, the lower cargo fire extinguishing system is similar to the Classic set up. Two fire bottles are provided and the extinguishing agent can be directed to the forward or aft compartment as required. One bottle, larger than the second, must be used first. The second bottle may be kept in reserve if the first discharge extinguishes the fire.

ETOPS

17th Apr 2006, 12:29

Bit more complex than that..........

First line of the "FIRE CARGO" checklist states "Land at nearest suitable airport"

There is a "Cargo fire arm switch" which needs selecting as appropriate then a discharge switch to start the fire bottle sequence. There are 4 fire bottles (not 2) and the initial action discharges 2 into the selected hold. The remaining two are allowed to "bleed" into the compartment, after a short delay, or at touchdown. This gives continous suppression for enough time to divert to somewhere if over the ocean.

You can tell I've just done the course...

Jumbo Driver

17th Apr 2006, 12:40

As far as I know, the lower cargo fire extinguishing system is similar to the Classic set up.

Yes, HotDog, the -400 is very similar to the Classic, but slightly enhanced and automated. The details are:

Four cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottles, designated A, B, C, and D are installed for fire control in the forward and aft lower cargo compartments. The four bottles provide a total of 195 minutes of extinguishing.

Pushing a Cargo Fire Arm Switch arms all four bottles for discharge into the selected compartment. Pushing the Cargo Fire Discharge Switch discharges bottles A and B into the armed compartment. The EICAS advisory message >CGO BTL DISCH is displayed and the Cargo Fire Discharge Light illuminates when bottles A and B are discharged. Bottles C and D automatically discharge after a brief delay and maintain a metered flow. The EICAS advisory messages >BTL LOW CGO C and >BTL LOW CGO D are displayed when the respective bottles discharge. If not previously discharged in flight, bottles C and D discharge on landing.

PS sorry, ETOPS, just seen you beat me to it !!

HotDog

17th Apr 2006, 12:48

Thanks for that; obviously a great improvement on the Clasic system. Cheers, HD.

hetfield

17th Apr 2006, 12:52

May the compartments be loaded and the aircraft depart with empty bottles?

GlueBall

17th Apr 2006, 13:06

744s go into Cambridge [CBG..?] for maintenance; last time I was there the runway length was something like 6000' if I correctly recall. :p

Jumbo Driver

17th Apr 2006, 13:28

May the compartments be loaded and the aircraft depart with empty bottles?

I seem to recall the Classic could depart with discharged extinguishant bottle(s), only if the compartments were not loaded, so I expect the -400 is the same ...

It certainly wouldn't make sense for an aircraft to depart with discharged bottles if either compartment was loaded - I would expect that to be contrary to the MMEL.

744s go into Cambridge [CBG..?] for maintenance; last time I was there the runway length was something like 6000' if I correctly recall. :p

Yes, it makes for an interesting operation. I ferried an empty 744 from Cambridge to LGW some years ago - no derate, great fun!

hetfield

17th Apr 2006, 13:47

It certainly wouldn't make sense for an aircraft to depart with discharged bottles if either compartment was loaded - I would expect that to be contrary to the MMEL.

On A320 once we had to use the bottles for the rear hold during cruise. Fortunetly it was a false warning. To my surprise returnflight according MEL was o.k. even with hold loaded (no flammable stuff).

regards

JumpAhead

17th Apr 2006, 14:02

The -400 MEL does allow dispatch without hold fire suppression as long as the holds are completely emtpy.

Assuming no obstacles, no passengers and no freight/baggage the -400 would have no problem at all in using a 2400m runway.

Joetom

17th Apr 2006, 15:40

Some MEL's are a bit unclear.

If cargo fire systems are inop (apart from a single loop fail), hold needs to be empty, because most items can burn.

Another point, if cargo door seals or cargo linings are less than servicable, hold needs to be empty.

JumpAhead

17th Apr 2006, 16:45

The fire detection system draws air from the holds over 2 "loop" smoke detectors. Smoke needs to be detcted by both loops before a fire warning is annunciated.

Note this system is not using the hold temperature to detect a fire although the temperature can be viewed on the EICAS ECS page by the flight crew.

If one of the smoke detector "loops" is faulty, the MEL allows it to be effectively locked out and the aircraft dispatched normally. In this case only one detctor needs to detect the smoke to trigger a fire warning.

If both smoke detector loops are faulty or the fire extinguishers cannot be fired for any reason, then the holds must be kept empty.

At least that's how I understand it ....................................

hetfield

17th Apr 2006, 18:07

That's what the airbus MEL says (two bottles):

Both may be inoperative provided flammable or combustible cargo is not carried in the affected compartment.

So BOEING is more restrictiv.

JumpAhead

17th Apr 2006, 18:22

Tricky to know that there is nothing flammable if you have 20 tonnes of cargo/bags in ULDs and on pallets!

hetfield

17th Apr 2006, 18:25

Tricky to know that there is nothing flammable if you have 20 tonnes of cargo/bags in ULDs and on pallets!

Than you should have received a NOTOC.

JumpAhead

17th Apr 2006, 18:38

Agree a NOTOC should be supplied for notifiable goods.

Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....

Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc. I think there was an Air Canada 767 a number of years ago that had just such rubbish set alight by a faulty water heater mat. Fortunately it happened on approach.

hetfield

17th Apr 2006, 18:41

Agree a NOTOC should be supplied for notifiable goods.

Just making the point that anything in the hold poses some risk .....

Last time I looked in an "empty" hold it was full of rubbish such as old bagage labels, bits of tie-down rope etc.

Sure, but please correct me, sticking strictly to airbus MEL, carriage of luggage would be possible in this case.

Joetom

17th Apr 2006, 18:59

Think you can get water to burn in the right conditions.

Many aircraft have operated with inop fire systems and items in the holds thinking it complied with the MEL.

Hold should be empty and clean.

WHBM

17th Apr 2006, 19:02

The other factor is that the runway [Uralsk] is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory .
What - worse than St Petersburg ? :)

Must be a feature of old Soviet runways.

JumpAhead

17th Apr 2006, 19:08

Sure, but please correct me, sticking strictly to airbus MEL, carriage of luggage would be possible in this case.

Yes you may be correct as I don't know the Airbus MEL. However, I would class passenger luggage as combustible. As to an ignition source, well who knows what's in their bags! Ever seen the firefighter demo of a bit of wire wool and a mobile phone battery?

Personally I would be reluctant to depart with anything in the hold that could burn if I had no way of putting it out.

WHBM

18th Apr 2006, 12:37

Now that this one seems to have died down, can I ask a genuine question to the ops people from BA writing above.

Did you feel it really was the most effective way to handle things, to do this recovery with your own aircraft. Interesting to read all the convoluted arrangements described above, and the apparent urgency to get the relief aircraft out to Uralsk.

But would it not have been more effective to have chartered a widebody from one of the several Moscow charter operators ? Much of their capacity seems to hang round the Moscow airports waiting for business, and they know Kazakstan. Could be in Uralsk in 3 hours, and then hike everybody over to London. No problem on an Il86 with lack of steps, they have airstairs to the baggage level and a staircase inside up to the cabin.

renfrew

18th Apr 2006, 13:10

Yes,but can Uralsk take a IL-86.Someone mentioned that a Boeing 757 is normally the largest aircraft there.

CargoOne

18th Apr 2006, 15:01

WHBM

Althouth I'm not BA ops but based on my extensive experience of handling similar things I can tell you a few problems in your scenario:

1. Insurance. Russian carriers (excl some majors) have a different insurance policy and even then it is hard to get any compensation. If something happens it would cost BA a fortune in lawsuits.
2. Service standarts. Most of operational IL86s are deployed on charter routes and in a pretty sad state inside. If someone think that *unnamed* G-registered charter 767s are cr@@ inside they never seen Russian charter planes.
3. Believe me - the realistic time take to get IL86 airborne from Moscow is 12 hours or more from signed contract. IL86 operators are not specializing on a short-notice business.
4. IL86s are banned from Europe due to Stage II anyway.
5. Potentially there could be some passengers onboard who cannot travel on Russian airlines apart from a few majors like SU or UN due their corporate insurance policy.
6. It is usually cheaper to fly your own airplanes (if availability and timescale allows) than chartering someone else.

On the other hand there is VIM Airlines in Russia operating a fleet of 757s (tight charter config anyway) who are normally quick to react and there is Transaero with ex-Virgin 747s and well known for changing the planes assignment between routes on an hourly basis :). One of them or combination of them may work but introduces some problems and uncertaincy anyway, let alone the cost, so from my point of view BA ops did it in the right way. :ok:

JumpAhead

18th Apr 2006, 21:25

It's been stated that the aircraft landed in about 30 minutes. Is this typical? What would have been the situation the warning had happened when over Siberia, Pacific, Northern Canada etc.

wiggy

18th Apr 2006, 21:45

I'm not sure what your point is - I guess the answer is that elsewhere, in the abscence of any indications of a genuine fire, they would not have landed in 30 minutes.....

Buster Hyman

18th Apr 2006, 22:12

Perhaps they landed in 30 minutes because they could land in 30 minutes. If it happened in the places you mentioned, I'm sure they would have gone for the closest suitable strip & failing that, perhaps ditched, or landed anywhere possible...makes you wonder though, what would the thought process be for a possible fire & no immediate runway available. Would you ditch or aim for a long road? Would you confirm the fire before taking such drastic action?:confused: :confused:

wiggy

18th Apr 2006, 22:18

Agreed.
IMHO you run for the "nearest suitable airfield", be it 30 minutes or 180 minutes away...in any case you keep an eye on hold temps (EICAS) and floor temps (heavy P2 standing on the deck, shoes off :} ...cue "the boy stood on the burning deck etc"

If, god forbid, you get signs of a real fire then the Captain is going to have to make the Career defining decision....

sixmilehighclub

18th Apr 2006, 22:29

An incident occured, the Captain made his decisions (correct ones in my eyes) and other parts of the BA team, be it management, ops, crew, etc did their part to ensure everyone got home, safe.

The Controlller

19th Apr 2006, 11:12

Come on all, this thread has gone on long enough and has lost its bearing ? The guys in BA ops did the best they could in the time available and it was a good result. Well done to EVERYONE concerned both flight and ground crew.
Good night

Buster Hyman

19th Apr 2006, 13:37

With all due respect Mike, it's annoying to hear that word "savings" coming into any discussion about safety. (I understand that its not necessarily your personal view, you are just relaying the story)

You have a fire warning indicator. I don't see why there should be any second guessing it. If it illuminates, take the necessary action. If one fire warning indicator isn't enough (and if I am not mistaken, I believe it to take readings from a number of sources...I could be wrong...was once before) then how many is enough? Will adding a multiple approach to fire warnings actually help, or will it just mean that it creates additional work, especially if there is a fault in only one system.

I'm not Tech crew or an engineer (which should be obvious by now) but I just think that I'd want my crew, in an emergency, to do a cursory check that it's not a faulty illumination & then get on with getting it down. No questions asked. No, "If only you flew an extra 15mins to a better equipped airport" rubbish. GET IT DOWN!

IMHO. :)

Taildragger67

19th Apr 2006, 14:48

On A320 once we had to use the bottles for the rear hold during cruise. Fortunetly it was a false warning. To my surprise returnflight according MEL was o.k. even with hold loaded (no flammable staff).

regards

... flammable staff ??

Anyway, this incident might go some way to explaining why my bag took two days to join me after my trip ex-T1 last Friday...

Well done to all involved, following SR111 I rather prefer the get-it-down-ASAP approach exemplified by this and the BA016 incident ex-YSSY a couple of years ago.

Vitold

19th Apr 2006, 16:09

Some photos from UARR:
http://paxton.pisem.net/UARR_1.JPG

http://paxton.pisem.net/UARR_2.JPG
http://paxton.pisem.net/UARR_3.JPG
http://paxton.pisem.net/UARR_4.JPG
http://paxton.pisem.net/UARR_5.JPG

Buster Hyman

19th Apr 2006, 22:27

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of being critical of you Mike. Certainly not my intention & I do understand your point.

I just think that the pointy end is crammed with all sorts of safety & alerting systems that information overload must become a factor. Years have been spent training crew to automatically accept a TCAS instruction, for example, regardless of their opinion/experience/instinct etc. Whilst I know we're talking seconds here, as against minutes, surely the reactions should be similar. Automated systems tell you one thing, you react in one way & if time permits, perhaps then you can verify via backup. (Which is probably your point)

wiggy

22nd Apr 2006, 23:19

Moving back to the original topic - did anyone else catch Simon Calder's piece in Saturday's Independent ( I think) in which he dissected the diversion and the recovery operation, step by step? He seemed, to my eyes anyway, to use the whole episode as another opportunity to have a whinge at BA.

edited to add I meant the 22nd but can't alter the header....

Jordan D

22nd Apr 2006, 23:39

Apologies for another post but I'm struggling with a clunky wi-fi set up.
The article is at http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/article359282.exe (http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/article359282.ece)
I have a lot of respect for Calder, having heard his ramblings on many a BBC Radio show, and read his columns as they pop up across the press, so this one really is out of left field - I haven't heard him have a go at BA before. As such, can I suggest we don't have a pop at him, other than to suggest he sticks to talking about travel he normally does?
Jordan

Taildragger67

23rd Apr 2006, 10:39

I usually have a lot of respct for Calder.

Not this time. Sounds like journalistic point-scoring for getting knocked back last time he asked for an upgrade.

As he himself said - no point sending another jumbo - so next-best option - a gaggle of Scarebusses.

Longtimer

23rd Apr 2006, 19:43

JumpAhead

24th Apr 2006, 08:04

What a pointless article from Calder! He just seems to slag off BA without making any alternative suggestions - was he really suggesting the passengers went on the train to Berlin?

Also Uralsk mmay have been a military airfield once but is now a commercial public international airport (sort of). I think Astraeus fly 757s there on some oil charter.

I think he is also confusing military personnel with immigration/customs staff.

He also states that the 'bags' were flown out on the '747' but the luggage went out on a freighter??? Bit confused by that.

Of course Calder is perfectly entitled to his opinion on the operation but I think he should be very sure of his facts first.

Llademos

24th Apr 2006, 08:42

Bags and cargo went on an IL76 that night. Bags were in LHR the next afternoon.

Beanbag

25th Apr 2006, 13:11

This is consistent with Calder's normal approach of unquestioning plugging for Ryanair and Easyjet, alongside nitpicking criticism of BA for the most trivial things. I recall him slating BA for being mean with refreshment vouchers during the strike last year - but never a mention of the kind of compensation you'd get from Ryanair in the same circs.

JumpAhead

26th Apr 2006, 08:47

For those interested in the performance issue of taking off from Uralsk, my friend at BA has done some research.

The 2400m available at Uralsk (with no obstacles to affect the climb out and close to sea level) is similar to Cardiff TOR at 2352m. On a standard day with no wind at 15C, the 744-400 RTOW is over 330T. Given a ZFW normally around 240T that allows for 90T of fuel.

However, as the aircraft was empty of pax and freight/baggage and just had crew, the ZFW was probably less than 200T. This would allow 130T of fuel or more than 12 hours flying time - not limiting in anyones books!

Seems the main issue is the runway PCN which I believe is a theoretical calculation based on the runway materials used and its sub-structure etc. Of course this has little/no influence on a diversion for a fire. Presumably it's more related to runway maintenance and service life issues.

My source has also said that BA have downgraded Uralsk from an 'adequate' to 'emergency only' diversion airfield based on their recent experience. This is mainly to do with the available ground equipment and passenger facilities. For a fire it's still on the list but maybe considered inappropriate for lesser incidents.

RatherBeFlying

26th Apr 2006, 11:18

If things were getting too hot over Siberia and no runway was immediately available, I'd be looking for a frozen lake. Korean Airlines landed a B-707 on one after a missile hit.

How you keep a 747 load of pax warm after the fire goes out in the middle of a Siberian winter is an interesting question:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

cactusbusdrvr

26th Apr 2006, 16:21

TopBunk

26th Apr 2006, 19:44

My source has also said that BA have downgraded Uralsk from an 'adequate' to 'emergency only' diversion airfield based on their recent experience.

Absolute [email protected]. Uralsk was already an 'Emergency only' div airfield in BA, well before this recent event. [Source: EAG Chart: Siberian Flight Progress Chart dated 11 Jan 2006], and possibly before this.

The point is however, that this WAS an Emergency, and they used the available facility approved for the purpose.

JumpAhead

26th Apr 2006, 20:07

Not trying to be picky but the book I have been shown certainly lists Uralsk as 'adequate'. It's not a chart but a big thick book apparently taken on all long-haul flights.

I agree with your sentiment though that an 'emergency' runway was all that was needed.

Taildragger67

27th Apr 2006, 09:38

With all the recent accidents with in-flight fires - Valuejet in MIA, Swissair over Nova Scotia and some others there is a renewed emphasis in the USA to get the jet on the ground RFN (right f##king now).
My last sim events have been with that sort of scenario and we are encouraged to put the aircraft on the ground without ANY delay. The BA guys did the right thing for sure.:ok:

Yep. BA had a 744 cargo fire alert 16nm NW YSSY on departure not that long after SR111. Response - turn round PDQ and get the thing onto the nearest bit of suitable concrete. Landed heavy (7+ hrs fuel load still on board) - sod circling to dump - and pulled up on the runway for disembarkation. Well handled - just like this was.

As for any PR problems - actually IMHO most of the punters will love having been caught up in "an emergency"; it'll be dinner party talk for years and their audience will be impressed that BA put on "rescue flights" to come get 'em.

sugden

27th Apr 2006, 12:24

What a pointless article from Calder! He just seems to slag off BA without making any alternative suggestions - was he really suggesting the passengers went on the train to Berlin?
I don't think it is pointless per se. I think certain SLF would find it pretty interesting. I think his conclusion, however, is as wrong as it could be. My conclusion is that BA move mountains to sort out the unexpected and it's a mighty accolade for the Ops folks there. They minimised a bad situation that was right outside their control. Brilliant. :ok:
Shame Calder's thinking ain't so coherent.

Aksai Oiler

27th Apr 2006, 22:55

Just managed to get online and read Mr Calder's article - I don't know where he does his inaccurate research "THE ONLY scheduled service from Uralsk flies twice a week to the Kazakh capital, Astana, on an airline that has yet to acquire the cachet of Virgin Atlantic or BA: "Aircompany Kokshetau". I was in Uralsk yesterday getting off the daily flight from Aktau/Atyrau, Air Astana a 757 twice a week to Almaty and until recently they had a weekly flight to Schiphol - which was replaced by the Astreaus charter.

As a SLF I would have been quite happy to get on the ground no matter where it was - except for the Frozen Lake - not too many of those around this time of year. Uralsk is not that bad, true it's got a bumpy runway, but at least they have fixed the toilets - the dead rat has gone....

Poka

Harrier46

30th Apr 2006, 20:19

Have to have my say on the earlier comments on this thread about IL86s. Having flown last summer on a Kras-Air IL86 (should have been a 96 but all grounded at the time!) from DME-AYT I can say I found everything surprisingly good. Must have been the only British passenger as it was a Russian holiday flight, so was surprised to hear cabin announcements in both English and Russian. Clean and tidy aircraft, smooth flight, good food.... would do it again tomorrow! And the return was with Vim on a 757, also good. The only quirk was the Russian habit of clapping on landing, but apparently this is quite normal.
And flying regularly between ALA and LHR on Air Astana (757) I can also recommend them. Senior management is European and they are 49% owned by British Aerospace. First A320 delivered recently and second (of five) due in early May. So I wish them well for the future.

JumpAhead

2nd May 2006, 09:30

Apparently fire warning was due to a technical fault with the sensor system and not contents of hold. Aircraft was fixed and flying again the same day it returned to LHR.

Maybe adds weight to the discussion that additional systems (cameras or whatever) may help avoid false warnings.

WHBM

2nd May 2006, 10:50

Apparently fire warning was due to a technical fault with the sensor system and not contents of hold.
There were accounts on other websites (I think from newspaper stories) that the sensors were activated by the escape of a cargo of bees from their container, which would presumably have flown off as soon as the hold doors were opened. Was this a nonsense ?