BA 767 incident 30Jul

[SpeedyG]

Anyone know of the PIC window incident on BA253/30Jul ? I heard it shattered in cruise approx 4hrs out of UK and could not divert to MIA as the Yanks had issues with [the lack of] APIS information so it went back to LHR

[Artificial Horizon]

Yes apparently it was the FO's outside window oanel that shattered 4 hours into the flight. Company was consulted as to where they wanted the aircraft to go to and it was decided to return to the UK instead of continuing to a diversion at Miami as the lack of pre-filed passenger information would of caused some logistical problems with the yanks.

[spoilers yellow]

4 hrs into th flight is less than half way ( it was going to Nassau),if it was going to continue for another 5 hrs, why would it even consider miami, when it could land at its planned destination?. If it was just the outside window pane, the structural intergity of the window remains intact. I doubt Miami was even considered with its relative position to its main engineering base ie. LHR.

[Taildragger67]

Now I don't want to sound too alarmist, but does a possible rejection of Miami as a divert due to lack of APIS info not suggest a possible unintended consequence of this APIS caper being a possible safety issue?

I am NOT having a go AT ALL at BA here - rather, raising the possibility that the logistical problems possibly caused by any carrier landing in the US without APIS info (as it wouldn't have been needed for a flight not going to the US) could mean that a totally reasonable command decision not to divert to a US port could then be part of a chain of causation?

For example - W/S cracks beyond half-way; looks ok; MIA closest; press on; hits heavy CAT; stresses cause further propagation; ends up blowing out; divert to MIA would have taken the a/c away from the CAT area; etc. etc.

In other words - should we be worried at the possible situations that this TSA requirement might get us into?

[Globaliser]

4 hrs into th flight is less than half way ( it was going to Nassau),if it was going to continue for another 5 hrs, why would it even consider miami, when it could land at its planned destination?Maybe MIA would have been an easy place to get the aircraft fixed, compared to NAS? And it would have been pretty easy to ferry everyone from MIA to NAS on other flights, compared to finding alternatives from LHR once the aircraft returned.

I know I'm only really qualified to comment on the latter, but the former seems like a reasonable guess. That combination of factors would suggest that MIA might have been a good idea, although ultimately not feasible.

[Chiliarch]

If you look at the great circle route, you will see that Nassau and Miami are pretty much equidistant from the diversion point, but the repair facilities at Miami are far superior, minimising the aircraft downtime. Had Nassau been a good destination from that point of view, it is very likely that the flight would have continued to destination.

[Just a spotter]

I’m not aviation professional, mealy an interested consumer … but … if you know before daparture that you can’t divert to an airport because of restrictions on passengers, does that mean you can’t include it in and ETOPS flight plan?
Or would the US authorities relent in the case of an emergency?

If it is a restriction, how is that affecting flight planning?

JAS

[spoilers yellow]

I agree MIA could work better for getting the spare parts enabling a quicker fix whilst still getting the pax to Nas, that said enginners in NAS are very good and in the past have had to do some fairly major component changes, getting the parts to Nassau isn't that hard.
As regards using the US airfields as diversions, almost without exception every time I have been to Nas, we use MIA. MCO. FLL as alternate airfields.
I know fairly recently that a 767 chose to divert to MIA when NAS closed due weather and radar failure. To my knowledge they had absolutely no problems whatsoever.

Just a spotter,

You're correct, if you know an airfield cant or wont except you for whatever reason, you cant use it has an alternate airfield and you would load sufficient extra fuel to get you to a different airfield.
Like you say however if you start using MAYDAY you SHOULD get alot more help, but you would usually have a pre chosen diversion airfield in mind and assuming nothing else changes you would be planing to go there anyway.

[Artificial Horizon]

Guys, I was not saying that the flight couldn't divert to Miami because fo the APIS requirement. The window did not threaten the aeroplane at any stage. Miami was considered as the best diversion besides returning to LHR. The decision was made to return to LHR because the aircraft was not past the point of no return and it would avoid POSSIBLE admin problems if the pax had to be offloaded in MIA. Having said that if the aircraft needed to land in MIA then it would have.

[Just a spotter]

Thanks Spoilers

So, for airlines doing Europe or AsiaPac to Central America/Caribbean, would the US position of no entry to air space/no landings without prior passenger information being supplied TECHNICALLY invalidate the ETOPS rating for their big twin aircraft on those routes given that if you assume all suitable airfields in the US for a single engine diversion are 'off limits' you may not be able to reach a suitable field within the ETOPS time?

Or am I reading too much into it?

JAS

[Lucifer]

You're reading too much into it - there is a difference between a mayday request, and consideration from a company perspective of what is most convenient to all when a non-mayday event occurs.

Consider that they would have had to wait for a repair at Nassau, yet could get the lot done and take revenue passengers back to London, through returning to London in about the same time.

A mayday event and ETOPS consideration are entirely different - we are not talking about an event that caused an emergency, or - for ETOPS - had anything to do with power or ETOPS considerations

[Flight Detent]

Hey Lucifer,

Remind me what happened regards that A300 that had that rudder separation event out of Havana a while back.
Didn't they return to Havana, even though they were quite close to Miami when the event occured, simply because if they had announced an emergency and landed there, all the US citizens would have been arrested for having been to Cuba, and the airplane impounded.

Different scale, but the same sort of thing!

Cheers, FD :\

[StudentInDebt]

Having diverted into the US while enroute from Mexico to the UK without declaring an emergency, it is not a problem from a TSA or immigration aspect. Can't say we even considered the lack of APIS data when we made our decision.

[No Mate!]

Ba, a company in trouble.

[peterbuckstolemymeds]

To my best of my knowledge, it's not an offense -- and consequently not an arrestable matter -- for any US citizen to travel to Cuba.
In fact, the US approves charter flights to Cuba at least on an occasional basis for humanitarian and educational reasons (a friend of mine traveled there on an educational visit by charter flight while a postgrad public health student at Atlanta's Emory University).
I believe that the restriction on US citizens (and perhaps US legal residents - not sure...) is a financial one. That is, it is illegal to spend US dollars in Cuba. It's certainly not illegal to go there, to be there, or to travel from there.
That said, a US citizen would perhaps be asked some difficult questions if he found himself diverted to MIA on a flight to somewhere else... but the US attorney would presumably have to prove that a traveler had spent cash in el Comandante's back yard to raise a worthwhile ruckus in court.
Cheers

[spoilers yellow]

JAS,

ETOPS validation is nothing to do with the availabilty of alternate airfields.
It is down to the a number of factors that will enable a twin engined aircraft to fly more than 60mins from a siutable airport, it is usually 138mins or 180 mins from a suitable airfield.
The airline, the aircraft and its engines have to have been through various proven maintenance procedures etc etc to prove they can fly over large expances of water or desert.

On the day of flight in question, various airports along your route must be both adequate( runway long enough, fire cover etc) and suitable ( weather well above what you need for an approach when you will need it). The airports chosen will meet these criteria at the flight planning stage to produce an ETOPS flight plan.

when you get to your destination you are USUALLY no longer operating ETOPS and will have a choice of alternate airports and as discussed above have no effect on the ETOPS part of your flight.

[ornithopter]

Consider this, in Nassau there were no parts to fix the aircraft, so it would have been there for a few days. For those days, the services that aircraft would have been planned to operate would have been cancelled. That affects a lot of passengers. Returning to LHR where the aircraft can be fixed and back in service requires less disruption to passengers, albeit inconveniencing those on board. Also remember the aircraft was due to shuttle to Providenciales, so a lot of passengers would have required hotel accom in Nassau - better to keep them at LHR where the hotels are easier to find and arrange. At the end of the day, those on the aircraft and those requiring return from Nassau were a day late and not many other people were affected. Keeping the aircraft out of service for possibly 5 or 6 days could have perhaps affected a couple of thousand people.

As for going to Miami - the APIS problem is one of disruption to the passengers. We all know how frustrating these things can be and at the end of the day, the passengers would have needed accom and onward travel most probably the next day - giving a similar situation to what happened above ie one day late for everyone. The logistics of getting people from MIA to PLS and NAS may not have been easy in the middle of the summer as after all, most of the American carriers are flying around full. The cost to the airline would have been greater, with the same end result. That doesn't mean BA wouldn't divert to MIA or anywhere else in the States if need be, it just means that for this occasion, return to LHR was a better option.

[Carnage Matey!]

Ba, a company in trouble.

No Mate!, a man who talks rubbish.

[Taildragger67]

Ba, a company in trouble.

How to take a useful and interesting discussion and turn it into a BA-bash in one easy step.

Is that handle just a handle or a statement of fact?

[Biggles' Apprentice]

Christ, at times the Septics are full of cr*p. Most hypocritical nation of people on earth.