View Full Version : Gill ATR - so what did happen then??

11th Aug 2001, 11:48
Allegedly, a Gill ATR took off from the "Opposite End" at a Scottish Airport, pliot then declared MAYDAY, engine failure. 30 Secs later, this was changed to "it's all sorted, like to continue to destination!"

In all my years of ATC I have never come across anything like this..... even if crew decide its false warning or whatever, usually they elect to land ASAP to get it checked or whatever.....

.....or was this a case of a rushed departure in order to depart against the flow of traffic and save a track mile or 2, and something got forgotten or overlooked?

And some crews wonder why we ATCO's are not always keen on accomodating such requests...

11th Aug 2001, 20:40
Perhaps a bit of panic set in prior to some sound decision making and resolution. It can happen, but I do understand your frustration with us at times. When I was a bit younger, I too made some pretty "strange" calls. All part of the learning process (which is still continuing today).

11th Aug 2001, 20:54
Right on mate. I remember in my student days when the C150 right fuel cap came unglued in mid flight. Dangling from its chain it was flapping in the wind and hammering the wing. I got so flustered and landed at a big international airport with emergency equipment standing by. :cool:

11th Aug 2001, 21:25
Ben I don't know the facts anymore than you apparently don't, but I think that it's a little unfair to name the airline unless you can be more expansive about the precise facts.
Unless you have an added agenda somewhere.. :rolleyes:

12th Aug 2001, 00:39
We watched this one while waiting for taxi clearance.
The aircraft's flight path caught our eye first, followed by the RT sequence described by Ben's posting.
First "mayday" I have heard in 35 years in this game (made just the one during that time).
Having perpetrated the occasional cock up in my time, I wouldn't dream on offering any conjectures about this event.

12th Aug 2001, 18:03
He who have not sined cast the first stone.
There but for the grace of etc etc..

I would like to see more support for our fellow Aviators when things dont go quite as well as planned. rather than to see who can get the first boot in. :eek:

Anything you walk away from is good enough for me :D :D :D

Rgds K.I.L.

Midnight Blue
13th Aug 2001, 00:10
Shakespeare said:
Perhaps a bit of panic set in prior to some sound decision making and resolution.

As an ATR driver I could imagine, they have had an ECU failure after takeoff, which looks similar to an engine failure if you donīt look after the gauges.
It gives you an approximately 60% powerloss.
There is a checklist for ECU failure, which resolves the problem and you could continue the flight without hesitation.
So maybe somebody radioed too fast before looking, what really was going on?
Be aware, this is only speculation.

13th Aug 2001, 02:50
You certainly come up with some pearls don't you? If you knew what the heck you were on about, you'd know that your reply to the previous mail is not only redundant, but totally inaccurate! Do you contribute to these threads because you have something to say? Or is it just because you have to say something?

14th Aug 2001, 04:21
Yeah. I can believe it. Somewhat like the dopes from the same outfit flying the F100 near CDG. Switched one autopilot off and the other one on and wondered why the aircraft wasn't responding to their inputs.

14th Aug 2001, 06:39
126.9 , why don't you enlightened me then since you're so good.

Aaron G. Stryngge
14th Aug 2001, 15:29
So studentPilot is a student on A330's?? Must be an expensive way to get a PPL... He certainly don't know his ECU's from his EEC's!
And HiSpeedTape (based, I see, in Newcastle) seems to have a grudge against either Gill or some Gill people...
Strange, innit, how all the creeps come out of the creepery (or wherever they inhabit) any time Gill is mentioned?

14th Aug 2001, 19:54
HiSpeedTape......I was going to answer your almost slanderous post by covering some of the major factors in the incident, but I see from reading some of your postings in other areas of Pprune that you obviously have a major problem with anything that concerns Gill Air.
I would however ask you to read the AAIB report carefully and as you are in fact an F100 rated Engineer, you will see that there was a lot more to the incident than you would like people to believe

BALLSOUT :rolleyes:

14th Aug 2001, 20:20

I agree that the tone of HiSpeedTape's post above was OTT, but there is surely nothing 'almost slanderous' in expressing an opinion based on the AAIB report, is there? BTW, slander is spoken, so this might have been 'almost libellous' instead.

What precisely is your sensitivity? Were you one of the crew? I for one would be very pleased to hear your version "covering some of the major factors in the incident". It would certainly seem from the AAIB report that there is little more to this incident than what HiSpeedTape has said above, other than perhaps the relatively innocuous icing problem that began the chain of events. If there is more, do let's hear it please. :confused:

Mr moto
14th Aug 2001, 22:38
And in all the bitch-fighting no-one's got around to saying that an ECU adds fuel and the EEC cuts the top off.

What model of ATR was it because they only have one or the other?

15th Aug 2001, 03:26
Sorry Ballsout and anyone else who's sensitivities I may have offended but the way that I (and Tilii) read the AAIB report seems to suggest the the possibility of icing in the bullet is a little tenuous. Sure it has been known to happen in the past but in this case the finger is clearly pointing toward pilot error and a lack of understanding or technical knowledge on the type in question. I don't have any problem with Gill Airways it's just that with them being so close they naturally fall under my scrutiny on a more regular basis than anyone else and I can only speak of that which I see and hear.
Thanks Tilii for substantiating what I'd read in the AAIB report on the F100 incident.

[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: HiSpeedTape ]

15th Aug 2001, 05:17
So, HST, you admit you're just speculating when you throw around accusations like "dope"?


Sorry, but I don't propose to enlarge on either incident here, since the details beyond what are in the AAIB reports are confidential.

Suffice it to say that, IMHO, both crews were under significant levels of pressure, and, despite that, did an excellent job.

As for the uninformed speculation and accusations thrown around, I shall merely hope that those who enjoy such activities do not suffer similar levels of idiotic comment if they are unfortunate enough, either through mistake, mechanical failure, or negligence, to be involved in an incident.

HST, if you don't have a problem with Gill, your posting record makes a very good impression of you doing so. I am very glad that you have now set the record straight.

15th Aug 2001, 05:53
It's a pity that the experiences of the crew in question cannot, it appears, be discussed in an open and mature fashion without resorting to mud-slinging. Aviation has always encouraged openness in the interests of flight safety but I find this thread more than a little sad. Some of the discussion may border on the limits of ill-informed speculation but what is the alternative? This should have been taken as an opportunity to learn from others; however, point scoring seems to be more important to some of the contributors. Look, if you want to slug it out, might it not be better aired in JB? Professionalism, please, gentlemen.

15th Aug 2001, 12:22
Sorry, but I don't propose to enlarge on either incident here, since the details beyond what are in the AAIB reports are confidential.Are you seriously suggesting, then, that there are confidential details about these incidents that remain outside the breadth of knowledge of the AAIB ... other than the supposedly inadvertent erasure of the Fokker's CVR? Or is it that you imply that Gill and the AAIB deem certain details ought to be withheld from the aviation community by ommission from AAIB reports? :confused:

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]

15th Aug 2001, 12:53
Right yer at it again.......Stop jumping on the Gill band wagon. Let the boys and girls in NCL get on with their jobs and lifes.
I'm gettin' pissed!!!!!!
Need to say a couple of our fathers
TED :mad: :mad:

Ginger Tom
15th Aug 2001, 16:42
I, perhaps more than most, have no great interest in protecting Gill's good name after the way my colleagues and I were treated last year.

However, the tone of the posts on this thread make me think that it might be a good thing all round if it were to be locked up.

How about it, Mr Moderator?

15th Aug 2001, 23:28
Allegedly it helps if the fuel pumps are turned on for take off - that tends to stop them flaming out when they want a drink :D

16th Aug 2001, 01:15
Yes, tilii, various details remain confidential, such as the identities of the crews in question.

As regards the F100 incident, yes, the CVR was inadvertently wiped, not by the flight crew, who took all precautions they could to preserve it. Unfortunately, therefore, the AAIB only had ATC tapes and the FDR in helping them to piece events together, plus interviews with all the crew and examination of the aircraft. What was said in that investigation, what was said to me and to Gill management remains confidential.

All relevant details that would assist in avoiding such an incident in future are contained within the AAIB report.

Beyond that, I will not assist any further pointless speculation, nor will I reveal anything that must remain confidential. I assume you agree that there is quite a lot about any incident/accident investigation that must remain privileged, if nothing else to protect innocent crews from the uninformed and uneducated prying of the gutter press.

As for the "incident" in the title of this thread, suffice it to say that our investigation is complete, the company have modified one or two procedures, and the crew involved are NOT the subject of any disciplinary procedures.

16th Aug 2001, 02:20
Well I never intended this to degenerate into a mud slinging match :mad: :mad:

I have no axe to grind with the airline concerned.....was just bemused as to how a "Mayday" situation can clear itself so rapidly. In my experience, an engine failure (on anything with more than one engine!) results in a "Pan" call, followed by a landing ASAP.

I was also concerned that an engine failure on a multi-engined aircraft causing a "Mayday" call, implied that the aircraft cannot maintain flight on the other engine(s) and that is personally worrying as I fly in them fairly often!

16th Aug 2001, 02:49
Ben, whether any incident results in a Mayday or a Pan call, whether it calls for an immediate landing or not, are questions for the judgement of the Captain of the aircraft concerned. There are very few hard and fast rules. Any Captain's judgement may be called into question later, but, as we all know, hindsight is 20-20 vision. He is the man on the spot, and that's why he's paid what he is - to exercise judgement in the heat of the moment.

If you remain confused about the distinction between Pan and Mayday, perhaps it will help to look at them as the instant severity of the problem that a pilot faces. It is not relevant that a currently severe problem may later be cured and the flight safely continued.

I can imagine many scenarios in which I would want an immediate landing after making a Pan call, and continue after a Mayday.

Hope this helps.

16th Aug 2001, 03:51
well said