Virgin 747 dumping fuel over LHR [Archive]

DTY/LKS

8th Dec 2006, 08:02

Virgin from EGLL to KJFK, had problems with stall warnings & altimeter etc. Was dumping fuel in the CPT area & also flying up as far north as EGBB & down towards EGHI. At 1 point there was talk of launching a mil aircraft up as the Virgin pilot said he couldn`t rely on his airspeed readout, to fly alongside him & tell him what speed he was doing etc. Quite important when coming into land in yesterdays wind. Not sure if this happened in the end tho. Eventually he ended up back at EGLL.

beardy

8th Dec 2006, 08:29

Brilliant first post Wombat13, both feet first time.

I don't work for Virgin but this scenario is spookily like our last LPC. Since he got it on the ground it sounds like a job well handled. Shame to miss out on mixed formation photo opportunity.

GANNET FAN

8th Dec 2006, 08:38

DT quoted this morning that a Virgin 747 aborted takeoff after nosewheel lifted because there appeared to be a problem with the altimeter.

Is this likely?

Torycanyon

8th Dec 2006, 08:47

It would seem unlkely to abort after V1. If there was a problem then may be a return to the airfield after takeoff and problem was reviewed?

UP and Down Operator

8th Dec 2006, 09:51

I am sure the guy had his reasons, but i did not think fueldumping was allowed over land in so low altitudes?? Anyone knows how that works?

Loki

8th Dec 2006, 10:00

AltFlaps

8th Dec 2006, 10:34

There was a great story years ago about a 707 (I think) that had a catasrophic enginer failure on departure from one of the westerlies at LHR.

The tower saw the flames at rotation, and very shortly thereafter, saw the aircraft commence a fuel dump.

The rate of climb was very low indeed, and as the aircraft approached Windsor, the tower made some comment about dumping fuel so close the the castle.

The response was a calm American southern drawl - "give her a call and ask her if she wants the fuel or the aircraft ..." !

Probablly not true of course, but still a good story.

Flybywyre

8th Dec 2006, 10:39

Wombat13 .............
It never fails to amaze me at the ignorance and arrogance of such posters as yourself. Why post on something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about ?
Do you enjoy making yourself look like a complete :mad: ?
Interestingly enough the same AC had another go at the trip a few hours later but unfortunately that didn't work either.

-8AS

8th Dec 2006, 11:37

I think there would be a far more interesting thread running now if they tried to abort after nose wheel lift off. Probably some good news footage also.

Belgique

8th Dec 2006, 12:02

Sounds like a replay of that 747 post-maint airtest where they left the static system drain-valve caps off.

Somewhere in the UK; cargo airline I think. About three years ago. An AAIU investigation report I think.

Belgique

8th Dec 2006, 12:06

Incident: Boeing 747-200, N520UP, Dublin Airport,12 May 2000: Report No 2004-004
Break line image
6 February 2004
SYNOPSIS
The aircraft took off from Dublin Airport for a check flight following the completion of C check maintenance at Team FLS. After take-off, significant airframe vibration was encountered. The crew then deduced that both airspeed indicators were under-reading significantly. Following declaration of an emergency, and trouble-shooting by the crew off the east coast of Ireland, the aircraft returned safely to Dublin. After landing it was discovered that the flap system had suffered damage. It was found that the static drain ports in the Avionics and Electrical (A&E) bay, connected to both the Captains and the First Officers instruments, were left open after maintenance. This resulted in both airspeed indicators under-reading by a significant amount.
http://aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=4703&lang=ENG&loc=1280

GANNET FAN

8th Dec 2006, 12:13

I think there would be a far more interesting thread running now if they tried to abort after nose wheel lift off. Probably some good news footage also.

Sadly can't find the small article in the DT on the web, but that's what it said!! Pax comments like being in a car and slammed against your seatbelt from 300mph to stop!

Can't vouch for fact only what was written!

10bob

8th Dec 2006, 14:15

From today's Daily Telegraph, page 13. It isn't on the website, so any spelling errors are mine.
A JUMBO jet with 384 passengers on board aborted a take-off at Heathrow Airport with the nose-wheel already in the air.
Passengers were said to be "terrified" as the captain slammed on the brakes at full take-off speed. The plane, a 747-400, was Virgin Atlantic's 2pm flight from Heathrow to New York's JFK airport. The flight had earlier been turned around an hour out over the Atlantic because of "electrical problems" - thought to be the altimeter.
The plane and its passengers then had to wait several hours while the fault was fixed but, when the pilot reached the critical point of take-off, he realised the fault was still there and decided to abort.
One of the passengers said: "we were all thrown forward into our seat belts and it was just like slamming on your brakes in the car at 300mph. We were already a bit worried because of the time we had spent on the tarmac so when this happened a lot of people feared the worst."
The passengers were expected to be put up in a hotel for the night.
Just like slamming on your brakes in a car doing 300mph? I want his car.

perkin

8th Dec 2006, 14:44

From today's Daily Telegraph, page 13. It isn't on the website, so any spelling errors are mine.

Just like slamming on your brakes in a car doing 300mph? I want his car.

I'd be interested to see the 747 that was capable of 300mph at take-off too...!

xlgboeing

9th Dec 2006, 09:54

Dumping was carried out at fl170. The A/C suffered problems with ADC"s which affected stall warning, ASI, ALT etc, Pilot dumped to a suitable landing weight and came back to base.
ADC changed and a second attemp to JFK was made, problem before V1 so RTO and back to stand.
All of which did not pose any problem.

Avman

9th Dec 2006, 10:45

NTSB Identification: DCA07WA015

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD

Incident occurred Thursday, December 07, 2006 in London, United Kingdom
Aircraft: Boeing 747-4Q8, registration: G-VHOT

On December 7, 2006, a Virgin Atlantic Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-VHOT, experienced instrument and stick shaker problems after takeoff from London Heathrow Airport. The pilots declared an emergency, dumped fuel, and returned to the airport. The right air data computer was replaced; however, the stick shaker problem occurred again on the subsequent takeoff roll and the takeoff was aborted.

Touch'n'oops

9th Dec 2006, 13:35

For all those who fly commercial aircraft, you will understand the significance of continuing after V1. It is drilled into us at every simulator check... After V1... KEEP GOING!!!

V1 is a speed which separates the decision to continue the take-off or Abort!
For instance, if you try to stop after V1 there is a very good chance the aircraft will end up off roading and everyone knows aircraft are rubbish for it!
If the decision is to continue the Take-Off before V1 with a loss of an engine, there is also a good chance that you would not make the required 35ft screen height at the end of the runway/clearway.

Furthermore, V1 can NEVER be greater than Vr (Rotate speed). So if the Captain decided to Abort the Take-Off after Vr (in this case nose-wheel off the deck), I hope he had a bloody good reason. To be honest I was not there, but I would only abort a take-off after V1 if I was sure the aircraft wasn't going to fly. In this case it seems the aircraft was responding to inputs and I would have taken the problem into the air.

But hell, I would have loved to see that beast make a stop like that!!!

Danny

9th Dec 2006, 14:07

Touch'n'oops, please don't confuse the fantasy of a newspaper hack reporting a passengers perceptions and that of the real world. The bit in the Telegraph report "A JUMBO jet with 384 passengers on board aborted a take-off at Heathrow Airport with the nose-wheel already in the air." (my emphasis) is 99.999% most likely inserted for dramatic effect. Whilst the abort was before v1, it was for all intents and purposes a high speed rejected take-off and the rapid deceleration would indeed feel like the nose wheel 'dropping' especially to anyone not looking out of a window.

So, an incident happened? Yes. Dramatic for anyone involved? Yes. Nose-wheel already in the air when the take-off was aborted? No.

Lon More

9th Dec 2006, 14:21

Have just read this and come to the same conclusion as Danny.
Most of those on board would have had no outside reference and the decelleration would feel like the nose dropping
Compare it to a simulator; the front of that is raised to simulate acceleration during T/O although the instrments will show a level attitude. During a rejected T/O the front is lowered, to simulate braking; again instruments indicate level.
It's all about perception.
The 300 mph must have come from SLF; crew would have spoken about knots

Touch'n'oops

9th Dec 2006, 14:22

Danny, I agree with you that the media can be a useless bunch.

The aim of the post was give a bit of info to the likes of GANNET FAN and to find the truth. In my experience of flying I have seen a lot of people do a lot of silly things and was wondering if this 747 had actually aborted after V1. It would not have been the first time.

Thanks for clearing it up!!!

vapilot2004

10th Dec 2006, 22:16

Back in service - aircraft arrived in sunny Miami a few hours ago.

Kit d'Rection KG

11th Dec 2006, 10:08

[QUOTE=Touch'n'oops;3010617]The aim of the post was give a bit of info to the likes of GANNET FAN and to find the truth.QUOTE]

...of course you could just wait for the AAIB report...

jondc9

11th Dec 2006, 14:01

there are rare occasions when an abort after v1 is possibly the best course of action.

a true perception by the pilot that the plane is not capable of flight, loss of flight controls etc are good reasons.

it is also why we cross check the ASI at 80 knots and not at V1.

one thing though, as a pilot I would understand that many of the PASSENGERS ( whoever came up with slf?) wouldn't know what a "KNOT" was. I would calculate the difference and give them MPH to help them.

.85 times mph = knots (100 mph = 85 knots)

1.15 times knots = mph (115 mph = 100 knots)

Boeing does publish pitch attitudes, thrust settings etc. in case of loss of all airspeed to aid pilots in landing an airplane with damage to nose cone etc (radome to you youngsters) and possible damage to PITOT system.

(jest)

is it possible that sir richard was just experimenting with ecological benefits of dumping fuel?
(end jest)

Kit d'Rection KG

11th Dec 2006, 15:57

So, an incident happened? Yes. Dramatic for anyone involved? Yes. Nose-wheel already in the air when the take-off was aborted? No.

Sorry, but how do you KNOW, Danny, that that was the case? If you don't KNOW, then I'm surprised that you are adding to the conjecture.

exvicar

11th Dec 2006, 16:56

How does Danny know? Because if the takeoff had been aborted with enough speed to have the nose wheel in the air, i.e. rotate speed, the aircraft would be parked somewhere in not so sunny Colnbrook not Miami.

Carnage Matey!

11th Dec 2006, 16:58

Perhaps its because he works for the company in question, and a nose-in-the-air-above-V1 RTO would probably have hit the companys bulletin boards by now.

NBanker

11th Dec 2006, 17:30

Fuel dumping should (note that word) be over water.....I can`t remember the figures exactly, since I no longer exercise the privileges of my licence (and my mats part 1 is elsewhere), but 10000 ft comes into it somewhere as does 7000. If the a/c was at FL170 as the leading post suggests, that`s well within the parameters.
Your memory is pretty good Loki. :ok: This what the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1 has to say on the subject:
12 Fuel Jettisoning
12.1 Pilots of aircraft in flight are permitted to jettison fuel in an emergency. The decision to jettison rests solely with the pilot but he may request guidance from air traffic control.
12.2 Controllers are to recommend that jettisoning of fuel should be carried out:
a) over the sea, if at all possible; or
b) above 10 000 feet agl.
12.3 Exceptionally, if a) or b) is operationally impracticable or inconsistent with safety, fuel may be jettisoned above 7000 feet agl in winter and above 4000 feet agl in summer. For fuel to be jettisoned below these levels the situation must be unavoidable.
12.4 A vertical separation of at least 1000 feet between aircraft should be maintained.
NB

DCS99

12th Dec 2006, 11:19

Saturday 17 June 1989.

I watched in amazement as a Delta Tristar aborted take-off at Frankfurt - after Vr.

The nose-wheel went up, went down and take-off was aborted.

I'm not saying that's what happened to Virgin, just saying that's what I saw.
Where's 411A - am sure he'll tell us this was possible!

Shanwick Shanwick

12th Dec 2006, 12:05

Take-Off was aborted prior to V1

W1NDRUSH

12th Dec 2006, 13:09

Hi,
I know nothing about flying, so no flaming please, however, I was on the flight and the captain came down to our area to explain what happened.

Dumping Fuel -
He said much the same as has been already reported about the stick shake and Altimeter, his and co-pilot were showing more than 300ft difference, not allowed to fly over altantic with this much difference ? Everyone calm during dumping of fuel, apparently dumped over Birmingham - we had been in the air for about an hour, On landing fire trucks chasing us - this normal under the circumstances, apparently.

Ground crew then came on board and 'fixed' the problem within about 40 minutes

2nd take off Aborted-

I and many other were dozing as we taxied out, woken by violent braking, didn't really have time to think/get scared, although we new something was amiss. I do remember thinking we hadn't signed our will ! Obviously not being able to see out the front we weren't sure if something was in our way or whatever, taxied back to gate. Fire trucks in attendance again as, Quote "brakes are abit hot" ! Kept on plane and kept well informed about what was happening.

Pilot came down after 20 mins on stand and explained that at approx 140knots he was getting same stick shake and aborted. 155 is V1 ? so he said he had about 2 seconds to decide. We asked him how often he'd done this during his career "many times" was the reply, so we pushed him on this and it was "many times" on a sim ! - 1st time during 25 years of flying.

Nose wheel story - merely that, I think some art director was quoted on that in the evening standard that day, not my recollection and after hearing from pilot it obviously wasn't the case.

Got airbus next day - no drama:D
Got back this morning, trepidation during take off for those of us on the 7/12 flight

Phew:ok:

Will Hung

12th Dec 2006, 14:23

Nicely put W1ndrush, and what a nice chap the skipper sounds. I can't think of a better place to dump over.

Duff beer

15th Dec 2006, 09:27

http://www.borehamwoodtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1075509.0.pilots_300mph_terror_aboard_new_york_f light.php

I sent an email to this prat.

Maybe the worst piece of scaremongering journalism ive had the mis-fortune to read for a while.

If you get a chance send him one (an email that is, not letter bomb).

DB,

SLFguy

15th Dec 2006, 09:33

Maybe the worst piece of scaremongering journalism ive had the mis-fortune to read for a while.
If you get a chance send him one (an email that is, not letter bomb).
DB,

If your link is to the right story then I think you may be somewhat over reacting.:=
What exactly is the scaremongering element you descibe. Seemed fairly factual and was quoting a pax.
I don't think many pax would have been comfortable with those events.

cessna l plate

15th Dec 2006, 09:41

SLF Guy, quite accurate my bum!

Since when was Vr 300 Knots?
Since when did pilots make a PA before aborting a takeoff?

And as for quoting a pax, if she is indeed a student ppl then she would be more than aware of aborted TO procedures and would not have made a comment like that, but then of course everything written in a paper, and every time they quote someone, it is deadly accurate isn't it???

ManfredvonRichthofen

15th Dec 2006, 09:46

Not that much wrong with that article I'd say.

Do some of you not get tired of this constant berating of journalists ? We are all adults. We therefore surely have some understanding of the way the media works. Why then express indignation and outrage every single time an article appears ?!
You know what it will be like, and articles on aviation issues are no different to anything else. Papers have to sell. Most people therefore process what they read in the papers with that in mind.

You called this "maybe the worst piece of scaremongering journalism ive had the mis-fortune to read for a while"
really ?
you can't have read many papers of late....

P.S. the general public could not give a toss what VR was. 300 miles an hour, 200, 400 - it means nothing to the average person

pulse1

15th Dec 2006, 09:56

it means nothing to the average person
Today 10:41

But it should have meant something to Hayley Keyes, the student pilot. I wouldn't be happy to be her instructor knowing that any slight problem could be taken to the press and blown up out of all proportion just to make a story.

tiggerific_69

15th Dec 2006, 10:06

" We started down the runway and got to maximum ground speed when he slammed the brakes on without any warning and we all lurched forward"

just because she's a pilot,how does she know if they were at max ground speed.and what does she expect them to do,make a PA before they abort the take off,silly girl she should know better than to make stupid statements like that

Artificial Horizon

15th Dec 2006, 10:08

Can't see alot wrong with that article to be honest, really makes no difference that she was a PPL student, doesn't say what stage she was at. I certainly never learned anything about airliner operations during my PPL.

airdonkey

15th Dec 2006, 10:11

As they say "A little knowledge.........."

Bandit650

15th Dec 2006, 10:13

"Pilots Terror at 300mph"

I would imagine the pilot's would have been slightly concerned if they were doing 300mph on the asphalt, but as we know this is complete fiction. The use of the "Terror" was probably no accident either.

UP and Down Operator

15th Dec 2006, 10:16

The fact is that 8 out of 10 journalists are twats who doesn't care at all about if it is true or false what they write as long as it sells the papers. If it means that the "victims" of their articles are to loose their jobs/partners/dignity/business or something else, then "who cares". - Certainly not the journalist :ugh:

There are some good reporters around, but unfortunately they only rarely write about aviation. Maybe because they want to tell the truth, and the truth in cases like this will never sell any papers :hmm:

As for the girl who is quoted then i just hope and pray she will stop with her ppl. Don't need those attention seeking people in our industry :(

Bandit650

15th Dec 2006, 10:20

Indeed :D.

The media in the UK has a lot to answer for these days.

ManfredvonRichthofen

15th Dec 2006, 10:26

The irony is that the sensationalism of reactions such as those above generally tends to outweigh the sensationalism by which the original story is marked.

I give you:

"If you get a chance send him one (an email that is, not letter bomb)".

"8 out of 10 journalists are twats"

"As for the girl who is quoted then i just hope and pray she will stop with her ppl"

Duff beer

15th Dec 2006, 10:43

My original post was meant to show that with all the problems we've had within our industry we really dont need headlines involving PILOT and TERROR in the same sentance. They really dont help an industry thats been through the s**t for the last few years.

I appreciate an RTO can be a bit interesting for nervous fliers, but this is intentional scaremongering.

I wouldnt be surprised if the RTO was done at a low speed. Unless its a serious problem the airbus wont let you know until your safely climbing away.

just my opinion though chaps...if someone is given the responsibility of reporting the news, they should do it responsibly.

Doors to Automatic

15th Dec 2006, 10:44

"We sat on the runway for a further hour before we were told the flight had been cancelled"

I'm sure you did my dear! Which one was it 27R or 27L? :ok:

Bandit650

15th Dec 2006, 10:44

I've received a reply from the reporter involved. He says the headline wording was nothing to do with him but was added by the paper's sub-editors; who got it from that great standard bearer - the Daily Mail.
He also apologied for the headline - so he seems to be equally miffed about it.

Bandit650

15th Dec 2006, 10:48

"We sat on the runway for a further hour before we were told the flight had been cancelled"

I'm sure you did my dear! Which one was it 27R or 27L? :ok:

Very good!:D

UP and Down Operator

15th Dec 2006, 10:50

The irony is that the sensationalism of reactions such as those above generally tends to outweigh the sensationalism by which the original story is marked.

What are you? - A poet??

Load of bollocks !!

Bandit: I think it was a nice move to write to the guy and make him aware of the negative twist in his article. Well done :ok:

ManfredvonRichthofen

15th Dec 2006, 11:12

Sorry, did you find that difficult to understand ?

It is a valid comment.

The constant indignation regarding journalists is so tiresome. They're journalists. It's what they do. Live with it. Let it go.

Keep your toys in the pram boys :E

Brian Fantana

15th Dec 2006, 11:18

Sounds like a local journo thinking he has scooped an exclusive story and is about to make it big time in the nationals!!
Also - "Thousands of pounds worth of belongings had been stolen" - what the hell was in her case just for a weekend trip to NY???

hobie

15th Dec 2006, 11:35

more here .... http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255398

MrBernoulli

15th Dec 2006, 11:46

I have done 2 RTOs in large 4-jet aircraft and I can't think of anything remotely terrifying about them.

Flightman

15th Dec 2006, 12:21

brakedwell

15th Dec 2006, 13:58

FakePilot

15th Dec 2006, 14:29

The problem with the media is they screw up the information they're reporting on. And the only motive seems to be to make the story more exciting.

If you're a pilot, all the aviation stories are wrong.
If you're a doctor, all the medical stories are wrong.
If you're a gun owner, all the gun details are wrong.
If you're a computer professional, all the computer details are wrong.

One time there was an article about how 2% of the US's land could be turned into windmill farms so that nuclear reactors could be eliminated. 2% !?!?! An average sized US state turned into windmills!?!?!

These are just the ones I know. I'm sure everything else is crap too, at this point.

fmgc

15th Dec 2006, 15:29

FakePilot,

You are absolutely right.

And the conclusion that you can draw from this is that you can not trust anything that you read in the newspapers. Unfortunatley, whilst they might quote that old cliche, a lot of people really do beleive what they read.

It doesn't do the subject of the articles any good, it doesn't do the readers any good, it just feathers the papers' nests.

The press are so powerful that they are a law unto themselves which is impossible to challenge.