BA LHR-CPT 747 fuel leak

[PurePax]

I have received a mail from a person, not personally known to me, who reports to have allegedly been on board an aircraft at a London airport when said aircraft did start leaking fuel at a rate alarming to him.
He further says in his mail that it was apparent to him the other passengers on board the aircraft were also somewhat distressed.
He alleges the Captain of the aircraft was prepared to take off on two occasions, which, apparently caused the passengers to make their concerns regarding the supposed fuel leak known to the cabin crew. He does not say whether "prepared" is intended to indicate "willingness in full knowledge of the facts" or "ready for take off prior to being informed of the apparent problem".
He indicated that emergency services were on hand at some point during the event.
The flight apparently was bound for a Southern African country, but, according to him, did not depart on the date it was scheduled.
He didn't indicate any injuries of any nature.
This poster [PurePax] would like to note that, at night, at a possibly unfamiliar airport, it's possible for passengers to confuse the position of the aircraft they are occupying, such that they may say "at the end of the runway" when in fact the aircraft is "at the end of a taxiway", or some such other location.
This poster [PurePax] would like to make it clear that the initial version of this post was a request for information regarding the alleged incident and was not intended to slur the name of anybody involved in the incident, if it indeed ever occurred.

[john129401]

This version of events is incorrect, and bears no resembalance to the incident I attended on this aircraft. somebody is misinforming you.

[L337]

Lets us invent a scenario...

747-400 has a fuel leak. Captain says to the engineers.. fix it. The engineers then fix it, sign the technical log and release the aeroplane to service, and off they go. They taxi out and the leak, for whatever reason is still there. The leak is reported to the Captain by some observant passengers, and the cabin crew. It has not been fixed, or the fault has reoccurred, so back to stand they go. Out comes the engineer who has another go at fixing it. He releases the aeroplane again, they taxi out and the fuel leak is still not fixed. Now the crew are out of hours, and the fix is going to take a long time. So they return to stand, cancel the flight, and all go home.

Like I say, unbelievable. A BA pilot who was prepared to take off (twice
at the end of the runway at Heathrow)

I do not believe it for a second. Utter and total rubbish. There is no earthly reason why three pilots would set off for Cape Town if they knew they had a fuel leak. It would be criminally negligent. A gross derogation of duty. And if I was the Captain of said flight, and knew that this bizarre version of events had been posted on a public forum, I would now be on the phone to a lawyer.

FWIW. From the flight deck of a 747-400 you cannot see if there is fuel pi$$ing out the wings. You would have to be told, by cabin crew, or a report from a passenger.

Not to mention that BA then deposited over 300 passengers into Terminal 4
Heathrow at 00.30

What would you have preferred? That they take off with the fuel leak?

:ugh:

[matkat]

More likely coming out of the dump valves due to expansion, load of rubbish.:ugh:

[Rainboe]

So we have an alleged anonymous 'incident', on a day we know not when, on a flight we know not what, with a crew we know not whom, and it is an uncorroborated, anonymous 'incident' that nobody has heard about, and we are supposed to take one anonymous person's testimony (and verdict) as gospel?

Can you stop wasting our time? Unless you have something specific, better not drag company names into it!

[Gentle Climb]

Both BA flights to CPT are overnight. I did this trip last week and I couldn't see the wingtip in the darkness let alone any liquid that might have been 'pouring' out of the wing so I am not sure that passengers would be revolting in the manner described.
From one of the replies I gather that there was some sort of minor incident but I suspect that it is being blown up out of all proportion. Non story, but I would imagine that the crew mentioned might be more than a little hacked off about the original post.

[PaulW]

What was the actual snag John? So we can put this to rest.

Then again is PurePax a journo?:}

CPT would require full wings with what 125 - 130 tonnes of fuel. If a pax notices a "fuel leak" on taxi out which for a pax to notice would need a fair bit pouring out especially in the dark, and would be noticed on walkround or push back it sounds like fuel sloshing out the reserves from the vent on the underside of the wing, which can happen and is a normal occurrence with full reserves when the wings flex as the aircraft bounces over changes in taxi way surface or crossing a runway.

[farmpilot]

Or it could have happened a few months ago in the summer...... Or even the early Cape Town

[Evanelpus]

All of a sudden PurePax is noticeable by their absence, what a load of old tosh!!

[THE FLYING COOK]

couldnt agree more Evanelpus.:ok: This type of stupid comment doesnt help anyone. Lets see if Purepax has the decency to come back on and explain in a bit more detail. probably not. Perhaps he is with SC loading up his presents. Too many sherries me thinks!!

[PurePax]

couldnt agree more Evanelpus.:ok: This type of stupid comment doesnt help anyone. Lets see if Purepax has the decency to come back on and explain in a bit more detail. probably not. Perhaps he is with SC loading up his presents. Too many sherries me thinks!!

I don't spend all day watching for replies to something I posted. As I noted in the initial posting, I "got a mail", it happened to be a posting on a completely unrelated mailing list, but was an explanation of why the guy hadn't met up with someone in CPT while he was there.

There's been some further 'discussion' on that list between fellows wanting to know more, and the original poster adding some detail. Given the response to this here I don't know if I should include them here.

As it goes, I know another person, unrelated to the guy that initially mailed the list, who was also on the same flight, and mentioned to a person friend about the incident. I've not spoken to him directly so that's just more hear-say.

This version of events is incorrect, and bears no resembalance to the incident I attended on this aircraft. somebody is misinforming you.

If you're going to stand there, so to speak, and say it's all false, why, out of interest, would you not say what did occur?

What would you have preferred? That they take off with the fuel leak?

Oh, I dunno, maybe a bus to a terminal that was open? If it was indeed closed as he said.

No, I'm not a journo.


Jeez!

[dwshimoda]

Purepax,

Question for you:

Why would any sane individual who has done a fuel calculation (aircraft don't carry thousands of tons of un-necessary fuel) take-off knowing they had a major leak - and therefore not enough fuel to reach their destination?

What a load of crap - I suggest your friend couldn't be arsed seeing you, and so invented this little tale.

[apaddyinuk]

This sounds all too much like the Phuket Air 747 enroute from BKK to LGW (or was it the other way around) a few years back. Perhaps this is two stories that have become mixed up?

[PurePax]

Purepax,
Why would any sane individual who has done a fuel calculation (aircraft don't carry thousands of tons of un-necessary fuel) take-off knowing they had a major leak - and therefore not enough fuel to reach their destination?

Do you think it's possible for a passenger to say something like "prepared to take off" when in fact a closer term might be "awaiting departure"?
Do you think a passenger on a commercial flight is going to know what the Captain is thinking, and if not, what reasonable conclusion would you arrive at when determining the intended meaning of "prepared to take off" when spoken by said passenger?
To answer your question, no, I don't think it's reasonable, but then I'm not attributing an unreasonable meaning to an ambiguous phrase. My interpretation, even before posting here, was that the Captain may have been "preparing" for take off when he was informed of the apparent issue. I don't recall saying "the Captain, in full knowledge of a fuel leak, was willing to endanger all souls".

What a load of crap - I suggest your friend couldn't be arsed seeing you, and so invented this little tale.
This sounds all too much like the Phuket Air 747 enroute from BKK to LGW (or was it the other way around) a few years back. Perhaps this is two stories that have become mixed up?
As I said previously, I know someone actually still at the destination who was also on the flight. A total coincidence that I was not aware of until earlier today. I've not spoken to them directly yet to hear first hand what that passenger thought was occurring.

[Lucifer]

PPRuNe posters' aviation arrogance strikes again.

PurePax - I apologise on behalf of everyone else in the industry - those who do not speak down to commercial passengers asking innocent questions. I sincerely hope that it does not lead you, or anyone else, to believe the the industry is permeated with unreasonable skygods.

In relation to this story, safety would be the primary concern of all involved, and with T4 closed, it is likely that all other terminals would also be closed, and that BA's support systems are largely located in T1 and T4 only - when the place is open. Without knowing more of the specifics, which are presumably yet to be released to the public domain, we can only speculate on what happened.

It is disingenious to suggest that no leakage would be seen by passengers or cabin crew on a night flight; there are other external sources of light that might arise, both from other aircraft and service vehicles - bearing in mind that we do not know - as PurePax says - whether this occurred on the apron or at the end of the runway itself.

The answer is - yes, some variation of those events could well have occurred, but without john129401 elaborating, we cannot say any more than simply that BA would be doing everything with safety in mind - if this led to passengers in a closed terminal, so be it - it could have been handled better and more staff provided, however I am sure that BA tried to do all they were able on the technical side.

Next time you wish to reply with short shrift to a non-pilot, engage brain...

[PurePax]

From what I've been told so far, this was apparently the beginning of the month, 3-5 December I surmise.

The affected passenger was asked on-list if it was not just a case of overfilling. He responded that this was the initial suggestion, and the aircraft was returned to the terminal, checked, faulty valves fixed and refuelled correctly. Upon returning to the runway he indicates that more fuel was leaking. The process apparently took some hours, passengers remaining on-board throughout.

He didn't have pictures, though being seated forward somewhat. He said: The passengers seated behind the wing had the "best" view and apparently it was someone back there that took the pics.

The Sun supposedly published some pictures, to which he was referring.

[hobie]

there is no doubt liquids spilling out of an aircraft can cause alarm to those watching the event ......

I do recall a similar question on PPRuNe some time ago .......

"..... lines up ready for takeoff ...... a nice amount of liquid is discharged from below the rear of the fueselage, just before departure ...... what is the liquid?"

and a handfull of clear and positive posts explained all, to everyone's satisfaction .... :)

[soddim]

It is a shame that such inputs from PAX are treated so arrogantly. I shall never forget the Kegworth enquiry where the doctor with a good view of debris departing the jetpipe on his side felt obliged to say nothing when the captain announced the shut down of the engine on the other side.

Well, after all, he's the captain and must know better.

Trust me, I'm a doctor?

[PaulW]

This is the trouble with this forum. If anyone is to post, one must remember to compose our posts in legal language so that no one may misconstrue the answer because for the some reason, this website is filled with people who take everything in minutia far too seriously. Whether its gramma and english correction to not using legal language a comment is always made.:ugh:

During the day or in the dark, a sky god - pilot, engineer, steward, stewardess or passenger would struggle to see a fuel leak through a passenger window without it being a considered a big leak by an engineer. Dont get me into what is considered large small medium, numbers of drips per minute etc In fact if anyone is going to notice a significant fuel leak on taxi out it will be a passenger.

Your right in the dark there is loads of light to see falling liquid from the aircraft but unlikly to see a few drips or a weep. From anti-collision lights strobe lights other aircraft and stand lighting. There is a lot of light pollution. Its never dark black at Heathrow anyway.

Safety is paramount, the idea that it would be kicked out with a known leak just to let it go is silly. But that is not to say an inspection and component change was carried out and this did not cure the leak. If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it out followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer.

If there was a component change, it sounds like a passenger saw fuel leaking from one of the drain holes under an engine. I seem to remember one of my mates mentioning a return to stand and a Fuel Metering Unit (carburetor) changed.

If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it with the doors closed (ready for immediate push back) followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer and subsequant thumbs up given over the headset.

The aircraft is not sent on its way merely hoping for the best.

I will find out when I go back on shift, if John does not reply. What the problem was in this case.

[Doctor Cruces]

The problem, in my humble opinion fwiw, is that the vast majority of people who travel in the back part of airliners (ie the bit away from the sharp end where the folks with the braid sit) don't actually have a clue what's going on with any of the magical bits that make their big holiday jet stay in the air. So, when a little fuel or fluid slops over the side as a result of expansion or movement to one side or the other as it goes round a bend in the taxiway, some people get really excited. As we all know, as with blood, a little go juice goes a long way especially if swirled around by the wind or just dispersed by movement and may look considerably more than actually lost. When it gets to the ground it looks like a hell of a lot.

Scenario.

Said "alraedy nervous passenger sees a "huge" leak and as every bit of airport is big enopugh to be a runway to him/her, feels agrieved that the pilot is going to take off without knowing that all aboard are going to die a fiery death and alerts a member of the crew who duly reports it to Captain at sharp end. Captain, being a safety conciencious sort of non gender specific person goes back to stand and tells the engineer that his flying carpet doesn't work properly and gets him to fix it. Duly fixed and signed for, they go again only to have the same thing happen again because we've topped up the fuel they had used and the same passenger sees the same leak again because you can bet your reporters cheque book that he /she is now looking avidly for it! Back we go to the gate and as no fault found the Captain requests a thorough check and as the crew are now out of hours pax offloaded.

All actions by the passengers reporting leak are in good faith and all actions by the airline are to the highest safety factors.

Enter the mobile phone which our imaginary passenger has stashed in bag in order to let his/her mum know thay've arrives safely in whatever far flung part of the world they were headed to. Just happens to have a copy of the daily bugle in back pocket and telephones the number for the newsdesk and tells the tale of his miraculous escape from death just moments from departure.

Before we know it the morrow's headlines read "Holiday Makers Miracle Escape from Death Trap Jet"

Thats why people think purepax imay be a muck raking journo and thats why he/she got such short shrift from the rest of us initially and thats why people who haven't got a clue what they're waffling on about shouldn't go digging to make a story from what was in all probability a none event.

Not saying all pax are like that. Anyone seeing a potential flight safety hazard has a duty to report it and should be taken seriously. Shame most newspapers can't see things that way and rarely let the facts get in the way of a sensational story.

End of rant, flame proof suit at ready!!

Doc C
:} :}

[Lucifer]

The problem, in my humble opinion fwiw, is that the vast majority of people who travel in the back part of airliners (ie the bit away from the sharp end where the folks with the braid sit) don't actually have a clue what's going on with any of the magical bits that make their big holiday jet stay in the air. So, when a little fuel or fluid slops over the side as a result of expansion or movement to one side or the other as it goes round a bend in the taxiway, some people get really excited.
And as adults, we can all manage that situation by explaining, not flaming.

Switch the scenario to anything medical, and consider how easily you might react in a similar manner.

(Note - I say "how easily you might react" rather than "how you react" - realise that the thought of impending doom goes through many heads, and yet only a few react)

[SMOC]

As said, it's probably fuel that has endid up in the surge tank and is doing what it designed to do.

A surge tank in each wing tip provides expansion chambers for excess fuel due to over-filling or thermal expansion. Surge tank fuel is drained back into the main inboard fuel tanks. Fuel may be vented overboard, dependent upon the quantity of fuel in the surge tank.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5849812

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5849811

[PurePax]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5849812
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5849811

Is the 747 vent outlet not in a position such that the fuel can be directed toward a running engine?

I like this quote (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2947865&postcount=20).

How's about this for a suggestion; If the initial report I got of this was so incorrect, is that because the Captain/Crew of this particular flight was one of the variety that doesn't absorb their CRM?

DC: The back part of the aircraft is "the cabin". There's no such thing as "magic". If you think your a/c is operating on this principle, I suggest you get a psych test before you inadvertently let that slip to a PAX. As I've been told, the guy up front, you know, the smug self satisfied guy with the braid, cannot see the fuel emanating from the wing. It's also been noted that it'd have to be a fairly significant dosage to be seen at night. But hey, those SLF didn't do all my years of study and ratings, they're only the *only* people on board to be able to spot this [go figure that one as a part of SOP!] and history shows being a fat knob about your superiority GETS PEOPLE KILLED.

Any pilot who makes that kind of attitude known to me while I'm PAX on his flight either gets an early shower or an interview with the overlords of the sky.

[L337]

Now that the original post has been substantially edited, the thread has become disjointed. And subsequent unedited posts look off-topic.

The title of the thread is Daily Mail esque. BA LHR-CPT747 Fuel leak without even a question mark after it. It was not posed as a question, it was posted as a statement of fact.

It then went on to quote an email that was direct and damming of BA. And directly called into question the professionalism of the Captain, and his crew. In fact the posted email was about "an alleged anonymous 'incident', on a day we know not when, on a flight we know not what, with a crew we know not whom."

So sorry if the professional pilots are a little sharp, but the accusation was, and is extremely serious.

If the poster had gone to "Spotters forum" and asked for clarification as to what may or may not happened. Great. But no, he posted on R&N in a manner that implied his story was clearly true, and -why has it not been discussed in detail here?-

How's about this for a suggestion; If the initial report I got of this was so incorrect, is that because the Captain of this particular flight was one of the variety that doesn't absorb their CRM?

He was unable to see his wings. He got reports of the leak, and returned to stand.. twice. So he listened to his crew, and took note of what the passengers were reporting. So it seems to me his CRM was absorbed.

Any pilot who makes that kind of attitude known to me while I'm PAX on his flight either gets an early shower or an interview with the overlords of the sky.

Now that is an intersting line. How can you arrange "an early shower or an interview" for a pilot with his "overlords"?

If I had realised you were so powerful I would never have posted. Sorry Sir. Say high to Willy, and Richard for me please.

Who is now being a fat knob about his superiority?

[overstress]

the guy up front, you know, the smug self satisfied guy with the braid

Hi PompousPax, you won't make many friends on this forum with comments like that! I'm trying to read it as an ironic comment on another posting but I can't.

This thread is another example of why sometimes PPRuNe is a waste of time for many professional pilots - it's full of the non-technical asking basic questions.

Also: Is the 747 vent outlet not in a position such that the fuel can be directed toward a running engine?

Do you suppose that Boeing designers had had too much Starbucks coffee one morning in Seattle and at a meeting decided to arrange the wing vents so they could 'direct' fuel onto a running engine (which is full of fuel and flames anyway)?

I wish people would google a subject before they spout ignorance. Howstuffworks is a good place to start.

I'm going to have to lie down now....

[PurePax]

It was not posed as a question, it was posted as a statement of fact.


I would have thought the fact that I posted a quote, noted it as such, from someone clearly a passenger, that would have been enough for readers to determine a context in which to read it. Apparently not.


directly called into question the professionalism of the Captain, and his crew.


As noted in my edited initial post, that's a matter of interpretation. If you read that, which apparently you did, to be a statement of fact of the passenger knowing the Captains' intent, then I think it says more about you than the writer of the initial text.


He was unable to see his wings. He got reports of the leak, and returned to stand.. twice. So he listened to his crew, and took note of what the passengers were reporting. So it seems to me his CRM was absorbed.


Does CRM not include providing an understanding to the passengers of the events? If so, then (a) the passenger is merely making stuff up in full knowledge of that (b) the passenger was not made aware of the reality, in a manor he could understand, and had to determine what happened for himself.


Now that is an intersting line. How can you arrange "an early shower or an interview" for a pilot with his "overlords"?


On a chartered flight, I'd be more than happy to disembark in order to complain to the operators. On a commercial flight, I'd submit a report to the CAA. In either case, the expected result would be as above.

[overstress]

I'd be more than happy to disembark

How would you arrange that?

We have rules governing this kind of thing so that every TD&H can't decide they want to get off. It inconveniences all your fellow passengers.

What is the difference between a chartered and a commercial flight then?

[PurePax]

I'm trying to read it as an ironic comment on another posting but I can't.


The problem, in my humble opinion fwiw, is that the vast majority of people who travel in the back part of airliners (ie the bit away from the sharp end where the folks with the braid sit) don't actually have a clue what's going on with any of the magical bits that make their big holiday jet stay in the air.


Comment on another post: check
Ironic: Depends on your standpoint.


Do you suppose that Boeing designers had had too much Starbucks coffee one morning in Seattle and at a meeting decided to arrange the wing vents so they could 'direct' fuel onto a running engine (which is full of fuel and flames anyway)?


The other thread on the fuel leak on an A320 in Geneva (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2947459&postcount=1) indicated that the fuel was moving towards the running engine, and this may have been a contributing factor to the decision on what response to make.

Since the reported response for this incident was different, I was interested in knowing if the design didn't allow for that particular problem. Granted, "directed" was a poor choice of words.


What is the difference between a chartered and a commercial flight then?


For me, one is when I go to a non-schedule operator and say "I'd like to fly to X on such-and-such date, would that be possible?", the other is when I go to a travel agent/website and choose a flight that the airline were already going to operate.

[SMOC]

Pure Pax, On the 747 you can see the wing tip and O/B engine from the cockpit, and a leak from the underside, around the wing tip with full tanks will come from the surge tank. (As per design on the 747), the condition would soon correct itself, going back to the gate to check and refuel will do nothing, but prolong the problem, especially if you are somewhere hot and it's getting hotter. It's not a fuel leak it's really fuel venting.

The pictures of the Airbus also show surge tank venting but the Airbus is a different beast that can return fuel to the wing tanks, therefore leading to overfilling in certain conditions, which I believe led to this incident.

Also I believe the Airbus had been turned through 180 degrees so spreading the fuel spill requiring all the foam.

Hope this helps.

[sevenforeseven]

Doctor Cruces, The people that sit at the back end also pay your salary, so shape up Nigel!!!!!!!!!!! Without them you may well be at the dole queue with them some of them.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[SLFguy]

L337 From the flight deck of a 747-400 you cannot see if there is fuel pi$$ing out the wings. You would have to be told, by cabin crew, or a report from a passenger.
SMOC Pure Pax, On the 747 you can see the wing tip and O/B engine from the cockpit, and a leak from the underside, around the wing tip with full tanks will come from the surge tank.
Hmmmm.......

[L337]

The fuel vents from under the wing tip. From the flight deck you can see the top of the outboard section of the wing. You cannot see under the wing. Therefore fuel venting from the underside of the wing, cannot be seen from the flight deck.

L337

[GS-Alpha]

A few years ago, I (or technically I should say the skipper) grounded a 747 with a similar problem - fuel spilling out of the right surge tank. In our case, it was several tonnes of the stuff, which is more than the volume of the surge tank. The fault turned out to be a faulty valve into main tank 3. The centre tank pumps were therefore pumpin fuel into main tank 3, which was then overflowing into the surge tank, which was pouring out of the expansion outlet.

We were on stand with the doors closed due to a slot. Had we not had the slot, we may have been taxying out, and this similar incident may have occurred. In actualy fact, the engineers reckoned that with the engines running, the problem would not have occurred, it was just the fact that we had the fault and were sitting around with centre tank pumps on, but no engines running for an extended period.

Also, the leak was spotted by a passenger and we were most grateful. He might not have known much about aircraft, but his feedback was important.

What is not helpful though, is for someone who knows nothing about an incident, to write a sensationalist post to try to discredit an airline or individual. This site is full of such posts, and it is why the majority of my colleagues do not even bother looking at the site anymore.

GS-Alpha

[Doctor Cruces]

PurePax,

If you can't understand irony and tongue in cheek then I suggest you use another forum because there is a lot of both in this one.

As for believing this stuff is magic.

I've worked in aviation all my life from humble Traffic Officer all the way to Ops Manager so I think I may know a thing or two and would never argue a point with those who have more technical knowledge than I have. But majic....really!!!

Doc C
:) :)

[PurePax]

Oops, I've been surfing around with my humour detector set to "Western Colonies" (aka OFF). This has been rectified and it now sitting on the more familiar "Southern Colonies" setting. Must have been the turbulence encountered immediately following departure. :}

In all honesty, the initial post was not intended to discredit an airline or individual. In hindsight, cut+paste was perhaps not my best choice, which was part of the reason why I edited it so heavily. The words used, albeit posted by me, were written by another, and they were creating a barrier to actually finding out what, if anything, actually occurred.

Apologies all round to those involved (and those that attributed ill intent to my post), it certainly wasn't the idea. I'm genuinely eager to see what John129401 or PaulW say was the incident from the perspective of ground/ops/fire crew/etc.

As will most like be seen, the incident was probably minor and the final overnight delay a result of following sound safety procedure [duty limits]. How one goes from that to the mail I got :=

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I'd prefer not to refer to myself as stupid, but I'd like to avoid misquoting ol' Murph.

[Rainboe]

I think the initial reaction to your daft posting was correct, and you mainly wish to use this as a form of abuse to the pilots for whom you seem to have a hang-up about, and you wish to wave power around. Any serious incident would have received close attention from the CAA. We still don't appear to be able top pinpoint date/time. I repeat- this is a waste of time.....but it is allowing you to sound off most magnificently!

[PurePax]

I repeat- this is a waste of time.....but it is allowing you to sound off most magnificently!

Thank you for your input, and please, have a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and many safe and enjoyable flying hours in 2007. :O

I'm sorry you feel I have a hang-up about pilots, I've tried as much as possible to correct what was an honest mistake. Even though your thoughts about me have, almost certainly, zero effect on my life, I'd rather that I was interpreted as I intended. Clearly that's not likely in some circumstances, for which I can only hope some day we'll all be able to "get along".

Equally, I'm sure any serious incident would have received the attention of the CAA, at which point the initial response to the posting would have most likely been to point me in that direction. Presumably, since such reaction was not forthcoming, the incident was not serious enough to warrant their attention, and the mail I received was, as the first response here indicated, completely inaccurate.

Though, I don't suppose you mind at all if I wait for a response to from the guys on the ground, at least one of whom has indicated a willingness to see if he can determine what actually happened, before deciding that, in the absence of further evidence, nothing at all actually occurred, and two unrelated people seem to have come up with similar, and presumably false, stories totally independently?

I'm interested in what happened, for my own personal reasons. I can't fathom a single reasonable cause for you to post that response beyond a "put down", on a thread I think I have already made myself clear in intent and clear on realising making a mistake on the format of the initial posting. I've tried to remove as much as is reasonable that could be considered to besmirch anyone involved, and apologised where that didn't cover. If you have a personal interest in this that isn't covered, please feel free to PM me.

On that matter, if someone actually involved in the (supposed) incident is reading this and feels that I've not adequately corrected for the inappropriate initial posting, please, feel free to contact me privately.

[Rainboe]

You evidently have some sort of axe to grind, and strangely, you have people here who treat you sympathetically even though there is obviously some chip on your shoulder about pilots!
How's about this for a suggestion; If the initial report I got of this was so incorrect, is that because the Captain/Crew of this particular flight was one of the variety that doesn't absorb their CRM?
Any pilot who makes that kind of attitude known to me while I'm PAX on his flight either gets an early shower or an interview with the overlords of the sky.
the guy up front, you know, the smug self satisfied guy with the braid, cannot see the fuel emanating from the wing. It's also been noted that it'd have to be a fairly significant dosage to be seen at night. But hey, those SLF didn't do all my years of study and ratings, they're only the *only* people on board to be able to spot this [go figure that one as a part of SOP!] and history shows being a fat knob about your superiority GETS PEOPLE KILLED.
You come across as very strange, and not being one for bad language, may I say....a tit, with a branch on its shoulder? Thank you for the lesson, I'm sure we will absorb it most carefully (not)

[one dot right]

the guy up front, you know, the smug self satisfied guy with the braid, cannot see the fuel emanating from the wing. It's also been noted that it'd have to be a fairly significant dosage to be seen at night. But hey, those SLF didn't do all my years of study and ratings, they're only the *only* people on board to be able to spot this [go figure that one as a part of SOP!] and history shows being a fat knob about your superiority GETS PEOPLE KILLED.
Any pilot who makes that kind of attitude known to me while I'm PAX on his flight either gets an early shower or an interview with the overlords of the sky.
Hmmm. Sounds like a case of 'I couldn't get there myself, so I'll try and belittle them to make myself feel better' to me. Also manifests itself in another form known as SMS (small man syndrome).
On your last point, by what god given right, and based on what technical fact, not just emotive vitriol, do you base that?

[BIGBATMAN]

Hello all, i was on that night and at a point was involved.

The flight was taxying to 27L when it was reported to ATC by another aircraft that fuel was coming from the wing, as sop for BAA AFS a vechicle and fire engine was sent, and requested by crew / ATC.

After an inspection it was conclued that it wasnt a simple venting issue and the crew elected to return to stand, the fuel was not coming from the regular venting locations but from what appeared to be small access panels. Left wing Maybe those in the know may know of a problem that causes this, It was not the venting area normally used if the tanks a full.
That venting outlet didnt even drip.
Engineers were called and fixed / or tried to fix the problem,
After a while i didnt note time the flight tried again the whole time from the first sign of fuel being followed by the AFS and AOSU, as it taxied out it again leaked / spilled out and a second return to stand occured, and the flight was cancelled.

The fuel i would say was coming out at a rate that would no doubtly require the flight to return as opposed to a normal vent issue,

At no time did the aircraft take off and the only got to the 27L holding point S1S and was monitoring the the departure tower frequency.

The aircraft was on stand and continued to have fuel coming out way into the night, for at least upto 5 hours after first report.

This is all i know,

Well handled by all involved,

[BIGBATMAN]

I think i May have thrown a spanner in the works regarding if it was a true story or not.