Problem with Thomas Cook A330

[Bongodrum]

Hi,

Does anyone know the reason(s) behind the following:

I flew back from Cuba (VRA) on the 22nd Jan on a Thomas Cook Airlines A330 (TCX 31L) back to Manchester.

After a 2 hour delay in VRA (sat on the aircraft), the captain told us that there was a problem with one of the 'systems' and he didn't want to fly over the ocean. Needless to say the crew wouldn't elloborate.:ugh:

A new flight plan was filed which took us over the coasts of the USA, Canada and Greenland, passing as much land as possible. He also decided to take off 4 tonnes of luggage to allow for more fuel (this went down quicker than a knack**d lift!).:mad:

On take off, we'd just left the ground when the aircraft appeared to noticibly 'sink' and I really thought we were going down and we'd be part of the next 'What went wrong....' type of documentary.

He said that the aircraft was 'perfectly servicable' and there was no cause for concern!

Having crossed Greenland the crew went out of hours and another crew and engineer met us in Iceland. After much sratching of heads by the number 2 engine, we took off again and landed safely in Manchester some 7 hours late.:D

Does anyone know what was wrong and which 'system' was affected?

[AltFlaps]

Bongo,

Firstly, if you believe that the captain in question deliberately lied to you about the safety of the aircraft, and proceeded to endanger you in some way --> then I suggest you think again. A skipper flying an A330 with a mainline UK fleet will have a lot of experience, will have paid a fortune for his license, and will have a lot to lose financially and legally if he gets it wrong and breaks the rules.

I don't know about this incident specifically, but it sounds like he had a tech problem which didn't allow for ETOPs operation (Extended Twin Operations). This means that he was not allow to stray more than X miles from a suitable airport due to what ever tech problem you were carrying (i.e. no direct Atlantic routing).

He could only have carried a tech problem if there was official 'relief' available for the system affected. Any change of routing will have been looked it in great detail by the ops/planning dept ...etc...

This type of event is common, and the extra routing would have required extra fuel, which required the offload of some of your baggage.

We all (as pilots) deal with these types of problems all the time. More often than not, the action taken is to satisfy a legisitlive problem rather than a physical technical problem.

The reason you landed safely (I would suggest), is because the flight was conducted safely ...

[Bongodrum]

AltFlaps,

Thanks for your reply. No, far from it, I'm not in anyway blaming anyone on the flight deck - just curious as to what was wrong if anyone out there has 'hands on' with this particular flight.

If there wasn't a particular problem and no major issues then why don't pilots in general tell passengers exactly what the problem is (without getting too techincal).

Surely this helps to quosh any worries or concerns passengers may have and put their minds at rest?

Cheers,

Bongo

[AltFlaps]

Bongo,

No disrespect intended here at all, but the general rule (in my experience) is 'tell 'em what they need to know'.
The problem is that if you tell the passengers that the 'left phelangie is loose', someone (with absolutely no technical knowledge) is going to decide that the left phelangie is a critical component.

They will then panic, and decide to get off the 'doomed airplane' (story will probably appear in all the tabloids). This panic will then spread, and several people will be uncertain as to whether or not they want to travel.

This will result in a delay (possibly major, depending on what part of the world you're in) due to baggage offloading, changes of manifest ..etc..
The ultimate result is that you miss an air traffic 'slot', the crew goes out of hours, or you waste enough fuel during the circus to require you to top up your tanks (which at some airports requires you to offload all your passengers).

I have seen all these things happen ...

Sorry to sound so critical, but this is a HUGE CAN OF WORMS !
250 non technical specialists in the back can ONLY complicate matters horribly ...

[Dan Air 87]

Bongo,
I don't know what the fuss is about! You have been flown home in an excellent aircraft with a professional crew. The Captain could have declared that the A330 was u/s and then detained you in your holiday airport until either the problem was fixed or a replacement aircraft arranged to come out to pick you up. I would take the option of taking off and heading home. OK you were seven hours late but I think that was better than having to wait for a lot longer in the airport.

The Captains of TCX do a great job and instead of having a pax moan about a delay instead why don't you praise his skill in getting you home in what was a tricky situation?

[Bongodrum]

Thanks for all posts so far.....points taken on certain issues....however I merely posted my original message to try and gleen some possible information on what may have happened from person(s) who may have direct/indirect knowledge of the flight....not to make a fuss or receive a lecture (Dan Air) on how good everone is who flies an aircraft and how greatful we should be that we all made it back in one piece.

I've not 'slagged' anyone off nor accused or apportioned any blame, just set the scenario and asked a question. Having never been in that situation before, I was just wondering/interested if anyone knew the technical reason for the diversion.

Seems I've touched a raw nerve in certain areas......after all, how dare the fare paying passenger ask for information or query a pilots decision?

[Whitehatter]

Bongo

To me it just sounds like you had a thoroughly professional crew on the flight who followed their safety procedures to the letter. After all, if you were to find out that the flight had been conducted over water without all the required systems for ETOPS, then you'd think differently.

Same if the captain had decided to go tech and leave you in a fleapit hotel for 48 hours whilst bits and bolters got flown in.

Going up the coast was presumably the best option for all concerned, people get home faster and the aircraft operated within its regulations if some system or device was unserviceable that is needed for a long transocean flight. It really isn't about money, it's about the best thing for all concerned and completely safe practice.

As for the sinking, that could be something as simple as a noise abatement procedure. It might feel like a sinking feeling but it isn't. :ok:

[Level2]

Altflaps, you been watching Friends to much!!!!

[TightSlot]

It's always a tricky call as to how much detailed information to provide on the PA when a technical issue arises: That's because there are as many different requirements for informtion as there are customers on board. Some, such as Bongodrum prefer a greater level of detail, others are terrified by it. Sometimes, the explanation can be so complex that the overwhelming majority of customers would not understand.

Most of the Flight Crew that I work with have learned that honesty is alway the best policy, and will endeavour to give a basic explanation i.e. there is a fault with an engine, there is a fault with a navigation system, there is a fault with the flaps etc. etc.

One other problem is that too much information can cause further problems later - for example, there was an apparent 'sink' after take-off in this instance that probably was quite normal, but because of the prior knowledge of a fault, it wa perceived as something more sinister.

Hope this helps.

[silverelise]

You can certainly appreciate how "ladies and gentlemen, captain speaking, we have a fault with the left engine which means we have to fly a bit closer to the land" would put the wind up some of the more nervous passengers.

[bosshogg]

I have to say it very much appears that people are jumping in with some rather cynical comments aimed at Bongo, who on the face of it simply posted to try and learn more about what happened this flight... I't does seem rather pretentious to come on and start dishing out a lecture...

[Tight Slot]

I flew it the day after. G-TCXA had a prob with its right hand tip tank. Had to depart cuba non ETOPS northern route to the UK.

[Bongodrum]

Tight Slot,

Thanks for the post.

[h73kr]

Bongo


........whilst bits and bolters got flown in.



....is that a term of affection for 'serviceable spares and qualified engineers' then?! :oh: :)

We'll be trotting out the old 'you can train a monkey to ride a bike.....' phrase in defence next! :ok:

[ShotOne]

looking back at this thread from the vantage point of several months on, it does appear that pilots can be rather up themselves!

poor old bongo asks a polite question and gets thoroughly mauled

[Tight Slot]

I as a pilot answered the question with the truth. I flew the A/C the next day ETOPS to someplaceorother. Yes some flight crew do shoot down people on this site, but should not do on this forum. For shame if they do.