BA Foam Landing in GVA

[Whooaahh]

It appears that a BA aircraft operating LON-MIL has, in the last 5 minutes, been forced to do an emergency landing in Geneva. First hand accounts indicates a textbook gearup landing on foam.

Any one got any more news?

Whooaahh!!!

[rockaria]

Just heard the same thing - there was no details just that all passengers and crew were safe and had to evacuate using the chutes.

Guess we'll need to wait till a bit later to get more news and details

[Greg Boyington]

Aircraft was on ground at 1140 lt, 0940 UTC.
Passengers and crew evacuated without injuries, aircraft has been towed away 1 hour ago.
According swiss radio, the pilots noticed a fuel leak.

[Whooaahh]

Little bit more...

Aircraft was a B757, 98 pax/crew, no injuries reported.

[Minesagrolsch]

The BA "internal" statement to crew does not mention anything about a gear up foam landing.Are we exaggerating again boys ?
The release states that the crew noticed an apparent fuel leak and decided to divert to GVA.A precautionary evacuation using just the rear slides was then carried out with no reported injuries.

[behind_the_second_midland]

MinesaG

exactly right. normal landing with a precautionary evac on starboard slides.once again the trainspotters are exaggerating.

BTSM

[Minesagrolsch]

Jeesus,someone agrees with me.
'Tis amazing how such "reported" incidents start off so wide of the mark.How the hell did someone bring "gear up landing" into this story.As you say BTSM,damned trainspotters,with obviously nothing better to do (apart from stand on the bonnet of their Sierra along LHR's northern perry track watching yet another 757 hit the deck.What is the point !!)


PS
Shouldn't you change your moniker to "Behind The Second bmi "?
Doesn't have the same ring,does it ?

[Minesagrolsch]

Whooaahh,

"First hand accounts indicate a text book gear up landing"

Would that be using the right hand or left hand,if you get my drift ?

[E. MORSE]

Well, speaking of it,

I thought foam was not used anymore for (real) emergency's as with a gear up landing.
(Other than this one apparently).

Reason for this was explained to me that:

- It takes too long to fill the same fire truck up again with water.
-The effectivity of the foam is minor.


any comments ?

Cheerio

:)

[behind_the_second_midland]

The foam was for the fuel leak. GVA shiut for about 1 hour after the incident.

BTSM

[Captain Airclues]

Just to clarify things, the foam was sprayed under the left engine after the aircraft had come to a stop. The aircraft did not land on the foam.

Airclues

[Out Of Trim]

E. Morse - With regard to foam landings; I remember when serving at RAF Manston in 1979-1982 that Manston and Leeming were the only two UK Airfields equipped to provide a carpet of foam in various formats to cater for say nosewheel failure or starboard main gear failure etc and the foam was sprayed out of a couple of huge tanker type vehicles - not from the fire vehicles themselves.. Then apparently about 1981 (I think) when these tankers were up for replacing - they decided that the expense was too great for more a psychological beneficial effect than actual fire prevention. The rumour around at the time was that the foam used was very corrosive on the tankers and there were also worries about this substance getting into the local water courses etc.. apparently after their withdrawal the nearest "Foam facility" was Paris CDG - not sure if it's still available. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

------------------
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Happiness.. is being IN Trim!</font>

[Whooaahh]

Minesagrolsch.

With all due respect I was merely repeating the "first hand account" of a friend of mine who work's at GVA airport.

In retrospect I should have used "eye witness accounts" which are, of course, only as reliable as the eye witness and as with all news reports it is best to get the facts before going into print.

Even though my initial information was slightly incorrect, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly so called professionals resort to unprofessional name calling.

[f40]

Hey Grolsch, last time I looked this forum was called Rumours & News.

Not Reuters. ;)

[Whooaahh]

Thank's for the support Flaps, much appreciated.

Whooaahh!!

[mediflyer]

Captain Airclues;

You've said it, I thought of it ...

Did anybody of you ever tried a gear down landing on foam? Just think of what could happen. It's like touching down on an ice skating ring. I've done it once and prefer to never do it again.


[This message has been edited by mediflyer (edited 10 May 2001).]

[E. MORSE]

Out of Trim :


Thanks for your reply.

It is nice to know for sure now that a landing on a foam-covered-runway is a mythe.

---------------------------------------------

"It belongs in a museum"
"So do you , Dr.Jones !"

[The Zombie]

The fuel leak was from the same area of the fuel system that was worked on the night before and not wishing to link the two incorrectly, there may be an engineering quality issue here ?

Apparently the fuel leak was not too bad at only approx 500 kg per hour.

Why did the crew evacuate the aircraft with no fire ?
Obviously, I do not have the facts, so just wondering. Any one have the answers?

[Few Cloudy]

Emorse,

About foam for an emergency landing: There are dedicated runway foaming machines (usually using the old blood and guts method) as well as the fire fighting foam machines (using synthetic foam).

If you use up the fire fighting foam that's not such a good idea. Don't know about GVA but in ZRH there is the dedicated machine (I needed it once).

Also, a study is available showing no aquaplaning on the old type of foam.

Hope this helps.

[sudden twang]

The crew were advised to use the slides by the fire crews in GVA .

And news to me for my future reference... oil leaks produce grey smoke and as in this case fuel leaks create black smoke or so I'm told .

[GotTheTshirt]

Out of Trim,

were you at Manston in the 80's when a Cessna 310 landed on foam with a nose gear stuck up ??

As you say quite a palaver and not a five minute job !!