View Full Version : BA Pan @ LHR.
LHRKrew
27th Jul 2007, 20:37
Was listening into the ground frequency at LHR tonite around 20.00hr local & a BA Airbus (BA719?) called up saying they'd been 'struck' by a 777 as it taxied out at T4 & that they needed assistance.
Anyone know what occured?
Hope it sounded worse than it really was.
londonmet
28th Jul 2007, 00:18
Well it appears a 777 bumped into an airbus.
Only an educated guess.
:ugh:
Comanche
28th Jul 2007, 00:57
"BA Pan @ LHR"
Yes, I am sure they declared a "PAN" for priority taxiing after being 'struck'.
Not nice at all for all crew involved, if that is indeed what happened, but the post title is a little misleading here....
LHR_777
28th Jul 2007, 06:50
Wing-tip of B777 G-VIIK operating the BA293 to IAD struck the vertical stabilizer of a BA Airbus 319 arriving from ZRH. Happened during push-back, apparently. BA293 was cancelled last night, with passengers over-nighting at LHR and flying out today.
I don't know about it being 'not nice at all for all crew involved', but I can imagine it was a lot less 'nice' for all the passengers involved.
wiggy
28th Jul 2007, 11:32
Umm, but who do you think slept the best last night? On one hand you have the delayed and I would agree highly inconvenienced passengers and on the other the pilots. They probably spent the rest of the evening talking to the Plods, BAA, management and Heaven knows who else about what happened and woke this AM thinking about the possibility of a "no Tea, no biscuits'" interview?
I know whose shoes I would rather be in.
foxtrot charlie
28th Jul 2007, 13:00
I have some photo's from a friend who works in engineering. the reg of the airbus that was hit is: G-EUXH. something is lodged in the tailplane but can't quite make out what it is
Mercenary Pilot
28th Jul 2007, 13:22
Yes, I am sure they declared a "PAN" for priority taxiing after being 'struck'.
Maybe they thought it was possible that a fuel tank could have been ruptured...I would say that was a PAN call?
Typical PPRuNe, somebody starts the thread and we get a page of criticism before anyone actually knows the facts and discusses any safety points that arise from something like this. :rolleyes:
Yellow Snow
28th Jul 2007, 13:35
Was it because the inbound couldn't park???:rolleyes::rolleyes:as usual.
Pure speculation on my part.
LHRKrew
28th Jul 2007, 14:06
but the post title is a little misleading here....
Comanche,The flight crew of the BA Airbus declared a 'Pan' on the radio to ATC,hence the title of my original post.
Not sure what's misleading about that??
Capt H Peacock
28th Jul 2007, 16:37
If the aircraft was struck from behind with the possibility of fuel lines and electrical cables connected to an operating APU, then a real risk of fire exists and a PAN call is entirely appropriate.
Nasty
Flightman
28th Jul 2007, 17:30
A321 had stopped on taxi-way as no parking aids were active on the stand.
maarten4
28th Jul 2007, 18:03
Yeah about 50 ft. above the runway we had to make a go-round, requested by ATC because fire trucks had to cross the runway... 10 mins later when taxiing we saw a massive amount of fire trucks at I believe terminal 4? Was that because of this?
Farjer
28th Jul 2007, 19:26
Is this why 27R has been in use all day for landings?
25check
29th Jul 2007, 10:40
No is the answer to that one
Tee Emm
29th Jul 2007, 14:11
Yeah about 50 ft. above the runway we had to make a go-round, requested by ATC
Now that would be very interesting to the French BEA in relation to the Armavia Airlines A320 accident near Sochi, Russia. Because, in the accident report (on Pprune somewhere), the aircraft crashed on a go-around with the BEA quoted as saying "The captain's psycho-emotional state was the result of the unexpected instruction to abort (the landing)...the crew did not expect any more "disturbances" after the aircraft had been cleared to land..the order to go around was completely unexpected and ran counter to the pilots' mental representation of the situation...this destabilised the already annoyed captain who reacted rapidly and it appears without developing any strategy.."
Clearly you had no such difficulties in conducting a low level go-around. Well done.
Phil.Capron
29th Jul 2007, 16:04
So the inability of BA to have stand guidance available "on time" has finally cost them a shed load of money?I wonder if any questions will be asked in that area of operations.
DX Wombat
29th Jul 2007, 17:34
So the inability of BA to have stand guidance available "on time" has finally cost them a shed load of money?:confused:Doesn't the ground crew pushing back the 777 have a responsibility to check that all is clear behind before they actually start? :confused:
Leezyjet
29th Jul 2007, 20:54
What about the wing walkers, countless times at LHR you see the wing walkers gazing around day dreaming and never once do they actually bother to look UP at the wings to see if they are going to hit anything.
:\
funfly
31st Jul 2007, 09:19
So the inability of BA to have stand guidance available "on time" has finally cost them a shed load of money?I wonder if any questions will be asked in that area of operations.
This posting now quoted on the BBC news - someone there reads pprune:eek:
scudpilot
31st Jul 2007, 10:14
this (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1277929,00.html) just posted on Sky News.
TwoOneFour
31st Jul 2007, 11:10
Phil.Capron - just curious, did anyone from the papers contact you to check you were a pilot, or did they just assume...?
Since the BEEB describe this as a pilots' chat-room website it is most probable they assumed.......................
Little do they know (not you, Phil:))
paulkinm
31st Jul 2007, 13:18
The quote is spreading like wild fire! Sky, feeling left out, want's a slice of that pie! http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1277929,00.html
:hmm:
purge98
31st Jul 2007, 14:39
Are these "wing walkers" really allowed on the wings?
Groucho
31st Jul 2007, 15:12
"The aircraft will be thoroughly examined before either are permitted to operate again." said BA
Personally I think BA management should be 'thoroughly examined before' being allowed to manage again.:ugh:
PS Can I get on the Beeb too?:)
LHR_777
31st Jul 2007, 16:57
If anyone is interested, G-VIIK was back in service as of yesterday.
Beeline
31st Jul 2007, 17:04
T5, the end of the cul-de-sac and all push back incidents! :ok:
ARINC
31st Jul 2007, 17:20
I have some photo's from a friend who works in engineering. the reg of the airbus that was hit is: G-EUXH. something is lodged in the tailplane but can't quite make out what it is
Is it a 777 ? :E:E
Mick Stability
31st Jul 2007, 19:01
Mr Capron is indeed not only a pilot, but a gentleman to boot. It was Caracas I believe, Phil.
Doug E Style
31st Jul 2007, 19:28
I guess this is why I heard a BA outbound from the Kilos the other day being refused taxi clearance with a company aircraft not fully on stand but inside the white line.
Diedtrying
31st Jul 2007, 20:50
maarten4, was the incident you were on about on Friday at around 14:00 hrs? It's just I'm a serving fire-fighter at Heathrow. We received a call over at S3, ATC cleared us (emergency crossing N4W) and sent one around, I remember thinking how p,,,,d off that captain must be as he was almost on the deck. If it was you it certainly looked the dogs as you went overhead :ok: (wish I had my camera).
Hi diedtrying,
LHR Atco here, we are taught that unless the aircraft is very very close to touching down we give priority to AFS doing emergency crossings in front of landing traffic and if required send the aircraft around. At N4W it could be say 30 seconds if the aircraft is short final and you have to wait for it to roll past you. Time which if wasted in your arrival could be costly in terms of lives.
Diedtrying
1st Aug 2007, 10:03
GT3 Please don't think I was having a dig, the controler that day was switched on he did a fantastic job, we needed to get accross fast due to the nature of the call. I was just passing a comment, so close yet so far sort of thing. Sorry for any missunderstanding.
fly bhoy
1st Aug 2007, 12:28
Diedtrying
The incident you're referring to is a different one. I was doing air north at the time of your incident and my colleague on air south did indeed do a fantastic job (:ok: mickrobbo) of getting you guys there as quickly as possible. Big thumbs up to you all as well as it seemed to only be about 30 secs from the call to the first fire vehicles crossing the runway.:D
The whole 15 minutes was like a TRUCE exercise as the police heli was in the area chasing someone which stopped deps for a while, and at the time of the emergency he wanted to cross the 27L approach to continue the pursuit!!:eek:
FB:ok:
Diedtrying
1st Aug 2007, 14:32
I don't know how you guys/gals do it, I look at the traffic and listen in, (shudder) I couldn't for one do your job, give me the orange stuff any day.
Diedtrying, I didn't think you were having a dig mate. It was more to explain for the others on here what happens if you guys call to cross when they are coming in to land. Keep up the good work! :ok:
maarten4
3rd Aug 2007, 00:32
Diedtrying, no this was around 20.15 (give or take).. Keep up the good work! cheers
Diedtrying
3rd Aug 2007, 11:40
OK maarten4,
fly bhoy & GT3, Not to hijack this thread but how are you finding it being up in the clouds now? and does it sway in the wind? (and for all you dirty minds out there I mean the tower).