Speedbird fire trucks STN yesterday

[Great Circle]

I was sitting watching all the commotion from in front of Harrods waiting for our PAX last night. Looked like every fire truck in London was there to meet a BA turboprop (couldn't see what kind of AC). They got it safely to the stand after holding on a taxiway. :D to the crew!! I was wondering what all the hubbub was all about.
GC

[Swedish Steve]

It was an RJ100 BA8754 MAD-LCY diverted to STN with Tech problem.
Reg ZAU and its still there.

[outofsynch]

Loss of one hydraulic system... no drama at all... despite over response for airport 'full emergency'

[Bus14]

From a pilot point of view, yes, perhaps an over-response.

However, UK ATC have no latitude- the rules say that for any hydraulic failure or flight control failure or engine failure (no matter how many back up systems you have), then a 'full emergency' is the only option.

[hold at SATAN]

MOstly correct. We have to put a full emergency on if 50% or more of engines fail: eg 2fail on a 4 engined aircraft, or 2 on 3engined. A FE requires attendance from the outside (non-airport based) fire service. Less than 50%, eg. 1 failure on a 3 or 4 engined aircraft leads to a local standby whereby only the airport based fire service attend. This can be upgraded to FE or worse if the situation escalates or deemed by senior fire officer/officer in charge. Sometimes we do feel it's overkill, but we'll get it in the neck if things went pear-shaped... i suppose it's better to overstate a problem then find ourselves caught short.

[Musket90]

Stansted seems to be the favoured diversion for LCY aircraft that have technical problems preventing a landing on the short runway. The bonus for an RJ aircraft diversion is that STN has good maintenance back up for this type.

Hydraulic problems are automatically given "Full Emergency" category, so the response was standard.

[Spitoon]

An interesting question at the root of all this.

In the UK it is the responsibility of the Airport Authority to develop and maintain the Emergency Response Plan for the airport. ATC have a number of pre-defined categories of emergency that can be declared including those below:
5.2.1 Aircraft Accident/Aircraft Accident Imminent
When an aircraft accident has occurred or is inevitable on, or in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
5.2.2 Aircraft Ground Incident
When an aircraft on the ground is known to have an emergency situation other than an accident which requires the attendance of emergency services.
5.2.3 Full Emergency
When an aircraft is known or is suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident.
5.2.4 Local Standby
a) When an aircraft is known or suspected to have developed some defect, but one which would not normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing;
b) When an aircraft is to be searched following a bomb warning;
c) When an aircraft requires inspection by the aerodrome fire service.

There is no reference to any actual aircraft problems - hydraulic system failures or whatever - in these categorisations and, traditionally, it was up to the controller to declare the level of emergency based on their assessment of the situation. But it is becoming more and more common for ATC to have a 'Noddy' list of this problem=this category of emergency - this stems largely from situations where the controller was deemed to have underestimated the severity of the problem (either for real or in the view of the investigation team who will have mulled over all of the facts known after the event for several weeks rather than to have had to make a quick decision based on the available information as the controller did).

There is another variable in that all airport emergency plans are specific to that airport and the local emergency services. Consequently, a Full Emergency may generate a significantly different response at different airports. For example, one airport I worked at mixed medium sized jets, turbo-props and light twin training aircraft - it made little sense to have the same response for a PA34 and a B767 and so the response was scaled, broadly depending on the number of seats on the aircraft.

There is a perennial problem that pilots don't like to have their aircraft surrounded by fire vehicles when there is no necessity - but ATC generally has no input to this decision (except to say where the vehicles can, and can't, go). In my view, the best way to handle this is to make the pilot aware that there will be some fire vehicles attending the aircraft in order that the pilots can advise the pax or whatever they choose to do.

One last point from the ATC perspective - in these litigious/'duty of care' days, there is a lot of pressure on controllers not to under respond to an aircraft problem. Just a sign of the times, I guess, although I did prefer it when I was allowed to exercise my judgement based on experience and training!

[RS999]

Sometimes we do feel it's overkill, but we'll get it in the neck if things went pear-shaped... i suppose it's better to overstate a problem then find ourselves caught short.

Working for a Local Authority Fire Service which regularly backs up airport fire service I would wholeheartedly agree with this last statement.

It's better to overmobilise and turn them back if not needed than not mobilise enough and have a delay in the required response which leads to loss of life.

[Human Factor]

Loss of one hydraulic system...

SOP on the RJ isn't it? :E