PDA

View Full Version : Full emergency at Gatwick, 23 August 2008


Super VC-10
23rd Aug 2008, 10:30
Just broken on BBC News channel that an aircraft has landed safely at Gatwick having declared a "full emergency".

Anyone got any details please?

captainloulou
23rd Aug 2008, 10:35
Sounds like medias all over the place after spanair crash.
Fire service on standby and crew declared a full emergency.

captainloulou
23rd Aug 2008, 10:43
Plane lands after full emergency


A plane has touched down on the runway at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex after a full emergency.
A Gatwick spokesman said the plane had declared a problem and the fire service was on standby. No-one is believed to be hurt.

BlueRay
23rd Aug 2008, 10:45
A plane has touched down on the runway at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex after a full emergency.
A Gatwick spokesman said the plane had declared a problem and the fire service was on standby. No-one on board is believed to be hurt.
The Virgin Atlantic flight heading to Barbados came back to Gatwick an hour after take-off after the captain discovered a technical problem. The airline said it was simply a precautionary measure.

Super VC-10
23rd Aug 2008, 10:49
Link to BBC News story:-

BBC NEWS | England | Emergency landing for Virgin jet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7578428.stm)

Doesn't say much at the moment.

bfsalphaone
23rd Aug 2008, 10:50
Looking at the Flight Explorer the VS29 is the only aircraft to return to LGW. It was airborne at 0926Z, the route history shows a track as far as the north of France and then back to LGW holding for 4 circuits in the south east.

thatscaptaintou
23rd Aug 2008, 10:54
"A Virgin spokesman said the Boeing 747 will be examined and the passengers will either continue their flight on the plane or if the problem is more serious they will be transferred to a different one"

Not taking any chances then

flyvirgin
23rd Aug 2008, 11:46
Times Online;
A Virgin Atlantic 747 with 350 passengers on board made a full emergency landing at Gatwick Airport in West Sussex this morning.
The plane took off earlier from the airport headed for Barbados but had to turn back after technical problems were encountered.
A spokeswoman at Gatwick said staff were put on full alert at 10.47am after the pilot reported problems.
The plane landed at 11.08am and was directed to a remote part of the airport. The full level emergency was downgraded at 11.28am and the emergency services stood down at 11.35am. Passengers began disembarking shortly afterwards.

CABUS
23rd Aug 2008, 11:48
Apparantly it was an engine fire, those guys deserve a few beers tonight!:ok:

rhutch1011
23rd Aug 2008, 13:42
It was a bird strike.

apaddyinuk
23rd Aug 2008, 13:44
It sounds like a bit of a non-event!

Knumb Knuts
23rd Aug 2008, 13:46
A birdstrike causes a "full" emergency?

Sheeettt! I hear it but I don't believe it!

suppie
23rd Aug 2008, 14:46
A/C seemed to be 1 hour inflight already so i sont think it was a full emergency....enough airports to divert into in that case seems to me just a technical problem

spannersatcx
23rd Aug 2008, 14:48
it would take 40 mins to dump sufficient fuel to land below max landing weight.

ladyflyby
23rd Aug 2008, 15:09
It wasn't a bird strike (I was on there) engine 1 flamed out on take off and caused some issues with the landing gear. I can't get more technical than that, I only sit by a door! We had to dump our fuel. Now I am going to the pub.

Xeque
23rd Aug 2008, 15:37
Why were 2 SAR helicopters despatched to Gatwick - one from Wattisham and the other from Lee-on-Solent? Is that normal practice for an emergency at Gatwick?

rhutch1011
23rd Aug 2008, 15:51
I have been in touch with someone who also was on board and who works for the airline. It was a bird strike; presumably therefore to an engine. Would have had to dump fuel before returning to land hence the "flyabout".

helen-damnation
23rd Aug 2008, 17:28
Knumb Knuts A birdstrike causes a "full" emergency?

Sheeettt! I hear it but I don't believe it!

Sounds like you've got a good moniker :mad:

If there was a fire warning, I, for one, would be declaring a full emergency. I'd then downgrade when the indication had gone.

If you want to be macho, go ride a horse....

latetonite
23rd Aug 2008, 17:34
Ok, my english is only level4. What is a full emergency? You also have half emergencies now in the U.K?

eastern wiseguy
23rd Aug 2008, 18:06
What is a full emergency? You also have half emergencies now in the U.K?


As an airfield ATCO in the UK we have the following categories of emergency(MATS 1)




5 Categories of Emergency
5.1 It is the responsibility of the Aerodrome Authority to prepare detailed emergency orders which include the terms and priorities to be used for alerting the emergency services.


5.2 The following terms are in general use but individual variations and extra terms may be found in local emergency orders.

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. At some units Aircraft Accident covers both situations.

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.

5.2.5 Local Standby (Weather) or Weather Standby

When weather conditions are such as to render a landing or take-off difficult or difficult to observe, e.g. strong crosswind, poor visibility, ice or snow on the runway etc.


5.2.6 Local Standby (Royal Flights)
When a Royal Flight is landing or taking off.

5.2.7 Domestic Fire
Any fire:
a) on the aerodrome, not included in the categories above;
b) outside the aerodrome boundary (other than an aircraft accident) which is liable to constitute a danger to flying or aerodrome property;

c) which the Aerodrome Fire Service should attend:
i) according to an agreement with the local fire brigade;
ii) in response to calls from the public or police on humanitarian grounds.


So no "half emergencies" more a graduated response to various degrees of severity.

Fournier Boy
23rd Aug 2008, 19:45
rhutch1011 - I have been in touch with someone who also was on board and who works for the airline. It was a bird strike; presumably therefore to an engine. Would have had to dump fuel before returning to land hence the "flyabout".


Well from reading your posts, there are probably around 10 very bemused guys as to how you came about this information. Again, we find speculation rather than fact coming out as gosspel here. Let the airline announce (if it wishes) its findings and don't speculate what a friend who heard this and that has said.

It doesn't help anybody.

FB

Intruder
23rd Aug 2008, 19:47
Is there a similar breakdown of "fully ready for takeoff"?

ladyflyby
23rd Aug 2008, 20:03
We (the crew) assumed it was a bird strike but were told otherwise by the flight deck.

eastern wiseguy
23rd Aug 2008, 20:08
fully ready for takeoff"?


Yes




You are ....or you aren't:ok:

cloudbasezero
23rd Aug 2008, 20:15
I think ladyflyby has posted the most authoritive account of events as I think anybody will get for now until or if airline releases further statements, tho Im sure somebody will re-write or contradict events from their own remote stand point.

I hope you enjoyed that well deserved drink down the pub ladyflyby :ok:

Fournier Boy
23rd Aug 2008, 20:21
Exactly, "assumed" is the problem. Assumptions are not fact.

Ladyflyby - you and I probably met on a number of occasions today, before and after the event. At any point afterwards had you asked we could have told you what we thought a range of reasons could be for it happening. As it is, we're still narrowing down the options and I'm sure the company will be aware overnight. They can then say what it was if they feel the need to. Irrespective, shes getting a new engine as I type and will be back online in the morning.

rick0
23rd Aug 2008, 20:26
UK Airshow Review - iB::Topic::Virgin 747 G-VLIP in trouble (http://forums.airshows.co.uk/cgi-bin/ukarboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=34;t=53197)

Some interesting, relevant photos.

oversteer
23rd Aug 2008, 23:08
Irrespective, shes getting a new engine as I type and will be back online in the morning.

I had no idea the turnaround was that quick, that's amazing. Is there a warehouse somewhere with a few spare (RR?) engines in it?

World of Tweed
23rd Aug 2008, 23:19
VAA B744s are fitted with General Electric CF6's. And yes.... the Engine overhaul and storage facility is just south of the runway at LGW not far from that church that the BAA would love to knock down.

ExSp33db1rd
24th Aug 2008, 00:54
Is there a warehouse somewhere with a few spare (RR?) engines in it?


oversteer. - Yes. ( do you think they have to go out and order another one, with a delivery date sometime next year ? )

markadams
24th Aug 2008, 07:46
I witnessed this incident as a passenger whilst taxiing near the runway as the 747 took off yesterday morning. Because of the angles of view I did not see if there was a problem until rotation, when it passed us. At rotation and during the part of the initial climb that I could see, orange flames trailed the No 1 engine in regular double pulses, each double pulse with an interval of about 1.5 seconds. The flames appeared detached from the engine by about 10 metres and the flames themselves seemed about 15 metres long. It reminded me of the recent footage of the ?Britannia? 757 following a birdstrike.

rhutch1011
24th Aug 2008, 17:29
Fournier Boy: "Well from reading your posts, there are probably around 10 very bemused guys as to how you came about this information. Again, we find speculation rather than fact coming out as gosspel here. Let the airline announce (if it wishes) its findings and don't speculate what a friend who heard this and that has said."

Well, some people are rather touchy. If all we wanted was to hear what was on the news, there would be no need for a forum such as this. I was of the impression that such fora allowed for the personal exchange of information between individuals, sometimes giving an insight into what is going on. Now that I have been scolded I will have to revert to only watching the BBC.

lomapaseo
24th Aug 2008, 17:43
I witnessed this incident as a passenger whilst taxiing near the runway as the 747 took off yesterday morning. Because of the angles of view I did not see if there was a problem until rotation, when it passed us. At rotation and during the part of the initial climb that I could see, orange flames trailed the No 1 engine in regular double pulses, each double pulse with an interval of about 1.5 seconds. The flames appeared detached from the engine by about 10 metres and the flames themselves seemed about 15 metres long. It reminded me of the recent footage of the ?Britannia? 757 following a birdstrike.

very descriptive and enlightening.

You are describing a classic engine stall/surge response to an internal problem. The engine is not quite sick enough to run down so it tries to recover to the same power setting that it demonstrated that it could not handle.

If left alone it would probably overtemp.

One could point at the possible causes, but the idea is to just fix it for now and think about insurrance claims later.

Self Loading Freight
25th Aug 2008, 09:56
From where I sit it doesnt look like a bird strike......... PS Heavy things those donks!

You don't need much by way of forensics to ID a bird strike, and the taciturn aura around this incident does suggest that something a bit more interesting is afoot. That's interesting in a "I was floating around the skies in one of G-VLIP's sister ships at the time; I hope it's not systemic" way.

Incidentally, the pix of the fuel venting were impressive. Surprised Beardy doesn't add a couple of red and blue diesel injectors and do the airshow circuit.

R

tocamak
25th Aug 2008, 10:08
Not familiar with heavy aircraft ops so genuine questions:-

How much fuel would have needed to be dumped?
How does the kero dissipate?
How much overweight can you land in this situation?

Nice pictures

Dream Buster
25th Aug 2008, 10:14
SLF,

If an engine ingested a hapless bird - was there a smell of 'roast chicken' shortly afterwards?

What might that prove, seriously?

DB :eek:

ladyflyby
27th Aug 2008, 23:13
I have flown on her twice since Monday! Spanking new engine I must say, the best of all four!

downunderscouser
28th Aug 2008, 00:16
The continuous pulses is because continuous ignition is switched on precisely for that reason. I think the double pulses will be due to ignition set to "both" igniters.

Checkboard
28th Aug 2008, 05:35
If an engine ingested a hapless bird - was there a smell of 'roast chicken' shortly afterwards?

When an engine ingests a bird, if it is in the right spot, you get a smell of "burnt hair", from the feathers. Not very appetising. :yuk:

How much fuel would have needed to be dumped?

The 747-400 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400_prod.html) Has a maximum take-off weight of 396,890 kg, and a maximum landing weight of 295,742 kg, so fuel dump could be up to 100,000 kg! In this case it would be much less. I would guess a ballpark fuel load of 130,000 kg, on a zero fuel weight of about 220,000kg, giving a take off weight of 350,000kg, and thus about 30,000kg to dump, after burning flight fuel - very rough figures, give or take 10 tons :)

How does the kero dissipate?

It breaks into small droplets as it is sprayed from the fuel dump nozzles, and completely evaporates into the atmosphere if it is dumped abouve about 3000 feet.
How much overweight can you land in this situation?

You can land at the maximum take-off weight, if you have to, without damage if you make a reasonably smooth landing. If you land over the maximum landing weight there is a standard "overweight landing inspection" required, which might take a couple of man hours of engineering time.

Shanwick Shanwick
28th Aug 2008, 06:13
Give or take about 50 tons!?

ZFW about 220000
MLW 285762
TOF 85000ish

About 20T to dump in about 25 mins

NWT
28th Aug 2008, 08:20
If you land over the maximum landing weight there is a standard "overweight landing inspection" required, which might take a couple of man hours of engineering time.

I would like to think it would take more than 2 hours for the basic overweight inspection if it is done properly..........

spannersatcx
28th Aug 2008, 10:04
and it did land overweight.:{

magicE
28th Aug 2008, 21:47
Heavy not hard, or was it the other way round, uhhhh:confused:.

rb211524g
7th Sep 2008, 14:15
Heard the engine was on watch before the failure. We seem to have a few insiders on this panel; what was the cause of the failure?

Filler Dent
10th Sep 2008, 12:12
You mean "on watch" like "condition monitored", as every engine is?