Thomas Cook - The 'For Chrissakes what next?' thread: Fascinating Stuff

[ToweringCu]

I flew back from Egypt to Glasgow on Thursday night, the ac was a B757-200. Once aboard we were told by the captain that, because this was a 'light' ac, it couldn't take enough fuel to actually make the trip and would have to stop off at Ostend for fuel. The landing at Ostend was the worst I'd ever experienced, that was until the landing at Glasgow which felt as though we were dropped on from 10 feet.

So my questions are:
Why couldn't the ac take enough fuel, when it had apparently flown to Sharm from Glasgow without the need for a refuel?

If anyone landed at either EGPF or Ostend on thursday night between 10pm and midnight uk time, was there any wind sheer or other reason to explain why the landings were so poor?

Why would Thomas Cook schedule an ac for a route that it was not capable of flying?

[champair79]

Continuing the Thomas Cook bashing (see the Glasgow 8th April thread), 2 of my mates are flying this route today. Scheduled time of departure 09:10. Delayed till 11, then 11:30, 12:45, then 13:00. They boarded the aircraft, then a technical issue. New scheduled time 14:30. Sounds like a bit of a disaster. That's what you get for not having any slack in the schedules to allow for the odd aircraft to go tech I'm afraid. I personally have found TCX to be fairly decent but it must be just a bad day. Yes I'm aware that these things crop up but if anyone could provide any information on what the problem is and what happened to the original aircraft, it would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Champ

[champair79]

Hi ToweringCU. (see my thread about TCX as well, it doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment for them!).

The main reason for the tech stop could have been the prevailing winds. If they had a slight tailwind going to Sharm, it might have just been enough to get them to SSH whereas with a small headwind the other way, it probably just tipped over the max range. Also, the journey to Sharm may have been with a lower payload (hence ability to carry more fuel if the flight was restricted for TO). Was your flight full by any chance?

I'm not sure about the TCX 757 fleet, but chances are that this so-called 'light ac' probably had the fuel capacity to make it comfortably. After all, 757's regularly fly transatantic. However, a common practice among airlines is to artificially limit the MTOW of the aircraft therefore putting them in a lower band for air traffic charges and landing fees. The aircraft is therefore not legally allowed to operate above this limit even though structurally it can. It would have to be recertified. Some aircraft are ordered without a centre fuel tank so it may have actually been fuel limited. One of those two possibilities anyway. What is the runway length at Sharm? That could have been a factor although unlikely. As you can see, there are many possibilities.

Your aircraft was probably therefore a substitution as another 757 had probably gone tech earlier in the day and this was the only option available. Better to get there with a delay than not at all...no? :ok:

As for the landings, well I can't comment. Sometimes you do greasers and other times you set of all the seismometres in the vicinity. Might have just been bad luck or perhaps there was some windshear.

Maybe someone with insider knowledge would be able to give you a more detailed explanation.

Regards,

Champ

[champair79]

Quick update: TCX put them on a 757 before they had to deplane after it went tech. I can only assume the A321 scheduled for the morning went tech earlier.

Update II: All pax having food at the Hilton. New time of departure is 23:50. Nearly a 15 hour delay! :eek:

[Agaricus bisporus]

T Cu. Your remarks about the landings are without foundation.
Pax are frequently heard to voice remarks about the "quality" of a landing based on how soft it was. This merely demonstrates the danger of little knowledge/assumptions. A correctly done Boeing landing is "positive", ie it happens with a thump. We are told by Boeing, not to strive for a greaser. There are good technical reasons why. A greaser - particularly in the wet or on a short rwy very likely is a bad landing... A harder thump does not make it a bad landing. A very hard thump does not necessarily make it so either. An arrival hard enough to require a heavy landing check (which is usually just a formality in Boeing-built aircraft) will probably have pax screaming. Windsheer (sic) is unlikely to cause a heavy landing, go-arounds, severe turbulence on finals, massive power changes yes, but without those present most unlikely to be a factor in a positive landing. Little knowledge again.

If it was on or near the centreline, on or near the touchdown markings and remained on the tarmac then it was a good,un. Nothing to do with hardness or softness, and you can't see any of those parameters, can you? Best leave critique of landings to Training Captains.

As for the other remarks, how many workmen have never experienced conditions where the normally adequate tools weren't able to cope as well as usual, or found that the usual tools weren't available and had to use less than ideal ones?

The job was done safely and with consideration from the Captain by the sound of it. Why snipe?

[ToweringCu]

How do you know my remarks are without foundation? I have flown countless times and know a poor landing. The first one was on the left gear, bouncing onto the right and then back again. The second at Glasgow was not firm but very hard, as if the pilot thought the runway was 10' higher than it actually was. It brought exclaimations of concern from many passengers.

[TightSlot]

I have flown countless times and know a poor landing

No... You don't. Really, I know you think you do, but trust me, you don't. You are now asking for an additional shovel as you innocently dig an even bigger hole from which you will, at some future point, need to climb out.

You could start by reading the forum FAQ (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/318080-forum-faq-welcome-passengers-slf-forum.html): I know that you think you don't need to, but I'm afraid everybody else here knows that you do. There are links to two threads there that tell you most of what you need to know about 'Hard' landings. reading the forum FAQ will help you avoid the kind of embarrassment that you will shortly be feeling.

In addition to the FAQ, you've been given a very sensible and reasoned answer by somebody who does it for a living: A word to the wise - read and digest what was written. You have a very small amount of knowledge - Agaricus bisporus has a lot. This should be telling you something.

[ToweringCu]

My use of the term 'poor' may have been a bit hasty on a public forum, I'll just say that these two landings were the most uncomfortable and disturbing that I have experienced. As for whether someone is an expert or not, well I have no idea who anyone is, or their background; however, I can recognise patronisation when I read it. I'm fairly sure that there's more to a good landing than just being able to walk away from it.

[etrang]

These two claims appear rather contradictory. Could you explain the apparent contradiction?

A greaser - particularly in the wet or on a short rwy very likely is a bad landing...

If it was on or near the centreline, on or near the touchdown markings and remained on the tarmac then it was a good,un.

[Rhayader]

I'll just say that these two landings were the most uncomfortable and disturbing that I have experienced. Please feel free to accompany me in my rented 172 in a crosswind landing.

A greaser - particularly in the wet is a bad landing...You need firm contact to enable the rubber to grip and avoid aquaplaning.

If it was on or near the centreline, on or near the touchdown markings and remained on the tarmac then it was a good,un. See first question and answer.

[L'aviateur]

Flew TCX from Sharm to Doncaster last year, it was a choice between 4+ hours on the TCX or flying Sharm-Cairo-Amsterdam-Humberside in business class. I thought that it would be ok, and have to admit it was very very uncomfortable and would have since chosen the alternative route. The service however was excellent.

[HamishMcBush]

(snip)Once aboard we were told by the captain that, because this was a 'light' ac, it couldn't take enough fuel to actually make the trip and would have to stop off at Ostend for fuel.
(snip)
Why would Thomas Cook schedule an ac for a route that it was not capable of flying?

Is it permitted* to use a plane on a supposedly non-stop flight that is actually incapable of making the journey without stopping?

* CAA rules, international air/flight rules etc

[david.craig]

Up until their collapse, FlyGlobespan flew 738's from Glasgow to Hurghada. I read the distance from Hurghada - Sharm as being just over 51 miles. I believe they also few Edinburgh - Sharm on the 738.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Who said they used a aircraft incapable of operating the route.
Many things can change on an aircraft that stops it operating to its full potential at any time during the outbound leg or return leg.
For instance, they may have had a fuel pump U/S, may have been unable to fill the centre tank to its required fuel load for one reason or other, had a thrust reverser or brake problem reducing take off weights.
Now this is a no brain situation for me, now would l prefer a fuel stop on the route home or be stuck for around 24 hours while the engineers fly out and wait for the crew to be back in hours again.
I would even be happy if it was on the way out, than have to wait for another a/c to become available, which can be a lot longer than a tech stop.

[Torque2]

With the best will in the world I get tired of reading criticisms from 'knowledgeable' passengers on this site. The replies from the professionals are from hard earned experience and applying the rules of aviation law and practice, not from the whim to be patronising.

In every landing case it is required to make sure that the aircraft arrives at the correct speed, attitude and in the landing configuration in the touchdown area and on the centreline of the runway in use despite wind/rain/gusts etc.

Sometimes it is easier than others but there is NO requirement in any of the regulations or flight manuals to make every landing a soft one, indeed in cases of water on the runway or length of same it is essential to make sure that the aircraft DOES NOT make a soft landing in order to make full use of the stopping distance available.

There are numerous other reasons for one gear to touch before the other such as peculiar siting of hangars and buildings creating eddies in crosswinds just around the touchdown zone or indeed turbulence from a preceding aircraft.

As regards aircraft 'unfit' for a route, the reasons for a fuel stop have been covered previously. It is not unusual to have to make a 'tech stop' especially when coming back North or Northwest bound due to strong headwinds or not being able to take full fuel due to the departure airfield temperatures and conditions, it would on occasion be unsafe and illegal not to do so.

Please give us credit for being the professionals that we are. No-one wishes to inconvenience you unnecessarily and don't forget that we want to get home too but safely and with as little hassle as possible.

[ToweringCu]

'Who said they used a aircraft incapable of operating the route.'

The Captain said the aircraft was a 'light' airframe that was unable to take enough fuel, it was not unserviceable. Thankyou Champair for attempting to give some possible meaning for the description of the aircraft as light, no-one else here seems to have a suggestion for what it means. I'm starting to suspect it may have been BS.

As for me being a knowledgeable passenger and you 'professionals' being tired of my comments, well I'm not; all I've done is state my experience during this flight and ask for an explaination, which is what this board is meant to be for. If I've touched a raw nerve, well sorry.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The correct explanation about "light" airframes has already been given, and believe me, that Capt will have made his views on being allocated that machine perfectly clear to his Ops Dept prior to the flight, because, believe it or not crew take no pleasure whatsoever in either adding an extra sector (even if they get paid for it), or of so inconveniencing their pax, or making the airline look less than capable, or looking forward to making excuses for the fact when they know it will be met with sneers and disbelief from a proportion of the pax (see post above), no matter how true or honest they are. Still, it is amazing how many pax posess such superior knowledge when it comes to deciding that what they've been told is bs.

Occasionally such allocations are made by an inept Ops decision. Sometimes as a result of delay to the preferred airframe's arrival, or breakdowns on the fleet. Sometimes it is just the only one available. Sometimes unusually strong headwinds. Sometimes an inconvenient 10Kt wind from the wrong direction requiring the use of a restricting runway. Endless reasons, all valid except the Ops screw up, but screw-ups happen, don't they? The financial cost to the airline of adding a tech stop probably writes off the profit that airframe will make for the next couple of days.

Bad vs. hard landings.

Maybe we are using the same adjectives to indicate different things...
A "rough" or "uncomfortable" landing might be the result of "hard" flying conditions on final approach and might result in one heck of a thump, or even two, but that alone doesn't constitute a "bad" landing. A landing has to be very, very hard indeed before it is a bad one from that perspective alone, and I doubt many, if any of you have ever experienced one. Such a landing would put the aircraft into the hangar for a heavy-check, which is vanishingly rare.


The aeroplane may be landed in a crabbed manner with a strong crosswind and make a noticeable swerve (or two) as it straightens out. That may be uncomfortable, even alarming, but it isn't a bad landing. Even erratic steering on the runway and harsh or erratic braking do not make the landing bad, though they shouldn't happen in the hands of a careful pilot.

On centreline, on speed, a/c remains on tarmac and the aeroplane is re-useable really is the definition of a good landing, but clearly there are graduations of "good" within that. Some are better than others, but a "bad" one is an entirely differrent kettle of fish.

TCu, have you ever flown on a BAe146? It is almost impossible to bounce one of those, and a hard landing is only achieved by the ham-fisted or very unfortunate. The geometry of the 146's landing gear enables greasers almost every time. (BAe do not make the same stipulation as Boeing re greasers, as far as I recollect). Conversely it is almost impossible to make a greaser even if you try in as B737 (esp the NG) as the main gear is very stiff - about 3 inches of oleo travel). The comparison is the difference between the suspension of a CitroenDS and a MkII LandRover . They are also comparatively sensitive to touchdown speed, a few knots extra and they just don't want to land and floaaaaat (that might well be a bad landing as it is compromising stopping distance) and a few Kts slow and it just doesn't respond to the flare and thumps in. TCu, "ten feet" has nothing to do with it - with just 3" of oleo travel if the pilot "thinks" he's just 4" lower than he is - and just how easy do you suppose that judgement is using your peripheral vision from an eye-height of, what? 20feet? then your Boeing suspension just ain't gonna absprb the last inch, is it? And how much of a thump do you imagine 60Tons makes over even one measly inch?

Lots of variables there - something that characterises the industry.
Be amazed that things run as well as they do, and when they don't just consider the complexity of the organization and that no one, least of all the airline or crew enjoys or wants disruption.
And finally, when you get stuck for hours or overnight it is because despite the best efforts of scores of Professionals it is simply impossible to achieve any better course of action. Airlines seldom have spare aircraft or crews, replacement parts often come from a 3rd party supplier's warehouse God knows where (maybe in the USA) and we can't just magic them up at the drop of a hat. Pilots cannot know how long repairs are going to take when the engineer doesn't know himself what exactly is wrong!

It sounds to me as if your TCX Capt did the right thing and made an explanation to the pax - the worst thing in such a situation is not keeping people informed, and I admit that as an industry this is one of our greatest failings. In the terminal it is almost always impossible to inform pax at all, but it can be done on board.
In my experience a cabin full of pax can be kept on board and in a reasonable temper for delays of a 2 - 3 hours as long as the Captain makes a brief, plausible and honest explanation and then speaks to them every 15 or 20 minutes (preferably face to face from the front of the cabin) even if it is to say "No further info, next update in 20 mins".

Consideration works both ways.

[ToweringCu]

Thank you.

[Mr Optimistic]

...thanks for taking the time to explain.

[champair79]

Thought I would try and swing the thread the other way now. As some of you may have read earlier in the thread, my friends flight was delayed 15 hours last Saturday due to a technical problem with one of the A321's and the replacement 757 also broke down. They had an uneventful flight to Izmir albeit with a big delay although Thomas Cook put them in the Hilton at Manchester with food. Everyone got a meal on the plane too so all in all, can't complain. They really took care of everyone and tried to make everyone happy despite the bad (unlucky?) situation they found themselves in.

Moving forward a week, the volcano has now cancelled their return trip. TCX have kindly put everyone on 'flight only' tickets into a 4-star hotel right on the beach with everything at the hotel (Turkish baths, drinks etc.) all free. Even though it must be costing them a fortune, my friends aren't complaining. I just wish I could go sample the free hospitality rather than being stuck at work. A big thank you TCX! Every cloud has a silver lining. I can think of worse places to be stranded than the Turkish riviera :p

[Bus429]

If you can walk away from it, it was a good landing.:ok: