BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?

[dayoff]

Anyone heard about a British Airways Boeing that landed at Accra after another bizjet had landed and blocked the runway end with broken wheel, couple of days agol? Very short scary landing by all accounts!

[hetfield]

If LDA sufficient, why not?

[PENKO]

More info?
How much runway was remaining?
If the business jet was, say, 2000 meters down the runway, then what is the problem? None what so ever.

edit:

Looked it up myself. 9800 feet of runway. If the business jet was sitting at the end I'm sure the BA could have landed safely at least twice on that runway before encountering any problems!

[Dani]

It can - question is it legal or wise. I would say diverting is better than risking it. "Landing behind" is allowed but this is not ment literally.

[PENKO]

What is unwise?
If the runway has been inspected I see no other problems.

Say this runway is 9800ft with the last 300ft blocked. That still leaves 9500ft. Plenty of space to stop any aircraft. So please Denti, why is this unwise? What is the risk? To me it seems like a well considered command decision as far as I can tell.

A couple of days ago I landed on a runway of 6000ft with an nice cliff at the end. Was that irresponsible? What about the land and hold short (of crossing runway) clearances in the US. Are those irresponsible/unwise too?

[hetfield]

Is it "wise" to land here for example, if there is nothing else than pure water at the end?

http://www.privatejets.com/privatejets/images/airports/92144.jpg

[hetfield]

@wiz

Come on..., it was a longhaul flight, most of the fuel burned...

What are you talking about?

Jeez....


edit

wiz?

where is your post?

[T668BFJ]

I think the point here is it should not have happened.

You cant land on a runway with something already on it.
<< Removed as it has no relevance to this actual thread >>

In this case the aircraft was still on the runway and broken. As such no other a/c should be landing

[hetfield]

You cant land on a runway with something already on it.

Yes you CAN....

[PENKO]

Again, why not? Should they have diverted to their alternate which maybe has a 5000ft long runway?

What if the runway was notam-ed as shortened with an obstacle at the end? Would you still refuse to go to Accra? That would shut down a lot of European airports!

[Teddy Robinson]

Have heard nothing about this officially.. declared distance RW21 is 3403m,
(that's 11,165 feet) and normally aircraft vacate via the 05 threshold turnoff after a long ground roll.
It depends of course where the disabled aircraft was in relation to the runway itself, chances are that it was infringing the strip at the far end, though not on the runway itself.
Perhaps the OP could tell us more ?

[Tinstaafl]

Yet if the runway gets temporary reduction in declared distances it would probably be OK. Without knowing more about it it seems more of a paperwork issue than a safety issue.

[PENKO]

Just forget about the 'land after', that is a red herring, it has nothing to do with this discussion. With some imagination you can compare this with land and hold short clearances.

But anyway, I'm still waiting on a rationale why it would be unwise to land on a long runway with a disabled aircraft at the very end.

1. You redo your performance calculations with the shorter distances and an obstacle. For legal peace of mind add the 1.67 factor.
2. ATC clears you
3. You land and hold well short


So what is the problem?
Have you never landed on a runway with works going on at the far end? I have landed in STN where the runway was reduced by 50%, from the start.

[hetfield]

@PENKO

Spot on.....
:ok:


We are paid to make SAFE decisions.

[T668BFJ]

Yes,
Promulgated by NOTAM, declared distances adjusted and performance figures available, without busted aircraft sitting on the runway.

[hetfield]

I'm really happy to be out of the game.

Oh my God......, where has common sense gone?

[PENKO]

You are the pilot in command of an aircraft in flight. You see the stricken aircraft at the end of the runway. You have all performance tables available to you, even better, you probably have a laptop which will give you detailed performance figures. Chop off one third of the runway. Exaggerate the height of the obstacle, say 30 feet for that little business jet. Run your performance. Add the factors. If sufficient, inform ATC. Await their clearance. Land. File an ASR.

What am I missing?

[eastern wiseguy]

It is used to maximise RWY usage and in the UK IIRC it is only authorised for use at 3 airfields



Nonsense,........see MATS 1 for UK (which has naff all to do with Ghana)

[Offchocks]

"Seriously a diversion safe, landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers, and they call Ryanair cowboys."

Again it has to be asked, how much of the runway was blocked by the biz jet? Even if it was 1000m blocked on what another poster has claimed to be a 3400m runway, there would be enough distance left to carry out a legal approach and landing. (as long as ATC didn't close the runway). After all runways are occassionally shortened for works in progress and are still used!

[ExSp33db1rd]

..........landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers,........

I agree, second aircraft lands OK then suffers a brake, or reverser problem and would be OK proceeding into the overrun - except - it's blocked by another aircraft. Shades of PanAm and KLM in the Azores. What would you say to the Presiding Judge at The Subsequent Court of Inquiry - if you, at the sharp end, even survived the impact.

Couldn't happen ? Of course not, Mr. Murphy.

BOAC Britannia ( yes, many moons ago ) burst a tyre at Bermuda and stopped just before turning off at the end, adv. tower that they would be 'a few minutes awaiting a Company maintenance team'

Tower responded with - "This is an Operational US Navy Airfield ( it was then, a joint Military/Civil venture ) you have 5 minutes to move that heap, after which the bulldozers move in - your call."

[PENKO]

Please think this through exspeedbird....it's a shame that you compare this to the Tenerife disaster which has absolutely no relevance.

We are talking about a 3100+ meter runway of which maybe the last 300 meters are unusable. Even if all brakes failed, this aircraft would still have more runway ahead than many fully serviceable runways in Europe.

[chuks]

What of 'Land and hold short,' then? People do that all the time, even though some sorts of failure might see one go steaming right across whatever point one had just promised to stop short of, such as another active runway.

I don't see the problem, as long as the numbers add up. Otherwise you will never want to land on a runway that comes up just long enough assuming that everything works properly; you would insist on lots of extra distance 'just in case.' That is commendable but likely to adversely impact your employer's bottom line and your future career.

[hetfield]

@chuks

Indeed

@all others
have a look at the Genua AP picture for example.

Oh yes, I forgot, brake-, antiskid-, reverse failures right at touchdown.....

[Eric T Cartman]

Can't speak for Accra ATC or BA procedures but @ my UK airfield the whole process for this type of thing is covered by Departmental Instructions in the Airport Manual.
It takes into account the position & height of the obstruction etc & gives a revised LDA (i.e. full LDA minus strip minus RESA minus length blocked by obstruction). Revised declared distances would be NOTAM'd & put on the ATIS. Refer to CAP168 for the official info.
For those of you who think the runway should be closed, would you still want that if the runway was 3000 meters long, the disabled aircraft was a C150 & the landing aircraft was the same? If you say no, where would you draw the line & stop landings - light twins, B737's , B747's , A380's?
IMHO the whole thing sounds like a non-event :hmm:

[hetfield]

http://cdn.ricebag.org/ricebag.jpg
http://plasmaoxyd.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/reissack.jpg
......................

[PENKO]

Smash bugger, I never said that it is no big deal. All I am saying is that as far as I am concerned, as a commander you can make an informed decision. You have all the tools at your disposal to do so. Even if the last 1000 meters were blocked, that still would leave a 2100 meter runway to land on. That's well within the performance limitations of most jets I know.

Of course there are issues to discuss. I would not do this at night after an approach to limits for instance. The color coding for the runway lights are off. So there are lots of things to think about. So if you can find more issues, please let me know, I am happy to be corrected, I am honestly interested to know your reasonable objections.

Hypothetically speaking from the info on this thread some people would rather divert to a 1800m runway with a cliff at the end, than land on a 3100m runway with a little business jet sitting at the very end. Where is the logic in that?



Eric, thanks for the useful info!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Even if all brakes failed, this aircraft would still have more runway ahead than many fully serviceable runways in Europe.

But I assume that most of those runways - of whatever length - would have an available, clear, overrun not blocked by another aircraft ?

I'm sure you'll now nominate many short European runways with tall cliffs growing out of the far threshold - of which I know none, and no longer need to know about now, either, thank you.

I guess at the end of the day the Commander made a decision that he felt he could justifiably support should it ever be questioned - that's what he's paid for - End Of Story.

The only reason I mentioned the Teneriffe disaster was that people died because two aircraft were on the same runway at the same time, I can't presently think of another example of that point - tho' you can doubtless enumerate many.

Was once No. 3 on approach to Idlewild ( Kennedy to the younger generation) and the tower advised No. 2 to be ready to 'go around', maybe. No. 2 asked why ? Because No. 1 hasn't touched down yet and he's only a mile ahead of you. So, said No. 2 - he needs a mile to stop ? ( I'm talking 707's ) I ain't a goin' around unless you put someone between him and me ! and he didn't.

Was once refused take-off clearance at Taipei, having started, because an aircraft had fallen off the end of the runway at our destination Hong Kong (Kai Tak ) and the airfield had been closed. The aircraft wasn't actually still on the runway, but was in the water at the end. Our Company (not BA) Station Manager told me to go, because " he " had "a friend" in Hong Kong Operations who would give us landing clearance once we got there. Yeah! Right! We left 4 hours later.

At our local GA field the Air NZ Commuter Beech 19 pilots refuse to land if, in my microlight, I'm holding in the turning blister at the threshold as tho' clearly off to one side I am technically "on" the runway (not at a designated holding point clear of the approach 'cos there isn't one at that end) - shouldn't they still be clearing the mythical 50' screen at that point, and therefore well above me,anyway ? what threat am I ? but Rules are Rules, even tho' sometimes the Law is an Ass.

[J.O.]

Talk about a tempest in a teapot! Tenerife is not even close to the same, neither crew knew that they weren't alone on the runway. Same goes for the accident at LAX when USAir hit the commuter plane sitting on the threshold.

The BA crew was apparently well aware of the circumstances and made an informed decision. Also, given the typical available "alternates" in that part of the world, Accra is generally a much better choice than a place like Monrovia for example, where they're not very friendly and not expecting you.

[YorkshireTyke]

I think the point was that 2 aircraft on the same runway at the same time is potentially dangerous ? However it happens.

Was the stuck aircraft still with pax. and crew aboard ? If so was the Cdr. of stuck aircraft advised that the runway would still be used with him in the firing line so to speak ? Was he asked of he had any objection ? Should he have been?

I'm with those who reckon it was Not A Good Idea, but also with the opinion that the decision to land was made by the pilot who did so. The buck stops with him I reckon, and he has to justify his action after taking all his available - or not available - options into consideration. His job, his neck.

Biggest fault here was going to Accra in the first place !!

[suninmyeyes]

Presumably ATC cleared him to land.

Sometimes an early decision to divert is a cop out. It can take skill and experience to get an aircraft safely and legally to destination in adverse conditions.

I don't know the details of this situation but it's quite possible he had committed to landing at Accra before the end of the runway became blocked.

I think you will find the flight landed legally and without knowing all the facts it would be wrong for anyone to infer the pilots acted irresponsibly.

[RoyHudd]

Fuel remaining? Wx at alternates? Tech state of BA a/c? Company instructions?
Just pointing out that without all the facts, the discussion is so much hot air....

[BRUpax]

And we don't even know if it did happen!!

[BlackandBrown]

Penko, 9800 feet of runway is 3000 meters of runway not 3100 m +. And that's before the blockage. I hear what you're saying about common sense but it's thankless. Why take the risk - the company won't thank you. And if you screw up they will blame you. Where in the OMs does it say to do such a thing or imply that you have scope to think such a thing? This isn't an emergency or even nearly an abnormal. If in doubt, there's no doubt - go somewhere else. Of course it can be done but does it need to be in a fully serviceable aircraft that will have destination alternates with a flight time like that?

[ExSp33db1rd]

Sometimes an early decision to divert is a cop out.

A colleague approached New York and was given a 45 min. landing delay due traffic. Had he remained he would have landed with less fuel than the minimum req'd to make an approach with reserves.

He smartly diverted to Boston, which he had overflown on his way to New York. The same 45 minutes later he was approaching Boston, where the weather had seriously deteriorated and was now below limits. Had he remained over New York he would now have been landing in good weather, no problem, but now he had used his reserve fuel and had nowhere to go. ATC got him down on a Military Base.

Don't nit pick, all a long time ago and I can't remember all the numbers or the detail, just agreeing with the above quote.

He'd done everything right, but had he stayed at New York he would have landed safely at his destination - but illegally and they would have had him.

He almost died - but legally.

[FullWings]

I have no idea whether the supposed event that this thread is named about took place (or not) but I have to reassure those who don't fly for a living (and maybe some of those that do :rolleyes:) that taking off / landing on a runway with less than its normal declared distance is a fairly common procedure.

There are many airports in the world that currently have NOTAMS describing partial runway closures (affects LDA/TORA/TODA...) and temporary cranes, etc. in works (affects the obstacle surfaces for T/O, landing and G/A). Here's a current one for BOM (VABB):

REVISED DECLARED DIST AS FLW TIL JUN011130
RWY 09 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 3050
27 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 2965
14 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2471
32 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2673

RWY 32. Drilling rig erected 82ft AGL approx 382m N of Rwy14 THR. Eff 1430-2359Jan27 and 0030-0300 1430-2359 daily 28Jan til 30Mar.

If you're flying your own aeroplane or work for a small company, you'll probably get the books out and check, or if you're lucky, use a performance tool approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Major airlines generally have dedicated staff who can provide revised specific performance data at short notice, even if it's an aircraft stuck in the mud at the end of the runway.

At the end of the day, whether it's an aeroplane, runway resurfacing, building works or a lame giraffe, it can be taken account of in the proper manner. It is a total non-issue, as long as the position / vertical extent of whatever it is that's causing the problem is known. You can always be conservative and use the most adverse likely measurements in the calculations.

If you've ever used reduced thrust, taken off from an intersection or landed over an inset threshold, then you should have no qualms about operating to and from an airfield with quantified temporary obstructions of whatever nature. [/rant]

[Basil]

Landed a B757 at Bahrain on reduced LDA due WiP further down the runway. GF was putting B767s in at the time. If it was illegal I still await the knock at the door.

[scotbill]

Seriously a diversion safe, landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers, and they call Ryanair cowboys. It is not obvious what experience of commercial operation qualifies you to make this kind of libellous comment on our major airline.
Presumably BA would have contacted the company in LHR in addition to doing their own calculations.
For what it's worth (as one who has operated in the area) the decision as to whether to land on what remained of a massive runway with the relatively sophisticated facilities of Accra versus a diversion to Lagos is a no-brainer.
The BA captain has my whole-hearted support. But then I would never have passed the aptitude test to be a bureaucrat.

[Black Pudding]

This is called thinking outside the box.

Well done on thier decision

[sudden twang]

It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
A friend of mine used a very similar example to this demonstrating his attitude to risk at an interview for a major carrier recently. He passed.

[FullWings]

It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
Sound thinking.

If it happened to me, I'd want to find out:

- Where and what the obstruction was.
- Whether the runway had been inspected/swept since, in case bits had come off the aircraft that came to an unscheduled halt.
- What minima were appropriate, e.g. if it was in front of the LOC array, an ILS probably isn't going to work.
- What landing / go-around performance was required.
- Was fire cover back to acceptable levels.
- As above, will there be issues for the next sector.

If the answers were satisfactory and the required aircraft performance came within the normal operating bracket in terms of safety margin, etc. then having discussed it with the rest of the crew and tech. management / performance if I could get hold of them, I'd have no hesitation to carry on to land or even commit to destination.

[kick the tires]

Penko, 9800 feet of runway is 3000 meters of runway not 3100 m +. And that's before the blockage. I hear what you're saying about common sense but it's thankless. Why take the risk - the company won't thank you. And if you screw up they will blame you. Where in the OMs does it say to do such a thing or imply that you have scope to think such a thing? This isn't an emergency or even nearly an abnormal. If in doubt, there's no doubt - go somewhere else. Of course it can be done but does it need to be in a fully serviceable aircraft that will have destination alternates with a flight time like that?

Wise words!

Penko, you really have got a grip of this one for some reason. Let it go and have a chill out, not everyone agrees with you, some do, some dont. But dont stand there stamping your feet hoping that repeatedly ramming home your opinion will get you your own way. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Love_joy]

This thread should be titled "BA aircraft in entirley normal landing".

Reductions in declared distances happen all the time, as do temporary changes to obstacles as has been pointed out in this thread.

Remember the 777 that bellied out at LHR? That runway remained open, albeit to departing traffic only, with reduced TORA/ASDA.

The real unknown in this conversation is what happened to the disabled aircraft? Had their mishap only just happened? And critically, did this have an effect on the level of fire cover available?

You might have all the runway you need still available, and ATC might allow you to go for it, but if the fire cover is diminished by an incident in progress then you wouldn't be legal.

[PENKO]

:E
Look, this is an interesting and apparently very real scenario that deserves to be explored a bit better than 'bonkers, cowboys, divert!'. But that was the way this was heading yesterday, hence the stamping of my feet. Nowhere did I say my solution was the only solution, I was trying to get a meaningful discussion going, like we have now.

[scotbill]

There is an old saying in aviation that the difference between the good captain and the poor captain is that the good captain knows what the book allows him to do and the poor captain knows only what the book stops him doing.
If the reaction on this thread is to prevail that it is better to cover your a**e, put the passengers to massive inconvenience and cost the company many thousands in diversion costs - then I'm very sad for the future of aviation.

[Basil]

How many contributors to this have commanded big jets?
If you haven't, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion; it's just that it doesn't carry as much weight* as those who have.

* or should that be 'mass' ;)

[sudden twang]

I'm with Penko on this. I have been in command of a heavy jet into ACC.

[VeroFlyer]

Easy! Landed in Chania, Greece with reduced runway as works going on at the landing end. Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC!
No probs, whats the big deal? As long as there is enough tarmac to stop still!!

[T668BFJ]

Easy! Landed in Chania, Greece with reduced runway as works going on at the landing end. Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC!
No probs, whats the big deal? As long as there is enough tarmac to stop still!! Was mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC!
In the case we have no information to work with, in the case you site its already been made legal.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
Look, this is an interesting and apparently very real scenario that deserves to be explored a bit better than 'bonkers, cowboys, divert!'. But that was the way this was heading yesterday, hence the stamping of my feet. Nowhere did I say my solution was the only solution, I was trying to get a meaningful discussion going, like we have now. Ok Look lets be honest here, I was mearly playing devils advocate, we actualyl dont know anything about this, or if it even occured.
I have no problem landing on reduced distances and have done many times. I am mearly saying that you need the information avaialble to make the decision.

The Original post and I did search for a fair while and was unable to find anything does not provide any information to the overall situation at the field etc at the time. How much time elapsed between the 2 landings, what effects did it have on aerodrome coverage and facilities. What was the exact position of the aircraft.

Landing on reduced distance runways, reduced width due clearing or just narrow etc are normal parts of the every day job.

I make no suggestion in real terms (only tongue in cheek) that anyone was at fault. Indeed dont know if it even happened. I would however remind that everyone jumps to the conclusion it is legal, when we have no facts of what occured.

If the runway state is unknown, actual usable LDA unknown, and clearance heights etc etc etc unknown we cant really comment.

You can land a B738 in 900M according to the Max Manual case in the QRH but would you ??

PENKO, I agree with you that its perfectly acceptable to land on a runway that is reduced, but based on the original post I just decided to take the other stance to you :-)

[737-NG]

Currently in Accra, will be flying back tomorrow night, so I'll try to have a look at the airport and ask around.

P.S. seem to remember somebody talking bout Tenerife being in the Azores.. Last time I checked it was still in the Canaries!

P.S. #2: Attaki good to see somebody else actually picked that up after 3 pages of thread!!

[pattern_is_full]

So what was ATC's role in this (if there was a "this?").

Was the crew advised of the obstruction (outside of seeing it with their own eyes?). Were they cleared to land?

If cleared to land, it becomes a judgement call, not a legal question.

A plane blocking 1000 meters of a 3000m runway is no different than a 2000m runway with a plane (or hanger, or ocean) parked off the end. You check the numbers, procedures, and your experience, and decide if 2000 meters is enough. (Adjust numbers as needed if we ever find out the real situation).

[Akktu Stakki]

Dear Expressbird,
Tenerife is not one of the Azores islands.
Tenerife where the KLM-Pan Am accident was, is one of the Canary Islands.
Hope your'nt a pilot.

[Green Guard]

the main difference of opinions here is that some of us pretend to act and "think" like AutoPilots...:ooh:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Hope your'nt a pilot.

Old, but not Bold.

Not aware that this was a geography test, but you're correct and I apologise, was just making a point that two aircraft on the same runway, wherever in the World, for whatever reason, can be potentially dangerous. Of course aircraft land on published reduced runway lengths all the time, that's not the point, the reason for the reduction can be significant - or not. Decide at the time.

Thank you.

[hetfield]

the main difference of opinions here is that some of us pretend to act and "think" like AutoPilots..:D unfortunately.


PUT LAWYERS IN THE FRONT DECK AND YOU WILL BUST THE AIRLINE !

[White Knight]

:EWas mentioned in the NOTAMS, ATIS and by ATC!
In the case we have no information to work with, in the case you site its already been made legal.


And then there is reality of flying in Africa... ACC has a long, into wind runway. ATC good, radar coverage, steady headwind almost 24 hours a day.

Would I divert to Lome, Lagos or Cotonou if a bizjet was sitting at the far end of this long runway? I doubt it... For starters, the weather seems to get progressively worse the further east you fly from ACC. Abidjan is a good alternate. However, it's time we captains use a little more common sense as this BA crew seems to have done! I'd probably do the same thing having weighed up the pros and cons!

Exsp33dbird - just how many things should we take as 'possibly' happening??? Maybe I should refuse to fly to Addis Abeba in a heavy 345 in 'case' the brakes fail. Believe me, with the lack of emergency overrun (ie huge drop off) this would bring tears to my eyes!!!!!!

Let's be PRACTICAL folks...

WK. Captain operating A332 and A343 into Accra:E:ok:

[White Knight]

was just making a point that two aircraft on the same runway, wherever in the World, for whatever reason, can be potentially dangerous.

Trouble is exSp33db1rd, one aircraft by itself on the runway can be dangerous too...............................

[con-pilot]

What is the difference between the last three hundred feet of the runway closed due to runway maintenance or a disabled aircraft?

Check the charts and if you can land safely, do, if not, don't.

[paddy_22002]

DID THIS EVENT HAPPEN or is this just a theoretical hanging?:confused:

[bubbers44]

One day wasn't going well with us. A 727 going MIA to BAQ Colombia. Our alternate was 50 miles away, both were closed, can't get dispatch so ask what destination and alternate airport weather is. Both below minimums. We get a clearance from ATC to Panama City in VMC conditions and land with above minimum fuel. Dispatch a bit panicked but we called in Panama City and told them we didn't descend because we couldn't land at destination or alternate and they were not available.

Next we waited two hours to take off and leave for Baranquilla(sp) and guess what, a 707 Was on the runway that we didn't land at with the 20 knot tailwind with ILS and blew all it's tires. I had a female copilot who was flying the leg and said pretend it is Islip, NY and fly over on the long runway. We got by with it but one passenger leaving said I have never landed over another airplane on the runway before. I said, me either.

[Luke SkyToddler]

This is a typical PPRUNE steaming pile of hot air and nonsense, until someone actually confirms whether it happened or not, and where the light aircraft was sitting.

[Tommy Tilt]

What's wrong with:

1.Enter hold 2.Operations Manual 3.Performance Manual 4.Company Call 5.Discussion 6.DECISION!!!!!

Follow above steps for successful outcome:ok:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Follow above steps for successful outcome

Who's in charge of the flight ?

I'm bored with this, goodbye.

[stroppy jock]

It is difficult to believe this forum sometimes.

We have Pilots & Captains to make the decisions that machines cannot.
If this Captain decided to land and completed the exercise safely,
then I support his judgement on the day.
No doubt many will spend days & weeks questioning it
but they were not there and they are not under the time pressure he was under.

Well done I say.

[suninmyeyes]

There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.

Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighbouring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.

And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)

In an ideal world the above would not happen. However we live in a real not virtual world where qualified pilots are paid to follow rules and make sensible commercial decisions.

[737-NG]

Well folks

Left Kotoka international yesterday, didn't learn anything, seems as it was a no event, just another busy night with BA KL TP AZ heavies taking off into the night. Nobody heard about it (or want to talk about it)

[paddy_22002]

Thanks NG, suppose it is a rumour forum..;)

[tflier]

Approaching Basrah last year, tower advised us that the last 2000m were unavailable as a rocket had landed and blown a hole in it. Quick recalculation of landing distance and autobrake setting, no problem.
As said do the maths, then no problem. Our alternate Baghdad also had a 'mystery' hole appear on the main runway!
These events as in Accra when correctly handled, make this job what it is.
Good work by BA, proving that using commonsense and technical knowledge prove their worth.

[LeadSled]

Penko,
Based on "been there, done that", I'm with you.

The actual case was a Philippine Airlines A-300 ran through the end of 06 at Manila, wound up with it's nose on the South Super Highway.

With suitable information supplied, including the height of the fin, with the nose gear folded up, nose down, we used normal obstacle clearance gradients to calculate the reduced runway available for landing, and landed. QED.

Many years ago, a PanAm B707 went off (just) the end of 34 (now 34L) at YSSY. It sat there for quite some time. The fin was removed very smartly to reduce the height of the "critical obstacle" , so the reduced EOL was minimized.

Many will recall a B747 that went of the end of 15 at Kai Tak, if my memory serves me correctly, the fin was blown off, but the rest of the aircraft was there for some days.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The actual experience ---- it took local officialdom several days to finally raise a NOTAM re. reduced length, the first NOTAM (after we landed) just said what and where, and left it up to operators, as to what they did. We departed 24 the following day, downwind, and had no control over blowing crap all over the poor sods getting ready to retrieve the A-300.

[Telstar]

There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.

Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighboring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.

And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)

Funny because it's true! Sad because it's true!

(Takes large turd stirring device from drawer)

Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines :E

[Tommy Tilt]

using commonsense

tflier,
No doubt you are personally familiar with the utter hypocrisy of your statement in reference to the conduct by the "Fleet Manager" of the operation to which you refer (Baghdad Hajj). The list of violations he condoned and participated in is long and varied. Other than a pathetic attempt to promote a small and questionable recruiting agency by means of an article in an aviation journal, his only other talents were to plunder the operation, gain favour by allowing F/O's to fly from the left seat and send incriminating emails that cost the owner thousands of dollars in breach of contract salary payments. Despite your self praise, I believe you are the last person to be able to comment on "using commonsense" :=

[Basil]

TT,
I guess this is one of those which we 'not in the know' wouldn't be aware.
I do recollect going in to Basrah at night as FO (ex capt but >60 - thanks France & USA!), with top rate capt & FE, flying B747 for charter outfit.
I suggested close in steep circling descent, lights out. We discussed the fact that we had not practiced this procedure in the sim and agreed that (as usual in competent professional ops) anyone could express discomfort.
Accomplished successfully.
On return to UK, mentioned to boss.
Result?
Notice to crew that this sort of procedure was not necessary nor was it company policy. Fortunately most of the FD crew were experienced and financially well enough off not to give a sh1t what flt ops said.
Why would they not wish us to do a tactical approach?
Well what do you think the difference is between the insurance premium for normal ops and that for a war zone? :hmm:

[YorkshireTyke]

Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines

I see that the rude comment about Dinosaurs responding to the above, has been "modified " ! Well done.

Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.

I once lost an engine on a 747 on take-off but the departure airfield was situated in what might be described as a distinctly user-unfriendly environment from many angles, passenger immigration requirements and accom., lack of engineering spares, lack of immediate engineering support etc.

As I required nearly an hour to dump fuel to landing weight, I continued on until I had dumped sufficient fuel, then landed 'at the nearest suitable airport' (suitable being significant) where passengers could be housed ( hotelled if you prefer ) and the company had relatively easy engineeing arrangements. I'm on the ground mate, fix it, I didn't even have a Mighty Ocean to cross.

On a subsequent occasion I didn't need to dump fuel, and was back on the ground as soon as we could complete the checks and get the gear down again. When the F/O pointed out that we had sufficient fuel to continue to destination on 3, I also pointed out that we also had to cross a lot of shark infested ocean. Chicken ? you bet.

There was absolutely no excuse for the subject 747 to continue across the pond - as it was described. If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.

I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.

If that makes me a Dinosaur - tough. I can live with it.

[YorkshireTyke]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 3 engine DC-10's and Tristars cross those same shark infested waters?

And Boeing 767's, Boeing 737's and now Boeing 777's plus a few Scairbuses
(yes, I'm an "If It Ain't Boeing I'm Not Goin " man - I, usually, have a choice and the choice is mine - I pay, now.)

But ........ they are designed to.

Why compromise built in, deliberate, design safety for commercial expediency ?

I repeat ...

Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.

I think that if the subject BA crew had asked their passengers opinion, instead of their company bean-counters, they would have been told to make a different decision.

Anyhow, that subject has been hammered to death on a previous thread, I only commented because someone else had drifted slightly.

[Basil]

I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
Would you? . . and how would you have dealt with the fact that he was complying with company policy which was that one could continue to destination on three engines?

[sudden twang]

Yorkshire tyke
He wasn't indicted because...... There was no case to answer. He was not flying over shark infested ocean GC between LAX and LHR!
Great idea next time I have a non normal I'll throw away my years of experience as an instructor and take a straw poll of the passengers. Would you facing surgery prefer your opinion over that of a surgeon?
You yourself admit through commercial expediency and passenger convenience to not return to your departure airfield.
Personally I put my faith in logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
Comparing you to a dinosaur is a travesty, to dinosaurs.

[overthewing]

Speaking from a humble SLF viewpoint, I'm a little disturbed that the disabled bizjet is seen by most as an 'obstacle', to be compared with repair works or a hole in the runway. If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?

[Basil]

overthewing,
IF the situation was as reported, there would be no one in the obstructing aircraft. They'd all be long gone.
If you read back through this thread, you'll find that we carefully calculate take-off and landing weight (mass) using runway length, over-run and obstruction figures (and numerous other factors).

[FullWings]

If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?
I think passengers are normally removed/evacuated from aircraft that are going to be stuck on a runway for some time, plus the remaining runway would be checked for 'bits'.

You may be interested to know that it is standard procedure in the UK, if the weather and runway length allow, to have an aircraft touch down before the previous aircraft that landed has vacated the runway. This is a much more dynamic situation than having a stationary obstruction at a known distance from the threshold but it doesn't seem to raise many questions.

Passenger aircraft operate in/out of airports with a large variation in runway length, width, slope, altitude, surface friction, etc. There are established methods to calculate the required stopping distances and to add a safety margin to these. What's beyond the end of the runway, once you have taken "stopway" into consideration, is fairly academic. There is only a certain amount of "what if?" you can reasonably do: for example, 09R at LHR has a dual carriageway and a petrol station 4-500m from the far end... This has not, to my knowledge, stopped anyone taking off or landing.

[Yellow Pen]

If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.

Makes you wonder why Boeing went to all that trouble to certify the aircraft to continue flight on three engines instead of just instructing pilots to land ASAP.:hmm:

[sudden twang]

Agreed Yellow Pen IIRC the same airframe lost an engine ( a different engine but in the same position on the wing) a few weeks later near CEA Shock horror it continued to LHR.

[YorkshireTyke]

Regarding the 3-engined 747, could those so prepared to criticise perhaps read the report below in its entirety before making further uninformed comments

I'd decided that further comment from me on the 3-eng 747 was unacceptable thread drift, albeit not originally blown off course by me, and was going to go back to my cave, but - and one does occasionally wonder who is 'up there' pulling the strings ! - for I had no sooner signed off from PPRuNe when I read an e-mail from a friend who would qualify for the - .........logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots. role, employed by a major International Airline, and discussing with me a totally unrelated aviation topic, but during his discourse to me he happened to write quote .......... Our Fleet Superindent actually stated at a pilots’ meeting that, if an engine on a B747 failed after reaching top of climb on a Los Angeles to London flight, it was quite in order to proceed on to London ! Not that many line pilots would have agreed with him but that’s another story…

Makes you wonder why Boeing went to all that trouble to certify the aircraft to continue flight on three engines instead of just instructing pilots to land ASAP

Certifying it to do something only satisfies the Insurance Companies, just as ensuring that The Good Book might legally allow you to land on a contaminated or partially blocked runway, it doesn't necessarily make it the most suitable action to take under the prevailing circumstances, which I agree have to be assessed each and every time.

I rest my case, must go out and snag a few Prehistoric cavemen for dinner.

[Teddy Robinson]

After 4 pages of interesting discussion, the question remains, did this happen, and if so, apart from a single original post, how are the reports of "a very short scary landing by all accounts" substantiated ? who's accounts and where ?.
Having made a few discrete inquiries at DGAA , nobody seems to have any recollection of this event occurring.

Given the resourceful nature of posters to these forums, has anybody found anything to indicate that this was a real event ?

[Four Wings]

Forgive an aged SLF for going off thread somewhat, but what is the opposite of landing short? In the good old days Aden Airways DC3s cominng in to Khormaksar used to cross wind half way down the runway and touch down in the last third, saving lots of taxi time to the terminal. But then those guys were used to landing downwind into mountain sides on rough stony 'strips' every day of the week (I've still got some cine I shot from the cockpit of such an event).

[Max Angle]

Pretty sure I remember landing on 27R at LHR in the 90's with a stricken DC10 (Varig?) at the end of the runway that had performed a high speed reject. It had burst a load of tyres and was in the process of being moved but in the meantime the runway was re-opened with a reduced LDA. The runway had just been re-surfaced and one of the wheel rims dug a nice long groove in pristine tarmac that you could see for years afterwards.

[Irishboy]

What is the difference between the last three hundred feet of the runway closed due to runway maintenance or a disabled aircraft?

Check the charts and if you can land safely, do, if not, don't.

If you can't stop in time for whatever reason, the latter will end a lot messier especially if people are on board the disabled aircraft.

[Basil]

especially if people are on board the disabled aircraft
They won't be.
Have a look at previous posts.

[ShyTorque]

As a helicopter pilot, this all seems a lot of fuss and hand wringing about nothing. If the remaining runway was long enough for the landing aircraft to make a safe landing, i.a.w. required distances, what is the actual problem, apart from the fears of some individuals? The runway was still a runway, just a somewhat shorter one! The captain of the aircraft at the time is, by the privileges of his licence, responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. Why not just allow him the privilege of doing just that?

I was once denied landing permission at London heliport as we turned onto final approach because the management suddenly decided it wasn't safe because they had a couple of inches of snow on the FATO (raised helideck) after a shower had passed through. We could have landed perfectly safely, even if an engine had failed (we operated Class 1) and in fact our departure point had been a helipad with much deeper snow on it.

We had to divert back to Denham where there was eighteen inches of uncleared snow. Still no major problem for us, but the pax suffered a hell of a lot of inconvenience afterwards, for no good reason except for the over-cautiousness of others who weren't in a pilot's position to judge the situation properly.

Some overly sensitive/cautious FW pilots could do themselves a bit of learning and go fly in a Class 1 performance helicopter, on a safe and legal flight, to and from an average private landing site. That would open their eyes a bit with regards to "obstructed" operating areas. :ok:

[White Knight]

Reduced LDA - no big deal....... Too many 'captains' these days don't have the BALLS to cope with it! Too much 'touchy-feely CRM crap'.

"I say purser! What do you think about reduced LDA?"

Get over it fools....................................................... ..

[Al Murdoch]

White Knight.... Have you been at the cooking sherry?
I can only assume that you're pissed/joking.

[RAT 5]

I digress slightly, but there is relevance in that an aviating decision had to be made away from the norm. Going into LHR in HS125. ATC said continue due to a BA lined up and waiting for release. Subsequent delay to BA's release and at 500' ATC asked us to G/A. We were going to vacate at the far end so we asked if we could land long over the top. ATC approved it with a pleasant surprise at our flexibility. A win win for everyone.

[JazzyKex]

When was this RAT 5?

So after requesting you GA at 500' where you subsequently suggested the better course of action would be the overflight of a fully loaded aircraft and long landing to vacate at the far end, LHR tower ATC agreed to your suggestion?

Just seeing if I've got the facts straight.

[Al Murdoch]

RAT 5. You're saying, if I understand correctly, that you deliberately left the approach path, flew over the top of a passenger transport that was lined up for takeoff and then landed on an occupied runway, with an aircraft lined up for takeoff behind you, on your runway, on the same one.... the exact same piece of tarmac. An occupied runway. You landed on it? And ATC approved this? Was this at an airshow, or one of the world's busiest airports?

[PENKO]

This is interesting. Have you ever landed in Barcelona runway 07L, or Malpensa 35L? Overflight of fully loaded passenger aircraft just before landing is quite normal on these international airports. Ok, the aircraft are on an official taxiway, but the threshold of the landing runway is quite close, a few hundred meters upwind.

So why would a light aircraft not be allowed land long, touching down 2 kilometers upwind on a runway with an occupied threshold? I wouldn't do it in a 737 or 320, but I certainly would in a Cessna 152 or slightly bigger.

[helen-damnation]

EGLL 27L: 3660m

Landing distance for an HS125 approx 1000m from touchdown. (guess:eek:)

Overfly the a/c at 400', gives a 3 degree slope of 1.33 Nm/2,470m to touchdown.

3660-2470 = 1190m to stop.

In a 125, you don't have to directly overfly, ye gods, you might even do some of that pilot stuff and manouevre!

Sometimes, I think I know why the NIMBYs and lawyers can run the place :hmm:

[Daysleeper]

RAT5 really? When?

[JazzyKex]

Not quite Helen-Damnation...

Some of us realise that as long as the company that employs us to operate their aircraft, continues to pay our wages we are not there to mess around doing that "pilot stuff" if it's is detrimental to the safe operation of the aircraft... You know, the bit we get paid to do.

If a GA is the safer choice you take it, as I'm pretty sure your wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification. It would be an interesting conversation at the inquiry when, should you happen to overrun due to a reverser and brake failure you would still have to justify why the overflight was the correct choice in the circumstances.

Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... For that hire a toy at the weekend and noon around to your hearts content!

Think why we are paid to do a professional job and if we can justify our actions to the boss and the CAA. If the safest course of action requires us to depart from the rules and that can be justified, then fine, go ahead otherwise be prepared to have your job your licence or even liberty removed from you.

[helen-damnation]

Not so much thread creep as thread steal!

So when you go to Doha with a 1,400m threshold displacement due to WIP and do a visual approach, what's the difference? In terms of flying the a/c and the approach, diddley squat! It's an a/c. The perf calculations don't care what you fly over, only the obstacle height and whether you can stop in the LDA.

wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification
Much like the unintended float on a wet & windy day. Bet you don't always do a GA.

Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... Visual approach with a small level platform, hardly destabilised. If you refer to the "manoeuvring", it's an HS125 on a 50m wide runway. Try the old Kai Tak, JFK Canarsie or countless others.

Just a thought, if you press TOGA and the donk falls onto something, will the CAA do you for unauthorised dropping? Yes, I'm yanking your chain!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Landing long, landing short - before I was checked out for cross country flying in a glider I had to land ACROSS the runway for C****s sake, still it was 140m (459 ft.) WIDE, and Shock ! Horror ! gliders and powered aircraft used the same runway at the same time, just an unmown strip of grass separating the two.

OK, not paying pax. at International Airports, so not relevant, but ...
........and if we can justify our actions to the boss and the CAA....... That is the whole point, if at the Subsequent Court of Inquiry the - non pilot - judge will say " I don't understand, it says in The Ops Manual thou shouldn't, or should, do X Y Z, so why did / didn't you ? "

IF you feel that you can ultimately justify your non-standard, "pilot manouvering", actions, then go ahead, that's nothing to do with having the B**ls to do something without the approval of the Cabin Purser.

[Al Murdoch]

Helen - all those procedures you describe (Kai Tak, JFK etc) are very, very different to what RAT5 described, and indeed your idea about manoeuvring at low level in a passenger transport at a parallel runway airport. The key difference being that they are approved instrument procedures, for which performance, obstacle clearance etc has all been calculated.
Are you really a pilot? If so, please let me know the airline so I can stay away from it. A long way away...

[ExSp33db1rd]

all those procedures you describe (Kai Tak, JFK etc) are very, very different

Absolutely ....and there is also an official "side-step" manv. promulgated, e.g. last time I landed at LAX ( a long time ago, so may not still be relevant) ATC cleared me for the ILS to 25L with a "side step" to land on 25R ( I think they actually called it 24R to help avoid confusion ? ) and being a 'foreign' airline the controller came back and said he wanted to ensure that I understood, that I was to complete an ILS to 25L, but once past the outer marker, at my discretion as to when I made the switch, I was to complete the side step manv. and actually land on the parallel runway - having subsequently been given landing clearance on the runway they wanted us to land on of course.

The reason, I think, was to allow more aircraft to be accepted for the approach, had they had to provide the appropriate separation behind aircraft on each runway, ti would have slowed the total traffic movements down, by 'mixing and matching' they got a greater utilisation of their Real Estate - I think ?

Was fun !!

[galaxy flyer]

More thread drift.......

Is "side step" to the parallel a US exclusive? Can't say as I have seen reference to it in ICAO or national procedures

[ExSp33db1rd]

Is "side step" to the parallel a US exclusive?

Dunno, only ever saw it at LAX. and only did it that once.

Still fun tho' !! Not often one got to play with A Really Big Aeroplane near to the ground (except occasionally at Kai Tak with a cross wind of course )

[galaxy flyer]

Quite common in the US, detailed in the Airman's Information Manual and sometimes charted with specific ILS mins. Then again, "moving tin" is a factor.

GF

[Shytehawk]

PENKO

Please, please assure me that you do not sit in the left hand seat.

[helen-damnation]

AL

This scenario is an HS125 overflying an obstacle and landing on a reduced LDA.

NOTHING to do with my present company or type or their modus operandi! Neither have I suggested my own course of action. Be careful who you slur :=

See post #19 part of which @ my UK airfield the whole process for this type of thing is covered by Departmental Instructions in the Airport Manual.
It takes into account the position & height of the obstruction etc & gives a revised LDA (i.e. full LDA minus strip minus RESA minus length blocked by obstruction). Revised declared distances would be NOTAM'd & put on the ATIS. Refer to CAP168 for the official info.


Just a final note. Our present limit for a sidestep/curved approach/circling is wings level at 300', very possibly manoeuvring over airport hotels, built up areas etc at lower levels. JFK13L comes to mind. Do other companies have higher/lower limits?

[RAT 5]

It was many years ago in 1970's (perhaps before some respondents were born) when pilots were airmen and, thank God, allowed to make professional and safe judgements. "If there's doubt there is no doubt" has been around a very long time, and true professionals have always used it to gauge an unorthodox scenario. Has no-one hear never landed on a WIP displaced threshold? Nowadays the youngsters here, or perhaps the rule making bodies, would require a displaced PAPI to carry out such a manoeuvre. The question was asked to ATC; they replied that it would be very helpful, so we did.
For 'Al Murdoch', we didn't land on an occupied rwy. Everything in front of us was un-occupied. (it's Ok Al, tongue in cheek)
End of story; nothing more to add.

[oggers]

Speaking hypothetically - seeing as this event remains unverified: until somebody comes up with proper evidence (as opposed to a made up scenario) that this was a dangerous act, then I will consider it to be an example of good captaincy :ok:

[Teddy Robinson]

no follow up by the original poster, not a hint of an incident from people actually based in DGAA = thoroughly hypothetical. :=

[Basil]

Yes, if this had been about Astraeus I doubt it would have reached six postings let alone six pages. :hmm:

[JW411]

On the other hand, if it had been Ryanair we would now be on Page 36.

My suspicion is that this is a total non-event and certainly not worth 6 pages of anyone's time.

[11K-AVML]

There is only a certain amount of "what if?" you can reasonably do: for example, 09R at LHR has a dual carriageway and a petrol station 4-500m from the far end... This has not, to my knowledge, stopped anyone taking off or landing. To be fair that petrol station is (slightly) off set from the edge of the would-be asphalt if the runway were to be extended that far.

In some states, risk maps are produced around runways to indicate where the risk of a collision is above an acceptable level (methodology and limit as described by the relevant safety body/ies) and thereby where permanent structures cannot be located.
I suspect the petrol station FullWings is referring to is just outside of this risk area.

I would suggest that whilst the risk of a collision would be higher when there is an aircraft parked within that risk boundary (i.e. sat on the centre-line somewhere down the runway), the boundaries are there to protect third parties from danger, not the aircraft that is arriving/departing. So as long as that jet is unoccupied, it's probably* not an issue in this context. I doubt they have risk maps in Accra anyhows.

*I say probably because I'm neither an expert nor a pilot (sic).:E