Virgin landing gear incident LGW!

[screwdriver]

There's a Virgin jumbo holding at Mayfield with what appears to be some of its gear down. Very clear day and it's quite low.

[SimonS]

Has been over Wivelsfield/Haywards Heath twice, much lower than other traffic. Nosewheel down and flaps extended?

[Superpilot]

Indeed, it is low at around 2,000ft. Seems it has already been out to sea and back and even executed an approach.

http://s3.postimg.org/twmcl1ttb/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/twmcl1ttb/)

http://s29.postimg.org/s6u2w1uz7/Capture.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s6u2w1uz7/)

[Superpilot]

https://twitter.com/hashtag/VS43?src=hash

Right wing landing gear issues aparrently

[me myself and fly]

Better pic here

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6B6dM4IUAAe5zj.jpg

[Superpilot]

After another 1,000ft fly by, it's turned towards the South Coast, the usual spot for fuel dumping it would seem. Doesn't sound like the gear issue has been resolved, I suspect the next approach will be to land, hoping the gear stays up. Emergency vehicles now in attendance.

[Charley B]

It went outbound at 11.45 .. it looks like one side of the gear is not down when it went past here earlier

[SimonS]

Apparently one gear down and one up - emergency services heading to LGW.

[leeus1]

Just came over me. Still no right main gear down.

[SimonS]

My neighbour has a family member working at LGW. Says plane was in the hangar yesterday for a similar issue.

Right gear won't drop it would appear?

[vctenderness]

Just passed over my house again nose wheel definitely down and one set of main gear definitely down.

Heading out to sea again.

[ara01jbb]

A further photo a few minutes ago from Twitter user @SamPilcher (http://twitter.com/SamPilcher)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6CDIG3CMAAqLLC.jpg

[mcloaked]

Landing Gear Fault On Virgin Plane Circling UK (http://news.sky.com/story/1399293/landing-gear-fault-on-virgin-plane-circling-uk)

[funfly]

I'm following it on Planefinder, as a pilot I feel for them but cannot just turn it off.
It does make you wonder about instant gratification, to some extent I wish I didn't know - what I am doing is nothing else but rubbernecking I suppose.

It's still orbiting over Brighton.

[Superpilot]

Close up

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6CDIG3CMAAqLLC.jpg:large

[MATELO]

Whats the protocol for this.

Wheels up ?

or

Wheels down ?

[Skyjob]

Never wheels up, land on the remaining ones, much safer than engines on ground scraping along wheels up like a fantasy movie.
Reduce weight as much as possible, standard operation in this case.
The fly by could be to allow tower controllers to see (and possibly engineers invited to observe from tower view) what the actual problem is as in the flight deck indication may be that gear is not up but equally not down, unable to establish in what position the gear actually is.

[MATELO]

What could be causing the left bogie to be pointing upwards like that?

Thats the normal position for them to be in.

[Flightmech]

The LH wing gear is supposed to look like that. Normal tilt position.

[arem]

All available gear down - with one wing gear up it will wobble a bit and will need to be towed off the runway - we used to practice this in the sim on a regular basis and with the light wind conditions not a problem.

[Hotel Tango]

fa2fi, to put things into perspective, I have seen multiple footage of emergency landings and ditchings since 1956. No FR24 then. The media just had other ways of obtaining information in those days.

[Charley B]

Well done to the Crew of VS 43..must have been a worrying few hours for them

[Flightmech]

BBC just showed the landing. Great job by the crew. Definitely a positive touchdown on the LH side!

[Flyingmole]

Not sure that I see the link between being over 60 and being useless. If and when Learmount speaks rubbish, then criticise and rebuff him intellectually and technically, but kindly refrain from slagging off someone who oft times speaks a lot of common sense just because he is over an arbitrary age limit set by you.

[Interested Passenger]

BBC website

People were tracking the seemingly erratic movements of the plane in real time via smartphone apps like FlightRadar24, which collects radar data. Its website was down because of the volume of users.

people were tracking erratic movements on a site that was down?:eek:

[SunnyUpHere]

Keep calm people. Irrespective of our opinions on the sad state of the media, in this case all they can show are calm professionals at work, perfectly executing a recovery and bringing 400+ folks safely home.

For me they can re-run this all day long - the public will be, (for a brief while), more respectful of what it takes to keep them safe, and this is a positive fillip for all people in this industry.

:D

[rp122]

This from Twitter user Andrey ‏@AndreyIontchev

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6CM6m-IYAAI0zR.jpg

[Pozidrive]

Regarding press coverage, I'm surprised the Mediterranean ferry fire didn't get more attention. Potentially a much more sticky situation developing in darkness. Respect to all those who had obviously planned though the night to move in at dawn.

[HighLow]

Well Done to all the Virgin Crew,
A safe outcome and the passengers already praising all the crew for a non-normal well handled. Great Job !


and to the broadcasters?

the Aircraft is a 777? Really?
it was the left wheel? Really?
belly flops on Runways? Really?


obviously there is NO quality control with information being broadcast these days....

Wake up Sky News, just not good enough !
emotional reporting as opposed to factual....

[theAP]

Hats off to Virgin Crew and thank God it ended safe and well.

[blue_ashy]

For those saying it is sitting on it's engines

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6CWcWCCcAAhTve.jpg:large

[LukeB98]

Excellent work from the flight crew!

I think this just goes to show the speed of social media and how fast news spreads around the internet and onto our TV screens.

I've found this video which shows the landing of the aircraft (from BBC News).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzWnNSlIjzU

Once again, very glad everything has turned out good!

[Nialler]

Listing a bit?

[LTNman]

Well nothing is getting into Gatwick as aircraft are diverting to other airports

[Romeo E.T.]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10409216_858177934204139_528221069037667822_n.jpg?oh=d61a7ac 43639318a4eb90c73c5c99dca&oe=5540C9F6&__gda__=1429744863_c3ed8a6261494f8e1a567c8fe737dd06

[Romeo E.T.]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/q87/s720x720/10806250_858178960870703_4468221006738756686_n.jpg?oh=14d1c0 a546604dd987de585e8cc7e456&oe=5537FCD1&__gda__=1429318087_e286f6f7814e4174396e6eb9cf642733

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

When the Beeb said it was to be a "non-standard landing procedure" I thought it would land upside down to save the u/c....

Many congrats to the crew who earned their whole life's pay in one day. The pax have them to be very grateful for.

[Aeroservice]

Great Photo RP122. Shame they couldn't have uploaded it to the Capt.
Looks like Body Gears came down OK on Hydraulics when selected down as U/C Doors are up and faired. System 1 from memory.
Wing Gears poss. dropped manually as L & R Doors are still down and not stowed. System 4 from memory. Looks as though the R/H Wing Gear has fouled on it's Gear Door and hung up. Most likely the Door didn't clear the down coming wheel. There is a bumper pad that the wheel should contact and push it out of the way on a manual drop, but with a roll on or maybe flight loads, it baulked the full drop of the door and maybe caught the Gear.
Should be able to Tow once the Pax are off. Depends on who is managing the project there at the moment and the level of drama.
We have dropped the nitrogen px out of the L/H Wing Oleo a little in the past and it should level up OK. Can be towed gently in that condition if not too much fuel on and balanced in the Tanks.
Nice landing and good job by the Crew I would say.
Saved a lot more damage...:ok:

[suninmyeyes]

It will be interesting to hear what caused the problem. Presumably the plane returned because the gear did not retract properly after takeoff. Subsequently the right wing gear did not extend properly. Probably fouled on a gear door.

The 747 undercarriage system has a lock that stops the gear lever from being raised. The lock will clear when the main gear is tilted and the air/ground switches are happy it is in the air with the steerable body gear aligned.The flight crew are able to override the lock once airborne if it does not release as a way of getting the gear up. I seem to remember they suggested using a pen to move the latch to stop your finger getting trapped. However if the gear are not in the correct position when manually overriding the lock and raising the gear this can lead to the gear jamming and graunching against the gear doors. Interesting to know if the crew had to override the gear lock once airborne.

Apart from the Pan Am incident in SFO Where the aircraft was badly damaged by hitting the opposite end light stanchions on takeoff jamming some of the gear I cannot remember any other incident where a 747 has failed to get a main gear down. At least it did not sit on its tail like the Pan Am.

Does anyone know of any other incident where a 747 could not get a main gear down?

[barry lloyd]

Regarding press coverage, I'm surprised the Mediterranean ferry fire didn't get more attention. Potentially a much more sticky situation developing in darkness. Respect to all those who had obviously planned though the night to move in at dawn.
I'm not. No video worthy of showing, so the news editors aren't interested and that goes for all news these days, sadly. Much better on a slow news day to rush some film crews to LGW because there's time in hand. On a normal news day it would have merited 30 seconds at best.

Not to detract in any way from a job extremely well done by the crew :ok:

[hampshireandy]

I assume the gear didnt retract correctly after departure or they wouldnt have been aware of a problem until lowering the gear on arrival?

[Super VC-10]

Lo and behold, Sky have got a pax from the flight on air. She said "everyone on board was scared".

No, they weren't. Those up front wouldn't have had time to be scared, they had better things to do. Well done to the crew for a successful outcome. :D

[Nialler]

As usual the DM lead with "Passengers' terror" before quoting quite a few passengers who seem to have taken it all in their stride. Some can't wait to get back on a 'plane.

Edit to add: those quoted in the article all praised the CC for keeping things calm. They also said that they were kept well-informed by those at the business end of things. Looks like the all the crew were on their game.

[SteveHP7]

Is the aircraft still on the runway as aircraft are diverting an hour or so after VS landed?

[The Codfather]

"Does anyone know of any other incident where a 747 could not get a main gear down?"

Its happened a few times, last one was in October.

Accident: Great Wall B744 at Shanghai on Oct 24th 2014, right main gear up landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=47c3dc71)

[bcgallacher]

Suninmyeyes - I have experience of exactly this problem a few years back in Sharjah with a 747 freighter. Number 4 hydraulic system lost all fluid due to a fractured flexible line.The gear was free falled but the greased plate that allows the wheel to slide down it sheared off - I suspect due to the impact of the gear coming down undamped with lack of fluid.the greased plate assembly is linked to the doors and is supposed to push the doors inboard to clear the gear. With the plate sheared the wheel sat on top of the outboard door with no way of being moved - a successful landing was made as with the Virgin aircraft. If you look at the photographs of the Virgin aircraft you can see that the wing gear doors are open - they should normally close after gear is down,this indicates that the free fall system was operated. This incident brings to 3 the number of times I have known this to happen. I suspect that the gear came up and locked,fluid was then lost and the crew decided to return - that was when the gear hung up after operating the free fall.

[Tight Slot]

I'm glad "the" pilot and the stewardess did a good job. Must be hard flying a big crippled jet like that on your own. Makes you wonder why there aren't two or three pilots to do the flying, the radio, the EICAS, QRH, NITS brief, PAs, fuel dump, landing performance calculations...

[VS-Toga]

Very proud of the way this was handled.

I can say no more than that.

[Bearcat]

Heavy landing on the remaining boogies......over weight landings are a tricky beast. Well done crew......pints and medals deserved.

[airship]

I remember once reading about someone who ran an obscure pilot's forum but supposedly 'gave it all up' to go flying B744s. Went to work for Virgin even. Surely not, it couldn't have been...?! Nah. I mean, who in their right minds would give up a cushy-number and subject themselves to working over Xmas and New Year? :(

PS. Are smilies OK to use here? Yes.

http://www.pprune.org/images/3flypigs.gif

[captbod]

According to the expert currently on Sky News, it's SOP to carry out a low fly past to allow a visual inspection from the ground and also to shake the Aeroplane around to try and extend the gear??? Pretty sure that's not the case in any company I have worked for, best I go and re-read Pt B, the QRH and dig out some FSIs.:confused:

[offa]

(Reply to Sun in my eyes)
SAA at JFK early 80's? Procedure then was to retract the opposite wing gear and land on body gear only .... very wobbly so not a good idea to taxi off the hi-speed!

[Cunliffe]

What happened to the system of diverting aircraft with gear probs to Manston? Presumably it is uneconomic nowadays but it would avoid the disruption to other flights.

[akerosid]

Airport was initially closed for two hours, but given that it will take quite a while to move the aircraft, it will probably be another few hours before it is moved.

Good job to the crew. Aircraft was G-VROM.

[LAS1997]

Its a pity they closed Manston with its wide and long runway they could have diverted there, instead the 747 now blocks the runway at one of the busiest airports in the UK causing diversions and chaos.

[Squawk_ident]

I am surprised that a NOTAM has not been issued yet for EGKK. The runway is closed UFN, the diversion parade is in force and nothing is published.

[Aeroservice]

Manston sadly closed and most Aviation related infrastructure sold and gone. Would be a lonely landing there now and no response on the Tower frequency......

[KelvinD]

Can I ask a daft question? Can this incident really have been caused by a landing gear fault?
The aircraft had made it as far as Lundy (more or less) and was at 32,000' before changing course. I assume there would be no landing gear warning at that speed and altitude so am I correct in assuming the landing gear was a side show and the pilot had decided to return to LGW as a result of some other anomaly?

[helimutt]

LAS1997, would you rather a smouldering smashed up mess at the end of a runway or a moveable aircraft with everyone down safe? Honestly, :mad: happens and always better a good result than the alternative, regardless of the diversions and inconvenience afterwards, surely?

[Mudman]

From the end of the runway
zLpRu1EzyGE

Port side
JoWS_SHe4gU

[yotty]

BAENG Crash Team en-route to Lgw. ETA 21-00.

[Dominator2]

LAS1997,

I agree with your sentiment. Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?

[juniour jetset]

Did the pilot do a bouncer and then go airbourne again briefly on purpose to try and free the gear hoping it might drop quickly and give the rightside some more support.

[LTNman]

So why can't they bring Gatwick's other runway into use that is used when the main runway is having maintenance carried out? I assume it has something to do with fire cover but surely cover could have been put back by now at least at a lower level?

[enola-gay]

It seems the pilot flying was called Dave.


I hope his FMS was not called HAL

[NigelOnDraft]

Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem? The Captain decides where to land. ATC may have read their "please bog off elsewhere script" (LHR does, not sure about LGW?), but Capt has right to override.

I doubt there are many other airfields with the same runway length / crash cat. Engineering cover might, in this case, also be a factor to rapidly assess situation v status of the gear.

Anyway, where do you think the Capt's car was parked :ok:

NoD

[Wycombe]

Looks like one, maybe two fuse plugs blowing on the port side during the rollout/stop. Looks like they also *just* avoided a pod scrape on No.3.

Fantastic job.

Looks like airfield open again as of 1905L

[bcgallacher]

Kelvin D - If you had read my previous post you would have been informed that the reason for the return was probably loss of # 4 hydraulic system.

[36050100]

Well Done to the whole crew of VS43.

Happy to fly with you folks anytime :D

[foxmoth]

So why can't they bring Gatwick's other runway into use that is used when the main runway is having maintenance carried out? I assume it has something to do with fire cover but surely cover could have been put back by now at least at a lower level?

Not enough space between runways and the 747 is stuck on one of them - in normal use with the secondary runway aircraft have to be clear of the parallel taxiway before the next aircraft can land.

[15B4 Lambourne]

Looks as though Gatwick has re-opened - flights are departing

[ChrisGr31]

Obviously an excellent outcome for Virgin, the Crew Passengers and aviation as a whole.

I wonder if anyone does the maths to calculate how much it costs for Gatwick to be closed for an hour or how long it is/was. Its not just the aircraft that have been diverted but of course they are now in the wrong position for their next flight etc.

Who pays the costs of all these diversions? Do Gatwick get paid for the loss of income of having the runway closed?

Obviously it would have been nice to have had a choice of diverting to Manston but then someone would have to pay the costs of keeping the airfield open with emergency fire service car and sufficient staff to sort out an incident like this.

Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it instead.

Its extremely unlikely to happen though.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Kelvin D - If you had read my previous post you would have been informed that the reason for the return was probably loss of # 4 hydraulic system.

The videos above appear to confirm this. The right outboard elevator remains neutral while the others are commanded nose up during the landing roll. I believe system 4 is the only system that feeds that control surface.

[Paranoid]

I think the landing impact was exactly as intended.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.
Great job not impacting nacelles 3 + 4, with subsequent engine damage.
I think Mr Branson owes this crew a holiday in Neckar.

[Loose rivets]

Doubt there's time to pussy-foot around with a dainty landing if a lot of your brakes are stowed away.

[NigelOnDraft]

Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it insteadIt's not just keeping it open, but manned up with comprehensive Fire Cover etc.

NB the VS340 landed at LHR, and blocked a runway for 24hrs? or more. Despite being requested to "bog off" they did not, and Manston was available. This incident always was looking likely to end as it did (runway closed for an hour or 2, then tow off), whereas the 340 was known to be going to land and not be moveable.

The "fallout" of this incident in disruption terms will likely be less than the NATS computer **** up earlier this month...

[thelad]

Well done to the pilot and the person on the radio offering advice for him all the way through the incident. A "small" jet was sent up to take a look at the visible damaged so no need for a "tower fly past" and as far as i know from the plan over the radio the pilot did not plan to do any bounce on the runway.
all handled very professional by the crew and airline.
The intention for recovery from the aircraft when on the ground was to let small groups of Pax off evenly to prevent any more damage to the aircraft.

[bcgallacher]

Flamin Squirrel - Right outboard elevator is powered solely by #4 hydraulic system as you suggest.

[Cubs2jets]

I noticed that the leading edge devices between the engines and between the engines and fuselage retracted at touchdown (spoiler deployment?). Is this a "normal" event or something indicative of the issue they may have been dealing with?

[SMOC]

1. A previous post said it was at FL320 when it turned back.
2. Wing gear alternate extension.
3. Bounced / firm landing.

As said earlier all signs of a system 4 hydraulic failure.

1. Ops/Eng says come home.
2. Alternate extend wing gear & outboard flaps unfortunately right side wing gear gets fouled on the door.
3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no deployment of the ground spoilers (sys #4) on touch down which would cause a pitch up if they were armed due to remaining spoilers (sys 2&3).

Manual braking using system 1 for the rollout (antiskid-yes, autobrake - no)

The leading edge retracts on selection of reverse thrust completely normal. They were extended for the approach.

[NigelOnDraft]

1st why did the Capt decide to keep the passengers/crew in the air for 4 hrs obviously getting very worried when a dump of fuel takes approx. 50mins and a return to Gatwick would take whatever from the point of the problem starting (after take off?)You'll need to wait until a report (if there is one) comes out. However, 2 things spring to mind:
Fuel Dump is intended to get aircraft down to MLW, and some tanks cannot be dumped in some aircraft (not sure about 744?). In some emergencies, you then want to burn more to get to minimum weight/fuel which takes time. Clearly this was not a "time critical" issue.
The nature of the problem will be assessed by airline and Boeing engineers for potential solutions. This takes time, and worth giving them the maximum possible.

[fireflybob]

1st why did the Capt decide to keep the passengers/crew in the air for 4 hrs obviously getting very worried when a dump of fuel takes approx. 50mins and a return to Gatwick would take whatever from the point of the problem starting (after take off?)

Why rush? As Captain the last thing you are concerned with is the emotional condition of the passengers! (That does not mean you would not take all reasonable steps to keep them informed though).

Would you rather have a safe landing after 4 hours or a runway excursion after 50 minutes resulting in damage/fire, injury and loss of life?

[AeroSpark]

Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?

[west lakes]

why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation

So Gatwick and Heathrow are both RFF (fire fighting) category A10, which dictates the number of appliances and staff immediately available! And based on aircraft length and width
A 747 requires A9, but can in some circumstances accept A7, of course this is an aircraft with a serious issue so will require a full capability
Stansted & Luton are A7

So where would the quieter airport get the capability to deal with a larger aircraft if they don't have it? They can't take it from one close by as that would reduce that one's capability. Or should a random location be A10 and have equipment and staff doing nothing but wait for a divert! Who would pay for the rare times it would be needed?

(A10 BTW is for an A380)

Airport Categorisation (http://airfieldcharts.com/airportcategorisation.htm)

[flt001]

why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?

Fire was a possible outcome here so you stop asap incase you need the trucks to come douse you, they will be waiting near by. Until your wheels stop you may not know how much trouble you're in. Also burst tyres can make a mess of the runway.

[NigelOnDraft]

Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open? Fair question...

The answer can vary and we do not know the exact circumstances here. But as the TV showed, the runway filled with emergency vehicles. So priority 1 is to stop the aircraft on the runway and get it assessed ASAP, and a narrow taxiway offers less options, and takes longer.

If the aircraft is assessed 100% safe, and can be taxied, then you might choose to do so. However, without full gear, probably hydraulic problems from posts above, I would guess it was never an option here. Just look at how close the #3 engine was to the ground.

There is a theme running here... safety is priority #1. Airport running efficiency very much #2. Also the case with NATS - despite all the fuss over the Dec 2013 and Dec 2014 computer problems, there were nil safety issues. Does not stop the MPs going off on one about the delays of course :ugh:

[west lakes]

why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?

I would guess high brake temperatures for one.

But which way would you turn, one way that could overstress the remaining gear, or the way that could tip the aircraft towards where the missing gear is or would it be safer to get the passengers off first?

[LLuCCiFeR]

I think the landing impact was exactly as intended.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.What a total nonsense, in addition to the usual "job well done" drivel!

Of course you don't want to waste valuable landing distance (QRH says 8020' for F30, 290T LW, Gear Disagree one wing or body gear up), but quite honestly I don't see any reason to plant it down like this. Lucky they didn't break or overstress the remaining gears.

[bille1319]

Why risk messing the runway at Gatwick when there's other long runways in the country such as Brize Norton. In the time she circled and burnt of fuel and liquors no doubt a considerable contingent of emergency services could have been stationed there by the time she landed without any disruption to travelers.

[HS-125]

Who care's about anyone else? I couldn't give a monkeys about Billybob who can't get to his meeting in time, these things happen.

I'd rather get down at a place I'm familiar with and worry about my aircraft / passengers rather than anyone else.

People's plans can be changed easily.

[screwdriver]

On the Classic we would have deactivated the Body Gear Steering (therefore limited turning capability) and the Autobrakes. Up until the early 90s we would have retracted the opposite symmetrical gear but that changed to "land on all available gear" . Good job done by the crew and it gave me something to watch this afternoon while near MAYfield.:D

[thcrozier]

Anyone have a link to the ATC recording of this incident? I'm not having any luck.

[west lakes]

Anyone have a link to the ATC recording of this incident? Under UK law the release of such a recording other than by authorised bodies (the airline, air traffic control etc) is illegal, so don't get your hopes up too much.
OK even listening and making a recording is as well!

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/206063-listening-uk-atc-communications-law.html

[Huck]

Tell me again about the coming Age of the Pilotless Airliner....

[thelad]

Sounds like the pilot had family/friends as Pax on the flight, flight has been re scheduled for Tomorrow and they are being put up in a hotel over night.
Crew are to interviewed by AIB tonight.

[Capvermell]

Why risk messing the runway at Gatwick when there's other long runways in the country such as Brize Norton. In the time she circled and burnt of fuel and liquors no doubt a considerable contingent of emergency services could have been stationed there by the time she landed without any disruption to travelers.

With all the RAF's eggs in southern England now being placed very firmly in the Brize Norton basket (following the closure of Lyneham) and its 10,007ft (3050m) length being long enough for most eventualities why can't its firefighting capability just be uprated from the current Cat 8 to Cat 10 or FAA Cat E. This then makes it good enough to handle even an A380 incident.

Even as it turned out this was Christmas week so a significant number of completely full Easyjet flights will have been completely cancelled (short turnaround gives little other option on one hour or less duration flights) and those displaced passengers will find it very difficult to get seats on anything else. But if the worst had happened the airport could easily have been closed for at least 1 to 2 weeks.

So why on earth take the risk, especially when Gatwick is also a long haul hub where the consequences for passengers of prolonged closure are usually much more severe (i.e can't drive or get a train or coach instead).

If this incident had turned out badly that very question would have been asked big time far and wide and especially in Parliament. So even though it didn't turn out badly this time I still ask why on earth not spend the small amount of money to raise Brize Norton's crash capability to 10/E including the possible laying of foam on the runway (which in any 1970s film depictions I watched of what would probably happen with a fictional aircraft with a failed under carriage always seemed to be the only conceivable way of handling this situation).

Instead Gatwick might have had to close down for weeks just so that Captain didn't have to get a taxi back home to Gatwick and/or so that Virgin's operational costs in repairing the aircraft would be significantly lower (assuming that is that Easyjet, Norwegian, BA etc don't all fire compensation suits against Virgin).

[ExSp33db1rd]

AeroSpark

Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?

Landing on partial gear is potentially hazardous and could possibly end up disastrously.
Taxying on partial gear is potentially hazardous and could possible end up disastrously.

You HAVE to attempt a landing,( what goes up must come down) you DON'T have to attempt to taxi.

[Depone]

A professional job bringing a 747 back to earth safely with a missing MLG. Dumping and rebalancing remaining fuel. The crew deserve much praise for that.

But can we please stop with the praise for the landing? The videos show little flare and a big bounce. Please stop telling us that was intended by the PF! Horseradish! Even with 3/4 elevator control a normal landing should have been a priority with dodgy gear.

And I also agree that we must have better places to send aeroplanes which need to perform an emergency landing? LGW?! I am sure it suits Virgin to go there, but are there better options? If not, in a country where the Government is doing its best to ensure LHR and LGW are run at max capacity, we need to create them.

[Teg Bahadur]

Bravo! Well done coming in safely onto terra firma for a safe landing. Everybody walked away safe and sound.

Had a colleague did that in DFW more than a decade ago. All safe and sound!

To all who wrote the negative posts about firm landing etc..stfu, you were never there!:ugh:

[Jet Jockey A4]

Awesome job! They earned their pay today for sure.

[quadradar]

Well done crew - I'd also be happy to fly with this lot any time :)

Minimal (if any) additional airframe damage too :)

[lefthanddownabit]

I noticed that the leading edge devices between the engines and between the engines and fuselage retracted at touchdown (spoiler deployment?). Is this a "normal" event or something indicative of the issue they may have been dealing with? This is normal for a 747. Those LE flap sections retract automatically when thrust reverse is deployed. Helps prevent damage to these surfaces. They auto extend again once reverse is stowed.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

With regard to the suggestion of using Brize Norton. If many of the RAF's eggs are indeed in that basket, they might be a little reluctant to volunteer to have THEIR runway blocked for an indefinite period.

[NSEU]

(EDIT) Comment removed.

[mickjoebill]

I noted the radio exchange immediatly after touchdown where pilot/copilot asked the tower if they could see smoke or fire and the reply from the tower was they could not see clearly due to sun glare and advised pilot to speak directly to the fire service on a different frequency as they were on scene.

But the video recording seemed to portray a running commentry from fire service as well as comms from ATC.
Could someone clarify if transmissions regarding "smoking port side" came from fire service and if so what frequency?
Did pilot hear this commentry?

As a general point in such scenarios, would it not be prudent to switch to fire service frequency on touchdown, because as has been noted in recent landing mishaps, maintaining adequate and timely situational awareness of whats occuring behind the cockpit in such emergencies is aided by having a set of trusted eyes outside with a good view of the underside of the aircraft.

[hitchens97]

That's a really interesting point about switching to emergency services frequency upon landing.

Other than being high up, after you're committed to the landing, does Tower provide any value. Emergency Services may be in the best position to help you with a critical decision like should you evacuate, by letting you know about fires etc.

Also couldn't you just allow emergency services to communicate on the Tower frequency at that point, rather than require a busy cockpit to switch frequencies.

[NSEU]

3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no

Do pilots not have sufficient time to adjust the flare in this situation? (i.e. reduced elevator control and extra fuel weight)

[Jet Jockey A4]

Why are you so negative?

So the PF might have misjudged or mistimed his flare and that could be because of several factors which include a small downdraft while in the flare or any other weather related condition.

Then there is the possibility invoked by some here that HYD 4 system was out of service and that left the aircraft with limited elevator authority, no auto deploy of the spoilers and indeed not even full spoiler deployment (only two panels came up) and no auto brakes. No amount of simulator practice can prepare you 100% for these conditions especially on a flare. Heck I have been a passenger on my flights where the PF smacked it on the runway with a perfectly working aircraft... It just happens from time to time.

I don't fly the 747 but on my aircraft just landing without the auto brakes selected, the aircraft wants to continue to fly upon touch down instead of transferring all its weight to the main landing gear and this even if the spoilers auto deploy.

So I think you can cut the PF this aircraft some slack... In the end they landed an aircraft with a malfunction, kept it down the centre line of the runway, didn't seem to break anything else and all were safe... To me that's a perfect ending!

[ZAGORFLY]

with all the respect i would celebrate the Boeing Designers before the pilot (baoucing on 3 legs instead of four ) the Hero is the B 747 design that prevented the plane from tilting on the # 4 engine!
only one thing to blame the MLG doors.
cheers

[SMOC]

NSEU, If you flare at the normal time/height with reduced elevator control it will be too late so the only option is to pre brief an earlier or stronger flare and make sure it's done, easily missed when considering post landing actions plus no one wants to land long in a non standard config.

QRH - System 4

Inoperative Items
Right outboard elevator inop - Pitch control is reduced.

If system 4 is inoperative: Extend the ground spoilers manually and slowly. Automatic extension of the outboard ground spoilers, without automatic extension of the inboard ground spoilers, causes the nose to pitch up.

Only two spoilers came up on each wing as the speedbrake was manually deployed to the flight detent only, they could have gone to full. IIRC the classic QRH used to say extend full after nose gear touchdown.

[dns]

Never flown heavy jets so this may be a stupid question, but would the flight crew in this case have deliberately pumped fuel to the left wing tanks in order to shift the centre of gravity and reduce the chances of a strike on a right engine during landing?

[PAXboy]

Do amuse yourselves by checking the 'news' as reported. Here are a couple:

The Daily Mirror
It has emerged that the pilot’s daughter was on board the plane as her hero dad struggled to land the aircraft safely.There does not appear to have been any 'struggle' since he achieved all his objectives, as well as those of his employer.

One Pax reports:
“At one point we dropped from 7,000ft to 5,000ft in about a second,” she said.Good to know the Pax know how these things work. here's their front page:

The Daily Mail
Terrified passengers on the flight were ordered to adopt the 'brace' position by the pilot over the speaker.Good to know he was doing his job. :rolleyes:


this links to their front page, via the BBC round up of papers:
BBC News - Newspaper headlines: Ebola fears, plane emergency and Greece (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-30629873)

(Thread drift: They also mention 'Ebola panic' So, within 12 hours of a single case being isolated and treated properly - they know that there is a 'panic'.

The Independent
Nick Hughes, a passenger on the aircraft, told BBC Radio 5 Live: “Initially they didn’t reveal everything to the passengers. After we’d circled a few times you got the sense things weren’t quite right. They gave every opportunity for the landing gear to open, but unfortunately it never did.“The actual landing was one of the softest landings I’d ever had. The crew were exemplary.”

[ZAGORFLY]

Thank you Paxboy all the media reporting is enjoyable indeed. As some passengers reported the best soft bounced landing ever!

[DaveReidUK]

As some passengers reported the best soft bounced landing ever! Having said that, the brief report on last night's BBC South news included the statement that "it made a bumpy landing with several passengers suffering minor injuries".

BBC iPlayer - South Today - 29/12/2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04vccwf/south-today-29122014)

[kotakota]

This certainly strengthens the need for a second runway at LGW . In that scenario , going back to a single runway with the best single runway ATC crew in the world would be a no brainer .
Very impressed with the quickish retrieval of the 74 from the runway .

[SILENTTHUNDER]

It annoys me when these " Gods gift to aviation Knowbetters" come out of the woodwork and start making critical comments. Sadly, it is the rest of us who have the misfortune to have to listen to their constant drivel either on here or when sitting next to them. This was a job well done, with a successful, safe outcome...Like others have said it wasn't you and you weren't there! ....enough said :mad:

[Mikehotel152]

Would a second runway make much difference? The limiting factor is usually the airport's overall fire cover being reduced below minimum levels whilst dealing with an emergency.

Jet Jockey. Fair enough; there may have been extenuating circumstances, but I bet the pilot would have preferred a smooth touchdown! I've never seen such a big bounce from a 747.

[vctenderness]

Presenter on LBC Radio this morning talking to an 'aviation expert' said "we had a near miss here yesterday when a Virgin jumbo jet had a successful crash landing":ugh:

I would have called it an unsuccessful CRASH landing.

[LLuCCiFeR]

No, I'm not God's gift to aviation, but just look at the wing flex upon that landing! Sorry, but that's not a normal landing and the situation IMHO does not justify something like this. What about the stress on the remaining gears?

As I've said before, of course you're not going to milk it for a nice greaser, but planting (and bouncing!) it down like this is not much safer either.

If they also had an HYD 4 problem in addition to a partial gear extension, then I seriously wonder why they didn't go to LRH which has a longer runway and is also a Virgin base (Maintenance, Pax handling etc) instead of returning to LGW.

If something like this would have happened to Korean Air, everybody here would be scrutinizing every little detail, but since it happened to a couple of infallible Brits and the aircraft appears to still be in one piece it's "well done to the crew" all over sudden? The only real 'gifts' to aviation on this website appear to be infallible Brits who talk with an Oxford accent. :hmm:

[takoon]

A good job down by the VIrgin crew, must of been very sweaty palms on that approach.

When they made their initial call to LGW tower they said that they where a "Pan" aircraft, surely this sort of issue would of warranted a Mayday at least ?

[Capvermell]

Mikehotel152 wrote:- Would a second runway make much difference? The limiting factor is usually the airport's overall fire cover being reduced below minimum levels whilst dealing with an emergency.If a plane crash lands and substantially breaks up with a fire on one runway at a two or more runway airport then of course the whole airport is normally closed whilst the emergency is dealt with by fire crews, ambulance and Police.

But once any fire has been extinguished and all injured or deceased passengers removed and the fire crews put back on standby (plus any broken or used fire fighting and other related emergency equipment replaced) then there will be huge commercial and also passenger pressure to reopen the other runway and continue operating as many flights as possible as soon as possible. The BA038 777 from Beijing at LHR on 17th Jan 2008 happily didn't involve any fatalities but the aircraft did partially break up and remained on the Southern runway for several days while the AAIB documented everything and plans on how to remove the aircraft were made. If that had happened at Gatwick the whole airport would have undoubtedly been shut for at least 2 or 3 days. Instead of which the Northern runway at Heathrow was back in normal use the same day within just an hour or so (see post #27 at [17 Jan 2008] BA38 lands short of the runway - Page 2 - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/780194-17-jan-2008-ba38-lands-short-runway-2.html))

As Gatwick wouldn't initially be anywhere near as busy as Heathrow for at least another 15 or 20 years after a second runway opened it probably ought to manage to resume close to full operations quite well with only one runway if an aircraft crashed on the other and there was a several day delay before all crash investigation and wreckage removal was complete. But it depends which 2nd runway option they choose since if they went for the close parallel ones where the two runways can't operate at the same time its possible a crash landed plane on one runway could mean the other being closed too until the other one was fully cleared. So hopefully they will avoid choosing such a short sighted runway option for that very reason (as well as the passenger capacity related reasons on top of that).

EDIT:- Just couldn't help resist mentioning that in watching quite a bit of the coverage on Sky News and BBC News yesterday I also saw no sign at all of Chris Yates but there were interviews with several highly experienced British former commercial pilots. Does this mean that he has finally been de-listed as an "aviation expert" by the British media?:D

A quick News Google for "Chris Yates" suggests he is in fact still operating and making comments about the Air Asia crash but only the German media now seems to believe that he is an "Aviation Expert". See yesterday's coverage at www.dw.de/analyst-indonesia-has-a-poor-air-safety-record/a-18155440 (http://www.dw.de/analyst-indonesia-has-a-poor-air-safety-record/a-18155440)

His Linked In entry at https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/chris-yates/22/b09/12b suggests that even Jane's have finally given him the push as their "Aviation Security Editor" (they would do far better to employ my former school class mate Philip Baum if they want a real one) but he is still running his own rather amateur website (which claims rather forlornly that something better is "coming soon") with speculation on a variety of crashes at www.yatesconsulting.co.uk/ (http://www.yatesconsulting.co.uk/) and encouraging the media to contact him for more so called "insight and analysis"

[fireflybob]

When they made their initial call to LGW tower they said that they where a "Pan" aircraft, surely this sort of issue would of warranted a Mayday at least ?

Not necessarily.

Mayday = threatened by grave and imminent danger and require immediate assistance whereas Pan = state of urgency.

Either way I think you'll find ATC will treat it as an emergency.

The fact they were able to fly around for a few hours proves, I would suggest, that this was not a Mayday by definition.

[Right Way Up]

Lucifer,

then I seriously wonder why they didn't go to LRH which has a longer runway and is also a Virgin base (Maintenance, Pax handling etc) instead of returning to LGW.

They must have been busy in La Rochelle in the last year since I went there. :E

[ManaAdaSistem]

Aircraft and passengers safely on ground.
Good job, guys!

[cithos]

If you look carefully at the photograph of the under-belly of the aircraft you see that three gears are extended normally but the right hand wing gear is blocked in the wheel well by what appears to be a substantial white sheet of material that has jammed between the open wing gear door and the truck asssembly.

Some video that has been released shows a shower of sparks from the underbelly area of the aircraft on touchdown. This would have been the bottom edge of the wing gear doors contacting the runway during the flare? Once the nose was lowered the contact stopped.

[DaveReidUK]

it depends which 2nd runway option they choose since if they went for the close parallel ones where the two runways can't operate at the same timeNone of the LGW expansion options involve only being able to operate one runway at a time, for obvious reasons.

[Flightmech]

cithos,

That substantial white sheet of material is the inboard portion of the WLG door itself. It looks like the #13 tyre has gone through it and them jammed the gear.

[Flightmech]

LLuCCiFeR,

Stop talking b******s old chap. You're making your point based on wing flex?:ugh:

For your info, Virgin do have a maintenance base and a nice big hangar at LGW (and pax handling too as funnily enough the aircraft left there it the first place?) but strangely enough not at your preferred diversion at La Rochelle:E

[Doors to Automatic]

Just out of interest why was Gatwick's emergency runway not brought into use? I thought it was there for this very eventuality?

[farefield]

Too much to-ing and fro-ing I expect.

[LLuCCiFeR]

Stop talking b******s old chap. You're making your point based on wing flex?:ugh:Nope, I'm making my point based on 2 videos where you can clearly see a bounce and all gears are airborne again. It's almost impossible to miss, unless you're legally blind or heavily biased of course. :) It's amazing how far people go, quite literally, to turn a blind eye on certain aspects just and only because they are from a certain airline and/or nationality. A lot of supposedly responsible and critical professionals seem to have a standard judgment canned and ready to go: if it's an Asian operator or an Irish low cost airline then everything sucked, if it's British airline then everything was jolly well and "well done to the crew."

p.s. It's a little bit difficult to see, but are those spoilers already deployed before the nose wheel touches down?

p.p.s. Rochelle? I have no idea what you are referring to. :confused:

Some video that has been released shows a shower of sparks from the underbelly area of the aircraft on touchdown. This would have been the bottom edge of the wing gear doors contacting the runway during the flare? Once the nose was lowered the contact stopped. I do not see any sparks and I don't see anything else such as flaps or engine pods, making contact with the runway. For as far as that part was concerned, it was indeed well done! :ok:

[Capvermell]

DaveReidUK said:- None of the LGW expansion options involve only being able to operate one runway at a time, for obvious reasons.Yes they do. That option is called the Close Parallel Runway. The nature of the Gatwick airport site is such that there are issues with aircraft taxiing across the end of the existing runway with even the the two wider spaced runway options but there is unikely to be a problem constantly taxiing across the end of a runway that is closed unless that is the exact point where the crash has actually taken place.

See www.gacc.org.uk/resources/Gatwick%20Unzipped%20pdf.pdf (http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources/Gatwick%20Unzipped%20pdf.pdf) and AirportWatch | Gatwick publishes its 3 options for a southern 2nd runway enabling up to 87 mppa (http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2013/07/16794/)

That is why in their submission GAL state that:-

50. The runways would have to be used dependently i.e. operations on one runway temporarily interrupting operations on the other.

51. A close parallel runway would provide comparatively little extra capacity. GAL state that the existing runway can handle 40 million passengers a year, rising to 48 million by 2050. A new close parallel runway would raise this to around 60-66 million. Thus the increase in capacity could be as little as 25%.DoorsToAutomatic said::- Just out of interest why was Gatwick's emergency runway not brought into use? I thought it was there for this very eventuality?Because its only designed to be used when the main runway is temporarily out of use being inspected or resurfaced or repaired or otherwise maintained (eg new landing light system installation) but is far too close to the main runway to ever be safely operated when an aircraft (especially a 747) is standing on that other main runway.

Anyone who knows anything about Gatwick knows that the current so called "second runway" is just a glorified taxiway (its normal function the rest of the time) that is only used basically as a last resort and mainly at night (typically from midnight to 5am and probably not for any length of time overnight in July or August when there are far more middle of the night arrivals than during the rest of the year) when there are relatively few aircraft operations that will actually need to use it and hence the lower safety factor and clear extra risk involved in using it is minimised.

[Flightmech]

Lucifer,

I confirm I am not blind and yes saw the bounce but don't see it as significant at all? Anyway, you carry on old boy:ok:

[mmitch]

Meanwhile the tumbleweed blows around Manston's 10,000' runway with the
Fire training school still in use......:(

[pax britanica]

As a regular reader it never ceases to amaze me the level of angst and animosity displayed on PPrune at times.

here we have a succesful outcome toa very tricky situation, I wondered about the 'bounce ' watching the news last night but I've seen lots of big airliners bounce on landing and they didnt have missing landing gear and hydraulic system and therefore control surface failures.

Seeing the video from head on shows just how tricky this was and how asymmetric a 74 looks with a wing gear missing and therefore how real the risk of it tipping over to the starboard side was before slowing to a safe moderate pace.

Then we have people slagging off the crew for now 'greasing it on' and other claiming the Brits have some innate superiority over certain other countries when it comes to aviation innovation and include France in the list a country even the most ardent francophobe would concede have made a pretty big contribution to aviation history.

A great shame people get so annoyed and personal and I hope they are all interested observers like me and never get on the business side of a flight deck door with those atitudes.

Oh and lets have a spare airport with 11000ft runway, ILS and lighting and full fire cover plus pax handling facilities available just in case something like this happens and delays Joe public for a few hours or maybe a day. After the Xmas rail chaos why not build a new London terminal connected to all the main rail lines in the event of over running engineering works too -where on earth would that approach end??

Well done to the crew I say and I hope those on board are not put off flying by their experience which was probably legitimately worrying for many of them.

[Sailvi767]

It sounds like the crew did a great job overall. I suspect the pilot flying is not real happy with the landing. The flare was late and abrupt and the aircraft touched down hard no matter how you want to look at it. Still the overall result was exactly what you want!

[DaveReidUK]

Yes they do. That option is called the Close Parallel Runway.

Yes, I'm well aware that one of the three options is for a close-spaced runway which would operate in dependent segregated mode, where movements on one runway would be affected by movements on the other.

The runways would have to be used dependently i.e. operations on one runway temporarily interrupting operations on the other.Exactly - with the emphasis on "temporarily". That's rather different from, for example, the current situation where the main and emergency runway can't under any circumstances be used simultaneously. Instead, it's a bit like saying that Windows (in the old single-core days) can't run two processes simultaneously, which while technically true, is only part of the story.

Likewise, the close-spaced parallel runway would increase overall runway capacity from around 55 movements per hour to about 70, though granted the wide-spaced option would up that to around 75 as well as providing other operational benefits.

[funfly]

Those who comment on the landing have a very GA attitude.
Of course the pilot was not 'winging' it in, he had been involved in a lot of discussions with his engineering people and his speeds, techniques etc. would have been the result of a great deal of pre planning.
And it obviously worked.

[woodpecker]

For those of you who don't understand alternate gear extension (required in this case following loss of No 4 Hyd system)

Electric motors power a cable system to unlock the gear doors and gear uplocks, allowing the gear to freefall....

Me thinks it won't be long before there is a Boeing service bulletin to check the motors and cables!

[Loose rivets]

I suspect the pilot flying is not real happy with the landing. The flare was late and abrupt and the aircraft touched down hard no matter how you want to look at it.


Speed control held tight to the number. Unknown drag and resultant effects on the lift near the starboard UC doors.


If I put myself into that seat in those last moments I can imagine gently pulling back and finding three-quarters of normal elevators just doesn't do quite what I expected compared to the sim. Now is the moment of vital decision making. Reacting to that under-rotation too vigorously could be extremely undesirable and I bet that skipper fought off any temptation to make a last minute correction. A tad too far . . . well, I don't have to spell it out, and again, remember a lot of his brakes are tucked away and he's not overwhelmed with concrete.

[pb643]

From what I understand, the crew were told that ther was little margin for landing the aircraft within the runway length avaliable, taking into account the reduced braking capacity. Hence the neccesity to get the aircraft on the ground and braking at the earliest opportunity.

[farefield]

Flare technique is an interesting topic for this case.I usually do a 2 stage flare out of habit but many colleagues do a one stage,which if you're a little late could well be a cruncher.

Don't know what technique was used here but the 2 stage flare might have enabled the pilot to judge the elevator authority better.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Told? By who? Not much good bouncing if you're trying to stop though.

[ACA856]

Kindly forgive me if this has already been discussed, but is it not possible the firm landing and subsequent bounce was a deliberate attempt to dislodge the stuck gear?

Regardless, hats off to the crew for a happy ending.

[vs69]

No cable run for the alternate extend system on a jumbo each uplock has an elec motor. Ops check is a scheduled maintenance task. Not that it was an issue here.

[scoobydoo44]

Generally it is normal practise for the AFS to communicate with the flight deck via a discreet channel usually after the end of the landing sequence. In addition to this channel responding crews will also have a main fire service channel , a tower channel and ground frequency to use and communicate .
During this incident the AFS oic would have been in constant comms throughout with the flight crew updating them on the exterior conditions.

[36050100]

One thing I was mildly surprised about was how long after landing the engines appear (from the head-on footage) to have been kept running after coming to a stop. I don't imagine that there was an intention to taxi in. What are the engines providing after stopping that the APU couldn't provide ?

[cwatters]

LLuCCiFeR wrote:

No, I'm not God's gift to aviation, but just look at the wing flex upon that landing! Sorry, but that's not a normal landing and the situation IMHO does not justify something like this. What about the stress on the remaining gears?

SMOC posted a possible explanation for the slightly heavy landing/bounce...

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553657-virgin-landing-gear-incident-lgw-5.html#post8801645

1. A previous post said it was at FL320 when it turned back.
2. Wing gear alternate extension.
3. Bounced / firm landing.

As said earlier all signs of a system 4 hydraulic failure.

1. Ops/Eng says come home.
2. Alternate extend wing gear & outboard flaps unfortunately right side wing gear gets fouled on the door.
3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no deployment of the ground spoilers (sys #4) on touch down which would cause a pitch up if they were armed due to remaining spoilers (sys 2&3).

Manual braking using system 1 for the rollout (antiskid-yes, autobrake - no)

The leading edge retracts on selection of reverse thrust completely normal. They were extended for the approach.

[Colonal Mustard]

Anyone notice how the photos of the landing appear to have been "edited", by this i mean that all of the footage at the time of the landing (tube etc) dont appear to show anything more than the usual puff of wheel smoke upon landing, yet the front pages this morning showed huge sparks coming from the oleo....If this is the case then it just shows what level picture editors will stoop to get the scoop and who cares if we scare a few passengers unnecessarily.....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/24517EA100000578-2890093-Crying_passengers_on_board_a_transatlantic_Virgin_flight_hav e_ha-a-45_1419878395142.jpg

[stevebbh]

View from astern over Haywards Heath

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/stevebbh/VS043Nostarboardwheeldown_zps8430c1c2.jpg (http://s119.photobucket.com/user/stevebbh/media/VS043Nostarboardwheeldown_zps8430c1c2.jpg.html)

[mustangsally]

In 1995 I had a left body gear fail to extend properly. Called for gear down and then there was a very violent shake of the airframe. We all felt as if we had had a mid-air. We also lost hydraulic system one. Ran all the procedures and finally landed. The gear actuator had failed, broken and the hydraulic fluid was gone. The landing was uneventful. 747-200

[vancouv]

LLuCCiFeR:

p.p.s. Rochelle? I have no idea what you are referring to

then I seriously wonder why they didn't go to LRH which has a longer runway and is also a Virgin base (Maintenance, Pax handling etc) instead of returning to LGW.


Suggest you check your typos more carefully if you don't want to give people easy potshots

[cithos]

Thank you ... yes, it must be the outer section of the door that has fouled the tilted gear. Which can happen during emergency extension if the door release does not function.

[Depone]

the crew were told that ther was little margin for landing the aircraft within the runway length available

26L LDA 9300 feet.

Yeah, not that long, especially when the bounce used up about about 1000 feet of available runway.

Kudos for keeping it on an even keel though.

[Romeo E.T.]

the photo taken from behind (post 153) seems to show some spoiler float already taking place, due hydraulic loss.
all in all, a lot of activity in the cockpit to get this sorted out, reduced flap approach speed, reduced braking ability, restricted runway length, etc, over and above the QRH items of loss of Hyd, partial gear etc
some planning went into a successful outcome...well done crew !

[NSEU]

What are the engines providing after stopping that the APU couldn't provide ?

Perhaps the crew thought it wise to not add a potential fire source until the fire crews communicated that the situation on the ground was under control.

[RAT 5]

Guys: I ask an open question and hope an open discussion. When there is such a situation it will cause a major civilian airport to be closed for a lengthy period. This will cause major flight diversions & cancellations which will have enormous economic/social repercussions to many innocent parties. Down the road there are enormous military runways with all the necessary safety services paid for by the tax-payer and seldom used. Why do a/c in such circumstances not divert to these airfields?
The same argument is there for security flights. STN & PIK are the UK designated bomb/hi-jack safety related airport diversions. Why use civil airfields when the military have all the required personnel, supplemented by local civil police, to handle the situation?

I stress; this is on the table for an open discussion, not to attract derisory rejection.

[ImPlaneCrazy]

RAT 5, have a read through the pages of this thread. That subject has been discussed quite thoroughly :ok:

To summarise
- Lack of pax handling facilities
- No based airline maintenance facilities
- Lack of airfield knowledge for crew
- Cost of operating airfields with ILS, fire, medical etc

[G-F0RC3]

This was a skillful landing. It will be interesting to read more about what went wrong with the gear in the coming days and weeks. Presumably not serious enough to warrant the grounding of other aircraft until the fault is identified?

[fireflybob]

RAT 5, have a read through the pages of this thread. That subject has been discussed quite thoroughly

To summarise
- Lack of pax handling facilities
- No based airline maintenance facilities
- Lack of airfield knowledge for crew
- Cost of operating airfields with ILS, fire, medical etc

Also relevant fire cover

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Surely another reason for pilot less aircraft with computers that could have been programmed to perform a better landing instead of thumping in and bouncing it. :E

[Ratatat]

Regarding the Northern/Emergency Runway/08L/26R or whatever you wish to call it.
Because its only designed to be used when the main runway is temporarily out of use being inspected or resurfaced or repaired or otherwise maintained (eg new landing light system installation) but is far too close to the main runway to ever be safely operated when an aircraft (especially a 747) is standing on that other main runway.

I don't know the reason for not using it in this instance but it can be used with an aircraft on the main runway and has been in the past.

I recall using the Northern(08L) several years ago whilst taxiing departures up to 737 size down Juliet and anything bigger, including Heavies, down the main after crossing the Northern at Romeo and using Delta to access the main.
Was a very interesting afternoon!

[fokker1000]

I have flown wide bodies not so long ago.. And saw first hand the landing yesterday….

Caused me a big delay but, who cares, all pax safe, what better result could we have?

Anyone complaining about this situation wasn't in a crew seat, or dare I say a passenger.

Bloody good job to the skipper, FO and AND cabin crew who were ready for the worst case senerio..

Well done all of you….

And well done to ATC and the under praised AFS who are there all day everyday for when we hope it doesn't go wrong… When it does, there are.

Thank you...

[peterdc10]

Normal, to reduce lift.

[NSEU]

No cable run for the alternate extend system on a jumbo each uplock has an elec motor. Ops check is a scheduled maintenance task. Not that it was an issue here.

I suggest you recheck your maintenance manuals ;)

My manuals say:

"The wing gear alternate extension system consists of an electic actuator which powers a cam and cable system.

[stevebbh]

Undamaged port side

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/stevebbh/DSC02335a_zps2d30e096.jpg (http://s119.photobucket.com/user/stevebbh/media/DSC02335a_zps2d30e096.jpg.html)


Damaged Starboard side?

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/stevebbh/DSC02321a_zps17fd8f39.jpg (http://s119.photobucket.com/user/stevebbh/media/DSC02321a_zps17fd8f39.jpg.html)

Could this be the cause of the problem?

[Ngineer]

Bent wheel cover maybe?


You mean wing gear door? Looks like there could have been a problem in the sequencing here. Who knows why. Many different things can go wrong in the gear/gear door extension retraction systems on a 747.

Or if the wing gear door was damaged prior to gear extension (as seen in this pic) then that would have stopped the wing gear from extending (although unlikely).

Yes, that gear door looks stuffed alright and appears to have contacted the wheel. Or the wheel has hit it on extension for whatever reason.

[NSEU]

Yes, that gear door looks stuffed alright and appears to have contacted the wheel. Or the wheel has hit it on extension for whatever reason.

Is it normal procedure for the crew to attempt a normal extension first, then use alternate extension for the remaining unextended gear?

During normal extension attempts, might partial hydraulic pressurisation of the right wing gear components cause the gear to extend out of sequence, after which, not even an Alternate Extension might recover the situation? I don't know how the sequencing valve behaves under these conditions. I dare say only Boeing would know the answer to this one.

[md80fanatic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChPLaXqO0eQ

[SMOC]

Alternate system works as follows talking about a single wing gear. Quick n nasty version.

Electric motor runs, rotary cam drives cables to unlock the hydraulic lock holding the gear doors closed. (Exactly the same way the doors are opened by maintenance on the ground using the manual gear door handle).

Doors unlock electric motor stops!

Doors fall open, when sufficiently open (proximity switch) motor runs again drives gear lock/unlock hook to release the gear.

Gear falls may or may not hit the skid plate (will on the ground during maintenance as the doors aren't faced with a 150kt airflow) airflow is unpredictable.

System runs full circle and resets itself. (Involves time limits etc complicated)

A failure of a restrictor check valve that slows the initial gear extension or a miss rigged proximity switch may have caused the gear to drop early or fast and hit the door before it was able to get the skid to do its job (the skid actually also forces the doors fully open).

Trying the gear lever could also have stuffed it up as the system would possibly be out of sequence ie the doors cracked open and then an alternate extension was attempted which may have led to the restrictor check valve opening early and the gear dropping fast enough to cause damage and get hooked up.

Looks like the gear door was peeled open from the impact.

Hopefully we'll find out and all learn a bit more about aviation.

[vs69]

Quite right NSEU I forgot the door sequencing mechanism there, was just thinking of the gear itself, Altn actuator bolted onto each uplock mechanism with a big :mad: hook and spring that takes some effort to get over centre.

[ExSp33db1rd]

but planting (and bouncing!) it down like this is not much safer either.

Do we know definitively about possible reduced deceleration capability ?

Can't start braking until 'planted'. Within reason, get it down and get it stopped.

[Super VC-10]

Maybe those in charge of the journos have been reading this thread.

BBC News - Pilot who landed gear problem jet 'just doing job' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30639721)

[Shanewhite]

As an occasional PPRuNe browser unconnected with the industry but generally curious, this event has raised a question which has often occurred to me before. Once the crew became aware of the problem, they were unable to establish the actual condition of the gear simply because they couldn't see it, and had to get confirmation of the true status from people on the ground. I've seen this a number of times, for example I remember when the Qantas A380 engine explosion occurred, crew were reported to be going around the aircraft looking out of the windows trying to see what sort of state the engine was in.

My question is this; given the small size and weight and low cost of modern CCTV equipment, why aren't modern aircraft fitted with cameras showing views of critical equipment? Not only would this give the crew information about the current status, it would also allow them to play back coverage of whatever event occurred whilst trying to work out the best course of action. Footage would also be useful for diagnosing the cause of the problem either by repair crews or, God forbid, by accident investigators.

[Flightmech]

Common name and probably not but now the captain has spoken I'm wondering if it's the same DW that flew the -400F/-8F for GSS until it's demise?

Disregard, just seen picture. It's not.

[Mikehotel152]

Quote:
but planting (and bouncing!) it down like this is not much safer either.
Do we know definitively about possible reduced deceleration capability ?

Can't start braking until 'planted'. Within reason, get it down and get it stopped.

I am all for 'planting' it down but a bounce which leaves the aeroplane airborne for about about 300m is not ideal. As the bounce followed a noticeable lack of flare, I can only presume it wasn't intended and perhaps related to controllability issues or, dare I say it, a slight misjudgment. Let's face it, they got everything else right!

[Capt Claret]

In deference to the anti-bounce gurus, I fall on my sword.

I too have made a few bounced landings over the years. Sadly I can't blame degraded flight controls. :rolleyes:

[Basil]

BBC News - Pilot who landed gear problem jet 'just doing job' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30639721)
Nick Hughes, another passenger, said: "All credit due to the crew and the staff and of course the pilots because the landing was probably one of the softest landings I've ever had."

The B744 does have more of a ground effect than the Classic.
I don't think his little skip was a problem at all.

[Chu Chu]

I didn't think the contrast was too great in the BBC video, but I did see what could have been a brief burst of sparks at the first touchdown. The still pictures looked like fairly long exposures based on the streaked background, so it's probably just that the sparks showed up a lot better.

Whether using a picture of sparks that were present for perhaps a second (and may well have appear much more dramatic in the photo than they did in person) is a fair way to represent the landing is a different question. But the media loves sparks -- just ask anyone who's been photographed doing metal work.

[stevebbh]

Looking at that gear retraction / lowering video, if that little green clip had failed the flap would not be pinned back and the gear would have fouled and bent the door when it was lowered. The problem would not be discovered in use until it was retracted again after take off.

The question I have is: should there be a visual inspection done of the aircraft before takeoff? Do the flight or ground crew have to look for such damage? Being as it is under the wing but still plenty of headroom it would have been visible for anybody looking for it.

[MarkerInbound]

Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?


The Boeing QRH has a "Caution" note in the landing gear checklists not to taxi the airplane or use the tiller if you have landed without all the landing gear down. "Caution" notes imply you can damage the aircraft if you don't follow them.

[dns]

Bump! Sorry to repost my earlier message but really curious about this one:

"Never flown heavy jets so this may be a stupid question, but would the flight crew in this case have deliberately pumped fuel to the left wing tanks in order to shift the centre of gravity and reduce the chances of a strike on a right engine during landing?"

[Oakape]

"Never flown heavy jets so this may be a stupid question, but would the flight crew in this case have deliberately pumped fuel to the left wing tanks in order to shift the centre of gravity and reduce the chances of a strike on a right engine during landing?"

Short answer is No. You can't pump fuel from one tank to another.

[ETOPS]

But you can dump from one if you wish.

[JammedStab]

Is it normal procedure for the crew to attempt a normal extension first, then use alternate extension for the remaining unextended gear?


The procedure for a loss of #4 hydraulic system is to extend all Landing Gear using the alternate gear extension system. That means that the Nose and Body gear are extended using the alternate system(separate switch) even though they still have normal hydraulic pressure.

For both actions in the checklist, there is a note saying "Action is irreversible". But is it really irreversible for the system with the functioning hydraulic system(which in this case was the gear that worked properly). After all, the hydraulics for that system are still working.

[gordonroxburgh]

For a no4 hyd system loss, what's the procedure for the wing gears, if nose and body are alternate?

[MarkerInbound]

When you get to that point of the checklist it's:


Gear Lever -OFF
Make sure you're less than 270 knots
ALTN GEAR EXTEND WING Switch - ALTN
ALTN GEAR EXTEND NOSE/BODY switch - ALTN
When all the gear are down - Gear Lever Down

[NSEU]

For both actions in the checklist, there is a note saying "Action is irreversible". But is it really irreversible for the system with the functioning hydraulic system(which in this case was the gear that worked properly). After all, the hydraulics for that system are still working.

In theory, yes. Is it advisable? probably not. An attempt at normal retraction may do further damage. In this situation, there may have been enough #4 hydraulic system pressure to unlock the left wing gear downlocks, but not retract them. This might prevent that gear from relocking (with the assist of gravity) on re-extension.

The question I have is: should there be a visual inspection done of the aircraft before takeoff? Do the flight or ground crew have to look for such damage? Being as it is under the wing but still plenty of headroom it would have been visible for anybody looking for it.

Basic inspections are carried out during transits. If it was broken before (I'm not saying it was before or after), would it have been spotted? It involves looking into the wheel well. The inboard doors are closed at this point, so viewing this device involves climbing into a very greasy and potentially dangerous wheel well. The maintenance manual has a very long list of to-do's before climbing in there.

This "small clip" is actually quite large and robust and heavily covered in green grease for (intended) slipperiness. What damage you might have spotted during a walkaround is debatable. As always, inspections are dictated by the manufacturer and aviation authorities. For example, you don't need to tighten the bolts holding on the wings after every flight :}

Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?

The 747-400 braking system has two hydraulic systems as backups, assuming the rest of the aircraft has power (electrical, pneumatic, etc). The #4 Hydraulic system is particularly important, however, as it repressurises the emergency braking system (which is used for parking, too). Taxiing usually involves turning or accelerating/decelerating an aircraft. This might tip over the aircraft (depending on CG and the gears not extended). Also, the brakes/tyres might be excessively hot due to manual braking and only 3 gears doing the braking. It seems to me like a good idea to stop the aircraft and let the fire crews to assess the exterior damage.

[woodpecker]

"Never flown heavy jets so this may be a stupid question, but would the flight crew in this case have deliberately pumped fuel to the left wing tanks in order to shift the centre of gravity and reduce the chances of a strike on a right engine during landing?"

Not a stupid question "DNS" but there are other "problems" with reducing fuel in one wing by selective dumping/engine feeding/crossfeeding using the overhead fuel panel.

I am sure the 747 fuel system is basically the same as the 777 that I flew, that is the first fuel tank(s) to be used are those in the centre/body part of the aircraft. To take it out of the wings would increase the "bending moment" at the wing root with all that weight inboard rather than outboard in the wing tanks.

So if we look at the Virgin flight the loss of No.4 hyd system would have required, once a return became the "plan", to dump fuel down to reduce the a/c weight down to below the max landing weight. It was not until (earlier than normal during the approach I would suggest) the alternate gear selection was made. Up to this point the loss of No. 4 hyd system was no real problem. I presume what followed was a discontinued approach and then the excursion to the south coast for further reduction of the landing weight by dumping or (with all that extra drag of most of the gear down) simply flying a few racetracks while coming up with a revised plan.

Personally, having dropped the gear on the first approach (on the alternate system) I would have been very reluctant to select it up on the main system without discussion with "those who understand the implications" more than myself.

At this point, to answer your question, "DNS", as long as there were no problems with leaving too much fuel inboard (the bending moments problem) it would have been very simple to have, by pump/crossfeed selections, to have fed all four engines from the starboard wing tank, reverting to "normal" feeds for the approach.

Basing this on the 777 fuel system I wait to be shot down by those 747-400 drivers out there..

[FERetd]

Gordon Roxburgh Quote "For a no4 hyd system loss, what's the procedure for the wing gears, if nose and body are alternate?"

MarkerInbound "Quote "When you get to that point of the checklist it's:


Gear Lever -OFF
Make sure you're less than 270 knots
ALTN GEAR EXTEND WING Switch - ALTN
ALTN GEAR EXTEND NOSE/BODY switch - ALTN
When all the gear are down - Gear Lever Down "

I cannot speak for the -400, but for the Classic the procedure for a #4 hydraulic system loss was to extend the trailing edge flaps and the wing gear using the alternate means. The nose and body gear were extended normally, using the operating #1 hydraulic system.

An extract from a Classic QRH - I don't suppose that a -400 is very different - apart from the references to the F/E, of course..

If SYS 1 Or 4 Lost:
E TE ALT Flaps Arm Switch ........................................ARM
F Flap Lever ..............................................LANDING FLAP
E TE ALT Flaps ........................................EXTEND FLAPS
5 ON SCHEDULE
F Gear Lever ............................................................ ....OFF
C Airspeed ...............................................230 TO 250 KIAS

If SYS 1 Lost:
F Nose & Body ALT Gear
Extend Switches.................................................... ...ARM

If SYS 4 Lost:
F Wing ALT Gear Extend Switches .............................ARM

In Either Case When Gear Extension Required:
F Applicable ALT Gear
Extend Switches ........................................HOLD IN EXT
10 SEC THEN ARM

In All Cases At The Appropriate Time
F Gear Lever ............................................................ DOWN
E TE ALT Flaps..........................EXTEND ON SCHEDULE
· If HYD SYS 1 or 4 inoperative observe placard
160 KIAS while extending flaps from 25 to 30.

[bcgallacher]

Woodpecker - selecting up after dropping the gear on alternate would only have raised the body gear as #4 hyd.system was inop. As I stated in a previous post I have been involved with the same problem some years ago in Sharjah - it is not really a big deal,the crew made a normal landing without any damage to the aircraft and seemed to regard it as a relatively minor issue. The biggest problem was fixing it - there were no 747 capable jacks in Sharjah so we had to fly them from Germany.The other problem was the Emerati authority who really had not the vaguest idea on how to handle things so basically stopped us from doing anything unless they had personnel to witness what we were doing which slowed things up considerably.

[Cytherea]

I don't believe that the photo shows sparks at all - I believe that given the angle direction and height of the winter sun (very low, bright clear day and on the nose) this picture shows a reflection of the sun in tyre smoke...There was no damage to the aircraft and no tyres were burst therefore no sparks are possible....

[MarkerInbound]

FE, they have made some changes from the Classic. The complete checklist for a HYD PRESS SYS 1, 2, 3, 4 is


1. DEMAND PUMP selector (affected system) - ON
2. ENGINE PUMP switch (affected system) - OFF
3. Do not accomplish the following checklist - HYD PRESS ENG
4. Choose one:
HYD PRESS SYS message blanks: Continue normal operations. ....
HYD PRESS SYS message stays shown - Go to step 5
5.DEMAND PUMP selector (affected system) - OFF
6. There are three pages of what you've lost based on what system you've lost. For system 4 it lists;
Right outboard elevator inop - Pitch control is reduced
Outboard trailing edge flap hydraulic operation inop - Trailing edge flaps move in secondary mode. Secondary extension from flaps 1 to 5 requires approximately 4 minutes. During approach, allow extra time for flap extension.
Two inboard spoiler panels on each wing inop - Roll rate and spoiler capability are reduced.
Wing gear hydraulic extension and retraction inop - Alternate gear extension is needed.
System 4 normal brake source inop - system 1 and 2 alternate brake sources are available.
Autobrake inop - Manual braking is needed.
7. Recall switch - Push
8. Choose one:
Only one HYD PRESS SYS message is shown - Go to step 9
More than one HYD PRESS SYS message is shown - Land at the nearest suitable airport, blah, blah, blah and go to step 9.
9. Do not use autoland.


It's got it's own descent checklist and then splits again based on which system or systems are inop. For system 4 you go to All Other System Failure Conditions. It starts with the note again that the trailing edge flaps will be in secondary mode and take 4 minutes from 1 to 5 and not to accomplish the FLAPS PRIMARY checklist. It then goes to:


Alternate Gear Extension


Landing gear lever - OFF
Do not exceed the gear EXTEND limit speed (270/.82M)
There's a warning the action is irreversible
ALTN GEAR EXTEND WING switch - ALTN
There's a warning the action is irreversible
ALTN GEAR EXTEND NOSE/BODY switch - ALTN


Reduction of speed to below .60 Mach may be needed for the wing gear to lock down.
When all gear are down: Landing gear lever - DN

There's a note if System 4 is inop to extend the ground spoilers manually and slowly And then it goes to the landing checklist.

[FERetd]

Thank you MarkerInbound.

[Intruder]

It is indeed possible in the 744 to burn fuel out of virtually any choice of tanks, using the pumps and crossfeed valves. In this case, open all crossfeed valves and turn off the pumps in tanks 1 & 2. However, such a transfer/burnoff may not be in the standard checklist, and the pilots may or may not choose to do so.

[JammedStab]

[/QUOTE]Concerning, selecting a set of gear back up on the good system after having done an alternate gear extension according to the QRH where both gear are selected down with the Alternate Gear Extend Switches.[/QUOTE]

I had a sim instructor at one point that said if for example, #4 hydraulics had failed and all gear had been extended with the alternate system(uses two switches, one for each hydraulic system) as per the QRH, if the weather deteriorated and now you had to go to your alternate with little fuel remaining, you could deselect the single alternate Gear Extend switch that controls the three gear legs powered by #1 system and then select the gear handle up to retract the Nose and Body Gear powered by number 1 system resulting in less fuel burn to your alternate.

Or similar if the other hydraulic system had failed and such a scenario was encountered. I would guess that his scenario is based on hydraulics being completely cut off for the system that still has the Alternate extension switch connected or an assumption of no hydraulic fluid left on the failed system.

So, I guess a question would be....what exactly happens when an Alternate Gear Extend Switch is selected to Alternate?

[MrPeabody]

JammedStab,

Selecting the ALTN gear switch drives electric motors on a gear uplock release mechanism, this also drives a cable run which operates a landing gear door safety valve (this ports both sides of the door actuator to return) and mechanically releases the internal locks with the landing gear door actuator.

With the wing gear, the operation of the electric motors is sequenced by position switches such that the motor operates to the extent that the door is unlocked and the safety valve at return position; the motor stops until the door is open and the motor restarts to release the gear uplock to drop the gear. At the completion of the cycle the motor resets the position of the system so the door safety valve is no longer ported to return.

[NSEU]

SMOC answered the ''basics'' here, Jammed Stab.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553657-virgin-landing-gear-incident-lgw-9.html#post8803661

I guess it depends on how deep you wish to go. Delving into Maintainance Manuals and Wiring Schematics might be a little excessive (I was banging my head against a wall on numerous occasions trying to understand them). Anyway, it might be a good idea to find out if your aircraft has the latest and greatest modifications (one being the addition of extra relays and an input from the PSEU to help prevent the premature deactivation of the Altn Ext System by deselecting the Altn Ext Switch/es too early).

As previously stated, the system has to run through a complete cycle. I've read in some manuals, that at least 90 seconds should be allowed before deselecting the Altn Ext switches (presumably on the older type system) to allow this complete cycle.

I was wondering what would happen if there was a sudden (and miraculous) restoration of Hydraulic System 4 with the respective Altn Gear switch still on and the gear lever in UP. Would the gear go up? Would the doors close or stay down? (i.e. does the full alternate cycle reposition the safety valves?) (EDIT: just noticed Mr Peabody's response)

[MrPeabody]

NSEU,

With ALTN selected and gear lever up, then restoration of hydraulics would cause the gear to go up; doors would be powered to open. System would be in its normal mechanical state therefore when the gear uplock operates to the lock position then the gear doors will close. The ALTN circuit is latched until the switch is positioned to normal (off).

[MrPeabody]

This photo shows the wing gear doors (inner and outer) without any damage. Is that a flight control lube cover wedged between the wheel and door?


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/29/24512C9200000578-2890093-Close_up_This_image_shows_how_three_quarters_of_the_landing_ gear-a-24_1419876808294.jpg

[NSEU]

With ALTN selected and gear lever up, then restoration of hydraulics would cause the gear to go up; doors would be powered to open. System would be in its normal mechanical state therefore when the gear uplock operates to the lock position then the gear doors will close. The ALTN circuit is latched until the switch is positioned to normal (off).

Thanks, MrPeabody.

Would the ALTN circuit be latched and ineffective (until cycled off/on)? In this condition, with the gear up, switch still selected and then the gear lever put to OFF (normal flight position) would the gear and doors stay up?

Lube cover? I'm picturing all kinds of things in the right wing gear wheel well (pack plumbing, L autopilot actuator, Left CLCP, spoiler differential, aileron programmer, fuel pumps, cargo heat plumbing, etc).

Thanks.

[woodpecker]

Well VS69, you suggested No cable run for the alternate extend system on a jumbo each uplock has an elec motor.

There are a few others, including myself who would suggest there are cables and motors...

The motor obviously worked, but the sequencing including the cables most certainly didn't.

Perhaps you were just suggesting there were no cables from the flight deck.

[NSEU]

Well VS69, you suggested

He acknowledged his mistake in a following message ;)

[vs69]

Cheers nseu, you are both right,I meant from the flt deck yes. Problem with doing stuff from memory, when tired,at home!

[MrPeabody]

NSEU,

Would the ALTN circuit be latched and ineffective (until cycled off/on)?
Yes.

In this condition, with the gear up, switch still selected and then the gear lever put to OFF (normal flight position) would the gear and doors stay up?
Yes; the system is back to it's mechanical state.

I was thinking the lube cover around the aileron programmer but I don't think it's that big; it's nearest thing to the gear that I can think of that could get dragged down by a burst tyre (if that was the cause of system 4 loss).

[NSEU]

Thanks, MrPeabody!

I was thinking the lube cover around the aileron programmer but I don't think it's that big; it's nearest thing to the gear that I can think of that could get dragged down by a burst tyre (if that was the cause of system 4 loss).

and perhaps the wrong colour :p

Here's a photo I found in my archives...

http://www.iinet.net.au/[email protected]/LCCARightWW.JPG

Someone suggested the door inner skin (?).

[SMOC]

The gear has contacted the outer wing gear folding door and basically ripped/folded it over into view. You can see the dimpling in the gear door that suggests it's deformed.

This suggests the gear dropped out of sequence or too fast (restrictor problem/sequence issue).

[bloom]

I love how everyone describes the landing as so smooth. But really, the aircraft was designed to land on four trucks of tires. With only three available, they had to flex more than four. It's like if I punched you in the chest three times simultaneously instead of four at the same time. If the aircraft had say ten trucks of tires how would anyone ever survive the initial impact?

Like the old ad for using prunes vs. a laxative went: "is one enough? Six too many?"

[MrPeabody]

SMOC,

My screen resolution has been a bit off so post #168 was a heavily pixelated and I couldn't definitively see the bend or much else. Either several reds, or the shedding of my crap multifocal lenses, or the computer coming good (not sure which one) I can see what you are referring to.

The restrictor check valve is meant to slow the gear primarily at the bottom of the cycle; so the momentum doesn't tear it out when the downlock engages. So I'd rule that out given the gear has only fallen a small distance. However that amount of damage is indicative of hydraulics being powered, I would suggest on the retraction cycle.

The gear has tripped the uplock which then powers the doors closed; the doors have hit something on the way in. I saw the dimpling you are referring to and guessed peppering from tyre fragments possibly.

The only other scenario for the doors to be that bent that I can think of is if the gear was hydraulically powered down into them. Can't get my head around the failures or selections to do it though.

NSEU,

I have had the misfortune of seeing all the items you have shown painted white (including the fire blanket on the aircon duct). However you are correct; this should have a yellowy tinge (if it were white) from all the hydraulic leakage.



Bloom,


I have not seen the ads you are referring to; however would suggest to you that 1 prune is not enough and 6 laxatives is far too many!

[SMOC]

When Wing Gear Alternate Extension (free fall) mode is used, there is no hydraulic pressure to dampen the movement, sequence the operation or lock the gear in the down position.

Therefore the Wing Gear pressure operated restrictor check valve remains in the limited flow (closed) position for the initial 3 to 4 seconds of extension so the Wing Gear extends slowly initially, primarily to prevent the gear falling at an excessive rate and damaging the trunnion supports, due to the large moment arm of the strut, and secondly to ensure the gear clears the free falling gear doors.

Having done gear swings I can assure you, the gear drops like a rock and actually bounces until it's allowed to fall gracefully to extend fully we actually used to push gear at the end of travel just to help it along and lock down.

[Oakape]

I would suggest on the retraction cycle

I'm thinking retraction cycle as well. Didn't the crew report a problem with the gear after departure & that was the reason for the return?

The door could have been closing before the gear was fully retracted, leading to it being powered into the gear, jamming everything. Then, when the alternate gear extension was done for the wing gear, it didn't move.

The other thing that got my attention in the photo is the absence of the aft, outboard wheel. It is on the same fore/aft axis as the forward, outboard wheel, which is the one that is visible. So shouldn't it be at least partly visible in the photo? Has this wheel separated from the aircraft & is damage from the loss of this wheel the reason for the gear jamming?

[geezah1984]

It is just visible here, just.

http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2015/01/03/24512C9200000578-2890093-CloseupThisimageshowshowthreequartersofthelandinggear-a-241419876808294.jpg

[SMOC]

In this video you can see how the gear bounces during an extension when there is insufficient fluid flow, it's similar to an alternate extension.

If the gear door is in the way it'll look very similar to the incident aircraft.

http://youtu.be/TIyKSu7fXN8

(The extension starts at 0:54)

[Oakape]

Thanks geezah1984, that will be it. The tilt is obviously greater than I thought.

[giggitygiggity]

I keep seeing bits in the news/online about the re-balancing of the aircraft's fuel to lighten the load on the wing above the damaged gear. Is this a realistic thing to do or have the journo's read between the lines when simply the aircraft jettisoned fuel to get down below MLW?

Edit: I see that on the bus the QRH suggests considering opening the crossfeed and turning the pumps off but cant see this realistically having a massive impact on a gear that is stuck up.

[Volume]

Do all the stains on the LH body aft of the body landing gear indicate a fresh major hydraulic leak ? Which hydraulic systems are installed in the left BLG bay ?

[NSEU]

Fresh leaks wouldn't be black, and should look wet.

Which hydraulic systems are installed in the left BLG bay ?

Probably all of them.

There are a number of things in that left body gear wheel well, including....

Servicing point for all 4 hydraulic systems.

Gear (#1)

Body Gear Steering (#1)

Inboard flap drive motor (#1 Hydraulics)

Brakes and antiskid (possibly 3 hydraulic systems, depending on the location of shuttle valves).

etc...

Stains can also be caused by grease, oil and rainwater (plus contaminants, such as brake dust).

[JammedStab]

There are a number of things in that left body gear wheel well, including....

Servicing point for all 4 hydraulic systems.



Discovered this the other day as on the walkaround, I found a hydraulic line soaked in fluid and called maintenance over. It was just the top of refill line. Made sure to wash my hands twice prior to rubbing my eyes or using the lavatory:eek:.

[onehitwonder]

Half a brain put all fuel in opposite wing

[ACMS]

Well it's been 12 years since I flew the 400 but I cannot remember the procedure for landing on 3 main gears saying to "put all the fuel in one wing...."

That isn't necessary and may just lead to an accidental fuel starvation thus giving you a whole new set of problems to work through. :eek:

Landing on 3 mains ( and even 2 ) was not a big deal in the Sim.

That's why it's called the Queen of the Skies...

[RAT 5]

Posted by 36050100z; One thing I was mildly surprised about was how long after landing the engines appear (from the head-on footage) to have been kept running after coming to a stop.

I've just watched the video and ask the wondered the same. I don't think this question was ever answered. Another observation was how long it was from the full-stop to the arrival of the 1st fire truck at the a/c. It was many seconds, yet they were all in position. Just curious.

[NSEU]

That isn't necessary and may just lead to an accidental fuel starvation thus giving you a whole new set of problems to work through.

Not to mention lateral control problems in the air. The aircraft starts letting you know there is an imbalance even with 2~3 tonnes difference between opposite tanks.

One thing I was mildly surprised about was how long after landing the engines appear (from the head-on footage) to have been kept running after coming to a stop.

Perhaps the absence of fire indications on the flight deck? Perhaps the flight crew thought along the lines that if they switched off the engines, they've committed themselves to a full scale evacuation in the immediate future, with: Cabin emergency light batteries running flat, loss of airconditioning (even on cold days, a full aircraft gets warm pretty quickly with all the doors closed), power to passenger address systems depleting, etc. With an evacuation by slides, you run the risk of injury to passengers.

The tower told them to look for cues from the fire service. In this case, does the fire service contact them on VHF or do they use some kind of hand signals?

[Tom!]

Fire service in the UK on 121.6 vhf

[Harolds]

NSEU: Run the APU?

[NSEU]

I did actually consider that. Is it wise to introduce another source of fire? (asked in a previous message)

The APU bleed duct does run through the opposite wheel well, but I believe part of the APU fuel line runs in the right hand wing gear well (ref AMM 28-24-04). I've never actually noticed it.

On APU shutdown, too, the APU has a tendency to dump a bit of fuel on the tarmac.

[SevenSeas]

Has anybody noticed that neither Flight International or Aviation Week carried this story in their magazines !! I wonder why ?

[Capt_Tech]

I have seen photos of ZS-SAS landing on only the Body Gears it was in the 1980's, Both Wing Gears did not come out for landing, the aircraft didn't look very stable looked like it was about to fall over and the shock struts were fully compressed but landing was perfect considering there was No Auto Landing Feature in the Auto pilot those days.

[Capt_Tech]

To report an accident it is mandatory, but incidents are first handled by the operators QA department where the decision is made whether to keep the incident "In House" or report it to the CAA and other.

[fireflybob]

To report an accident it is mandatory, but incidents are first handled by the operators QA department where the decision is made whether to keep the incident "In House" or report it to the CAA and other.

I thought the reporter of any MOR had the option of ticking the box for a copy to go to CAA notwithstanding any company protocol?

[spannersatcx]

The MM was followed, and actuator replaced iaw MM, however the procedure was lacking so if you are going to blame anyone blame Boeing.

[BOAC73]

Spanners,
How is the MM procedure lacking? Surely Virgin cannot be the first 744 operator to replace this actuator and expose the faulty procedure?

[BARKINGMAD]

Were the engines really running, or were the fans just windmilling in the breeze, as is normal and any heat haze from exhausts was residual?

[Airclues]

xavaar

I'm not sure that it is wise to reveal this information at this time. The press monitor these forums and cannot always be relied upon to report the facts. spannersatcx has a valid point, which I'm sure will be in the final (factual) report.

Capt Tech

have seen photos of ZS-SAS landing on only the Body Gears it was in the 1980's

In the 80's the procedure when one wing gear would not extend was to land on the body gear only. However, this was a complicated procedure which entailed disabling the No4 hydraulic system so Boeing changed the procedure so as to land on all available gear.

[spannersatcx]

Spanners,
How is the MM procedure lacking? Surely Virgin cannot be the first 744 operator to replace this actuator and expose the faulty procedure?
have a look and see what is missing.

[bcgallacher]

BOAC - some years ago I found that the MM procedure for changing a landing gear component on the 747 was incorrect and brought Boeings attention to it. Remember that whoever wrote the manual did so before the aircraft entered service and the manuals will be amended over the years only if someone cares to inform Boeing of discrepancies.

[IcePack]

Yep a good tech would know the MM is wrong guess aviation engineers are slowly becoming fitters. Shame.

[vs69]

Glad you've got the case buttoned up there Columbo! Maybe when you see the facts when the report comes out you will understand a bit more about what led to things panning out the way they did, glad you werent in charge of the investigation.
For info no one was suspended.

[Flightmech]

It's common to find errors in the MM, IPC etc which is why companies have a publications change request system or equivalent to have them updated when they come to light. Typical of those not in the know to automatically point the finger at Virgin Engineering (and no I don't work for them)

[DaveReidUK]

While that's certainly true in my experience, it's strange nevertheless that an operation that must have been completed hundreds of times on a type/variant that's been in service for over 25 years appears not to be adequately documented in the MM.

[morton]

Icepack.
“Yep a good tech would know the MM is wrong guess aviation engineers are slowly becoming fitters. Shame”.

And sometimes they are not allowed to do what they think is right! :ugh:See page 3 of the link.

https://www.chirp.co.uk/upload/docs/Air%20Transport/ATFB%20113.pdf

[yotty]

Flightmech, please point out where the "people not in the know" have pointed the finger at Virgin Engineering?

[Flightmech]

Read the thread and figure it out.

[MrPeabody]

Follow the link below for the AAIB report.


https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/56162bc040f0b6585f000005/Boeing_747-443_G-VROM_10-15.pdf

[My names Turkish]

My compliments to the crew; that reads as an outstanding performance, text book from all angles.

I've certainly learned from their professionalism, I can admit that I might not have thought of the gentle manoeuvring and climbing and descending to free the gear and considering the time of sunset amongst other actions. It shows an immense amount of SA.

Tea and medals all around :ok:

[Max Contingency]

From the report:
The actuator was virtually
uniform in shape and colour, such that there was no obvious top or bottom to it. The
structural connections could be installed in either orientation and the use of flexible hoses
meant the hydraulic connections could be made to fit an incorrectly installed actuator.
Finally, the hydraulic port on the bottom of the actuator was labelled ‘UP’, with the one on
the top labelled ‘DN’,

Why do we build aircraft parts like this? I thought we banished Murphy from our industry.

[Cazalet33]

The actuator was virtually uniform in shape and colour, such that there was no obvious top or bottom to it. The structural connections could be installed in either orientation and the use of flexible hoses meant the hydraulic connections could be made to fit an incorrectly installed actuator.

Finally, the hydraulic port on the bottom of the actuator was labelled ‘UP’, with the one on the top labelled ‘DN’,

What is the likely outcome of manufacturing and labeling such a part?

Answers on a postcard please, to Mr Murphy @ Boeing.com.

[TURIN]

A typical night shift scenario. Correct tooling unavailable, incomplete/confusing AMM, make do and mend, can-do attitude from the engineering team. On another day it would all go well and slapped backs and a beer all round.



Kudos to the flight/cabin crew for the good outcome.

Also, AAIB for a concise and informative report.

There for the grace of etc.

[Never Fretter]

Kudos

Also, AAIB for a concise and informative report.


Seems AAIB disagreed with the CAA who in a previous case in 2006 (mentioned here (http://aerossurance.com/safety-management/747-installation-error/)) said: "The hazaard [sic] is adequately controlled by existing requirements, procedures and documentation".