Incident

[80-87]

Aviation Hearld reports:

A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAO performing flight QR-778 (dep Nov 18th) from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), was enroute at FL350 about 15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich with CATIII ILS available for runway 16. ATC reported that only CAT I was available right at that point, CAT II was being activated. About 10 minutes later ATC reported that CAT III was now available for runway 16. The crew requested to dump fuel, but subsequently indicated they were not dumping and preparing for an overweight landing as they had problems with the fuel dump system, then the crew indicated they were now dumping fuel. The aircraft established on the localizer runway 16 still dumping fuel, reported they needed more track miles to descend, were vectored off the localizer again, finished dumping and rejoined the localizer. Tower queried "Confirm gear down and locked", response "gear down and locked, thank you", the aircraft landed safely about 24 minutes after leaving FL350, the crew indicated they would stop on the runway and requested emergency services to check whether there was any smoke visible. Emergency services reported no smoke. The crew reported everything was now normal again, the crew cancelled Mayday and decided to vacate the runway and taxi to the apron.

A replacement Boeing 777-300 registration A7-BAG was dispatched from Doha to Zurich, resumed flight QR-778 about 10:20 hours after landing of A7-BAO in Zurich, and is estimated to reached Doha with a total delay of 10 hours.

[ACMS]

Ok, they walked away......good job I say.

[slowjet]

Good job ? Smoke (if unidentified) LASAP..yes, overweight. If identified.deal with it, Dump fuel, no lets not, no lets, no lets not...........good grief. Then dumping during approach ? WTF ?????? Mayday issued (because it was later cancelled) and choice of airfield questionable. Might be nearest but was the emergency so bad that you would choose it ? Cat 1, no problem but asking for cat 11 or cat 11, airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps) and an approach not easy in CAVOK !


Good job............seriously ??


But, don't know all the facts. Of those presented on a Rumour & news network,.........put on the Kettle & get the bickies ready CP. This is gonna be good !

[Right Hand Thread]

But, don't know all the facts.

Quite.

Yet you feel obliged to criticise the crew's handling of a fuel system you don't know (or nature of any problem they might have had with it) and their choice of alternate with a smoke-filled cockpit?

Please tell me you are not professional air crew.

[Jetjock330]

Perhaps smoke in the cockpit, an autoland sounds like a plan if you can't see too well. There is a limit to the autoland, that is shouldn't be over weight. I have no clue what happened, but no one was hurt and the equipment was looked after: so it seems. Good job for now

[zerograv]

Miami - Doha
Over Switzerland still has fuel to dump? :confused:
Does the 773 also dumps fuel from wing tanks?

[The Ancient Geek]

Oh dear, here we go again with the amatuer nitpicking.
Please give it a rest, the crew clearly did what was best in view of what information was available to them. Nobody here has that information yet and we will probably have to wait until th report is published.

The aircrew are professional pilots so give them the courtesy due to fellow professionals.

[sonicbum]

Most probably while dealing with the checklist the source of smoke was identified and isolated which again probably allowed the crew to buy some extra time and dump the fuel. This is just my guess obviously I have no idea on how things went but I am pretty sure that these guys, like all of us after the Swissair accident, know that there is no time to lose during a smoke/fire.
Good job.

[Jetjock330]

Just heard the audio, doing the rounds on What's app! Clearly the crew were on oxygen masks. Serious stuff and for those of us that have practiced this, knows fully well, this is one scenario we all want to avoid!

[RedBullGaveMeWings]

https://youtu.be/YjA3ILh8lyE

[Permafrost_ATPL]

slowjet, that was one of the most uninformed posts I have seen in a long time.

Based on the tape, it sounds like these guys removed their masks on the approach, so they must have identified and dealt with the source of smoke. At that point, you are transitioning from emergency to precautionary landing. Therefore priorities such as fuel dumping, cabin ready, etc get reassessed. Listening to the audio, I'm hearing some very professional pilots and ATC dealing calmly with a difficult and dynamic situation. Well done.

[Capt Ecureuil]

I'm guessing that slow jet isn't familiar with the Smoke and Fumes checklist so perhaps we shouldn't criticise his crass post.

Mr Slow Jet, if you want to learn then send me a pm

[oleary]

Smoke in the cockpit.

Get the rocket on the ground.

What part of this concept do some folks not understand?

Nobody got hurt, nothing got busted. :rolleyes:

[45989]

Have trainspotters got nothing else to do? Pathetic really.

[DaveReidUK]

Nobody got hurt, nothing got busted.

Do you think that lessons can only be learned from events where people get killed or aircraft get bent ... ?

[faheel]

This was a good outcome for everyone concerned,it goes to show what should happen in an emergency situation all well handled by the flight deck crew and Swiss atc.
The aircraft was what 2/3 thirds? into the flight to Qatar when this emergency happened,luckily for all involved they were over Europe and not over the Atlantic or worse still over the middle east when things went pear shaped.

For all of you arm chair critics who (with the benefit of hindsight) think you can do better just give it a rest and accept that all concerned got the result needed and expected of aviation professionals.

[Arewerunning]

A typical scenario that Lufthansa Mainline runs on the sim is to have an unestinguishable engine fire right after lift off from BREMEN. BREMEN IS CAT III. HAMBURG has non precision WX with all the many precision approaches (CAT I or higher) available. Smoke is also reported in the cabin.

Autoland is required but you are overweight -here the analogy with QR 778- what would you do?

[Dufo]

Unextinguishable fire with cabin smoke vs. overweight landing shouldn't take much time for decision.
Brake fire is easier and safer to put out than smoldering crater. Plus the plane can be reused again.

[slowjet]

Calm down girls and put the handbags away. I like David Reid's best (always measured & reflective). I always thought that the silly joke about being able to walk away from a landing meant that it was a good one, was, just a silly joke. Some of you seem to measure competence by the that statement though.


I highlighted the fact that my comments were about the Herald report.I suggested that the report may not be factual.


For the twerp who took a swing at my quals ; 40 years, 22,500 hrs, 18000 Command, all transport, all heavy, 20 years TRE/IRE and 10 years Head of Selection.
And the other self righteous twerp who offered PM consultation, thanks, but.......howzit go (?).............no thanks.


No-one knows, yet , what happened. Being QR, I doubt any of us ever will . Rumours & news on a open forum will invite lots of thoughts & discussion & mine were openers on what might have happened.


Like some who rush into attack-print mode.........think first please. And, if you really are in the scenario as suggested by the thread opener, think, think, think. That is why I regularly throw the same scenario in the sim. The lesson plan is to get people to think. The most obvious solution may not be the most desirable. Just being able to walk away is not the self congratulation I seek as my pen hovers over the licence renewal forms !

[FlightDetent]

Fair enough. Zurich is not Geneva or Innsbruck however, multiple runways too.

[MacSheikh]

Mayday issued (because it was later cancelled) and choice of airfield questionable. Might be nearest but was the emergency so bad that you would choose it ? Cat 1, no problem but asking for cat 11 or cat 11, airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps) and an approach not easy in CAVOK !


Lets start at the beginning;
Mayday issued. Do you think it shouldn't have been because you appear to suggest that?
Airfield questionable; Why? It's a company destination, they probably have experience of it and it was close with multiple landing options and suitable weather.
Was the emergency so bad that you would choose it; Yes, it's a red and see above.
Cat 1; What's wrong with asking for the autoland? If the smoke continues and visibility becomes a problem, it's a potential life saver. An auto land will also control the RoD which may be a factor (it is on the 777 for overweight) although that's not necessarily a consideration depending on the circumstances.
Swiss Alps; So what? They're approaching from the north where the terrain is lower and under radar control.
An approach not easy in CAVOK; Sorry, I call :mad: on that one!

[Capt Ecureuil]

I thought my reply to Slow Jet was quite measured and I apologise to him for offering a PM copy of the checklist.... blimey what an angry man, I thought I was being helpful, calling me a self righteous twerp indeed.

The checklist runs through a number of items and the source may be found and secured bringing an end to the immediate emergency. - TDODAR anyone?

[45989]

Slowjet.
you have to remember this was once a pilots forum.............

[Che Xindamail]

Slow Jet, that has to be one of the most comical rants of self promotion I've seen in a long time. Wow, you fly heavy jets?? AND are a TRE?? You must be unique on this forum. And despite that, you manage to utterly embarrass yourself. Low self esteem, perhaps? Never got that long-haul 777 command, perhaps?

Yet another example of why we shouldn't drink and post.
Well done to the QR crew!

[bgbazz]

Slowjet.
you have to remember this was once a pilots forum.............
As one who sits down the blunt end these days...all I can say is that I ever find myself in a situation like has been described, I would like to think that the folks up front were as capable of dealing with the problem and able to adjust their strategy as the situation changed, as these guys were. I would hope that they could call on the calm, unflustered help from a professional ATC team just like the one we heard on the feed.

Well done to all involved in this incident.

[birmingham]

Miami - Doha
Over Switzerland still has fuel to dump? :confused:
Does the 773 also dumps fuel from wing tanks?
good point - I have no 777 experience but I'm surprised the A/C would still be overweight at that point - do we have any 777 drivers who could clear that one up?

[casablanca]

It is not uncommon for the ac to be taking off at 351 tons and max landing weight is 251,290, so very normal to be overweight in Europe when taking off from USA.
Normally much more of a problem for 777LR which has essentially the same takeoff weight but a landing weight 28 tons less(223167kgs)

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Haha slowjet, impressive back pedalling. You can tell us you have 200,000 hours on the space shuttle, it does not make your original post any less appalling.

[IcePack]

I hate trainers like slowjet who pitch scenarios that "make you think" which basically means you must think like me or my hovering pen will tick fail.
IMHO he wasn't there so how the **** does he know what they were really dealing with. Aeroplanes very rarely fail in a text book fashion.
As for trainers in my experience if you throw something at them on the sim they Havn't seen before they are the same as everyone else floundering around making the best of it as demonstrated by the botched go around on the 757 posted elsware on this forum.

[mary meagher]

In terms of possible unhappy outcomes, smoke in the cockpit has to be pretty high up on the list. You chaps that fly 777 and other heavy transports, can you tell me more about using the oxygen masks: when I have been flying at high altitudes and used a mask, always had a problem using the radio as well.
How does your emergency breathing mask deal with this? any problems? are they fit for purpose or need improvement? I assume they are often replaced and inspected...do you try them on and practice using them?

[Capt Ecureuil]

Mary.

They're fine in all ways. Practice using them in the sim, not on the aircraft.

Can't say how often they're physically checked by engineering but we check the oxy flow as part of the pre-flight.

[Chronus]

What`s wrong with dumping fuel, if they did so above 4000 feet. 15 miles from Zurich at 35,000 feet, landed in 25 minutes. Perfectly sensible choice I`d have thought.

[kungfu panda]

Slowjet- If you're British then I am disappointed with your post. The job was clearly professional, the crew response was in accordance with the information they had available to them at each given moment. The result was the desired outcome.

Good job Gentlemen, well done!

I remember criticism of sullenberger at one former British Airline a few years ago, I found that truly disappointing as well.

[Iron Duke]

Well Done both flight deck and Swiss ATC ....

Listening to the tape, it is indication of cool professionalism under a potentially very serious situation ...

Good Job ...

[blind pew]

Mary they vary a great deal as do procedures ..from two handed in a compartment and very rarely donned outside of the sim to one handed, full faced and suspended from the ceiling.
One of my mates was a bearded ex V bomber skipper and he was advised to shave as the mask wouldn't seal.
I can assure you it ain't anything like gliders and would give anyone claustrophobia. We did an exercise on the sim..non toxic smoke, O2 mask plus smoke goggles which had a liberal scrubbing with a Brillo pad to leave a very small clear area and not helped because I have to wear my spectacles. It was similar to varifocals with a pinpoint field of view which meant the peripheral vision is non existent and very difficult even to read the checklists which had to be done with a torch.
A mate had fire in the overhead panel..emergency bus panel..after take off in the climb below 10,000ft...did a 180 and iirc an auto land down wind. Severely burnt his hand and it was only when the CC came in to ask about evacuation that they realised that they had got the fire out as the whole of the cockpit was covered with ash.

Had two real smoke incidents my first with a Lasham pilot whose last power flight was in a Lanc and terminated over the Reich..I can assure you that it scared the **** out of me.

As to Slowjet...that he proudly states he is an ex TRE/IR and selection says everything...the safest place for some pilots is in the office and one of the very few guys I had to take control from was of his class.

[VNAV PATH]

As still no answer about fuel dumping on 777:

. main tanks (wings) can be dumped in the same time center tank is dumped (if still fuel in center tank) Center of gravity limits are computed and dumping stops if off limits.

. possible still overweight after 9 hours. Exact fuel figures are needed.

. 777 is known to have some issues with jettisson noszzle valves, some times stuck closed, quite never checked in maintenance.

[slowjet]

Second attempt to answer some questions as first deleted by mods. The backlash was serious and sometimes personal. Here goes again for the right of reply.


I have to say I larfed out loud at GEAR DOWN's offering (hey Mods, what is NOT invalid about his ?) but I feel I have been trolled down P---k alley rather than Flak Alley.

Blind Pew : Sorry to learn you once had to take-over from an Office boy like me. Sadly, I have had to take over many times from folk like you.

Finally, those of you misplaced journalists who reckon a good job was done because people walked away; are you the same rentamob that reckoned the SQ fire evac was well handled because everyone walked away? Thought as much.

Opener was about the Av Herald report and several things caught my eye. 15nm N of ZRH and decision to land at airfield right under your feet from 35000ft makes it very serious. If it was THAT serious, why bother to dump fuel? They tried, then it didn't work, then it did & they were still dumping 16 miles on Final..........WHY ?

After all that, still dumping, they requested MORE track miles at 16nm on final. Nice little cross country accommodated by ATC to squeeze them in.

Mcshiek ; Just read the post again ole mate. No, won't help. I never suggested a Mayday was incorrect or not valid or not declared. In fact, I confirmed that a Mayday was declared because, later, it was cancelled.

Thank you,

[MacSheikh]

Mayday issued (because it was later cancelled) and choice of airfield questionable.

slojet old mate�� Yes, you did say a mayday was declared. But you included it with stating the airfield was questionable, hence my question as to whether you were implying it was incorrect to use that call.

Allow me to rephrase: Were you saying it was wrong to call mayday?

[Chronus]

I find all this tit tat on this this discussion so disappointing where some have felt the need to use unnecessary adjectives and display their plumage.
The outstanding quality of any person who has attained any degree of seniority in such a critical field of human endeavour is "humility", alongside of which sits "tolerance". There is no room for bigotry in the development of such essential qualities.

[Bergerie1]

Chronus,

I totally agree. Those who have not been in situations similar to that handled by the Qatar crew in question should be very wary of making unsubstantiated criticisms. A little humility goes a very long way.

[WeeJeem]

15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich

airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps)

Say, what? Zürich? Surrounded by the Swiss Alps?
Oh man, they must have moved the city during the night while I was asleep, and they didn't even bother to tell me, the swines.
Why am I always the last to hear? :sad:

[T28B]

1321
A map of the area around Zurich. Click to enlarge.
Some charts are here for general reference (http://www.fly-sea.com/charts/LSZH.pdf);
Disclaimer: given their date, consider them unsuitable for current flight ops, but of some use as a point of general reference for flying in that area.
(@WeeJeem, I am still chuckling over your post. :) )

[KelvinD]

Reading threads such as this makes the non aircraft driving public scratch their heads. Every time we board a flight, it is with the assumption that the blokes up front know exactly what they are doing. After all, they have done it all before, probably many times, right?
Then we see "discussions" such as this where we see Pilot A says in this set of circumstances, do this
Pilot B responds with: No. In these circumstances the correct set of actions is this, that or the other.
And so it goes. How about a PA call from the cockpit along the lines of "We can't agree how to handle this so does anyone in the back fancy a go?"
Incidentally, the aircraft involved, according to the Qatar Source reported a "smoke warning alert". After returning to Doha the following day, it was soon back in service, flying in short order to Riyadh, Shanghai, Cairo and is currently in Melbourne. Doesn't sound much like an aircraft that has had a fire of some sort (no smoke without....)

[SeenItAll]

Slo -- according to the YouTube audio, dumping had concluded by the time the additional track miles were requested. The need for the additional miles was stated as time to prepare the cabin -- not excessive altitude or additional dumping.

[megan]

Then we see "discussions" such as this where we see Pilot A says in this set of circumstances, do this
Pilot B responds with: No. In these circumstances the correct set of actions is this, that or the other.Trouble is Kelvin, some of those making comment are not pilots, though pretending to be. Nothing can be taken at face value, which is a great problem for those seeking comment from qualified

[blind pew]

Kelvin wrt to the aircraft returning to service.
Hold Smoke detectors have signalled a warning on several occasions because of the gas given off from fruit or vegetables...no fire risk but that is unknown to the crew. SOP dictates firing the extinguishing bottles which in my day would render the detection system unreliable.
The only safe way is to land asap or even ditch but we had a procedure where the flight engineer would go down the back and monitor the floor temp above the hold with his hand.
I was at a presentation where the skipper had similar with a 747 over the South Atlantic...his first emergency airfield refused him landing clearance and he ended up diverting to a military base whose visibility and cross wind were way outside of limits.
He evacuated in near gale conditions using the slides with the normal pax injuries to discover that it was "only" a problem of ripening fruit.
Whilst we practice in the simulator it's not the same conditions as in real life especially as it might be in the middle of the night and you've had the squirts for two days. Saying that we lost a captain on the sim with a heart attack.

[jmmoric]

Assuming the worst, and work your way down the scale from there. It does sound sensible, and it's what I would expect as well.

Nice job.

[JammedStab]

Aviation Hearld reports:

A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAO performing flight QR-778 (dep Nov 18th) from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), was enroute at FL350 about 15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich with CATIII ILS available for runway 16. ATC reported that only CAT I was available right at that point, CAT II was being activated. About 10 minutes later ATC reported that CAT III was now available for runway 16. The crew requested to dump fuel, but subsequently indicated they were not dumping and preparing for an overweight landing as they had problems with the fuel dump system, then the crew indicated they were now dumping fuel. The aircraft established on the localizer runway 16 still dumping fuel, reported they needed more track miles to descend, were vectored off the localizer again, finished dumping and rejoined the localizer. Tower queried "Confirm gear down and locked", response "gear down and locked, thank you", the aircraft landed safely about 24 minutes after leaving FL350, the crew indicated they would stop on the runway and requested emergency services to check whether there was any smoke visible. Emergency services reported no smoke. The crew reported everything was now normal again, the crew cancelled Mayday and decided to vacate the runway and taxi to the apron.

A replacement Boeing 777-300 registration A7-BAG was dispatched from Doha to Zurich, resumed flight QR-778 about 10:20 hours after landing of A7-BAO in Zurich, and is estimated to reached Doha with a total delay of 10 hours.

Good job ? Smoke (if unidentified) LASAP..yes, overweight. If identified.deal with it, Dump fuel, no lets not, no lets, no lets not...........good grief. Then dumping during approach ? WTF ?????? Mayday issued (because it was later cancelled) and choice of airfield questionable. Might be nearest but was the emergency so bad that you would choose it ? Cat 1, no problem but asking for cat 11 or cat 11, airfieled surrounded by some serious bits of earth (called the Swiss Alps) and an approach not easy in CAVOK !


Good job............seriously ??


But, don't know all the facts. Of those presented on a Rumour & news network,.........put on the Kettle & get the bickies ready CP. This is gonna be good !
Based on the known information at the time of these posts,

Seems to me like they declared a mayday because they had smoke in the cockpit which would explain why Zurich was chosen. Why is either questionable? Why is it questionable to dump fuel for a few minutes while still descending toward the airport if it will cause no delay? CAT II or III would give autoland protection. The only questionable thing I see here is your post.

By the way, there is a mistake on the words posted on the video a 1:02. It says "we need to dump to reduce weight for final" but if you listen to it, "actually says "we need to dump fuel, can we do it on the way to final". Seems perfectly reasonable.

[KelvinD]

blind pew: Understood. I have heard of that before and I have no queries/qualms re the crew's actions. Although I think the rapid return to service tends to show the Qatar Source report of a smoke indication was perhaps more accurate than the AV Herald version of events. Having listened to some (where available) of the radio traffic, I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit. Thanks anyway for your explanation, much appreciated.
My main point though was the argey bargey that goes on here between people who seem to be claiming to be experts, with one contributor being hammered for his opinion, despite his declaring his expertise/experience in these things.

[Comoman]

blind pew: Understood. I have heard of that before and I have no queries/qualms re the crew's actions. Although I think the rapid return to service tends to show the Qatar Source report of a smoke indication was perhaps more accurate than the AV Herald version of events. Having listened to some (where available) of the radio traffic, I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit. Thanks anyway for your explanation, much appreciated.
My main point though was the argey bargey that goes on here between people who seem to be claiming to be experts, with one contributor being hammered for his opinion, despite his declaring his expertise/experience in these things.
I never heard anything about smoke in the cockpit.

The QR crew specifically mention smoke on the flight deck right at the beginning:

https://youtu.be/YjA3ILh8lyE

[framer]

Every time we board a flight, it is with the assumption that the blokes up front know exactly what they are doing. I used to think the same thing. Do you make the same assumption about medical professionals and business leaders and ' experts' from other fields Kelvin? I have begun to realise over the last decade or so that the assumption is incorrect in every field but easier to expose in some. In medicine for example, with people often making decisions by themselves ( imagine if every doctor had a co-doctor equally qualified but slightly less experienced) , and with no voice recording of their procedures and public analysis of incidents, it is harder to confirm that there are good medical professionals and poor ones, but it is true never the less. The same is true for every field, aviation is no different.

[blind pew]

Nicely put Framer.
Kelvin
I've worked for three legacy carriers and in some way each thought they had invented flying which mirrored my mates in charter when yet another merger took place and the new training department changed things.
We all live in a different perceived reality; it takes a brave and intelligent person to step back, re-evaluate and say I got that wrong.
The most extreme example was the big boss of a fleet who endangered the aircraft for the umpteenth time..it took a "posse" of first officers to get rid of him whilst the training department did nothing, ironically a friend of mine's daughter did a small service for him recently and was given a flyer with a picture of him in his uniform and a self gratificating title "Mr ********". More than a decade since he was stopped flying passengers and still thinks he is god's gift whilst in reality he is lucky that he didn't crash.

[RAT 5]

was enroute at FL350 about 15nm northeast of Zurich (Switzerland) when the crew reported smoke on the flight deck and requested to divert to Zurich with CATIII ILS available for runway 16.
the aircraft landed safely about 24 minutes after leaving FL350,

Not any criticism intended, just a discussion point. It is one that has been debated before, but now that this topic is current, why not again. Just asking opinions & options. It centres around "land at nearest suitable".
Much will also depend on familiarity. I, for one, would choose a familiar airfield over an unknown one, if there was an equal choice. FL350 overhead and 24 minutes to land. That suggests lots of vectors to descend within the area. MUC & FRA are both about 320km in flat-ish terrain, but perhaps moving further away as the crew decide what is best. GVA & MXP offer the same surrounding terrain as Zurich & are closer than FRA/MUC. So I suppose Zurich is the closest, just.
I wonder what guys prefer; a long straight glide DCT TO, or a radar vectored 'round the houses' descent where the descent planning is handed over to ATC more than in the SA focus of the crew. The difference being 5-10 mins, perhaps, and familiarity a factor, but then, as per Swiss Air in Halifax, 5 mins can The Difference.
I remember this was discussed a while ago with a London based carrier who had a problem over N.France then continued to planned London rather than a death defying spiral into an unplanned Paris.

[Gordomac]

At last, the real pilots coming in and making sensible comments rather than the hand-bag brigade just awaiting a victim. I notice RAT5 sets the scene by making clear no criticism intended. Shame we have to do that in order to avoid the petty, insulting onslaught from the bored trouble makers. I think SLOWJET was taken by the initial media report and wondered if it was accurate. If it was, he was rightly entitled to comment on what RAT5 alludes to. Opens up huge debate and might creep the thread too far for the Mods.


Gosh, though ; the "Land as soon as possible" debate spilled over at all my CRM training into lively debate in the crewroom. The "Land at the nearest ", oh, wait for it, suitable alternate has spilled over into the bar and led to the odd bar brawl !


SLOWJET's "think, think, think " was well intentioned. Like RAT5, how bad can it be to warrant dropping in from 35000ft and only 17 nearby ? Must have been very bad indeed .


The London carrier incident might not have been the same as one reported of a B737 with engine failure over destination, CDG, and elected to turn round and return to LGW on one engine. "Nearest", "suitable" etc. Cripes. Debate raged for years after that one.

[mary meagher]

Land at the nearest suitable airport....meanwhile dumping fuel....I understand this is done because otherwise the jumbo is too heavy to land safely? so unable to stop in the space available? Seems to me that the longest runway would be the best choice, but assume there really is a fire behind the smoke... In the heat of the moment, if you need to land NOW, what are the possible consequences of landing overweight? do most major airports now provide the soft surface stopping zone that seems to work pretty well?

Would that item of information be available to the crew under stress?

[C150Aerobat]

According the "Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board STSB" notification, this incident began at a distance of 90 nm from Zurich LSZH, 50nm north-west of Basel, which corresponds roughly to Luxeuil LFSX. As the preliminary description of the problem is given: "electrical fume and light smoke formation in the cockpit".
See also: http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/QTR778_e.pdf

Quite a different info compared to the original report on AVHerald...

[Stan Woolley]

The London carrier incident might not have been the same as one reported of a B737 with engine failure over destination, CDG, and elected to turn round and return to LGW on one engine. "Nearest", "suitable" etc. Cripes. Debate raged for years after that one.

I remember being on a CRM course, possibly my first one, taken by the Virgin HR lady. (For my new airline) I was surprised when we did some test or other and given the results. I realised that I was the second biggest 'mouth' of the dozen or so pilots on the course! I was taught to talk less and listen more, a lesson I have tried to stay continually aware of.

On another course I listened (while my jaw slowly dropped little by little) to a TRE saying he could justify flying to a U.K. destination in a twin after losing an engine around Bordeaux. (No wx issues) I said there was no way that I could endorse his decision making in that case. I fully expected the person taking the course and the other pilots to back me up, only to be disappointed once more. I had a strong enough personality to maintain my position, but it was also interesting. I have learned to assume nothing where people are concerned.

Pilots tend to love these type of discussions on Pprune, most of it is ego talking of course. Of course I include myself. It is very interesting up to a point when you realise how (relatively) pointless they are, nothing much comes from them, just individual feelings of various varieties.

I am being a touch cynical I suppose. I have gratefully taken snippets from Tech Log over the years from wise old aviators. Lessons can be learned from all types, but it has to be built on experience.

True progress gradually creeps in a positive direction over time. I am reminded of Max Plank's famous qoute which Could be summed up as: 'Science progresses funeral by funeral'. :)