Qantas Declares Emergency

[AirbusPilot]

Hi all has anyone got more information regarding a Qantas B747-400 VH-OJF "City of Perth" declaring an emergency at LHR this morning?


Regards,
JP

[Captain Rat]

Interesting to note that the aircrfat landed on 27L. Where as up till that point and afterwards the runways in use were 09L & R. So from my vantage point (On K16) the departing aircraft were held while the QF landed, and once he was clear of 27L they resumed. Seems strange th land the opposite way to everyone else and then taxi almost straight to the gate (with only a very short hold after clearing the runway)
Incidently heard that Big Airways had a 767 with an engine failure on take off today as well.

Keeps the Fire crews and runway sweepers busy.

[zkdli]

started as a pan smoke in the cabin, then upgraded to fire in a toilet, got an immediate approach on the nearest runway.

[coracle]

The pilot had a smoke indication in the toilet and declared a pan about 20 nm east of LAM. Then upgraded to a mayday. He was offered the nearest runway which was 27L which HE accepted with a 7kt tail wind. After he landed normal ops resumed on 09L/R.

All part of the service!!

[ratarsedagain]

Any more info about the (BA?) 767 with the engine failure on t/o?

[druckmefunk]

Sounds like a well done all round for ATC and Crew

[golfyankeesierra]

Was he going longhaul? Must have had a spectacular GS if he was overweight with a tailwind.

[HotDog]

[QUOTE]Was he going longhaul?
Yes GYS, I would say so; having come from Bangkok.:D

[Dan Kelly]

If the fire was caused by a pax smoking in the lav, I hope QF and the British authorities bring the full weight of the law, and a hefty jail sentence, to bear! :eek: :rolleyes:

[AirbusPilot]

What happen when pilots smoke on the cockpit? Shouldnt they be punished too?

Regards,
JP

[Taildragger67]

Airbus,

Damn straight they should. Just like police aren't supposed to knick things. Lead by example, etc.

[Spearing Britney]

Back in your box taildragger, there are still companies whose SOP's permit smoking on the flight deck. I'm sure youre not suggesting that a pilot complying to his regulatory authority approved company regulations is doing anything wrong.

JP, in companies where it is allowed - nothing will nor should happen.

[Point Seven]

To those who care, the smoke in the cabin was upgraded to a fire inthe cabin and the 767 with an engine failure was a 757 that veered to the left and shut down no. 1 engine as a precaution.

I know cos i was the controller on duty.

:)

[vertigo]

...point seven, were you happy that either aircraft was vectored over central London with a potentially catastrophic failure/fire ?

I'm not trying to stir things up, just curious as to where the guidelines are, more than ten years after the tragic El-al accident in Amsterdam.

[Taildragger67]

Britney,

Fair call. I'm suitably re-boxed. However, my point was simply that where company or regulatory rules prohibit any activity, then that should apply across the board. We're all guilty of small infringements (yes I have been known to speed & double-park) but if the reg says no smoking, then no-one should gripe too much if they get pinged for doing it.

If the rules say that SLF can't smoke but crew can, then light up a storm!!!

Cheers
TD

[Trinity 09L]

Vertigo,

there are dwellings to the West of Heathrow, and a small well known enclave with its own Castle and residents. If the commander and point seven agree which is the fastest route in, then the final decision is made. How can an aircraft travel further to approach through a less populated area. I chose to live under 09L, I accept the risk, noise and bootiful views:cool:

[Point Seven]

Vertigo


Well it either came in on the fastest routing possible, bearing in mind that it could ahve been a catastrophic fire in the first place, or we could have vectored around the sky for God knows how long and it would have crashed elsewhere. What makes one location more deserving than another?!

At the end of the day, my job ain't to decide which portions of (extremely congested) airspace should be restricted to emergency stricken planes, only to make sure that we get them down in the quickest and safest way possible. Which we did. I'm sure the 400 Quantas passengers and the numerous crew were chuffed. And i'm willing to bet you would have been if it was you at the helm. Or maybe you'd rather we stuck on an extra 50 miles to land you on 09L with your tail on fire.....

[ratarsedagain]

Point Seven,

Well said. I'm very sure the crew and pax on the QF flight were very grateful, and i'm damn sure I'd be looking for all the help you could give us in ensuring minimum time in the air if it was my aircraft full of smoke or flying around single engined!

Keep up the good work.

[WHBM]

If the fire broke out 20 nm east of LAM why wasn't he offered Stansted ?

[mustafagander]

WHBM

Probably never been there,

No idea of RFF capability,

No charts out,

Knows LHR well,

LHR charts out now,

LHR loaded in FMS,

By the time he's ready to land he's on long final.

Different story if the a/c is 100 NM away.

[Taildragger67]

Mustafagander,

Sounds like similar reasoning to that used by the VS A340 guys - offered Manston but knew more about LHR (before fuel state concerns made the decision for them anyway). No engine fires on that one until after they got down, though!!

[vertigo]

Sorry guys, don't think I made myself too clear. Of course we all do our upmost to get the aircraft on the ground as quickly as possible in those circumstances.

But...what if the worst was to happen ? Don't you think there will be lots of questions asked of the ATCO as to the consideration given to people on the ground ?

Now I will take that responsibility, but should I have to ? Why is there no guidance laid down by SRG, NATS or BAA management to back up the 'ATCO in the dock' ?

As an aside I've watched a video of a simulated engine fire on a twin jet departing Heathrow. The fire is not extinguished. When the Aircraft is vectored back for westerlies, the First Officer asks the Captain
' are you happy to fly a burning aircraft over London ?' , the Captain responds 'if ATC is happy to, then so am I.'

The Captain thinks it's up to ATC, many of my collegues believe that responsibility rests solely with the Captain.

So who takes responsibility. ?

I will, but I'd rather management did.

[TRF4EVR]

Pilot in Command means just that. Responsible both for a job well done and a job done poorly. Lets not erode what little command authority remains with Captains by suggesting that managment ought be either blamed or commended for decisions that are made by the crew under their emergency authority.

And while we're on the subject, suggesting that a pilot ought to "avoid civilian areas" in anything but the most dire circumstances (the Alaska Air MD-80 crash occurs to me as an example of a Captain using his authority to save the lives of innocent persons on the ground in an untenable situation) seems pretty ludicrous to me.