BBC Journos in Celtic scare

[LGW Vulture]

Ooops sorry should read the actual title!

Celtic in Aircraft Scare
Celtic are (were) stranded in Lithuania after their airplane aborts take-off whilst on the runway

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/champions_league/3112025.stm

....and quote:

"The Boeing 757 came to a sudden and frightening halt as it charged down the runway and Celtic operations manager Ronnie Hawthorn explained to the passengers what was happening.

"The air speed indicator wasn't working and so he didn't know what speed he was doing on the runway and aborted take-off," said Hawthorn.

"Many things can cause this, such as a blockage caused by a bird or something simple".

Terrifying stuff for all concerned. Sorry, shouldn't take it this way really...but do we have to go overboard YET again?

[Slim20]

The really despicable thing about it is the inclusion of the reference to the Man Utd Munich crash. The only thing in common is the "football team/aviation incident" related nature. Only included to evoke panicky memories of death and destruction.

For a detailed discussion of media ignorance and flight safety see
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97243&highlight=journalist

[Basil]

<<caused by a bird or something simple>>

so he isn't very politically correct then?

Oh, THAT sort of bird! :D

[simfly]

and I'm sure I heard a scottish sports reporter who was on the flight claim "the pilot (only one??) made an emergency stop as he reached a speed of 250mph"! Anyone know which airline?

[Hilico]

Simfly, when you're as p1ssed as the average journo, any speed above walking pace looks like 250.

[Andrew M]

Terrifying stuff for all concerned. Sorry, shouldn't take it this way really...but do we have to go overboard YET again?

Hmm... the evening times (Glasgow), has reported an insect was stuck in the, er.... peto tube :rolleyes:

Personally I thought this was that much of a joke, it were Jetblast forum material, as seen here.... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=97850)

[PaperTiger]

At the time of the Peru 757 crash, one of the TV 'in-depth' talking heads here referred consistently to the speedo tube.

[AtlPax]

... airplane aborts take-off whilst on the runway

Well, I'm glad to hear they didn't abort on the taxiway. :}

[Basil]

. . . or in the middle of the sky . .

[Bally Heck]

Tee Hee,

That finest bastion of Scottish journalism, The Daily Record said that £50 million worth of football stars "dived for cover" as the jet came "screeching to a stop" on the runway. I wonder where the dived to? And did the goalie do so with more panache than the rest of the team?

I wonder if the team are worth more than the aircraft.

From their website this morning:

"A PLANE was forced to abort its landing a minute before touchdown because another aircraft was on the runway.

Passengers on the Ryanair flight from Barcelona to Prestwick were shocked when their jet pulled up sharply in the middle of its descent. It landed 10 minutes later after circling the airport in the Tuesday night incident."

Wen I gro up im gonna be a jurnalist for the daly rekord:yuk:

[rupetime]

Britannia Airways B757 i believe.

[Anti Skid On]

Bally Heck - some of their forwards are better at diving than Rab Douglas their keeper - Sutton for example. Lest we forget the Leeds team at Stansted (I think) on an Emerald Air flight, as well as the Munich crash.

Many things can cause this, such as a blockage caused by a bird or something simple

What was Martin O'Neil doing outside the aircraft?

[NWSRG]

Surely the a/c could not have been travelling very fast. Does the airspeed indication not come alive at a fairly low speed? No doubt an emergency stop may have felt dramatic, but would the a/c even have got beyond 100 knots?

...and it does bring to mind the old joke...


Bobby Robson is bringing the England team home from the World Cup. As he relaxes after departure the hostess offers him the menu. "I'll have the steak" says Bobby. "What about the vegetables Mr. Robson?" asks the hostess. "Give them steak as well." says Bobby!

[BigGreenPleasureMachine]

Surely if there was a bird stuck to the pitot head, Neil Lennon would have been out there like a shot...;)

[sparkymarky]

Though I'd have to agree that on the whole Scottish sports journalists aren't the brightest stars in the sky, it often strikes me that on this board there is a marked lack of appreciation of the customer perspective. Indeed some of the comments err on the side of smug rudeness.

According to a fairly lengthy article in today's Times (of London not Glasgow) entitled "Celtic flying high even if plane isn't", the situation was that:

'...the Britannia Airways captain pulled out almost on the point of take-off. The plane slewed across the runway before shuddering to a halt at such force that everything inside the cabin was tossed around as the passengers were jolted backwards viciously by the impact of the brakes.'

Now to a seasoned flight crewer reading that report they may well think 'job well done, proper procedures followed, no risk to passengers, blahblahblah', but you might also want to note the comments of Paul Lambert - an experienced pro who has probably flown hundreds of times:

'It was certainly the worst thing I have been involved in on a flight. It was very frightening and the flight crew deserve great credit for the way they acted.'

It may be no big deal to you, but to the average passenger sitting facing the back of the seat in front, a sudden deceleration in 60 odd tons of aircraft from 100+ knots to zero, coupled with veering from the runway centre, just as they were waiting for the wheels to leave the ground, would amount to something a little more nerve racking than a visit to Alton Towers.

So feel free to bash the (deserving) press, but maybe a little more empathy with the punters in future?

[fmgc]

sparkymarky

You say:

It may be no big deal to you

I think that most pilots would agree that a high speed abort is a very big deal indeed and one of the most critical manoeuvres that a pilot has to make.

[G-ALAN]

I wonder how big the "speedo" tube is on this aircraft is if a bird can get lodged inside it? :O I presume I could put my fist inside it.

[kriskross]

A 'high speed' abort, yes, but if it was a Britannia 757 or any other Boeing, surely there is the '80 kts' call, to cover incapacitation and ASI failure?

An 80 kts reject is NOT a big deal!

[Andrew M]

or how a bird managed to "fly up the" pitot tube while the aircraft was hurtiling along the runway at 100kts +.


Wouldn't the flight crew have noticed that the airspeed indicator wasn't working before getting to that sort of speed anyway ? :rolleyes:

[sparkymarky]

fmgc

Glad you are with me on this one!


Andrew M

Pure theorising of course, but isn't there the possibility the foreign object (I understood it was an insect not a bird) actually lodged in the tube as the aircraft reached that speed?

Your post and sarcastic smiley tends to imply the failure MUST have happened at a lower speed?

With that sort of logic any future air accident investigation can happily rule out mechanical/instrument failure as a cause, since if everything was OK at engine startup there can't possibly have been any failures during the flight.

[kekoa]

don't know allthe detailsbut frompast experience have had the misfortune to spear a bird with the pitot at 126knts. he was still there there post landing debreif.

[Andrew M]

Pure theorising of course, but isn't there the possibility the foreign object (I understood it was an insect not a bird) actually lodged in the tube as the aircraft reached that speed?

I do grant the fact that it were an insect, however as some poor journalism has reported, one article reported the object as being a bird.

However, as we all know different, I'd like to know how the insect managed to get lodged in the pitot tube, considering the speed the aircraft was going at.

IF the insect were to become lodged in the tube whilest the aircraft was in motion - how would this be possible ? What are the chances ? Although, it cannot be ruled out.....

and also see this post too....

A 'high speed' abort, yes, but if it was a Britannia 757 or any other Boeing, surely there is the '80 kts' call, to cover incapacitation and ASI failure?

So what is even the chance of an insect becoming stuck in the tube between 80 kts and the speed the aircraft was at when the take off was aborted ?

[lofty50]

As a reader rather than a poster (normally), I am a little hacked off by the constant deriding of journalists, I am not one, and I do not mean to defend them as I also have been p*ssed off with various reporting styles. It seems however that ANY report of an air incident or accident is treated with so much criticism by you guys that I begin to think you must have contempt for the rest of humanity. This has been dealt with in great depth on another forum. You Professional pilots spend so much time bickering at each other and the world at large. C'mon guys lighten up a bit.

[Andrew M]

You Professional pilots spend so much time bickering at each other and the world at large. C'mon guys lighten up a bit.

I'm not a Pro - but I can see the problems that uninformed reporting to the masses can be potentially damaging to the aviation business.

Most people don't have a clue when it comes to aviation - and quite a lot of people believe nearly everything they read/see on the news.

Now, ok, the Daily Record and Evening Times (local newspaper) might not be the most renowned publications :) , but I'd expect more accurate information than that from the BBC, who like to call themselves a world news agency.

Well, there is BBC World TV and the BBC World Service as well. Suerly an organisation as large as the BBC's could have a specialist aviation corrospondant that does what they are talking about ?

But it is an important subject..... if the passengers are scared off flying any more then there may just be some passengers that will never fly again - something the industry can do without.

[PaperTiger]

C'mon guys lighten up a bit.Any inaccurate reporting concerning aviation by the popular media deserves criticism. It is apparent that any such criticism has absolutely no effect whatsoever. We vent our collective frustration by mocking those who publish such dross in threads like this. Few of us take it seriously simply because it would be pointless to do so.

[Bally Heck]

Lofty50,

The reason some journalists receive such contempt on these forums is because their standard of journalism is contemptible. This is not to suggest that all journalists are hopelessly incompetent. Some actually take time to research their subject, including the odd one or two who use these forums.

Aviation is unfortunately a cheap target for these people, and sensational headlines are ten a penny for "incidents" which are non events in professional aviation terms. I know for sure, from personal experience that the Daily Record "makes up" at least some of it's copy. In my case it was a "quote" attributed to a source who had never seen a reporter, far less talked to one. I believe this is also known as "Lying".

Note I say this freely and openly on a public forum without any caveats such ÒallegedlyÓ without fear of being sued by the Daily Record. ÉTHE DAILY RECORD MAKES THINGS UP WHICH IT THEN PUBLISHES AS FACTÉ The moderators know who I am. CÕmon Daily Record. If you think you are hard enough.

(Caveat!!! I single out the Record because I can prove that one. Not because they are the only tabloid that makes thing up)

In my view, when we read/listen to the "media" for news, we should be able to expect fair, accurate, unbiased and truthful reporting, whatever the subject matter. (How na•ve am I?)

In practice, what we are often subjected to are puerile attempts to sell as much copy as possible with sensationalist rubbish, which bears little if any resemblance to the facts.

If "Aircraft carrying football team rejects take-off. No injuries or damage." isn't interesting enough, then the story isn't interesting enough.....so don't bother publishing. Surely there's enough going on in Corrie and Big Brother to fill up the front page.

As Andrew M says, it is particularly worrying when the BBC falls into this category of gutter journalism as "due to the special way it's funded" it doesn't have to do this and shouldnÕt be allowed to. I donÕt have to buy the Sun and Record. But I am compelled to pay for the BBC whether I watch it or not

There are a lot of good journalists out there. They just donÕt seem to work for the tabloid press. And the tabloid press influences the opinion of large sections of the public way beyond the level of either their ability or their morals or their accountablity.

[Snigs]

'...the Britannia Airways captain pulled out almost on the point of take-off. The plane slewed across the runway before shuddering to a halt at such force that everything inside the cabin was tossed around as the passengers were jolted backwards viciously by the impact of the brakes.'

Errrm, do Britannia have rearward facing seats then???

Poor journalism really p1sses me off!

[HotDog]

Snigs, you took the words out of my mouth about backward facing seats! What a load of rubbish.:rolleyes:

[sparkymarky]

Gulp! Deep breath. Here goes.......I think you guys are wrong on this one!

I haven't been in a plane aborting takeoff but I have been in a car which t-boned another vehicle (his fault, honest!) and the decelleration effect is that you lurch forward against the strain of the seatbelt, then are thrown backwards against the seat. It's a 2-step thing. So the description is probably not inaccurate.

See 'Hot Shots', the Top Gun spoof, for a simple demo of this effect - complete with comedy sound effects. (The scene where the planes are landing on the carrier and snagging the arrestor cables)

[HotDog]

Well I have been in a few aborted takeoffs, albeit on the flight deck with shoulder harness fastened and also a couple, sitting in the cabin with lapstrap fastened. I have never experienced any forces that would have thrown me into the back of the seat. An aborted takeoff is nothing like the sudden stop of back ending another car where you get a rebound. The worst one ever I experienced when we had an uncontained failure of No3 engine at the call of V1 at about 145 knots at Haneda Japan. Admittedly it happened a long time ago but I can not recall any passenger panic or sensational journalism in the aftermath. Maybe Japanese passengers are more stoic and their reporters a bit more switched on?

[Pontious]

Paper Tiger

Would that have been the Birgen Air 757 that crashed off Puerto Plata by any chance?

[PaperTiger]

Could have been, Pontious. I thought it was the AeroPeru (both were caused by blocked pitots), but the media coverage was probably of the same abyssmal standard for either.

[moggie]

Andrew M - as for bugs in the pitot tubes, here's a thought.

If the bug lodged in there before start up there is no way that the crew would have noticed until they started the take off run. Typically, ASIs do not read the first 30, 40, 50 kts etc (the one I use has a scale that starts at 60kt although the needle starts to move at 30). This is to stop the needle thrashing around on the ground in gusty conditions and wearing out the instrument.

I have never taxied fast enough to cause an ASI to read (although the Ryanair 737s taxiing at Prestwick may well do so!) and so that is the whole point of the ASI check during the take-off run (60, 80, 100kt depending upon the airline). If the ASIs do not match you reject - as seems to be the case here.

[Andrew M]

Good point, moggie.

Although, couldn't this check have been done at 60 or 80 kts' - I know it varies between airlines, but 100 kts is a little high.

[bill]

Surely the bottom line is that Martin, Henrik and the rest of the Bhoys are ok...

[TightSlot]

And us (The Crew) - we're OK too!

[max_cont]

Britannia is like every other carrier that has SOP’S. The only difference is that in Brits there seems to be a call for everything.;)

The ASI needle gets off the stop at 60kts. The speed tape is too small to use in the rapidly changing situation on takeoff. The majority of departures use a de-rate takeoff using assumed temp method and its usually around the 50+ mark.

The PF presses the N1 button and the PNF fine-tunes the thrust levers. PNF checks primary engine indications and calls thrust set. (The captain always does the reject and always covers the thrust levers until V1 is called) By now we’re at around 75 kts if there was a bit more tweaking with the thrust levers we may already be at 80 kts. The call is 80 kts; the PF checks his ASI and that THR HOLD is enunciated and replies “check” This call will sometimes be made at 90 kts if the 80 kts call is missed for any reason.

From now on we only reject for serious malfunctions that will or might impair the aircrafts ability to get airborne and fly safely i.e. an engine failure up to the V1 call and then we go whatever the situation.

So in this incident it probably went like this, the PNF called 80kts, the PF looks at his ASI and sees what? 0kts or maybe 65 kts if the blockage is not complete. He checks the STBY ASI and might even check the IRS groundspeed readout. The captain decides to reject. The speed is now through 90 kts and they’re going like a train. The thrust levers are closed and the auto brake RTO function kicks in and a max effort to stop is made using full reverse.

You will be thrown forward against your harness. Stopping an aircraft that was probably around 92000kg + and getting on towards 100kts by the time all the braking effort was applied is going to be memorable. The aircraft can do the same thing at much heavier weights and much higher speeds. The wheel brakes are very powerful and you will notice it. The aircraft will stop with a bounce of the nose gear oleo and you are returned to your seat.

In retrospect the crew did well. You need to understand how fast these aircraft accelerate and the decision is easier when its not you making it and you know its coming. :hmm: