Full emergency call out for minor incident at LHR!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick detour from the thread....
Whilst on a conversion flight last year in SA the Piper Aztec I was flying indicated to me that neither my L or R main gear was down and locked. Fortunately I was flying with a brilliant instructor who allowed me to handle the situation as 'pilot flying' even though I had limited experience with the Aztec in fact any twins.
We informed ATC as we were joining the field and there response was 100% professional, deploying Fox Tango 1 + 2 to the threshold where a low fly by was executed enabling an inspection. The inspection revealed gear down and apparantly fully extended, and whilst on the downwind leg the 9th gear lever cycle gave us 3 greens.
Now my point.
When we told ATC we now had 3 greens, they didnt stand down the emergency services at all in fact after landing (never been so relived to hear those babies skreetch) we were followed (as procedure) by the services all the way back to the hangar.
Therefore notso, please consider the consequences of an underestimated emergency at LHR. I would have thought that as a 744 pilot you for one would appreciate the possible escalation of a hydralic problem, imagine if they had of stood down and the undercarriage had of collapsed on landing.
Surely then, some serious questions would have been asked.
I for one am grateful we are bickering about what has happened and not what 'could' of happened!
Whilst on a conversion flight last year in SA the Piper Aztec I was flying indicated to me that neither my L or R main gear was down and locked. Fortunately I was flying with a brilliant instructor who allowed me to handle the situation as 'pilot flying' even though I had limited experience with the Aztec in fact any twins.
We informed ATC as we were joining the field and there response was 100% professional, deploying Fox Tango 1 + 2 to the threshold where a low fly by was executed enabling an inspection. The inspection revealed gear down and apparantly fully extended, and whilst on the downwind leg the 9th gear lever cycle gave us 3 greens.
Now my point.
When we told ATC we now had 3 greens, they didnt stand down the emergency services at all in fact after landing (never been so relived to hear those babies skreetch) we were followed (as procedure) by the services all the way back to the hangar.
Therefore notso, please consider the consequences of an underestimated emergency at LHR. I would have thought that as a 744 pilot you for one would appreciate the possible escalation of a hydralic problem, imagine if they had of stood down and the undercarriage had of collapsed on landing.
Surely then, some serious questions would have been asked.
I for one am grateful we are bickering about what has happened and not what 'could' of happened!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I was the Tower supervisor who got the call from LTCC about the MAU 340 returning. I was told exactly what the crew had said was wrong, the fact it was over MID burning off fuel, and was requesting 27R as it was the longest runway (by 300m). I decided that as it would be fast, heavy and that he requested an extra 300m that I would put on a Full Emergency. As we know in the tower, this has implications on the positioning of fire and ambulance units all over Greater London and Thames Valley, and is NOT something we do lightly. I thought my decision justified when word came through that he had declared a PAN.
I wasn't actually the person who eventually made the Full Emergency call, as I had been given a break by then, but my successor agreed with what I had planned.
We've been burnt (pun not intended) before by crews not telling us the whole story of any problems they're having regarding a possible emergency, and I don't think we (or any emergency services - who are just following local emergency orders) should be criticised for any perceived over-reaction when we know what has happened in the past.
I wasn't actually the person who eventually made the Full Emergency call, as I had been given a break by then, but my successor agreed with what I had planned.
We've been burnt (pun not intended) before by crews not telling us the whole story of any problems they're having regarding a possible emergency, and I don't think we (or any emergency services - who are just following local emergency orders) should be criticised for any perceived over-reaction when we know what has happened in the past.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jettesen
Have you finished your homework yet.It's bedtime soon-school in the morning !
Gonzo.
Tricky choice to make.
I think NotSo does have a very valid point.
On too many occassions do we see huge numbers of blues and twos turn out for something very minor.
Perhaps there needs to be a better method of determining the seriousness involved with any non-standard landing.
We pilots could improve our RT to help matters though.Only last week I heard some small turboprop saying "I am declaring an emergency"-and that was it.I was waiting for him to do just that,but no Mayday or Pan call was forthcoming.Sloppy RT does not help the busy ATCO.
Have you finished your homework yet.It's bedtime soon-school in the morning !
Gonzo.
Tricky choice to make.
I think NotSo does have a very valid point.
On too many occassions do we see huge numbers of blues and twos turn out for something very minor.
Perhaps there needs to be a better method of determining the seriousness involved with any non-standard landing.
We pilots could improve our RT to help matters though.Only last week I heard some small turboprop saying "I am declaring an emergency"-and that was it.I was waiting for him to do just that,but no Mayday or Pan call was forthcoming.Sloppy RT does not help the busy ATCO.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TBD
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hyd failure
hyd fail on an an a340 is a non event - someone is blowing it out of proportion!! - if flaps stuck out, well then you obviously cannot continue to destination due to fuel issue but other than that not a problem.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTD,
Sure, I can appreciate that having emergency service attendance for what you might class as a minor tech fault is annoying. However, as I've said we've been caught out before, and related to this case, it was a PAN, was I concerned about the reason why the flaps were stuck, and we weren't getting anything else from the flight crew regarding this. In our procedures we have to call a Full Emergency for some things, hydraulic failure being one of them.
Edit to add: We didn't know why the flaps were stuck, that's one of the main reason why I was thinking about putting on an FE......And why declare a PAN?
Sure, I can appreciate that having emergency service attendance for what you might class as a minor tech fault is annoying. However, as I've said we've been caught out before, and related to this case, it was a PAN, was I concerned about the reason why the flaps were stuck, and we weren't getting anything else from the flight crew regarding this. In our procedures we have to call a Full Emergency for some things, hydraulic failure being one of them.
Edit to add: We didn't know why the flaps were stuck, that's one of the main reason why I was thinking about putting on an FE......And why declare a PAN?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: TBD
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hyd fail
sorry - perhaps i must re word my comment ... a hyd failure on one system its not a major safety issue - dont know about the rest of the story re: PAN - if a PAN was declared i find it rather strange - major over reaction - however, like i said, dont know the complete story
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Farnham
Age: 42
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo.
Well done you, and everyone else involved. I have absolutely no clue as to what the feeling must be to have to make that kind of decision, but can pretty much guarantee if you had not called it how you did, and something awful had happened, there would be people here calling for your head on a stick.
I am not an expert on the emergency services, but trust the guys in charge to prioritise (like caniplaywithmadness said) if something else happens.
100% behind you.
NW3
Well done you, and everyone else involved. I have absolutely no clue as to what the feeling must be to have to make that kind of decision, but can pretty much guarantee if you had not called it how you did, and something awful had happened, there would be people here calling for your head on a stick.
I am not an expert on the emergency services, but trust the guys in charge to prioritise (like caniplaywithmadness said) if something else happens.
100% behind you.
NW3
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There! Topic edited. As for those posters who show their immaturity and lack of debating skills by resorting to personal abuse, Don't. Vigorous debate is fine, especially here where some of the parties to the incident under discussion are taking part but I won't accept posters descending to insults just because they can't provide a reasoned response to another posters point of view.
I edited the title originally from "Crash Imminent" to "Crash Imminent ...maybe (Air mauritius)" because I thought it reflected the content of the thread more accurately. Obviously it was misinterpreted and to try and avoid any further vehemence towards the topic starter I have edited it again. If anyone is not happy with something about a thread then please don't harp on about it in the thread. Use the "Report this post to a moderator" link that is available at the bottom of every post instead.
On the topic of ATC calling in Emergency services, I can understand the frustration that one persons perception of a situation can cause. In my case, I was on a freight flight from Coventry to Belfast in an HS748 when we started to experience some minor vibration from one of the props. It was a fairly common occurrence as the de-icing strips on the prop blades used to delaminate. As we were ahead of schedule and flying directly over our main (maintenance) base at Liverpool I decided to divert there so engineering could fix the problem, just in case it developed into something more troublesome later when away from base.
It was very early in the morning, about 0500L and I told Manchester ATC who were handling me at the time that I wished to divert to Liverpool. I was given a vector and handed off to Liverpool Approach who asked me why I was diverting there. I told them 'it was for technical reasons'. They then kept asking me for more details and I repeated my reason. They then asked what exactly was the 'technical' reason and I told them I had a minor vibration from one of the props and I wanted our engineers to check it out. We were based at Liverpool so it made sense to make a quick 'pit stop' and get the problem sorted.
Anyway, I was asked by ATC if I wanted to declare an emergency and I told them 'no, I just want our engineers to check something'. Eventually, I am lining up on final approach and I see all these blue flashing lights and emergency vehicles lined up by the runway. There were many more emergency vehicles waiting at the RVP's. After an uneventful landing we taxied to the ramp with a squadron of fire engines in front and behind us with more waiting by the ramp.
I shut down the engines, put the ladder out and immediately a fireman comes on board wanting to know the nature of our 'emergency' to which I responded that there wasn't one! After reassuring the fire services that they weren't needed they all buggered off and tranquility returned to the airport.
I got an engineer to stick the de-icing pad back on the prop so we could get on our way. Whilst waiting for the bond to take effect I a quick coffee in the crew room where I get a call from the MD wanting to know what the hell was going on. Apparently, whoever had decided that the emergency services should be called out or someone from within those services had also 'leaked' the news to the media who had already broadcast the 'news' about a full emergency with one of our a/c and using library footage had put together a 'package' showing our passenger aircraft and insinuating that somehow we had had a lucky escape from some sort of disaster.
I called the tower and asked why they had declared an emergency when I had specifically stated that there wasn't one. The response I got was that it was SOP for them to declare an emergency if an aircraft states they have a 'technical' problem. Go figure!
In the end, I got a bollocking for supposedly giving ATC the idea that I had an emergency and I gave them one for declaring it and having press hype it out of all proportion which could have caused damage to the reputation of the company.
It just goes to show why it's not always best to 'over react' to minor problems. In the case of the Air Mauritius A340 hydraulic abnormal situation, I think the controller over reacted. The pilot requested the longer runway. It would be SOP to request the longer runway. To assume a more serious response was required based solely on that information and even though only a PAN was declared was, in my personal view, an over reaction. If the crew had asked for emergency services to be standing by as they were unsure of their ability to come to a stop within the confines of the runway or had declared that there was a possibility of a gear collapse then I could understand the decision to override the crews perception of the outcome. In this case, it was indeed an overreaction and as can be seen, the 'Chinese Whisper' syndrome can make it even worse.
I edited the title originally from "Crash Imminent" to "Crash Imminent ...maybe (Air mauritius)" because I thought it reflected the content of the thread more accurately. Obviously it was misinterpreted and to try and avoid any further vehemence towards the topic starter I have edited it again. If anyone is not happy with something about a thread then please don't harp on about it in the thread. Use the "Report this post to a moderator" link that is available at the bottom of every post instead.
On the topic of ATC calling in Emergency services, I can understand the frustration that one persons perception of a situation can cause. In my case, I was on a freight flight from Coventry to Belfast in an HS748 when we started to experience some minor vibration from one of the props. It was a fairly common occurrence as the de-icing strips on the prop blades used to delaminate. As we were ahead of schedule and flying directly over our main (maintenance) base at Liverpool I decided to divert there so engineering could fix the problem, just in case it developed into something more troublesome later when away from base.
It was very early in the morning, about 0500L and I told Manchester ATC who were handling me at the time that I wished to divert to Liverpool. I was given a vector and handed off to Liverpool Approach who asked me why I was diverting there. I told them 'it was for technical reasons'. They then kept asking me for more details and I repeated my reason. They then asked what exactly was the 'technical' reason and I told them I had a minor vibration from one of the props and I wanted our engineers to check it out. We were based at Liverpool so it made sense to make a quick 'pit stop' and get the problem sorted.
Anyway, I was asked by ATC if I wanted to declare an emergency and I told them 'no, I just want our engineers to check something'. Eventually, I am lining up on final approach and I see all these blue flashing lights and emergency vehicles lined up by the runway. There were many more emergency vehicles waiting at the RVP's. After an uneventful landing we taxied to the ramp with a squadron of fire engines in front and behind us with more waiting by the ramp.
I shut down the engines, put the ladder out and immediately a fireman comes on board wanting to know the nature of our 'emergency' to which I responded that there wasn't one! After reassuring the fire services that they weren't needed they all buggered off and tranquility returned to the airport.
I got an engineer to stick the de-icing pad back on the prop so we could get on our way. Whilst waiting for the bond to take effect I a quick coffee in the crew room where I get a call from the MD wanting to know what the hell was going on. Apparently, whoever had decided that the emergency services should be called out or someone from within those services had also 'leaked' the news to the media who had already broadcast the 'news' about a full emergency with one of our a/c and using library footage had put together a 'package' showing our passenger aircraft and insinuating that somehow we had had a lucky escape from some sort of disaster.
I called the tower and asked why they had declared an emergency when I had specifically stated that there wasn't one. The response I got was that it was SOP for them to declare an emergency if an aircraft states they have a 'technical' problem. Go figure!
In the end, I got a bollocking for supposedly giving ATC the idea that I had an emergency and I gave them one for declaring it and having press hype it out of all proportion which could have caused damage to the reputation of the company.
It just goes to show why it's not always best to 'over react' to minor problems. In the case of the Air Mauritius A340 hydraulic abnormal situation, I think the controller over reacted. The pilot requested the longer runway. It would be SOP to request the longer runway. To assume a more serious response was required based solely on that information and even though only a PAN was declared was, in my personal view, an over reaction. If the crew had asked for emergency services to be standing by as they were unsure of their ability to come to a stop within the confines of the runway or had declared that there was a possibility of a gear collapse then I could understand the decision to override the crews perception of the outcome. In this case, it was indeed an overreaction and as can be seen, the 'Chinese Whisper' syndrome can make it even worse.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a matter of interest would it be reasonable to ask a flight crew, that is declaring an emergency, just what level of response they would like to be available upon arrival?
its seems to me that if as advised .....
"hyd fail on an an a340 is a non event - someone is blowing it out of proportion!! - if flaps stuck out, well then you obviously cannot continue to destination due to fuel issue but other than that not a problem"
..... then why not have the Flight Crew advise ATC to have a Precautionary attendance , but certainly not a Full Blown Turn Out of Emergency Services
If, on the other hand a Crew feel a "full turnout" would be wise then let them say so
its seems to me that if as advised .....
"hyd fail on an an a340 is a non event - someone is blowing it out of proportion!! - if flaps stuck out, well then you obviously cannot continue to destination due to fuel issue but other than that not a problem"
..... then why not have the Flight Crew advise ATC to have a Precautionary attendance , but certainly not a Full Blown Turn Out of Emergency Services
If, on the other hand a Crew feel a "full turnout" would be wise then let them say so
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Good post.
Hobie,
Fully agree.
If I want the emergency services standing by then I will sure as hell make sure they are aware of this.
I have not yet been in such a situation that warranted this,thank god.
But over the last 15 or so years I have been met by flashing lights on more than one occasion because someone else has decided that I have a much bigger problem than actually exists.
It is damned annoying and also rather off-putting for the passengers to be escorted back to stand by all manner of emergency vehicles simply because one has stated that,say for example,we request a longer approach than usual due to flaps being lowered using an alternate (ie slower) system.
We tell ATC of such events out of professionalism and courtesy,but don't expect an over-reaction.
Perhaps ATC guys should join us now and then for SEP days etc when we can have two way discussions as to what is and what is not expected by both parties.
Good post.
Hobie,
Fully agree.
If I want the emergency services standing by then I will sure as hell make sure they are aware of this.
I have not yet been in such a situation that warranted this,thank god.
But over the last 15 or so years I have been met by flashing lights on more than one occasion because someone else has decided that I have a much bigger problem than actually exists.
It is damned annoying and also rather off-putting for the passengers to be escorted back to stand by all manner of emergency vehicles simply because one has stated that,say for example,we request a longer approach than usual due to flaps being lowered using an alternate (ie slower) system.
We tell ATC of such events out of professionalism and courtesy,but don't expect an over-reaction.
Perhaps ATC guys should join us now and then for SEP days etc when we can have two way discussions as to what is and what is not expected by both parties.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTP.
ATCOs attending your SEP days etc YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Myself and many of my colleagues have been trying to get that for years! Only this year we've seen pilots come in to attend our "Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies" days.
As for overreaction....as with local emergency services, ATC also have their own mandatory procedures. For example, if a 747 comes in on three engines, I HAVE to put on a local standby. No questions. Even if it's a BA 747 ferrying OUT to Cardiff on three engines, I HAVE to put on a local standby. I HAVE to put on a Full Emergency when an aircraft is known to have a complete or partial hydraulic failure.
Hence our questioning if you just say it's a 'technical problem'.
As for Danny's case of "ATC's SOP for them to declare an emergency if an aircraft states they have any 'technical' problem" well, that's just silly. I do hope they've modified that! If you say that you've got a tech problem (non-hydraulic) that will not affect a normal landing, then chances are I won't do anything.
All considerations of a/c safety aside, if I don't put anything on when my book says I should, I won't have a leg to stand on in court, and after the dreadful events to the ATCO after Ueberlingen, if something does happen for which we could have been better prepared for, who knows what might happen. And yes, these things are now factors in some ATCO decision making. CYA or what?
ATCOs attending your SEP days etc YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Myself and many of my colleagues have been trying to get that for years! Only this year we've seen pilots come in to attend our "Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies" days.
As for overreaction....as with local emergency services, ATC also have their own mandatory procedures. For example, if a 747 comes in on three engines, I HAVE to put on a local standby. No questions. Even if it's a BA 747 ferrying OUT to Cardiff on three engines, I HAVE to put on a local standby. I HAVE to put on a Full Emergency when an aircraft is known to have a complete or partial hydraulic failure.
Hence our questioning if you just say it's a 'technical problem'.
As for Danny's case of "ATC's SOP for them to declare an emergency if an aircraft states they have any 'technical' problem" well, that's just silly. I do hope they've modified that! If you say that you've got a tech problem (non-hydraulic) that will not affect a normal landing, then chances are I won't do anything.
All considerations of a/c safety aside, if I don't put anything on when my book says I should, I won't have a leg to stand on in court, and after the dreadful events to the ATCO after Ueberlingen, if something does happen for which we could have been better prepared for, who knows what might happen. And yes, these things are now factors in some ATCO decision making. CYA or what?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought this might be of interest to some.
There is a photo here somewhere . . .
I was staying at the Renaissance and was wondering what the emergency vehicles were waiting for; I suspected it might have been some kind of emergency. In the end, a perfectly normal landing was flown, although you can see that the flaps do indeed appear to be stuck in Config 2.
A good job by the crew and as ever, the LHR emergency crews showed the professionalism expected of them.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=299334
There is a photo here somewhere . . .
I was staying at the Renaissance and was wondering what the emergency vehicles were waiting for; I suspected it might have been some kind of emergency. In the end, a perfectly normal landing was flown, although you can see that the flaps do indeed appear to be stuck in Config 2.
A good job by the crew and as ever, the LHR emergency crews showed the professionalism expected of them.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=299334
Crazy Scandihooligan
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Damn, some mountain goat is nibbling my ear ;-)
Age: 52
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambulance Response
NotSo Fantastic
I am shocked at your cocky attitude. I am sure BA employ sensible pilots, but if this is the type of Plank Driver, i shall avoid any route with BA using 747-400's, incase you are at the helm
The Ambulance Service has a job to do just like the ATCO and the Pilots. I salute the service for being there in such a great time. even if it wasnt an emergency in the end, it is a great drain on the service, for other needy cases like cardiac arrests and RTA's.
Your comments are most typical of the type of pilot that causes accidents with your cocksure attitude. Get a life mate.
Regards
MD
I am shocked at your cocky attitude. I am sure BA employ sensible pilots, but if this is the type of Plank Driver, i shall avoid any route with BA using 747-400's, incase you are at the helm
The Ambulance Service has a job to do just like the ATCO and the Pilots. I salute the service for being there in such a great time. even if it wasnt an emergency in the end, it is a great drain on the service, for other needy cases like cardiac arrests and RTA's.
Your comments are most typical of the type of pilot that causes accidents with your cocksure attitude. Get a life mate.
Regards
MD
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots could also use the phrase 'Company Reasons' instead of a 'Technical' one. ATC are unlikely to ask anything further about such a diversion since it is none of our business.
Of course, that would assume that those who actually do have a problem then declare it when it happens. Which doesn't happen all the time.
Of course, that would assume that those who actually do have a problem then declare it when it happens. Which doesn't happen all the time.
Forewarned is Forearmed
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all the years of doing my job I have never heard of "Crash Imminent" various categories apply where I work they are as follows.
1. Weather Standby; (weather conditions are such to render landing difficult or difficult to observe take off/ Landing
2. Local Standby;
When it is known that an aircraft has or is suspected to , developed some defect, but the trouble would normally not involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing.
3. Full Emergency;
when it is known that an aircraft is or suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident
4. Aircraft Ground Incident;
When an aircraft on the ground is known to have an emergency situation, other than Aircraft accident.
5. Aircraft accident;
Aircraft accidents which have occurred on or are inevitable on, or in the Vicinity of the airport.
On Occaisions ATC or The Fire officer in charge have upgraded the incident to be safe rather than sorry.
1. Weather Standby; (weather conditions are such to render landing difficult or difficult to observe take off/ Landing
2. Local Standby;
When it is known that an aircraft has or is suspected to , developed some defect, but the trouble would normally not involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing.
3. Full Emergency;
when it is known that an aircraft is or suspected to be in such trouble that there is danger of an accident
4. Aircraft Ground Incident;
When an aircraft on the ground is known to have an emergency situation, other than Aircraft accident.
5. Aircraft accident;
Aircraft accidents which have occurred on or are inevitable on, or in the Vicinity of the airport.
On Occaisions ATC or The Fire officer in charge have upgraded the incident to be safe rather than sorry.
"The third one was this one ‘Crash Imminent’!
Ok so you can imagine that this one got my attention!"
I know how you felt. As a day job I'm a documentary cameraman and some years ago spent a week at Gatwick Airport's fire service to be the proverbial fly on the wall.
It was day one, an early start was required for some reason and I found myself at the station at 6am. But it was empty! A bloke in a red 4x4 pulled up and told me to jump in or I'd miss the action as they had a "shout" A typical false alarm I thought but I reckoned on getting some good dramatic pictures in the dark and was a little flustered that I was somewhat unprepared to be racing airside toward a fleet of flashing lights.
A few minutes later I'm as near the edge of a runway as I've ever been with the full compliment of fire trucks poised, engines throbbing, lights flashing in the cold otherwise eerily silent morning.
All very dramatic and atmospheric.
Then the bloke I'm with received a call saying "Crash imminent!"
I almost wet myself. It was a fully loaded DC10, with hydraulic failure. Asymmetric flaps?, no landing gear maybe?, bloody hell!
For a few minutes I thought that it was definitely going to actually crash right in front of me.
Then the nature of the problem eventually became apparent (to me) as a possible hydraulic failure, I realised that it wasn't actually a imminent crash but probably a dodgy cockpit warning light.
It landed without incident.
Is there a category of call out beyond "crash imminent?"
But a week after I left there was a serious accident, one of the tenders I had been riding shot gun in rolled into a culvert, the cabin flooded and the crew were lucky to escape with broken bones.
Definitely safer to travel by air!
Mickjoebill
Ok so you can imagine that this one got my attention!"
I know how you felt. As a day job I'm a documentary cameraman and some years ago spent a week at Gatwick Airport's fire service to be the proverbial fly on the wall.
It was day one, an early start was required for some reason and I found myself at the station at 6am. But it was empty! A bloke in a red 4x4 pulled up and told me to jump in or I'd miss the action as they had a "shout" A typical false alarm I thought but I reckoned on getting some good dramatic pictures in the dark and was a little flustered that I was somewhat unprepared to be racing airside toward a fleet of flashing lights.
A few minutes later I'm as near the edge of a runway as I've ever been with the full compliment of fire trucks poised, engines throbbing, lights flashing in the cold otherwise eerily silent morning.
All very dramatic and atmospheric.
Then the bloke I'm with received a call saying "Crash imminent!"
I almost wet myself. It was a fully loaded DC10, with hydraulic failure. Asymmetric flaps?, no landing gear maybe?, bloody hell!
For a few minutes I thought that it was definitely going to actually crash right in front of me.
Then the nature of the problem eventually became apparent (to me) as a possible hydraulic failure, I realised that it wasn't actually a imminent crash but probably a dodgy cockpit warning light.
It landed without incident.
Is there a category of call out beyond "crash imminent?"
But a week after I left there was a serious accident, one of the tenders I had been riding shot gun in rolled into a culvert, the cabin flooded and the crew were lucky to escape with broken bones.
Definitely safer to travel by air!
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Contract
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been trying to post a reply since Gonzo posted the facts from the ATC side, unfortunately I was unable to post.
I am sure as has been discussed since then, that the Firefighting and Rescue services reacted in a manner befitting the callout they were given.
A few salient points which I feel are pretty much fact from the point of view from the Air Mauritius crew are:
1. The problem was a surface jam on retraction after takeoff, not a hydraulic problem.
2. The crew declared a PAN, after having been asked by ATC if they were declaring an emergency. As per normal LHR ATC were fully supportive during the return to LHR.
3. Approximately 60 000 kgs of fuel was jettisoned.
4. A landing was performed in an abnormal flap/slat configuration (as can be seen on the link given by akerosid), which would have required a higher Vapp and the additional runway length that was spoken about.
5. Landing weight was approximately 186 000kgs - max landing weight 190 000 kgs.
6. An MOR was filed as required by legislation.
7. The aircraft departed for Mauritius on Saturday in the early afternoon with the same crew, after the defect had been rectified. An earlier departure was possible but the crew were out of flight duty time. Due consideration was also given to the passengers affording them the opportunity of a full rest before continuing to their beautiful tropical destination. The other crew in London at the time were on a rest period and were unable to operate the flight back earlier.
We should be comforted to know that Gonzo and his peers are there evaluating the event from their side preparing the airfield for the return of the aircraft - I certainly am. We sometime fail to 'see' some things in the heat of handling the abnormal situation. Maybe, as Danny says it was an over reaction but on the safe side.
Hopefully this helps.
edited for spelling and word order
I am sure as has been discussed since then, that the Firefighting and Rescue services reacted in a manner befitting the callout they were given.
A few salient points which I feel are pretty much fact from the point of view from the Air Mauritius crew are:
1. The problem was a surface jam on retraction after takeoff, not a hydraulic problem.
2. The crew declared a PAN, after having been asked by ATC if they were declaring an emergency. As per normal LHR ATC were fully supportive during the return to LHR.
3. Approximately 60 000 kgs of fuel was jettisoned.
4. A landing was performed in an abnormal flap/slat configuration (as can be seen on the link given by akerosid), which would have required a higher Vapp and the additional runway length that was spoken about.
5. Landing weight was approximately 186 000kgs - max landing weight 190 000 kgs.
6. An MOR was filed as required by legislation.
7. The aircraft departed for Mauritius on Saturday in the early afternoon with the same crew, after the defect had been rectified. An earlier departure was possible but the crew were out of flight duty time. Due consideration was also given to the passengers affording them the opportunity of a full rest before continuing to their beautiful tropical destination. The other crew in London at the time were on a rest period and were unable to operate the flight back earlier.
We should be comforted to know that Gonzo and his peers are there evaluating the event from their side preparing the airfield for the return of the aircraft - I certainly am. We sometime fail to 'see' some things in the heat of handling the abnormal situation. Maybe, as Danny says it was an over reaction but on the safe side.
Hopefully this helps.
edited for spelling and word order
Last edited by Pontius' Pilot; 21st Jun 2004 at 03:42.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a category of emergency called 'Aircraft Accident Imminent'. However, I think the 'Crash Imminent' talked about above was a purely Ambulance Service thing to determine the response level.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really think Gonzo's post should be the end of this and that this thread is past its 'sell-by-date'. Whether we 'professional' pilots are 'embarrassed' by/'bollocked' for/'outraged' by ATC 'responses' to our declarations is immaterial. ATC have their rules just as we do.
I have had a full blue-light situation for a minor aircraft event that turned out to be a 'non' event which yes, was 'embarrassing' and resulted in coffee no biscuits because the press got hold of it, but there it is, boys and girls. That is life and we have to learn to live with it and not rant at each other about it. Better safe than sorry?
I have had a full blue-light situation for a minor aircraft event that turned out to be a 'non' event which yes, was 'embarrassing' and resulted in coffee no biscuits because the press got hold of it, but there it is, boys and girls. That is life and we have to learn to live with it and not rant at each other about it. Better safe than sorry?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that was interesting reading. I am involved with Emergency Planning (not LHR).
All the Emergency Responses at major UK airports should follow the ICAO annex and UK CAA CAP 168 and 576. "Aircraft Accident Imminent" is a recognised category. I have to concur with Gonzo that a Full Emergency was an appropriate response. He/she has the book to follow once the pilot has declared a PAN subject to set tech problems.
Full Emergencies happen as & when - we had two within 10 mins the other day and YES you need that Blue light response. You have to make the assumption that the Full Emergency decision has been taken by ATC for all the right reasons in understanding the difficulties being experienced by the crew - thus the emergency response is required just in case.
Question: (and I have seen the Emergency Services decide something is going to crash even though they have absolutley no new information further to the alert for a Full Emergency) - who put the "Crash" slant on this? Therefore you have to have sympathy for Notso's view that the incident was unnecessarily escalated.
Since FAM flights have been made increasingly difficult to achieve in the last 33 months or so, why on earth can't ATCO's sit in on SIM training and perhaps get a separate debrief from trainers post session. - Just a thought!
All the Emergency Responses at major UK airports should follow the ICAO annex and UK CAA CAP 168 and 576. "Aircraft Accident Imminent" is a recognised category. I have to concur with Gonzo that a Full Emergency was an appropriate response. He/she has the book to follow once the pilot has declared a PAN subject to set tech problems.
Full Emergencies happen as & when - we had two within 10 mins the other day and YES you need that Blue light response. You have to make the assumption that the Full Emergency decision has been taken by ATC for all the right reasons in understanding the difficulties being experienced by the crew - thus the emergency response is required just in case.
Question: (and I have seen the Emergency Services decide something is going to crash even though they have absolutley no new information further to the alert for a Full Emergency) - who put the "Crash" slant on this? Therefore you have to have sympathy for Notso's view that the incident was unnecessarily escalated.
Since FAM flights have been made increasingly difficult to achieve in the last 33 months or so, why on earth can't ATCO's sit in on SIM training and perhaps get a separate debrief from trainers post session. - Just a thought!