Virgin 747 dumping fuel over LHR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin 747 dumping fuel over LHR
I was south of Compton today at 15:20 when London asked if we could ID an aircraft, they had apparently lost comms with it. It was a Virgin 747 at FL170 heading NW and dumping fuel. Anybody know if everything turned out ok? and was it in any way related to delays into LHR later on?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The South
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin from EGLL to KJFK, had problems with stall warnings & altimeter etc. Was dumping fuel in the CPT area & also flying up as far north as EGBB & down towards EGHI. At 1 point there was talk of launching a mil aircraft up as the Virgin pilot said he couldn`t rely on his airspeed readout, to fly alongside him & tell him what speed he was doing etc. Quite important when coming into land in yesterdays wind. Not sure if this happened in the end tho. Eventually he ended up back at EGLL.
Brilliant first post Wombat13, both feet first time.
I don't work for Virgin but this scenario is spookily like our last LPC. Since he got it on the ground it sounds like a job well handled. Shame to miss out on mixed formation photo opportunity.
I don't work for Virgin but this scenario is spookily like our last LPC. Since he got it on the ground it sounds like a job well handled. Shame to miss out on mixed formation photo opportunity.
Last edited by beardy; 8th Dec 2006 at 09:09.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Yearning for sun and sea
Age: 82
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Height
DT quoted this morning that a Virgin 747 aborted takeoff after nosewheel lifted because there appeared to be a problem with the altimeter.
Is this likely?
Is this likely?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel dumping should (note that word) be over water.....I can`t remember the figures exactly, since I no longer exercise the privileges of my licence (and my mats part 1 is elsewhere), but 10000 ft comes into it somewhere as does 7000. If the a/c was at FL170 as the leading post suggests, that`s well within the parameters.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a great story years ago about a 707 (I think) that had a catasrophic enginer failure on departure from one of the westerlies at LHR.
The tower saw the flames at rotation, and very shortly thereafter, saw the aircraft commence a fuel dump.
The rate of climb was very low indeed, and as the aircraft approached Windsor, the tower made some comment about dumping fuel so close the the castle.
The response was a calm American southern drawl - "give her a call and ask her if she wants the fuel or the aircraft ..." !
Probablly not true of course, but still a good story.
The tower saw the flames at rotation, and very shortly thereafter, saw the aircraft commence a fuel dump.
The rate of climb was very low indeed, and as the aircraft approached Windsor, the tower made some comment about dumping fuel so close the the castle.
The response was a calm American southern drawl - "give her a call and ask her if she wants the fuel or the aircraft ..." !
Probablly not true of course, but still a good story.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Winchester.Hants.England
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat13 .............
It never fails to amaze me at the ignorance and arrogance of such posters as yourself. Why post on something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about ?
Do you enjoy making yourself look like a complete
?
Interestingly enough the same AC had another go at the trip a few hours later but unfortunately that didn't work either.
It never fails to amaze me at the ignorance and arrogance of such posters as yourself. Why post on something that you clearly know absolutely nothing about ?
Do you enjoy making yourself look like a complete
? Interestingly enough the same AC had another go at the trip a few hours later but unfortunately that didn't work either.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deja Vu
Sounds like a replay of that 747 post-maint airtest where they left the static system drain-valve caps off.
Somewhere in the UK; cargo airline I think. About three years ago. An AAIU investigation report I think.
Somewhere in the UK; cargo airline I think. About three years ago. An AAIU investigation report I think.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one
Incident: Boeing 747-200, N520UP, Dublin Airport,12 May 2000: Report No 2004-004
Break line image
6 February 2004
SYNOPSIS
The aircraft took off from Dublin Airport for a check flight following the completion of C check maintenance at Team FLS. After take-off, significant airframe vibration was encountered. The crew then deduced that both airspeed indicators were under-reading significantly. Following declaration of an emergency, and trouble-shooting by the crew off the east coast of Ireland, the aircraft returned safely to Dublin. After landing it was discovered that the flap system had suffered damage. It was found that the static drain ports in the Avionics and Electrical (A&E) bay, connected to both the Captains and the First Officers instruments, were left open after maintenance. This resulted in both airspeed indicators under-reading by a significant amount.
http://aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=4...g=ENG&loc=1280
Break line image
6 February 2004
SYNOPSIS
The aircraft took off from Dublin Airport for a check flight following the completion of C check maintenance at Team FLS. After take-off, significant airframe vibration was encountered. The crew then deduced that both airspeed indicators were under-reading significantly. Following declaration of an emergency, and trouble-shooting by the crew off the east coast of Ireland, the aircraft returned safely to Dublin. After landing it was discovered that the flap system had suffered damage. It was found that the static drain ports in the Avionics and Electrical (A&E) bay, connected to both the Captains and the First Officers instruments, were left open after maintenance. This resulted in both airspeed indicators under-reading by a significant amount.
http://aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=4...g=ENG&loc=1280
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Yearning for sun and sea
Age: 82
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't vouch for fact only what was written!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SW15
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Daily Telegraph, page 13. It isn't on the website, so any spelling errors are mine.
Just like slamming on your brakes in a car doing 300mph? I want his car.
A JUMBO jet with 384 passengers on board aborted a take-off at Heathrow Airport with the nose-wheel already in the air.
Passengers were said to be "terrified" as the captain slammed on the brakes at full take-off speed. The plane, a 747-400, was Virgin Atlantic's 2pm flight from Heathrow to New York's JFK airport. The flight had earlier been turned around an hour out over the Atlantic because of "electrical problems" - thought to be the altimeter.
The plane and its passengers then had to wait several hours while the fault was fixed but, when the pilot reached the critical point of take-off, he realised the fault was still there and decided to abort.
One of the passengers said: "we were all thrown forward into our seat belts and it was just like slamming on your brakes in the car at 300mph. We were already a bit worried because of the time we had spent on the tarmac so when this happened a lot of people feared the worst."
The passengers were expected to be put up in a hotel for the night.
Passengers were said to be "terrified" as the captain slammed on the brakes at full take-off speed. The plane, a 747-400, was Virgin Atlantic's 2pm flight from Heathrow to New York's JFK airport. The flight had earlier been turned around an hour out over the Atlantic because of "electrical problems" - thought to be the altimeter.
The plane and its passengers then had to wait several hours while the fault was fixed but, when the pilot reached the critical point of take-off, he realised the fault was still there and decided to abort.
One of the passengers said: "we were all thrown forward into our seat belts and it was just like slamming on your brakes in the car at 300mph. We were already a bit worried because of the time we had spent on the tarmac so when this happened a lot of people feared the worst."
The passengers were expected to be put up in a hotel for the night.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dumping was carried out at fl170. The A/C suffered problems with ADC"s which affected stall warning, ASI, ALT etc, Pilot dumped to a suitable landing weight and came back to base.
ADC changed and a second attemp to JFK was made, problem before V1 so RTO and back to stand.
All of which did not pose any problem.
ADC changed and a second attemp to JFK was made, problem before V1 so RTO and back to stand.
All of which did not pose any problem.
NTSB Identification: DCA07WA015
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD
Incident occurred Thursday, December 07, 2006 in London, United Kingdom
Aircraft: Boeing 747-4Q8, registration: G-VHOT
On December 7, 2006, a Virgin Atlantic Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-VHOT, experienced instrument and stick shaker problems after takeoff from London Heathrow Airport. The pilots declared an emergency, dumped fuel, and returned to the airport. The right air data computer was replaced; however, the stick shaker problem occurred again on the subsequent takeoff roll and the takeoff was aborted.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD
Incident occurred Thursday, December 07, 2006 in London, United Kingdom
Aircraft: Boeing 747-4Q8, registration: G-VHOT
On December 7, 2006, a Virgin Atlantic Airways Boeing 747-400, registration G-VHOT, experienced instrument and stick shaker problems after takeoff from London Heathrow Airport. The pilots declared an emergency, dumped fuel, and returned to the airport. The right air data computer was replaced; however, the stick shaker problem occurred again on the subsequent takeoff roll and the takeoff was aborted.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An abort after rotation? very unlike!
For all those who fly commercial aircraft, you will understand the significance of continuing after V1. It is drilled into us at every simulator check... After V1... KEEP GOING!!!
V1 is a speed which separates the decision to continue the take-off or Abort!
For instance, if you try to stop after V1 there is a very good chance the aircraft will end up off roading and everyone knows aircraft are rubbish for it!
If the decision is to continue the Take-Off before V1 with a loss of an engine, there is also a good chance that you would not make the required 35ft screen height at the end of the runway/clearway.
Furthermore, V1 can NEVER be greater than Vr (Rotate speed). So if the Captain decided to Abort the Take-Off after Vr (in this case nose-wheel off the deck), I hope he had a bloody good reason. To be honest I was not there, but I would only abort a take-off after V1 if I was sure the aircraft wasn't going to fly. In this case it seems the aircraft was responding to inputs and I would have taken the problem into the air.
But hell, I would have loved to see that beast make a stop like that!!!
V1 is a speed which separates the decision to continue the take-off or Abort!
For instance, if you try to stop after V1 there is a very good chance the aircraft will end up off roading and everyone knows aircraft are rubbish for it!
If the decision is to continue the Take-Off before V1 with a loss of an engine, there is also a good chance that you would not make the required 35ft screen height at the end of the runway/clearway.
Furthermore, V1 can NEVER be greater than Vr (Rotate speed). So if the Captain decided to Abort the Take-Off after Vr (in this case nose-wheel off the deck), I hope he had a bloody good reason. To be honest I was not there, but I would only abort a take-off after V1 if I was sure the aircraft wasn't going to fly. In this case it seems the aircraft was responding to inputs and I would have taken the problem into the air.
But hell, I would have loved to see that beast make a stop like that!!!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch'n'oops, please don't confuse the fantasy of a newspaper hack reporting a passengers perceptions and that of the real world. The bit in the Telegraph report "A JUMBO jet with 384 passengers on board aborted a take-off at Heathrow Airport with the nose-wheel already in the air." (my emphasis) is 99.999% most likely inserted for dramatic effect. Whilst the abort was before v1, it was for all intents and purposes a high speed rejected take-off and the rapid deceleration would indeed feel like the nose wheel 'dropping' especially to anyone not looking out of a window.
So, an incident happened? Yes. Dramatic for anyone involved? Yes. Nose-wheel already in the air when the take-off was aborted? No.
So, an incident happened? Yes. Dramatic for anyone involved? Yes. Nose-wheel already in the air when the take-off was aborted? No.