BA LHR-CPT 747 fuel leak
Guest
Posts: n/a
BA LHR-CPT 747 fuel leak
I have received a mail from a person, not personally known to me, who reports to have allegedly been on board an aircraft at a London airport when said aircraft did start leaking fuel at a rate alarming to him.
He further says in his mail that it was apparent to him the other passengers on board the aircraft were also somewhat distressed.
He alleges the Captain of the aircraft was prepared to take off on two occasions, which, apparently caused the passengers to make their concerns regarding the supposed fuel leak known to the cabin crew. He does not say whether "prepared" is intended to indicate "willingness in full knowledge of the facts" or "ready for take off prior to being informed of the apparent problem".
He indicated that emergency services were on hand at some point during the event.
The flight apparently was bound for a Southern African country, but, according to him, did not depart on the date it was scheduled.
He didn't indicate any injuries of any nature.
This poster [PurePax] would like to note that, at night, at a possibly unfamiliar airport, it's possible for passengers to confuse the position of the aircraft they are occupying, such that they may say "at the end of the runway" when in fact the aircraft is "at the end of a taxiway", or some such other location.
This poster [PurePax] would like to make it clear that the initial version of this post was a request for information regarding the alleged incident and was not intended to slur the name of anybody involved in the incident, if it indeed ever occurred.
He further says in his mail that it was apparent to him the other passengers on board the aircraft were also somewhat distressed.
He alleges the Captain of the aircraft was prepared to take off on two occasions, which, apparently caused the passengers to make their concerns regarding the supposed fuel leak known to the cabin crew. He does not say whether "prepared" is intended to indicate "willingness in full knowledge of the facts" or "ready for take off prior to being informed of the apparent problem".
He indicated that emergency services were on hand at some point during the event.
The flight apparently was bound for a Southern African country, but, according to him, did not depart on the date it was scheduled.
He didn't indicate any injuries of any nature.
This poster [PurePax] would like to note that, at night, at a possibly unfamiliar airport, it's possible for passengers to confuse the position of the aircraft they are occupying, such that they may say "at the end of the runway" when in fact the aircraft is "at the end of a taxiway", or some such other location.
This poster [PurePax] would like to make it clear that the initial version of this post was a request for information regarding the alleged incident and was not intended to slur the name of anybody involved in the incident, if it indeed ever occurred.
Last edited by PurePax; 20th Dec 2006 at 17:45. Reason: It's unconfirmed rumor, protect the innocent/guilty
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets us invent a scenario...
747-400 has a fuel leak. Captain says to the engineers.. fix it. The engineers then fix it, sign the technical log and release the aeroplane to service, and off they go. They taxi out and the leak, for whatever reason is still there. The leak is reported to the Captain by some observant passengers, and the cabin crew. It has not been fixed, or the fault has reoccurred, so back to stand they go. Out comes the engineer who has another go at fixing it. He releases the aeroplane again, they taxi out and the fuel leak is still not fixed. Now the crew are out of hours, and the fix is going to take a long time. So they return to stand, cancel the flight, and all go home.
I do not believe it for a second. Utter and total rubbish. There is no earthly reason why three pilots would set off for Cape Town if they knew they had a fuel leak. It would be criminally negligent. A gross derogation of duty. And if I was the Captain of said flight, and knew that this bizarre version of events had been posted on a public forum, I would now be on the phone to a lawyer.
FWIW. From the flight deck of a 747-400 you cannot see if there is fuel pi$$ing out the wings. You would have to be told, by cabin crew, or a report from a passenger.
What would you have preferred? That they take off with the fuel leak?
747-400 has a fuel leak. Captain says to the engineers.. fix it. The engineers then fix it, sign the technical log and release the aeroplane to service, and off they go. They taxi out and the leak, for whatever reason is still there. The leak is reported to the Captain by some observant passengers, and the cabin crew. It has not been fixed, or the fault has reoccurred, so back to stand they go. Out comes the engineer who has another go at fixing it. He releases the aeroplane again, they taxi out and the fuel leak is still not fixed. Now the crew are out of hours, and the fix is going to take a long time. So they return to stand, cancel the flight, and all go home.
Like I say, unbelievable. A BA pilot who was prepared to take off (twice
at the end of the runway at Heathrow)
at the end of the runway at Heathrow)
FWIW. From the flight deck of a 747-400 you cannot see if there is fuel pi$$ing out the wings. You would have to be told, by cabin crew, or a report from a passenger.
Not to mention that BA then deposited over 300 passengers into Terminal 4
Heathrow at 00.30
Heathrow at 00.30
Last edited by L337; 20th Dec 2006 at 13:24. Reason: spelling
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have an alleged anonymous 'incident', on a day we know not when, on a flight we know not what, with a crew we know not whom, and it is an uncorroborated, anonymous 'incident' that nobody has heard about, and we are supposed to take one anonymous person's testimony (and verdict) as gospel?
Can you stop wasting our time? Unless you have something specific, better not drag company names into it!
Can you stop wasting our time? Unless you have something specific, better not drag company names into it!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where I am told
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both BA flights to CPT are overnight. I did this trip last week and I couldn't see the wingtip in the darkness let alone any liquid that might have been 'pouring' out of the wing so I am not sure that passengers would be revolting in the manner described.
From one of the replies I gather that there was some sort of minor incident but I suspect that it is being blown up out of all proportion. Non story, but I would imagine that the crew mentioned might be more than a little hacked off about the original post.
From one of the replies I gather that there was some sort of minor incident but I suspect that it is being blown up out of all proportion. Non story, but I would imagine that the crew mentioned might be more than a little hacked off about the original post.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Age: 44
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the actual snag John? So we can put this to rest.
Then again is PurePax a journo?
CPT would require full wings with what 125 - 130 tonnes of fuel. If a pax notices a "fuel leak" on taxi out which for a pax to notice would need a fair bit pouring out especially in the dark, and would be noticed on walkround or push back it sounds like fuel sloshing out the reserves from the vent on the underside of the wing, which can happen and is a normal occurrence with full reserves when the wings flex as the aircraft bounces over changes in taxi way surface or crossing a runway.
Then again is PurePax a journo?
CPT would require full wings with what 125 - 130 tonnes of fuel. If a pax notices a "fuel leak" on taxi out which for a pax to notice would need a fair bit pouring out especially in the dark, and would be noticed on walkround or push back it sounds like fuel sloshing out the reserves from the vent on the underside of the wing, which can happen and is a normal occurrence with full reserves when the wings flex as the aircraft bounces over changes in taxi way surface or crossing a runway.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldnt agree more Evanelpus.
This type of stupid comment doesnt help anyone. Lets see if Purepax has the decency to come back on and explain in a bit more detail. probably not. Perhaps he is with SC loading up his presents. Too many sherries me thinks!!
This type of stupid comment doesnt help anyone. Lets see if Purepax has the decency to come back on and explain in a bit more detail. probably not. Perhaps he is with SC loading up his presents. Too many sherries me thinks!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
There's been some further 'discussion' on that list between fellows wanting to know more, and the original poster adding some detail. Given the response to this here I don't know if I should include them here.
As it goes, I know another person, unrelated to the guy that initially mailed the list, who was also on the same flight, and mentioned to a person friend about the incident. I've not spoken to him directly so that's just more hear-say.
This version of events is incorrect, and bears no resembalance to the incident I attended on this aircraft. somebody is misinforming you.
What would you have preferred? That they take off with the fuel leak?
No, I'm not a journo.
Jeez!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Over Mache Grande?
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purepax,
Question for you:
Why would any sane individual who has done a fuel calculation (aircraft don't carry thousands of tons of un-necessary fuel) take-off knowing they had a major leak - and therefore not enough fuel to reach their destination?
What a load of crap - I suggest your friend couldn't be arsed seeing you, and so invented this little tale.
Question for you:
Why would any sane individual who has done a fuel calculation (aircraft don't carry thousands of tons of un-necessary fuel) take-off knowing they had a major leak - and therefore not enough fuel to reach their destination?
What a load of crap - I suggest your friend couldn't be arsed seeing you, and so invented this little tale.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds all too much like the Phuket Air 747 enroute from BKK to LGW (or was it the other way around) a few years back. Perhaps this is two stories that have become mixed up?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do you think a passenger on a commercial flight is going to know what the Captain is thinking, and if not, what reasonable conclusion would you arrive at when determining the intended meaning of "prepared to take off" when spoken by said passenger?
To answer your question, no, I don't think it's reasonable, but then I'm not attributing an unreasonable meaning to an ambiguous phrase. My interpretation, even before posting here, was that the Captain may have been "preparing" for take off when he was informed of the apparent issue. I don't recall saying "the Captain, in full knowledge of a fuel leak, was willing to endanger all souls".
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe posters' aviation arrogance strikes again.
PurePax - I apologise on behalf of everyone else in the industry - those who do not speak down to commercial passengers asking innocent questions. I sincerely hope that it does not lead you, or anyone else, to believe the the industry is permeated with unreasonable skygods.
In relation to this story, safety would be the primary concern of all involved, and with T4 closed, it is likely that all other terminals would also be closed, and that BA's support systems are largely located in T1 and T4 only - when the place is open. Without knowing more of the specifics, which are presumably yet to be released to the public domain, we can only speculate on what happened.
It is disingenious to suggest that no leakage would be seen by passengers or cabin crew on a night flight; there are other external sources of light that might arise, both from other aircraft and service vehicles - bearing in mind that we do not know - as PurePax says - whether this occurred on the apron or at the end of the runway itself.
The answer is - yes, some variation of those events could well have occurred, but without john129401 elaborating, we cannot say any more than simply that BA would be doing everything with safety in mind - if this led to passengers in a closed terminal, so be it - it could have been handled better and more staff provided, however I am sure that BA tried to do all they were able on the technical side.
Next time you wish to reply with short shrift to a non-pilot, engage brain...
PurePax - I apologise on behalf of everyone else in the industry - those who do not speak down to commercial passengers asking innocent questions. I sincerely hope that it does not lead you, or anyone else, to believe the the industry is permeated with unreasonable skygods.
In relation to this story, safety would be the primary concern of all involved, and with T4 closed, it is likely that all other terminals would also be closed, and that BA's support systems are largely located in T1 and T4 only - when the place is open. Without knowing more of the specifics, which are presumably yet to be released to the public domain, we can only speculate on what happened.
It is disingenious to suggest that no leakage would be seen by passengers or cabin crew on a night flight; there are other external sources of light that might arise, both from other aircraft and service vehicles - bearing in mind that we do not know - as PurePax says - whether this occurred on the apron or at the end of the runway itself.
The answer is - yes, some variation of those events could well have occurred, but without john129401 elaborating, we cannot say any more than simply that BA would be doing everything with safety in mind - if this led to passengers in a closed terminal, so be it - it could have been handled better and more staff provided, however I am sure that BA tried to do all they were able on the technical side.
Next time you wish to reply with short shrift to a non-pilot, engage brain...
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what I've been told so far, this was apparently the beginning of the month, 3-5 December I surmise.
The affected passenger was asked on-list if it was not just a case of overfilling. He responded that this was the initial suggestion, and the aircraft was returned to the terminal, checked, faulty valves fixed and refuelled correctly. Upon returning to the runway he indicates that more fuel was leaking. The process apparently took some hours, passengers remaining on-board throughout.
He didn't have pictures, though being seated forward somewhat. He said:
The Sun supposedly published some pictures, to which he was referring.
The affected passenger was asked on-list if it was not just a case of overfilling. He responded that this was the initial suggestion, and the aircraft was returned to the terminal, checked, faulty valves fixed and refuelled correctly. Upon returning to the runway he indicates that more fuel was leaking. The process apparently took some hours, passengers remaining on-board throughout.
He didn't have pictures, though being seated forward somewhat. He said:
The passengers seated behind the wing had the "best" view and apparently it was someone back there that took the pics.
Last edited by PurePax; 20th Dec 2006 at 20:05. Reason: fixes -> fixed
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is no doubt liquids spilling out of an aircraft can cause alarm to those watching the event ......
I do recall a similar question on PPRuNe some time ago .......
"..... lines up ready for takeoff ...... a nice amount of liquid is discharged from below the rear of the fueselage, just before departure ...... what is the liquid?"
and a handfull of clear and positive posts explained all, to everyone's satisfaction ....
I do recall a similar question on PPRuNe some time ago .......
"..... lines up ready for takeoff ...... a nice amount of liquid is discharged from below the rear of the fueselage, just before departure ...... what is the liquid?"
and a handfull of clear and positive posts explained all, to everyone's satisfaction ....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a shame that such inputs from PAX are treated so arrogantly. I shall never forget the Kegworth enquiry where the doctor with a good view of debris departing the jetpipe on his side felt obliged to say nothing when the captain announced the shut down of the engine on the other side.
Well, after all, he's the captain and must know better.
Trust me, I'm a doctor?
Well, after all, he's the captain and must know better.
Trust me, I'm a doctor?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Age: 44
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the trouble with this forum. If anyone is to post, one must remember to compose our posts in legal language so that no one may misconstrue the answer because for the some reason, this website is filled with people who take everything in minutia far too seriously. Whether its gramma and english correction to not using legal language a comment is always made.
During the day or in the dark, a sky god - pilot, engineer, steward, stewardess or passenger would struggle to see a fuel leak through a passenger window without it being a considered a big leak by an engineer. Dont get me into what is considered large small medium, numbers of drips per minute etc In fact if anyone is going to notice a significant fuel leak on taxi out it will be a passenger.
Your right in the dark there is loads of light to see falling liquid from the aircraft but unlikly to see a few drips or a weep. From anti-collision lights strobe lights other aircraft and stand lighting. There is a lot of light pollution. Its never dark black at Heathrow anyway.
Safety is paramount, the idea that it would be kicked out with a known leak just to let it go is silly. But that is not to say an inspection and component change was carried out and this did not cure the leak. If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it out followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer.
If there was a component change, it sounds like a passenger saw fuel leaking from one of the drain holes under an engine. I seem to remember one of my mates mentioning a return to stand and a Fuel Metering Unit (carburetor) changed.
If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it with the doors closed (ready for immediate push back) followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer and subsequant thumbs up given over the headset.
The aircraft is not sent on its way merely hoping for the best.
I will find out when I go back on shift, if John does not reply. What the problem was in this case.
During the day or in the dark, a sky god - pilot, engineer, steward, stewardess or passenger would struggle to see a fuel leak through a passenger window without it being a considered a big leak by an engineer. Dont get me into what is considered large small medium, numbers of drips per minute etc In fact if anyone is going to notice a significant fuel leak on taxi out it will be a passenger.
Your right in the dark there is loads of light to see falling liquid from the aircraft but unlikly to see a few drips or a weep. From anti-collision lights strobe lights other aircraft and stand lighting. There is a lot of light pollution. Its never dark black at Heathrow anyway.
Safety is paramount, the idea that it would be kicked out with a known leak just to let it go is silly. But that is not to say an inspection and component change was carried out and this did not cure the leak. If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it out followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer.
If there was a component change, it sounds like a passenger saw fuel leaking from one of the drain holes under an engine. I seem to remember one of my mates mentioning a return to stand and a Fuel Metering Unit (carburetor) changed.
If a component was changed it is usual for an engine run to be carried out (leak check), normally by the engineer, but with a flightdeck full of skygods they could have run it with the doors closed (ready for immediate push back) followed by an inspection of the component for leaks by the engineer and subsequant thumbs up given over the headset.
The aircraft is not sent on its way merely hoping for the best.
I will find out when I go back on shift, if John does not reply. What the problem was in this case.
The problem, in my humble opinion fwiw, is that the vast majority of people who travel in the back part of airliners (ie the bit away from the sharp end where the folks with the braid sit) don't actually have a clue what's going on with any of the magical bits that make their big holiday jet stay in the air. So, when a little fuel or fluid slops over the side as a result of expansion or movement to one side or the other as it goes round a bend in the taxiway, some people get really excited. As we all know, as with blood, a little go juice goes a long way especially if swirled around by the wind or just dispersed by movement and may look considerably more than actually lost. When it gets to the ground it looks like a hell of a lot.
Scenario.
Said "alraedy nervous passenger sees a "huge" leak and as every bit of airport is big enopugh to be a runway to him/her, feels agrieved that the pilot is going to take off without knowing that all aboard are going to die a fiery death and alerts a member of the crew who duly reports it to Captain at sharp end. Captain, being a safety conciencious sort of non gender specific person goes back to stand and tells the engineer that his flying carpet doesn't work properly and gets him to fix it. Duly fixed and signed for, they go again only to have the same thing happen again because we've topped up the fuel they had used and the same passenger sees the same leak again because you can bet your reporters cheque book that he /she is now looking avidly for it! Back we go to the gate and as no fault found the Captain requests a thorough check and as the crew are now out of hours pax offloaded.
All actions by the passengers reporting leak are in good faith and all actions by the airline are to the highest safety factors.
Enter the mobile phone which our imaginary passenger has stashed in bag in order to let his/her mum know thay've arrives safely in whatever far flung part of the world they were headed to. Just happens to have a copy of the daily bugle in back pocket and telephones the number for the newsdesk and tells the tale of his miraculous escape from death just moments from departure.
Before we know it the morrow's headlines read "Holiday Makers Miracle Escape from Death Trap Jet"
Thats why people think purepax imay be a muck raking journo and thats why he/she got such short shrift from the rest of us initially and thats why people who haven't got a clue what they're waffling on about shouldn't go digging to make a story from what was in all probability a none event.
Not saying all pax are like that. Anyone seeing a potential flight safety hazard has a duty to report it and should be taken seriously. Shame most newspapers can't see things that way and rarely let the facts get in the way of a sensational story.
End of rant, flame proof suit at ready!!
Doc C
Scenario.
Said "alraedy nervous passenger sees a "huge" leak and as every bit of airport is big enopugh to be a runway to him/her, feels agrieved that the pilot is going to take off without knowing that all aboard are going to die a fiery death and alerts a member of the crew who duly reports it to Captain at sharp end. Captain, being a safety conciencious sort of non gender specific person goes back to stand and tells the engineer that his flying carpet doesn't work properly and gets him to fix it. Duly fixed and signed for, they go again only to have the same thing happen again because we've topped up the fuel they had used and the same passenger sees the same leak again because you can bet your reporters cheque book that he /she is now looking avidly for it! Back we go to the gate and as no fault found the Captain requests a thorough check and as the crew are now out of hours pax offloaded.
All actions by the passengers reporting leak are in good faith and all actions by the airline are to the highest safety factors.
Enter the mobile phone which our imaginary passenger has stashed in bag in order to let his/her mum know thay've arrives safely in whatever far flung part of the world they were headed to. Just happens to have a copy of the daily bugle in back pocket and telephones the number for the newsdesk and tells the tale of his miraculous escape from death just moments from departure.
Before we know it the morrow's headlines read "Holiday Makers Miracle Escape from Death Trap Jet"
Thats why people think purepax imay be a muck raking journo and thats why he/she got such short shrift from the rest of us initially and thats why people who haven't got a clue what they're waffling on about shouldn't go digging to make a story from what was in all probability a none event.
Not saying all pax are like that. Anyone seeing a potential flight safety hazard has a duty to report it and should be taken seriously. Shame most newspapers can't see things that way and rarely let the facts get in the way of a sensational story.
End of rant, flame proof suit at ready!!
Doc C