Body found in landing gear bay on BA B744 @ LAX

[drflight]

This aircraft flew CPT – LHR- SIN –LHR – HKG – LHR –LAX with the poor mans body inside the landing gear all the time.

Is it really possible no British Airways Ground Engineer, Pilot, or other properly qualified person, checked an area of an aircraft that can be climbed into and where something could easily be left?

Surely this should be done on a daily basis before each and every flight as happens with certain other airlines? If not this is shocking. The security implications are appalling.

[Carnage Matey!]

If you'd bothered to read the three pages of this thread drflight instead of just posting you'd have found the answers to the questions you didn't need to ask.

[cargo boy]

Sigh! Just as we had uneducated pontification about the BA B744 LAX-LHR/MAN engine out flight from numerous people who had absolutely no understanding or knowledge of the B744 and its systems, we now have another bunch of either pilots with no B744 experience or else a bunch of wannabe tranees, PPL's or plain vanilla enthusiasts and spotters giving us the benefit [sic] of their thoughts and experience ( ) about what can and can't be seen from the ground during a walk around of a B744.

Either you've got the B744 on your licence (pilot or engineer) and have performed walk arounds on it or else you haven't. If you haven't, then please could you limit your posts to questions about what can and can't be easily seen in the landing gear bays from the ground on a walk around of a B744, otherwise you risk raising the blood pressure of those of us that do, un-necessarily, with all that pompous pontification that just tells us (B744 experienced pilots and engineers) that you have no real idea what it is really like checking out the underside of a real B744 in the first place.

[Rainboe]

So well said! I was a pilot on 747-400 for 8 years, and the Classic for 10 years before that. It is extremely difficult to spot people on the walkaround. After the walkaround, there is an extensive period of 30 minutes or more when access can be gained, and again during taxi, this is when a lot of stowaways make a break for it in the dark and climb aboard- times when they cannot be stopped. If these economic migrants are going to insist on doing this darn fool thing, it's impossible, apart from local security being beefed up, to stop them. They are not at the end of their tether to do this- they want a taste of the bright lights and wealth. No pilot should have any conscience about these idiots killing themselves like this.

[drflight]

Perhaps an SIA or EL AL pilot might care to explain how their checks would have prevented this!

[primreamer]

drflight,
I have in the past performed ad hoc turnround/transit checks on El Al aircraft and the required inspections were no different to my own airline, i.e. no opening of gear bay doors and looking inside. I have also witnessed El Al pilots carrying out a walkround inspection of their own, as they are required to do and at no time did they attempt to look in the gear bays or ask me to do likewise. I take your point that theres a security implication here but rather than berating pilots and engineers for not carrying out the required checks correctly, pressure should be applied to airport operators to make their boundaries more secure. Then these individuals who are ignorant of the dangers might not get as far as the wheel wells.

[Stoic]

As someone who flew the 747 Classic for 23 years and who, inadvertently, carried a stowaway who died, may I be allowed to comment?

First, the comments of any professional pilots who refer in disparaging terms to “these people” and “idiots” and who glibly talk of “a mate down the pub” who allegedly acted deliberately to kill an African stowaway are shameful and racist.

Second is the very serious issue indeed of security. If it is possible, on a regular, if mercifully infrequent basis, for highly motivated, but incredibly ignorant Third World young males to stow away on our aircraft, it is also possible for highly motivated young people to climb on board and plant bombs in wheel wells or to secrete themselves as human bombs in wheel wells.

That so many stowaways are successful in stowing away, if not surviving, is a sign that the airline industry is failing disastrously to address this appalling problem with potentially catastrophic consequences. Once a stowaway is dead, is there any security implication in his body not being found for some time? It is the ability to climb into the aeroplane with a bomb that is the threat which the industry is failing to successfully address.

Regards

Stoic

[Taildragger67]

Stoic,

My point exactly. Thank you.

[drflight]

Well said, Stoic.

[matkat]

Stoic, excellent point and well said, as an ex certifying staff on the B747 I have read about wheel well inspections as you know to do a 100% inspection of all wheel wells during a turnround is virtually impossible the answer lies with the airport authorities and security services to provide the required measures, however we all know that this is also impossible due to highly motivated young men trying to stow away it seems that this is a problem that will continue in the near future.

[RatherBeFlying]

Given the decision-making process of the authorities, we have to wait until explosives are planted in a WW

The authorities will then act to close this particular barn door

[Bartender]

Forgive me, I have no experience in this field at all.
Wondering I am, there's a lot of talk here on how to avoid letting the stowaways into wheel wells and how to check if they're there...

Is it worth looking more carefully at airport security? Surley this is a far cheaper and easier method to implement?

There was a mention of two stowaways who hid in long grass and managed to get past the security escorting the aircraft to the hold-short. If the grass were cut, would they have been less likley to reach the aircraft as they'd have been spotted earlier?

Relating to the security issue, if people can get onto the airfield and into aircraft, what's stopping them getting near enough to fire a shoulder mounted rocket towards a smaller aircraft?

[llondel]

A small tear-gas canister injected into the wheel well might discourage people from climbing in, if that was the atmosphere inside. Obviously it relies on the fact that most of it stays in there until the doors open for the gear to be raised, otherwise the ground crew wouldn't be able to do their job. At the very least, if you assume that the stowaway is effectively dead when he climbs in, he probably wouldn't be able to hold on as the doors open and would be left near the departure point rather than potentially being dropped on approach to the destination.

[RatherBeFlying]

Tear Gas ?!

I believe the stuff can be corrosive. It also becomes a workplace hazard as residues have to be removed before maintenance can approach the WW.

And what happens if any TG happens to get loose in the cabin?

[llondel]

It doesn't have to be tear gas, I was merely exploring proof of concept

In theory, if there's a way that the wheel well environment can be made unpleasant before take-off, it might help discourage successful stowaway attempts.

[Rainboe]

We're getting a lot of daft and dangerous ideas tossed in here about this. any inflatable doogeridoo filling the wheel well is going to get punctured or inflate at the wrong time one day and hazard the passengers. Tear gas will hurt someone it shouldn't one day. Raising and lowering the doors every turnaround will achieve nothing- they will run up as the aeroplane taxis away for takeoff. The only answer is security. There is no stopping them otherwise. So is there anybody else who thinks they can think of a solution in 3 minutes and wants to waste everybodies time that the industry and many aeroplane designers haven't been able to come up with so far? Ray guns.....microwave beams to heat up human bodies......?

[Wodrick]

Re Post 75

My visits to Gear Bays are few, the reasons for Avionic expertise there being limited, however I feel there is no need to MAKE them unpleasent, They ARE unpleasent, generally, Hydraulic fluid residue, Dirt, Anti-corrosion coatings, Brake Dust, Rubber, the list just goes on. Most on here have the answer - Security.

[WilliamLochrie]

I honestly cannot believe that there are some people on this thread who would call the man an "idiot" I feel extremely sorry for this man and all the others who try to escape in such a desperate fashion. And just to add i am not a pilot (want to be though!) but i think that is irrelevant anyway. It is much more of a moral issue than anything else.

[llondel]

I think getting the desired result by improved security is going to take a long time, given that some airports are in areas where corruption is common and others are in areas which are hard to secure. As such, you have to assume that a potential stowaway will gain access to an aircraft, so exploring means of denying him entry to the wheel wells is a perfectly valid option.

As for being daft and dangerous, many good ideas are triggered by something that is in itself obviously not a good idea but that set someone else thinking. That's why we have brainstorming sessions when creating new concepts, daft and impractical ideas often lead to a workable solution. The initial idea may take three minutes, turning it into a workable solution that achieves an acceptable increase in weight, doesn't compromise safety, isn't too expensive and has a low failure rate, may take months or years. Understanding why an idea is daft is progress towards a solution.

How about a Gurkha armed with a knife and a parachute in each wheel well - he can defend it against incursion and when the doors open for gear retraction he can jump out and hope his parachute opens in time. Then he can catch a taxi (or walk) back to the airport and repeat the process.

[tiggermoth]

As for being daft and dangerous, many good ideas are triggered by something that is in itself obviously not a good idea but that set someone else thinking. That's why we have brainstorming sessions when creating new concepts, daft and impractical ideas often lead to a workable solution. The initial idea may take three minutes, turning it into a workable solution that achieves an acceptable increase in weight, doesn't compromise safety, isn't too expensive and has a low failure rate, may take months or years. Understanding why an idea is daft is progress towards a solution.

Very well said indeed. It's the very nature of engineering.