Kuwait Airbus lands in Ras Al Khaimah 2am local
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
??
Childish??
I wonder what your reaction would be if you found yourself in an identical situation. I think your last comment is a wee bit insulting to the Captain concerned..............but hey, thats just my opinion.....
I wonder what your reaction would be if you found yourself in an identical situation. I think your last comment is a wee bit insulting to the Captain concerned..............but hey, thats just my opinion.....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm. As ATC, unless there is a fuel shortage, I hardly consider a landing gear issue to be a "MAYDAY" matter.
Where is the need for immediate assistance? Why should we give them priority, only to divert everybody else after this aicraft has blocked the runway?
I can understand why they wouldn't want to go to another airport where they might not have the logistical support required to get the aircraft (or passengers) taken care of but MAYDAY?
Rather childish from the captain, IMVHO.
LX
Where is the need for immediate assistance? Why should we give them priority, only to divert everybody else after this aicraft has blocked the runway?
I can understand why they wouldn't want to go to another airport where they might not have the logistical support required to get the aircraft (or passengers) taken care of but MAYDAY?
Rather childish from the captain, IMVHO.
LX
If you read the accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_503037.pdf, page 7) you'll see that that Manston was considered as a diversion, but after all the flying around for low-level passes and a bit of bouncing to try to shake the gear loose, they really did end up with low fuel, declared a fuel emergency and landed. Familiarity with Heathrow was also a factor in choosing to land there.
Last edited by llondel; 1st Feb 2007 at 19:12.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must confess I haven't read the full report. It seems I cannot access the file, at least not from behind the company firewall. However, let's look at this type of situation a little closer.
If there indeed is a fuel shortage or a concern about fire response, then pity the silly ATC who would ask an pilot to fly to a farther alternate airfield for the sake of saving a runway. However, I believe a simple: "Negative, we don't have the fuel." would have worked just as well and the MAYDAY call sounds a little extreme to me. Of course, maybe ATC argued about this and wouldn't let it go in which case, I'll have to change my stand about the captain to I like his style.
On the other hand, and this was my point in the earlier post, if there isn't a concern with fuel and the only concern is the faulty landing gear, then there really isn't an emergency until the aircraft touches the ground. It's perfectly safe flying around.
The Goon
If I did indeed find myself in the air with a wheel stuck in the up position, I certainly wouldn't feel like my life was about to end... at least not until I turned final. Nothing a MAYDAY or getting priority landing could fix.
The good Samaritan
The captain saved the lives of his passengers through skilfull handling of the aircraft while touching down. Not by getting priority to land. (read disclaimer about fuel shortage)
MAYDAY is all about getting immediate priority and assistance. An aircraft with a fire on board would call MAYDAY. An aircraft with a critical fuel shortage would call MAYDAY. An aircraft headed into IFR in a mountain pass would call MAYDAY.... but an aircraft with a wheel up and plenty of fuel... don't think so.
So all in all:
If ATC insisted despite fuel getting low and fire response not being adequate at the other airport, the the captain responded with great panache.
If ATC only suggested the other airport and the captain answered with MAYDAY (as was reported in the previous posts), then I stand by my "childish" remark.
If there is an alternate link to the report, I would very much like to read it since we might be arguing a situation which didn't happen as I imagined.
Cheers all,
Felix
If there indeed is a fuel shortage or a concern about fire response, then pity the silly ATC who would ask an pilot to fly to a farther alternate airfield for the sake of saving a runway. However, I believe a simple: "Negative, we don't have the fuel." would have worked just as well and the MAYDAY call sounds a little extreme to me. Of course, maybe ATC argued about this and wouldn't let it go in which case, I'll have to change my stand about the captain to I like his style.
On the other hand, and this was my point in the earlier post, if there isn't a concern with fuel and the only concern is the faulty landing gear, then there really isn't an emergency until the aircraft touches the ground. It's perfectly safe flying around.
The Goon
If I did indeed find myself in the air with a wheel stuck in the up position, I certainly wouldn't feel like my life was about to end... at least not until I turned final. Nothing a MAYDAY or getting priority landing could fix.
The good Samaritan
The captain saved the lives of his passengers through skilfull handling of the aircraft while touching down. Not by getting priority to land. (read disclaimer about fuel shortage)
MAYDAY is all about getting immediate priority and assistance. An aircraft with a fire on board would call MAYDAY. An aircraft with a critical fuel shortage would call MAYDAY. An aircraft headed into IFR in a mountain pass would call MAYDAY.... but an aircraft with a wheel up and plenty of fuel... don't think so.
So all in all:
If ATC insisted despite fuel getting low and fire response not being adequate at the other airport, the the captain responded with great panache.
If ATC only suggested the other airport and the captain answered with MAYDAY (as was reported in the previous posts), then I stand by my "childish" remark.
If there is an alternate link to the report, I would very much like to read it since we might be arguing a situation which didn't happen as I imagined.
Cheers all,
Felix
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal, Canada
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_503037.pdf, page 7) yopu'll see that that Manston was considered as a diversion, but after all the flying around for low-level passes and a bit of bouncing to try to shake the gear loose, they really did end up with low fuel, declared a fuel emergency and landed. Familiarity with Heathrow was also a factor in choosing to land there.
Felix
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Felix,
Summary of that incident was the a/c departed LAX, crew noticed a few anomalies related to gear retraction but carried on as they weren't obviously a problem.
On finals @15:04, left main gear unsafe alert caused a GA and they went back to Bovingdon to play about a bit with procedures from the manual. That failed, so they did a flypast of the tower along the 27R and got confirmation that the gear was indeed stuck. That's when the first low fuel alerts turned up. They did a bit of bouncing around to see if the gear would shake loose (conjures up impressive visions doing that in an A340), considered Manston (which would take them 30 minutes to get to readiness), the captain decided he'd rather stay at Heathrow and declared the fuel emergency at 16:08.
If you're supposed to have an hour's reserve then they'd pretty much used it up by those numbers.
As for not landing there, the report has this section:
There is an agreement with Heathrow ATC and LATCC that the ODM may request the
following message to be passed to an inbound aircraft with a technical problem that has
potential to block a runway:
• 'This is a message for the captain of (aircraft callsign) from Heathrow Airport Limited.
Your technical problem could cause a runway to be blocked at Heathrow; you are asked to
consider an alternative, less busy, airfield rather than risk major inconvenience to other
operators.' This message is not intended to be passed if the aircraft has declared an
Emergency (Mayday or Pan), has a fuel shortage, or when a diversion would increase any
risk to the aircraft.
• This message was not initiated by the ODM on this occasion since the airline operator had
stated from the outset that the aircraft would divert to Manston if the landing gear problem
persisted. By the time the final decision had been made to land at Heathrow, the commander
had declared a 'Mayday' and the message is specifically excluded from being broadcast
under such circumstances.
Summary of that incident was the a/c departed LAX, crew noticed a few anomalies related to gear retraction but carried on as they weren't obviously a problem.
On finals @15:04, left main gear unsafe alert caused a GA and they went back to Bovingdon to play about a bit with procedures from the manual. That failed, so they did a flypast of the tower along the 27R and got confirmation that the gear was indeed stuck. That's when the first low fuel alerts turned up. They did a bit of bouncing around to see if the gear would shake loose (conjures up impressive visions doing that in an A340), considered Manston (which would take them 30 minutes to get to readiness), the captain decided he'd rather stay at Heathrow and declared the fuel emergency at 16:08.
If you're supposed to have an hour's reserve then they'd pretty much used it up by those numbers.
As for not landing there, the report has this section:
There is an agreement with Heathrow ATC and LATCC that the ODM may request the
following message to be passed to an inbound aircraft with a technical problem that has
potential to block a runway:
• 'This is a message for the captain of (aircraft callsign) from Heathrow Airport Limited.
Your technical problem could cause a runway to be blocked at Heathrow; you are asked to
consider an alternative, less busy, airfield rather than risk major inconvenience to other
operators.' This message is not intended to be passed if the aircraft has declared an
Emergency (Mayday or Pan), has a fuel shortage, or when a diversion would increase any
risk to the aircraft.
• This message was not initiated by the ODM on this occasion since the airline operator had
stated from the outset that the aircraft would divert to Manston if the landing gear problem
persisted. By the time the final decision had been made to land at Heathrow, the commander
had declared a 'Mayday' and the message is specifically excluded from being broadcast
under such circumstances.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kuwait Airways A320 at RAK
I have some information in this regards, therefore pleases note the following:
The pilot did not havr nose down & locked indication and was advised by DXB ATC that the nose gear was not extended,
The pilot was requested to diver to RAK to not close down DXB airport,
The pilot did try to extend nose gear with no joy,
The nose gear did finally extend but not lock down after final landing,
Pilot followed the SOP and shut down engines, fired bottles, and moved passengers to aft,
The aircraft turn to the left but remained on the runway prior to stopping due to all wheel deflated,
Pilot ordered evac for the safety of the passengers and crew,
9 pax were injured the worse being a bruise on the elbow,
The cause of the nose landing gear not extending was the failed nose landing gear down lock actuator,
All emergency teams preformed extremely well,
Kuwait Airways managed to have an Emergency Response Go team on Site 1 hour and 20 minutes after landing,
Kuwait Airways maintenance staff rectified the aircraft fully on the 1st of Feb,
The local civil aviation authority and airbus investigation team reviewed the incident and are satisfied with the aircraft serviceability.
Pilot & Crew performed brilliantly
The pilot did not havr nose down & locked indication and was advised by DXB ATC that the nose gear was not extended,
The pilot was requested to diver to RAK to not close down DXB airport,
The pilot did try to extend nose gear with no joy,
The nose gear did finally extend but not lock down after final landing,
Pilot followed the SOP and shut down engines, fired bottles, and moved passengers to aft,
The aircraft turn to the left but remained on the runway prior to stopping due to all wheel deflated,
Pilot ordered evac for the safety of the passengers and crew,
9 pax were injured the worse being a bruise on the elbow,
The cause of the nose landing gear not extending was the failed nose landing gear down lock actuator,
All emergency teams preformed extremely well,
Kuwait Airways managed to have an Emergency Response Go team on Site 1 hour and 20 minutes after landing,
Kuwait Airways maintenance staff rectified the aircraft fully on the 1st of Feb,
The local civil aviation authority and airbus investigation team reviewed the incident and are satisfied with the aircraft serviceability.
Pilot & Crew performed brilliantly
If the AAIB gave out medals, the report reads as though the Virgin crew would have qualified. The AAIB could hardly have been more complementary, and on my read the report endorses every substantive decision they took.
