Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EK 26 on the Grass @ GLA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EK 26 on the Grass @ GLA

Old 20th Sep 2007, 13:25
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Barry,
just intrigued where you get your info..."not suitable for a B777"...do you have any basis for this. I'm sure a 777 can make a 90 deg turn, even if tight-ish. Looking at GoogleEarth, the taxiway looks more than wide enough. I know for a fact, ac as large as the 777 have been involved in such a manoeuvre without incident.
How are you qualified to make such a statement?
betty swallox is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 13:48
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 50
Posts: 2,585
Betty - "looks wide enough" from GoogleEarth is the single most stupid comment on this thread

To echo Jumbo1's sentiments "People in glass houses etc etc"
White Knight is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 14:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Ok. I looked at a TAP too. I'm not throwing stones, just wondering how Barry is qualified to make such a comment. That's all
betty swallox is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 14:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
>>I'm sure a 777 can make a 90 deg turn, even if tight-ish.<<

OK Betty - you work it out... how far ahead of the main wheels is the nose wheel and therefore how deep into the corner would the aircraft have to go to ensure the left mains stay off the grass.

I've had a look at it on google and it doesn't look doable. Turns greater than 90 degrees are particularly difficult. It's easy to say it doesn't look doable after the fact. When you can't see much from the flight deck it's easy to get into a tight spot in a wide (long) body. Even the cameras don't help that much.
Just wondering is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 15:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,923
Cool

wouldn't the taxi cameras of helped or are they not that good?
spannersatcx is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 17:01
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Age: 33
Posts: 61
photos

It may just be my computer, but the link posted on this thread doesnt seem to work. Can someone please post the correct link or any other links to photos of this incident.

Thanks
BHX86 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2007, 17:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Hey, come on guys.
I'm not throwing stones, casting aspersions etc. I'm NOT having a go at the crew, for goodness sake. Heaven knows, I've been soooo close to the grass myself. Accidents/incidents happen.
All I'm saying is, I question why the above post stated so categorically that that link is not for such a jet.
I mentioned Goog Earth as most readers of these forums don't have the 5000 hours flying large ac I do, or the access to taxi charts etc, we all find it easy to get our hands on.
Please; I'm not meaning to offend, just asking why Barry was so adamant.
TVM
betty swallox is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2007, 00:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fulham
Age: 50
Posts: 15
Betty

Barry,
just intrigued where you get your info..."not suitable for a B777"...do you have any basis for this. I'm sure a 777 can make a 90 deg turn, even if tight-ish.
With reference to my post,the turn is not suitable for a 777,it should have read from b to d1(which i think is the holding point full length,or is is a1).Anyway that's not the important point. If you operate in/out of gla, next time you taxi out to r/w 23,have a look at how tight the turn is. I may be wrong but camera or no camera,a 777 will not get past there without going onto the grass. A 777 can make a turn>90 deg,but it's not the point i'm trying to make. At a guess i would say this turn was in the region of 120 deg,combined with 'narrow' taxiways makes it very diificult at best.
Barry McDougal is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2007, 09:45
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
I agree it is difficult. And I'm glad you clarified your original post. I was a tad confused by your statement.
I have flown out of Glasgow for 7 years; I know the taxiways well!
Anyway, I hope you understand my post; no mud-slinging at any agency intended.

Last edited by betty swallox; 23rd Sep 2007 at 09:59.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2007, 10:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Barry McD / Just Wondering.

Having given Betty a hard time do you guys operate the 777-300? If not then ???????

I don't operate the 777-300 but the A340-600 and the cameras help just fine plus my company has surveyed airports that have "difficult" taxyways and we have special taxy charts. Perhaps EK need to do the same or perhaps they do and someone just made a mistake. At least he did not try to power out!!
electricjetjock is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2007, 18:55
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Flew the BA 777's for five years and there is no way I would have attempted the turn even with the help of google earth.

Out of interest it would be interesting to establish why, having lined up he then had to leave the runway.
woodpecker is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2007, 22:21
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fulham
Age: 50
Posts: 15
electricjetjock

Having given Betty a hard time do you guys operate the 777-300? If not then ???????
I can't see how i did,other's maybe but not me. In response to the second part of your statement,i haven't operated the 777-300.

my company has surveyed airports that have "difficult" taxyways and we have special taxy charts. Perhaps EK need to do the same
The turn the ek flight took is 'unusual' in that it is not a 'normal' turn for any a/c. What i mean by 'not a normal turn' is that one would only take it if vacating the runway and then turning back on the t/way to line up on r/w 23. It's very unlikely that this would be discussed in any form of briefing,perhaps it was,conjecture on my part. A basic layout of the taxiways for those not familiar with gla:

http://www.flyglasgowdirect.co.uk/info2.htm

At places like LHR, the controllers will not allow a/c to to use certain points to enter,vacate or hold short of the runway, as they deem them 'not suitable'
Barry McDougal is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 04:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Electic Jet jock

Betty said << the taxiway looks more than wide enough. I know for a fact, ac as large as the 777 have been involved in such a manoeuvre without incident>> In my view incorrect and harsh

You said << someone just made a mistake>> exactly !!

To answer you - 16,000 hours - most on widebodies including the A340-600.. in the 777 situation the cameras don't help much.... once you have commited to a turn you're stuck if you don't have the room to go deep enough.

As for putting the wheels on the grass, the cameras (if they are working) work well on a sweeping turn but on a short radius > 90 turn you can be in trouble very quickly especially on narrow taxiways such as at small airports like Glasgow (not designed for widebodies) - the predicitve nature of the markers on the screen is pretty much lost when you pivot on the mains.

The 777 at Glasgow had his nosewheel very close to the grass, i.e. he couldn't go into the turn any deeper. Easy with no taxiway in front for the nosewheel to pivot the left bogey into the grass in an effort to get round.

As I say easy done with ATC requiring you to clear the runaway ASAP onto an unfamiliar taxiway.
Just wondering is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 06:36
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Betty, you say
I know for a fact, ac as large as the 777 have been involved in such a manoeuvre without incident.
Debatable, in my opinion. The 777 you refer to may have been a -200, which is very different animal in real estate rquired to make a tight turn to a -300.

With the (wonderful) benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I don't think that turn would be do-able for a 777-300, and I'd be inclined to think it would be rather tight for a -200. However, that would not have been evident to the crew, who found themselves in a very unusual situation at an unfamiliar airport and following ATC instructions. I'm sure the view from the flight deck would not be nearly as clear as from Google Earth(!)

I've never flown with the captain myself, but from the dealings I've had with him, I'd have to agree with the other favourable comments I've read here. He strikes me as a throughly professional operator.
Wiley is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 06:50
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sandy Surroundings!
Posts: 183
What was the reason for being asked by ATC to vacate the runway? Would have told ATC to "go away"! Me lined up, me go, me no vacate!
TwinJock is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 08:47
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 68
Hmmm

Well Twinjock, you might be lined up, and you might refuse to vacate (perfectly reasonable in this situation) but I doubt you'll be going anywhere til the inbound has gone around over the top of you and cleared the departure path.
Mad As A Mad Thing is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2007, 10:01
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 536
Just Wondering, and Wiley.
Please understand, absoutely no fingers pointed at the crew. Please see my posts 28 and 30. My question was in response to Barry M. He answered me in post 29. Ta.
I know little about the 777. Wiley, I bow to your -200, -300 experience.
My clear intention was always stated as thus; I was SIMPLY asking where Barry got his info.
Hope that clears it up.
Thanks

Last edited by betty swallox; 24th Sep 2007 at 11:19.
betty swallox is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 08:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1
Im not a proffessional Pilot, but Im a spotter/photographer based at Glasgow ,( those were my pictures linked in the thread) in all my years there I have never seen any thing bigger than a 757 coming off at link Bravo when landing 05 and I have never in my time at Glasgow seen anything bigger than a B757 being asked to when linned up on 23 to vacate at Bravo to re-enter at ALPHA

I stand to be corrected by the Pros , but I would take a guess that the earliest exit that a B777 could take to vacate 23 safely and reline up at 23 would be link Delta , I have seen B767 using Delta in the past though not quite sure if the B777 could make the turn there

I dont know if there were two landers in the seqeunce ,but it looks like the ATC were in a bit of a hurry to get B777 off and selcted Bravo to take him off , the Pilot tried but did'nt make it

Lesson learned by all

Have read in another forum that no aircraft bigger than a B757 will be allowed to turn at Bravo in the future
kevinwm is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 08:38
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: germany
Posts: 53
so are EK the westernised company they make out to be or are the "management mafia" (presumably read 'UAE, indigenous population' training department ?) going to be out to save face and sack the crew ??
nilcostoptionmyass is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2007, 09:01
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
A few years back in the same area, I seem to recall a 747 having to vacate at Delta ( Link4 as was ) as the controller was in no way considering allowing him off at Bravo. He had lined up and gotten an engine warning indicator and been unable to roll.
Skipness One Echo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.