The TNT B737 EMA/Birmingham incident thread
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over 3 months since landings(s) and the 737 is STILL abandoned at Birmingham Airport -Company logo's all whitewashed out ( badly ), engines covered up with plastic sheeting, and propped upon jacks looking very sad 
Does anyone have any info. on when it might get moved or broken up ?
Does anyone have any info. on when it might get moved or broken up ?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commander was the flying pilot????
It is not normal company policy to carry minimum fuel. Fuel was not an issue in this accident.
And again, they were not sacked. All parties involved agreed that any continued cooperation would be very difficult. The crew involved chose to have their contract terminated by the company, as that was financially the best option for them.
And again, they were not sacked. All parties involved agreed that any continued cooperation would be very difficult. The crew involved chose to have their contract terminated by the company, as that was financially the best option for them.
From your post, you sound to be a person in the know, with regard to TNT company policy that is.
Could you tell me then is it company policy for the Commander sitting in the left seat to be the handling pilot during a cat 3 approach.
The AAIB report stated that…… The commander was the handling pilot in the left cockpit seat.
Not all, I know but the majority of companies have adopted the policy that during this type of approach with reduced visibility then a monitored approach be carried out, i.e. the First Officer flies the a/c by means of the autopilot and the Captain/Commander monitors the a/c performance and progress down the flight path.
This procedure allows the Commander free brain capacity to asses when it all goes wrong and call for the correct action to be taken. i.e. Go Around.
I was actually the person that first spotted the undercarriage laying in the grass the morning of the incident, we were the crew that notified East Midlands tower, up to that point they didn’t even know that it was laying there. It was some 50 meters from the left runway edge which means the a/c was touching down some 75 meters from the runway centre line.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I do wonder if the Commander had been monitoring instead of flying maybe this thread wouldn’t exist.
Fluffy Flyer.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
monitored approach
not sure what TNT does but i was with virgin express BRU for four years ending 2002 and their CAT 3A's were captain fly, which i must say i still prefer. i will have to ask to see if they still are.
might be a case of which ever way you are taught first, but all i can remember in the states' 737 cat 3's were captain fly and Belgian VEX was captain fly, so perhaps belgian TNT is as well. in the states, i remember a monitored approach for cat 2's but they cancelled that before too long. only when coming to the UK did i see the change over at the last minute from F/O flying to captain flying. (same goes for the extended T/O&LDG briefings that includes one's mother's maiden name.)
i find it uneasy and un-natural. (both the monitored approach and extreme briefings). there is a time point in which the F/O is flying and the captain is looking outside along with trying to look inside and crosscheck approach, split attention. then the captain takes over right at the point of any visual sightings/or minimums depending on approach/company- which is usually right near minimums involving moment of hands on thrust levers and more importantly, transfer of actual flying/non flying status. then the visual might go away or some other malfunction could occur all possible in a very short period of time on either side of the "change over point" and it has never felt right. it adds an extra layer of complication which is unnecessary in my opinion. it would make more logical sense to me if the F/O would stay pilot flying until the captain "takes the aircraft" on the ground-disconnecting A/P A/T etc. or have the captain fly the approach and keep it all the way.
would be interesting to hear if the A/P disconnect was an incorrect button pushed or a a/c disconnect. i have seen the TOGA button pushed by mistake-- the A/T button pushed by mistake--- the A/P button pushed by mistake and the A/P disconnect all by itself. and with the added layer of "who's flying NOW" possibly delaying reactions due to the "normal" change over at the last second, and the fact that it was a mistake, the "other" person has no idea at the moment and the one who pushed the button is equally surprized as well.
all the years of captain flying CAT3A's there was never any confusion about who was flying and who was to start the go/around and it all flowed quite naturally. even with all the failures that can happen at the last minute, and there are quite a few-there was never a second of confusion as to who was flying and who should start the go-around when needed. it was only matter of am i going to land or go/around. never WHO. and when you consider the incapcitation factor, it is only a matter for the one remaining pilot. yes that has it's weak spot, but let's keep the number of weak spots to a minimum.
i must say that when in the sim, i cannot forget that i am in a sim and when failures did occur right near the decision height, i was quite "sprung" to let it continue down if i could see anything. but of all the times it happened, it never strayed from the center line of the rwy.
things happen so quickly at that point and de-briefings have shown that we as pilots are very limited in our memories of what actually happened and the time sequence of events, even when reviewing the events just moments later after freezing the sim.
the more hours i accumulate, now at 16200 of which 8260 are in 737's, and the more i "see" these things happen, all i can say is "i'm relieved it wasn't me." i learned very early in my training that i am quite capable of any mistake and i have the attitude that "it could happen to me as well."
and if the fuel was getting close to the point that it was to become the next factor, i could understand how it could affect the "eagerness" to go-around.
might be a case of which ever way you are taught first, but all i can remember in the states' 737 cat 3's were captain fly and Belgian VEX was captain fly, so perhaps belgian TNT is as well. in the states, i remember a monitored approach for cat 2's but they cancelled that before too long. only when coming to the UK did i see the change over at the last minute from F/O flying to captain flying. (same goes for the extended T/O&LDG briefings that includes one's mother's maiden name.)
i find it uneasy and un-natural. (both the monitored approach and extreme briefings). there is a time point in which the F/O is flying and the captain is looking outside along with trying to look inside and crosscheck approach, split attention. then the captain takes over right at the point of any visual sightings/or minimums depending on approach/company- which is usually right near minimums involving moment of hands on thrust levers and more importantly, transfer of actual flying/non flying status. then the visual might go away or some other malfunction could occur all possible in a very short period of time on either side of the "change over point" and it has never felt right. it adds an extra layer of complication which is unnecessary in my opinion. it would make more logical sense to me if the F/O would stay pilot flying until the captain "takes the aircraft" on the ground-disconnecting A/P A/T etc. or have the captain fly the approach and keep it all the way.
would be interesting to hear if the A/P disconnect was an incorrect button pushed or a a/c disconnect. i have seen the TOGA button pushed by mistake-- the A/T button pushed by mistake--- the A/P button pushed by mistake and the A/P disconnect all by itself. and with the added layer of "who's flying NOW" possibly delaying reactions due to the "normal" change over at the last second, and the fact that it was a mistake, the "other" person has no idea at the moment and the one who pushed the button is equally surprized as well.
all the years of captain flying CAT3A's there was never any confusion about who was flying and who was to start the go/around and it all flowed quite naturally. even with all the failures that can happen at the last minute, and there are quite a few-there was never a second of confusion as to who was flying and who should start the go-around when needed. it was only matter of am i going to land or go/around. never WHO. and when you consider the incapcitation factor, it is only a matter for the one remaining pilot. yes that has it's weak spot, but let's keep the number of weak spots to a minimum.
i must say that when in the sim, i cannot forget that i am in a sim and when failures did occur right near the decision height, i was quite "sprung" to let it continue down if i could see anything. but of all the times it happened, it never strayed from the center line of the rwy.
things happen so quickly at that point and de-briefings have shown that we as pilots are very limited in our memories of what actually happened and the time sequence of events, even when reviewing the events just moments later after freezing the sim.
the more hours i accumulate, now at 16200 of which 8260 are in 737's, and the more i "see" these things happen, all i can say is "i'm relieved it wasn't me." i learned very early in my training that i am quite capable of any mistake and i have the attitude that "it could happen to me as well."
and if the fuel was getting close to the point that it was to become the next factor, i could understand how it could affect the "eagerness" to go-around.
Last edited by stator vane; 19th Sep 2006 at 13:27. Reason: added
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stator Vane
I agree with you entirely some very good and valid point.
I guess it does boil down to what you have been taught and what you are comfortable with. I have never myself flown a cat 3 as Captain and pilot flying so can’t comment on what it feels like to do it that way.
You are also right that it could have been any of us out there, I just feel that what ever way the sop’s were written or what there procedure was in low vis opps it let them down, this of course is giving the pilots the benefit of the doubt that they followed them.
They were a long way off the runway centre line though, that’s for sure.
No one in the 16 or so pages of this thread has mentioned the possibility of the ILS its self being at fault, I mention this as I operate from EMA on a regular basis and shortly after this incident the ILS was removed from service on rwy 27 and the NDB approach was the only one available.
Just a thought.
I agree with you entirely some very good and valid point.
I guess it does boil down to what you have been taught and what you are comfortable with. I have never myself flown a cat 3 as Captain and pilot flying so can’t comment on what it feels like to do it that way.
You are also right that it could have been any of us out there, I just feel that what ever way the sop’s were written or what there procedure was in low vis opps it let them down, this of course is giving the pilots the benefit of the doubt that they followed them.
They were a long way off the runway centre line though, that’s for sure.
No one in the 16 or so pages of this thread has mentioned the possibility of the ILS its self being at fault, I mention this as I operate from EMA on a regular basis and shortly after this incident the ILS was removed from service on rwy 27 and the NDB approach was the only one available.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 5nm NE of EGTC
Age: 70
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one in the 16 or so pages of this thread has mentioned the possibility of the ILS its self being at fault, I mention this as I operate from EMA on a regular basis and shortly after this incident the ILS was removed from service on rwy 27 and the NDB approach was the only one available.
It is my understanding that TNT use the monitored-approach technique. In other words the F/O flies the aircraft (through the automatics) with the express purpose of making a G/A while the Captain monitors and looks for a runway. I have personally used this method since 1964 and it has always worked very well for me.
I am also reliably informed that fuel was absolutely not a factor and that they had loads on board. Following SOPs, however, might have been useful.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the ILS.
I am also reliably informed that fuel was absolutely not a factor and that they had loads on board. Following SOPs, however, might have been useful.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the ILS.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411....On which autoland aircraft and for which company did you do LVP autolands in 1964?
As far as I know BEA was the first operator on Tridents to use LVP and autolands with the monitored SOPs.
Did you indeed have autoland capability as far back as 1964?
Gf were trained by BEA on Cat3 for GF L1011s in 1975 and as far as I knew were at this time and for a time afterwards the only operators cleared for Cat3.
Either way it makes us both quite old in a young mans game!
As far as I know BEA was the first operator on Tridents to use LVP and autolands with the monitored SOPs.
Did you indeed have autoland capability as far back as 1964?
Gf were trained by BEA on Cat3 for GF L1011s in 1975 and as far as I knew were at this time and for a time afterwards the only operators cleared for Cat3.
Either way it makes us both quite old in a young mans game!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1964
Scan.
If you read JW411's post carefully you will see no mention of LVP's or cat 3. however there is mention of the monitored approach method.
I have in the past while flying the BAC 1-11 flown a monitored approach to 200ft Cat 1, we were not cat 2 or 3 rated in those days and company sop's stipulated that below a certain cloud base a monitored approach be flown.
Monitored approaches are not only flown when the cloud is on the deck.
The only reason I brought up the ILS was because of the large distance to the left of the centre line they were, not pointing the blame in any direction was just a thought that's all.
If you read JW411's post carefully you will see no mention of LVP's or cat 3. however there is mention of the monitored approach method.
I have in the past while flying the BAC 1-11 flown a monitored approach to 200ft Cat 1, we were not cat 2 or 3 rated in those days and company sop's stipulated that below a certain cloud base a monitored approach be flown.
Monitored approaches are not only flown when the cloud is on the deck.
The only reason I brought up the ILS was because of the large distance to the left of the centre line they were, not pointing the blame in any direction was just a thought that's all.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What caught my eye in reading the report is that they went from one airport with an approach ban, to another conducting CatIII approaches. Surely there was a better diversion airport. Not good practice to ask a crew to do that kind of thing, as it turns out.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Turkey
Age: 82
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point on Monitored Approaches. What JW411 says in his first paragraph of post no 307 is correct. The Captain is designated HP because he makes the decision to land or go-around, but the First Officer is flying the aircraft for the approach (always auto-coupled on CATII or III). If there is no Land call at DH the FO executes a GA; if there is, the Capt, by calling it assumes control (SOPs) and lands. If after that point a GA becomes necessary, the Capt flies it.
Last edited by rodthesod; 21st Sep 2006 at 07:35. Reason: To add second paragraph
scanscanscan:
As has already been pointed out, I made no mention of LVPs or autolands in my post as you will see if you read it properly.
I was talking about the monitored approach method which BEA taught me on the Viscount 802/806.
You might be interested to know that Belfast XR364 made its first autoland on 7th June 1966 at RAE Bedford and went on to make more than 800 autolands during the programme. The Smiths system used was identical to that of the Trident.
As has already been pointed out, I made no mention of LVPs or autolands in my post as you will see if you read it properly.
I was talking about the monitored approach method which BEA taught me on the Viscount 802/806.
You might be interested to know that Belfast XR364 made its first autoland on 7th June 1966 at RAE Bedford and went on to make more than 800 autolands during the programme. The Smiths system used was identical to that of the Trident.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rodthesod
Just one correction there. The Captain is designated P1, the FO is the HP on a monitored approach. The rest is indeed correct 
The Captain is designated HP because he makes the decision to land or go-around, but the First Officer is flying the aircraft for the approach (always auto-coupled on CATII or III). If there is no Land call at DH the FO executes a GA; if there is, the Capt, by calling it assumes control (SOPs) and lands. If after that point a GA becomes necessary, the Capt flies it.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Fluffy and Jw411 for the interesting information on the Belfast trials and the clarification on the monitored approach minus autolands.
Did you hear this one?.... the entire smiths/trident autoland development team were offered jobs at Lockheed and went and developed the L1011 autoland system.
Did you hear this one?.... the entire smiths/trident autoland development team were offered jobs at Lockheed and went and developed the L1011 autoland system.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like someone found a fresh tin of whitewash and some longer ladders - all the TNT Orange bits are painted over now. The engine intakes have been covered with sheeting - ( including the scraped one ). 
Meanwhile - Anyone know how much they charge these days at BHX for parking ? It's STILL propped up on the old 06 threshold
Meanwhile - Anyone know how much they charge these days at BHX for parking ? It's STILL propped up on the old 06 threshold
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..... and it is STILL abandoned on the end of the old, short, disused Runway ( 06/24) at Birmingham -
One of the latest rumours is that they might chop what's left of the wings off and let the Airport Fire Service have it for practice !
One of the latest rumours is that they might chop what's left of the wings off and let the Airport Fire Service have it for practice !
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
day
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe it's still there!
next week will be the 6 month anniversary -
Bout sums up the ambitions of BIA!!
In my Honest opinion
next week will be the 6 month anniversary -
Bout sums up the ambitions of BIA!!
In my Honest opinion
Last edited by IMHO; 8th Dec 2006 at 16:10. Reason: typo