Dream Buster

Pilot Pete,

I wish I could share your confidence and trust in the AAIB.

Sorry if I sounded a bit doubtful, but I have reason to be.

No doubt we will see in a couple of years time...............

Keep up your timely criticism and so will I.

Arkroyal

I do. What's your problem with it DB?

Shaggy Sheep Driver

It's not the detached, fact-driven, and disinterested organisation it used to be, IMHO.

SSD

Pilot Pete

Whether you think the AAIB is independent enough or not is a side issue. They are the ONLY organization that will produce a report, so we will all have to live with that. Here is not the place to start a campaign against them.

Fine by me mate, it's just your previous offering was more 'wild speculation' that adds nothing of value to this thread rather than criticism of something factual.

PP

Dream Buster

Pilot Pete

Calm down!

Keep to the facts.

If one presents a serious incident to the AAIB and they ignore it (as though it had never happened) - how would you feel? I must admit they are brilliant at analyzing accidents down to the last detail. Fact.

I suppose that those of us who know that all is not well in aviation these days look for examples of this and the only measure that people seem to have of whether it is OK or not is the incidents/accident data - true? Fact.

Believe it or not I am totally on the crews side. Fact.

So when one knows that an aircraft is 'probably' flying with near minimum fuel (hopefully you are aware of this latest craze) and diverts to an airfield on RVR's and doesn't land for whatever reason but then diverts again - it is quite likely that he will be cutting into his final reserve - that's what it's for.

One is entitled to point out that the craze (see above) has been tested and 'just' worked but I personally have a problem with the craze and have always been worried by folk putting minimum fuel on board. Fact.

Clearly we will have to wait a couple of years to find out what actually happened but in the mean time keep your eyes open for evidence that all might not be well as you think, encourage crews to carry sufficient fuel regardless of what the rules say and please don't fly over my house when you are struggling between airfields in a bent aeroplane. Fact.

MrNosy

A question - what was the actual wx at East Midlands when the aircraft carried out the go-around. I note that in one of the posts an (RVR?) for rwy 27 is quoted as 0350m, was this at the time the aircraft was making the approach?

Clarence Oveur

I believe you said "Keep to the facts". How do you know that they were 'probably' flying with near minimum fuel? Do you know the fuel policy of the company in question? Or even how much fuel they had at EMA?

Xploy Ted

I agree in principle & the discussion has been most illuminating BUT- As has already been pointed out - it will be an age and a half before any official report comes out. The Eu is about to vote on Sub partQ & any info re fatigue related problems would be useful now rather than next year.

Being a gossip network there may just be someone, who either knows what duty the crew had done, or does the route with TNT & could offer an educated guess.

It is about gathering ammo before it is too late.......

Wendel

The fact is that the plane was diverted to EMA and diverted once more to BHX. If such a situation with subsequent diversions happens again this might cause problems when the plain is flying with near minimum fuel (which is a tendency), especially when the airports are not as close as EMA and BHX.

I agree that we do not know the facts yet on the fuel level of this particulare plane. Yet I think it is useful to take the possibility of multiple diversions into account when discussing necessary minimum fuel levels.

xetroV

Flying with minimum fuel to a bad-weather airport is unlikely, even if the company has a minimum fuel policy. Apart from that there is a real possibility of this flight having had tankering fuel for economic reasons (especially when flying from Belgium to the UK), so these minimum fuel comments by Dream Buster are pure speculation. Him asking others to stick to the facts is pretty hypocritical, seeing that he isn't really bothered with facts himself.

FougaMagister

To add my 5 p's worth (and without speculating too much), from experience of EGBB-EGNX positioning flight plans, the trip takes about 10-12 minutes and the fuel burn is around 600 kg for a 737-300 in 148Y seats config. So something roughly similar for a 737-300 freighter with 10T of cargo on board - however, the aircraft may actually not have flown direct due to the emergency.

The aircraft is still at BHX, looking forlorn and slightly lopsided on the Western apron.

Cheers

Nogbad the Bad

Wow, you pilots are just about as good at bitching at one another as us controllers !!!

What I fail to understand is - and I am sure the investigation will fathom this one - with the aircraft so out of position on final approach, how come the approach was continued without a go around ?

jonesthepilot

Many years ago at Flying School in the Valleys I heard of something called 'sidelobes.' Could he have flown down one of them?

Coconutty

... and just to add a few miles more to the trip from EGNX to EGBB it positioned to land on R33.

AFAIK at 0601 Hrs on the day the weather at EGBB was clear and would not have been a factor to prevent a landing on R15....

An approach to R15 could / would have shortened the distance flying the damaged aircraft - a go around / overshoot would have taken them out over the fields with just one "A" road to worrry about ( A45 ), and not a housing estate !


Coconutty

brummbrumm

The a/c was originally going to make an approach to 15, however I believe that when the ils was switched from 33 to 15 the glideslope became u/s hence the approach to 33

Flap15Geardown

Would think the fuel burn would be more than 600kg in this case, doubt they tried to raise the gear (better to land on some than risk none of it coming down again and assuming the hydraulic circuit was still intact to bring them up) and would the flaps have locked in position? I take it the u/c struck them as it exited the wing area. If that were the case they would have been using a fair bit of power to keep the thing in the air.

I believe that it was defueled after it was dumped on 06. Anyone know how much came off?

threemiles

EGNX-EGBB + circling around for more than 30 minutes would not be helpful for analysis of the CVR

Jet2

Engineers these days don't fix minor defects as quickly as they used to do they

deconehead

Jet2, what chance have we got with the way you guys put them down

seriously though I have seen the damage that the complete U/C has done to the flaps and the marks and damage that were left where it hit the fuselage just above the rear hold door. How it didn't take off the horizontal stabalizer I just don't know.

The O/B landing lamp has gone and it's filled with mud and grass - now that was close.

They are 2 very very lucky people and thankfully they walked away to tell the tale.

Few Cloudy

Yes, we are very lucky not to be disussing a fatal write off here.

Let's hope we can learn something from the results - and apply them.

FC.