BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please think this through exspeedbird....it's a shame that you compare this to the Tenerife disaster which has absolutely no relevance.
We are talking about a 3100+ meter runway of which maybe the last 300 meters are unusable. Even if all brakes failed, this aircraft would still have more runway ahead than many fully serviceable runways in Europe.
We are talking about a 3100+ meter runway of which maybe the last 300 meters are unusable. Even if all brakes failed, this aircraft would still have more runway ahead than many fully serviceable runways in Europe.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What of 'Land and hold short,' then? People do that all the time, even though some sorts of failure might see one go steaming right across whatever point one had just promised to stop short of, such as another active runway.
I don't see the problem, as long as the numbers add up. Otherwise you will never want to land on a runway that comes up just long enough assuming that everything works properly; you would insist on lots of extra distance 'just in case.' That is commendable but likely to adversely impact your employer's bottom line and your future career.
I don't see the problem, as long as the numbers add up. Otherwise you will never want to land on a runway that comes up just long enough assuming that everything works properly; you would insist on lots of extra distance 'just in case.' That is commendable but likely to adversely impact your employer's bottom line and your future career.
Can't speak for Accra ATC or BA procedures but @ my UK airfield the whole process for this type of thing is covered by Departmental Instructions in the Airport Manual.
It takes into account the position & height of the obstruction etc & gives a revised LDA (i.e. full LDA minus strip minus RESA minus length blocked by obstruction). Revised declared distances would be NOTAM'd & put on the ATIS. Refer to CAP168 for the official info.
For those of you who think the runway should be closed, would you still want that if the runway was 3000 meters long, the disabled aircraft was a C150 & the landing aircraft was the same? If you say no, where would you draw the line & stop landings - light twins, B737's , B747's , A380's?
IMHO the whole thing sounds like a non-event
It takes into account the position & height of the obstruction etc & gives a revised LDA (i.e. full LDA minus strip minus RESA minus length blocked by obstruction). Revised declared distances would be NOTAM'd & put on the ATIS. Refer to CAP168 for the official info.
For those of you who think the runway should be closed, would you still want that if the runway was 3000 meters long, the disabled aircraft was a C150 & the landing aircraft was the same? If you say no, where would you draw the line & stop landings - light twins, B737's , B747's , A380's?
IMHO the whole thing sounds like a non-event
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smash bugger, I never said that it is no big deal. All I am saying is that as far as I am concerned, as a commander you can make an informed decision. You have all the tools at your disposal to do so. Even if the last 1000 meters were blocked, that still would leave a 2100 meter runway to land on. That's well within the performance limitations of most jets I know.
Of course there are issues to discuss. I would not do this at night after an approach to limits for instance. The color coding for the runway lights are off. So there are lots of things to think about. So if you can find more issues, please let me know, I am happy to be corrected, I am honestly interested to know your reasonable objections.
Hypothetically speaking from the info on this thread some people would rather divert to a 1800m runway with a cliff at the end, than land on a 3100m runway with a little business jet sitting at the very end. Where is the logic in that?
Eric, thanks for the useful info!
Of course there are issues to discuss. I would not do this at night after an approach to limits for instance. The color coding for the runway lights are off. So there are lots of things to think about. So if you can find more issues, please let me know, I am happy to be corrected, I am honestly interested to know your reasonable objections.
Hypothetically speaking from the info on this thread some people would rather divert to a 1800m runway with a cliff at the end, than land on a 3100m runway with a little business jet sitting at the very end. Where is the logic in that?
Eric, thanks for the useful info!
Even if all brakes failed, this aircraft would still have more runway ahead than many fully serviceable runways in Europe.
I'm sure you'll now nominate many short European runways with tall cliffs growing out of the far threshold - of which I know none, and no longer need to know about now, either, thank you.
I guess at the end of the day the Commander made a decision that he felt he could justifiably support should it ever be questioned - that's what he's paid for - End Of Story.
The only reason I mentioned the Teneriffe disaster was that people died because two aircraft were on the same runway at the same time, I can't presently think of another example of that point - tho' you can doubtless enumerate many.
Was once No. 3 on approach to Idlewild ( Kennedy to the younger generation) and the tower advised No. 2 to be ready to 'go around', maybe. No. 2 asked why ? Because No. 1 hasn't touched down yet and he's only a mile ahead of you. So, said No. 2 - he needs a mile to stop ? ( I'm talking 707's ) I ain't a goin' around unless you put someone between him and me ! and he didn't.
Was once refused take-off clearance at Taipei, having started, because an aircraft had fallen off the end of the runway at our destination Hong Kong (Kai Tak ) and the airfield had been closed. The aircraft wasn't actually still on the runway, but was in the water at the end. Our Company (not BA) Station Manager told me to go, because " he " had "a friend" in Hong Kong Operations who would give us landing clearance once we got there. Yeah! Right! We left 4 hours later.
At our local GA field the Air NZ Commuter Beech 19 pilots refuse to land if, in my microlight, I'm holding in the turning blister at the threshold as tho' clearly off to one side I am technically "on" the runway (not at a designated holding point clear of the approach 'cos there isn't one at that end) - shouldn't they still be clearing the mythical 50' screen at that point, and therefore well above me,anyway ? what threat am I ? but Rules are Rules, even tho' sometimes the Law is an Ass.
Talk about a tempest in a teapot! Tenerife is not even close to the same, neither crew knew that they weren't alone on the runway. Same goes for the accident at LAX when USAir hit the commuter plane sitting on the threshold.
The BA crew was apparently well aware of the circumstances and made an informed decision. Also, given the typical available "alternates" in that part of the world, Accra is generally a much better choice than a place like Monrovia for example, where they're not very friendly and not expecting you.
The BA crew was apparently well aware of the circumstances and made an informed decision. Also, given the typical available "alternates" in that part of the world, Accra is generally a much better choice than a place like Monrovia for example, where they're not very friendly and not expecting you.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point was that 2 aircraft on the same runway at the same time is potentially dangerous ? However it happens.
Was the stuck aircraft still with pax. and crew aboard ? If so was the Cdr. of stuck aircraft advised that the runway would still be used with him in the firing line so to speak ? Was he asked of he had any objection ? Should he have been?
I'm with those who reckon it was Not A Good Idea, but also with the opinion that the decision to land was made by the pilot who did so. The buck stops with him I reckon, and he has to justify his action after taking all his available - or not available - options into consideration. His job, his neck.
Biggest fault here was going to Accra in the first place !!
Was the stuck aircraft still with pax. and crew aboard ? If so was the Cdr. of stuck aircraft advised that the runway would still be used with him in the firing line so to speak ? Was he asked of he had any objection ? Should he have been?
I'm with those who reckon it was Not A Good Idea, but also with the opinion that the decision to land was made by the pilot who did so. The buck stops with him I reckon, and he has to justify his action after taking all his available - or not available - options into consideration. His job, his neck.
Biggest fault here was going to Accra in the first place !!
Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 30th Jan 2012 at 00:55.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably ATC cleared him to land.
Sometimes an early decision to divert is a cop out. It can take skill and experience to get an aircraft safely and legally to destination in adverse conditions.
I don't know the details of this situation but it's quite possible he had committed to landing at Accra before the end of the runway became blocked.
I think you will find the flight landed legally and without knowing all the facts it would be wrong for anyone to infer the pilots acted irresponsibly.
Sometimes an early decision to divert is a cop out. It can take skill and experience to get an aircraft safely and legally to destination in adverse conditions.
I don't know the details of this situation but it's quite possible he had committed to landing at Accra before the end of the runway became blocked.
I think you will find the flight landed legally and without knowing all the facts it would be wrong for anyone to infer the pilots acted irresponsibly.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Context
Fuel remaining? Wx at alternates? Tech state of BA a/c? Company instructions?
Just pointing out that without all the facts, the discussion is so much hot air....
Just pointing out that without all the facts, the discussion is so much hot air....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penko, 9800 feet of runway is 3000 meters of runway not 3100 m +. And that's before the blockage. I hear what you're saying about common sense but it's thankless. Why take the risk - the company won't thank you. And if you screw up they will blame you. Where in the OMs does it say to do such a thing or imply that you have scope to think such a thing? This isn't an emergency or even nearly an abnormal. If in doubt, there's no doubt - go somewhere else. Of course it can be done but does it need to be in a fully serviceable aircraft that will have destination alternates with a flight time like that?
Sometimes an early decision to divert is a cop out.
He smartly diverted to Boston, which he had overflown on his way to New York. The same 45 minutes later he was approaching Boston, where the weather had seriously deteriorated and was now below limits. Had he remained over New York he would now have been landing in good weather, no problem, but now he had used his reserve fuel and had nowhere to go. ATC got him down on a Military Base.
Don't nit pick, all a long time ago and I can't remember all the numbers or the detail, just agreeing with the above quote.
He'd done everything right, but had he stayed at New York he would have landed safely at his destination - but illegally and they would have had him.
He almost died - but legally.
I have no idea whether the supposed event that this thread is named about took place (or not) but I have to reassure those who don't fly for a living (and maybe some of those that do 
) that taking off / landing on a runway with less than its normal declared distance is a fairly common procedure.
There are many airports in the world that currently have NOTAMS describing partial runway closures (affects LDA/TORA/TODA...) and temporary cranes, etc. in works (affects the obstacle surfaces for T/O, landing and G/A). Here's a current one for BOM (VABB):
If you're flying your own aeroplane or work for a small company, you'll probably get the books out and check, or if you're lucky, use a performance tool approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Major airlines generally have dedicated staff who can provide revised specific performance data at short notice, even if it's an aircraft stuck in the mud at the end of the runway.
At the end of the day, whether it's an aeroplane, runway resurfacing, building works or a lame giraffe, it can be taken account of in the proper manner. It is a total non-issue, as long as the position / vertical extent of whatever it is that's causing the problem is known. You can always be conservative and use the most adverse likely measurements in the calculations.
If you've ever used reduced thrust, taken off from an intersection or landed over an inset threshold, then you should have no qualms about operating to and from an airfield with quantified temporary obstructions of whatever nature. [/rant]
) that taking off / landing on a runway with less than its normal declared distance is a fairly common procedure.There are many airports in the world that currently have NOTAMS describing partial runway closures (affects LDA/TORA/TODA...) and temporary cranes, etc. in works (affects the obstacle surfaces for T/O, landing and G/A). Here's a current one for BOM (VABB):
REVISED DECLARED DIST AS FLW TIL JUN011130
RWY 09 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 3050
27 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 2965
14 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2471
32 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2673
RWY 32. Drilling rig erected 82ft AGL approx 382m N of Rwy14 THR. Eff 1430-2359Jan27 and 0030-0300 1430-2359 daily 28Jan til 30Mar.
RWY 09 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 3050
27 TORA/TODA/ASDA 3190 LDA 2965
14 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2471
32 TORA/TODA/ASDA 2871 LDA 2673
RWY 32. Drilling rig erected 82ft AGL approx 382m N of Rwy14 THR. Eff 1430-2359Jan27 and 0030-0300 1430-2359 daily 28Jan til 30Mar.
At the end of the day, whether it's an aeroplane, runway resurfacing, building works or a lame giraffe, it can be taken account of in the proper manner. It is a total non-issue, as long as the position / vertical extent of whatever it is that's causing the problem is known. You can always be conservative and use the most adverse likely measurements in the calculations.
If you've ever used reduced thrust, taken off from an intersection or landed over an inset threshold, then you should have no qualms about operating to and from an airfield with quantified temporary obstructions of whatever nature. [/rant]
Last edited by FullWings; 30th Jan 2012 at 08:11.
Seriously a diversion safe, landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers, and they call Ryanair cowboys.
Presumably BA would have contacted the company in LHR in addition to doing their own calculations.
For what it's worth (as one who has operated in the area) the decision as to whether to land on what remained of a massive runway with the relatively sophisticated facilities of Accra versus a diversion to Lagos is a no-brainer.
The BA captain has my whole-hearted support. But then I would never have passed the aptitude test to be a bureaucrat.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
A friend of mine used a very similar example to this demonstrating his attitude to risk at an interview for a major carrier recently. He passed.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
A friend of mine used a very similar example to this demonstrating his attitude to risk at an interview for a major carrier recently. He passed.
It doesn't say in the BA ops manual you can land on a runway with an aircraft blocking it. It also doesn't say you can't. pilots are selected and trained to use common sense and judgement to maximise safety and efficiency.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
All things being equal if the revised LDA at ACC was greater than the ED at the alternate, provide consideration was given to GA profile then it seems ok to me.
Before I landed I'd consider the problem for the crew getting the jet out of there however.
If it happened to me, I'd want to find out:
- Where and what the obstruction was.
- Whether the runway had been inspected/swept since, in case bits had come off the aircraft that came to an unscheduled halt.
- What minima were appropriate, e.g. if it was in front of the LOC array, an ILS probably isn't going to work.
- What landing / go-around performance was required.
- Was fire cover back to acceptable levels.
- As above, will there be issues for the next sector.
If the answers were satisfactory and the required aircraft performance came within the normal operating bracket in terms of safety margin, etc. then having discussed it with the rest of the crew and tech. management / performance if I could get hold of them, I'd have no hesitation to carry on to land or even commit to destination.
