BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to believe this forum sometimes.
We have Pilots & Captains to make the decisions that machines cannot.
If this Captain decided to land and completed the exercise safely,
then I support his judgement on the day.
No doubt many will spend days & weeks questioning it
but they were not there and they are not under the time pressure he was under.
Well done I say.
We have Pilots & Captains to make the decisions that machines cannot.
If this Captain decided to land and completed the exercise safely,
then I support his judgement on the day.
No doubt many will spend days & weeks questioning it
but they were not there and they are not under the time pressure he was under.
Well done I say.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.
Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighbouring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
In an ideal world the above would not happen. However we live in a real not virtual world where qualified pilots are paid to follow rules and make sensible commercial decisions.
Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighbouring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
In an ideal world the above would not happen. However we live in a real not virtual world where qualified pilots are paid to follow rules and make sensible commercial decisions.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Douala
Age: 44
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well folks
Left Kotoka international yesterday, didn't learn anything, seems as it was a no event, just another busy night with BA KL TP AZ heavies taking off into the night. Nobody heard about it (or want to talk about it)
Left Kotoka international yesterday, didn't learn anything, seems as it was a no event, just another busy night with BA KL TP AZ heavies taking off into the night. Nobody heard about it (or want to talk about it)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approaching Basrah last year, tower advised us that the last 2000m were unavailable as a rocket had landed and blown a hole in it. Quick recalculation of landing distance and autobrake setting, no problem.
As said do the maths, then no problem. Our alternate Baghdad also had a 'mystery' hole appear on the main runway!
These events as in Accra when correctly handled, make this job what it is.
Good work by BA, proving that using commonsense and technical knowledge prove their worth.
As said do the maths, then no problem. Our alternate Baghdad also had a 'mystery' hole appear on the main runway!
These events as in Accra when correctly handled, make this job what it is.
Good work by BA, proving that using commonsense and technical knowledge prove their worth.
Penko,
Based on "been there, done that", I'm with you.
The actual case was a Philippine Airlines A-300 ran through the end of 06 at Manila, wound up with it's nose on the South Super Highway.
With suitable information supplied, including the height of the fin, with the nose gear folded up, nose down, we used normal obstacle clearance gradients to calculate the reduced runway available for landing, and landed. QED.
Many years ago, a PanAm B707 went off (just) the end of 34 (now 34L) at YSSY. It sat there for quite some time. The fin was removed very smartly to reduce the height of the "critical obstacle" , so the reduced EOL was minimized.
Many will recall a B747 that went of the end of 15 at Kai Tak, if my memory serves me correctly, the fin was blown off, but the rest of the aircraft was there for some days.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The actual experience ---- it took local officialdom several days to finally raise a NOTAM re. reduced length, the first NOTAM (after we landed) just said what and where, and left it up to operators, as to what they did. We departed 24 the following day, downwind, and had no control over blowing crap all over the poor sods getting ready to retrieve the A-300.
Based on "been there, done that", I'm with you.
The actual case was a Philippine Airlines A-300 ran through the end of 06 at Manila, wound up with it's nose on the South Super Highway.
With suitable information supplied, including the height of the fin, with the nose gear folded up, nose down, we used normal obstacle clearance gradients to calculate the reduced runway available for landing, and landed. QED.
Many years ago, a PanAm B707 went off (just) the end of 34 (now 34L) at YSSY. It sat there for quite some time. The fin was removed very smartly to reduce the height of the "critical obstacle" , so the reduced EOL was minimized.
Many will recall a B747 that went of the end of 15 at Kai Tak, if my memory serves me correctly, the fin was blown off, but the rest of the aircraft was there for some days.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The actual experience ---- it took local officialdom several days to finally raise a NOTAM re. reduced length, the first NOTAM (after we landed) just said what and where, and left it up to operators, as to what they did. We departed 24 the following day, downwind, and had no control over blowing crap all over the poor sods getting ready to retrieve the A-300.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a brigade of theorists on this forum who are doubtless not airline pilots but have previously stated the following are not safe procedures.
Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighboring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
Intersection takeoffs.
Tailwind takeoffs/landings.
Derated/flex takeoffs.
Takeoffs or landings if there is any whiff of a neighboring cb.
Committing to a single runway airfield with insufficient fuel for diversion.
Departing with allowable technical defects.
Autolanding without telling ATC
Overflying a usable runway having had an engine failure and flying to one more suitable and familiar.
And now it seems we can add landing with a reduced landing distance due to an obstacle. (If this event happened)
(Takes large turd stirring device from drawer)
Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VHHH
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
using commonsense
No doubt you are personally familiar with the utter hypocrisy of your statement in reference to the conduct by the "Fleet Manager" of the operation to which you refer (Baghdad Hajj). The list of violations he condoned and participated in is long and varied. Other than a pathetic attempt to promote a small and questionable recruiting agency by means of an article in an aviation journal, his only other talents were to plunder the operation, gain favour by allowing F/O's to fly from the left seat and send incriminating emails that cost the owner thousands of dollars in breach of contract salary payments. Despite your self praise, I believe you are the last person to be able to comment on "using commonsense"
TT,
I guess this is one of those which we 'not in the know' wouldn't be aware.
I do recollect going in to Basrah at night as FO (ex capt but >60 - thanks France & USA!), with top rate capt & FE, flying B747 for charter outfit.
I suggested close in steep circling descent, lights out. We discussed the fact that we had not practiced this procedure in the sim and agreed that (as usual in competent professional ops) anyone could express discomfort.
Accomplished successfully.
On return to UK, mentioned to boss.
Result?
Notice to crew that this sort of procedure was not necessary nor was it company policy. Fortunately most of the FD crew were experienced and financially well enough off not to give a sh1t what flt ops said.
Why would they not wish us to do a tactical approach?
Well what do you think the difference is between the insurance premium for normal ops and that for a war zone?
I guess this is one of those which we 'not in the know' wouldn't be aware.
I do recollect going in to Basrah at night as FO (ex capt but >60 - thanks France & USA!), with top rate capt & FE, flying B747 for charter outfit.
I suggested close in steep circling descent, lights out. We discussed the fact that we had not practiced this procedure in the sim and agreed that (as usual in competent professional ops) anyone could express discomfort.
Accomplished successfully.
On return to UK, mentioned to boss.
Result?
Notice to crew that this sort of procedure was not necessary nor was it company policy. Fortunately most of the FD crew were experienced and financially well enough off not to give a sh1t what flt ops said.
Why would they not wish us to do a tactical approach?
Well what do you think the difference is between the insurance premium for normal ops and that for a war zone?
Last edited by Basil; 5th Feb 2012 at 09:09.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines
Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.
I once lost an engine on a 747 on take-off but the departure airfield was situated in what might be described as a distinctly user-unfriendly environment from many angles, passenger immigration requirements and accom., lack of engineering spares, lack of immediate engineering support etc.
As I required nearly an hour to dump fuel to landing weight, I continued on until I had dumped sufficient fuel, then landed 'at the nearest suitable airport' (suitable being significant) where passengers could be housed ( hotelled if you prefer ) and the company had relatively easy engineeing arrangements. I'm on the ground mate, fix it, I didn't even have a Mighty Ocean to cross.
On a subsequent occasion I didn't need to dump fuel, and was back on the ground as soon as we could complete the checks and get the gear down again. When the F/O pointed out that we had sufficient fuel to continue to destination on 3, I also pointed out that we also had to cross a lot of shark infested ocean. Chicken ? you bet.
There was absolutely no excuse for the subject 747 to continue across the pond - as it was described. If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.
I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
If that makes me a Dinosaur - tough. I can live with it.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't 3 engine DC-10's and Tristars cross those same shark infested waters?
(yes, I'm an "If It Ain't Boeing I'm Not Goin " man - I, usually, have a choice and the choice is mine - I pay, now.)
But ........ they are designed to.
Why compromise built in, deliberate, design safety for commercial expediency ?
I repeat ...
Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.
Anyhow, that subject has been hammered to death on a previous thread, I only commented because someone else had drifted slightly.
I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorkshire tyke
He wasn't indicted because...... There was no case to answer. He was not flying over shark infested ocean GC between LAX and LHR!
Great idea next time I have a non normal I'll throw away my years of experience as an instructor and take a straw poll of the passengers. Would you facing surgery prefer your opinion over that of a surgeon?
You yourself admit through commercial expediency and passenger convenience to not return to your departure airfield.
Personally I put my faith in logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
Comparing you to a dinosaur is a travesty, to dinosaurs.
He wasn't indicted because...... There was no case to answer. He was not flying over shark infested ocean GC between LAX and LHR!
Great idea next time I have a non normal I'll throw away my years of experience as an instructor and take a straw poll of the passengers. Would you facing surgery prefer your opinion over that of a surgeon?
You yourself admit through commercial expediency and passenger convenience to not return to your departure airfield.
Personally I put my faith in logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
Comparing you to a dinosaur is a travesty, to dinosaurs.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from a humble SLF viewpoint, I'm a little disturbed that the disabled bizjet is seen by most as an 'obstacle', to be compared with repair works or a hole in the runway. If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?
overthewing,
IF the situation was as reported, there would be no one in the obstructing aircraft. They'd all be long gone.
If you read back through this thread, you'll find that we carefully calculate take-off and landing weight (mass) using runway length, over-run and obstruction figures (and numerous other factors).
IF the situation was as reported, there would be no one in the obstructing aircraft. They'd all be long gone.
If you read back through this thread, you'll find that we carefully calculate take-off and landing weight (mass) using runway length, over-run and obstruction figures (and numerous other factors).
If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?
You may be interested to know that it is standard procedure in the UK, if the weather and runway length allow, to have an aircraft touch down before the previous aircraft that landed has vacated the runway. This is a much more dynamic situation than having a stationary obstruction at a known distance from the threshold but it doesn't seem to raise many questions.
Passenger aircraft operate in/out of airports with a large variation in runway length, width, slope, altitude, surface friction, etc. There are established methods to calculate the required stopping distances and to add a safety margin to these. What's beyond the end of the runway, once you have taken "stopway" into consideration, is fairly academic. There is only a certain amount of "what if?" you can reasonably do: for example, 09R at LHR has a dual carriageway and a petrol station 4-500m from the far end... This has not, to my knowledge, stopped anyone taking off or landing.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Yellow Pen IIRC the same airframe lost an engine ( a different engine but in the same position on the wing) a few weeks later near CEA Shock horror it continued to LHR.