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

BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?

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

BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?

Old 6th Feb 2012, 19:34
  #81 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 72
Posts: 146
Regarding the 3-engined 747, could those so prepared to criticise perhaps read the report below in its entirety before making further uninformed comments
I'd decided that further comment from me on the 3-eng 747 was unacceptable thread drift, albeit not originally blown off course by me, and was going to go back to my cave, but - and one does occasionally wonder who is 'up there' pulling the strings ! - for I had no sooner signed off from PPRuNe when I read an e-mail from a friend who would qualify for the -
.........logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
role, employed by a major International Airline, and discussing with me a totally unrelated aviation topic, but during his discourse to me he happened to write quote .......... Our Fleet Superindent actually stated at a pilots’ meeting that, if an engine on a B747 failed after reaching top of climb on a Los Angeles to London flight, it was quite in order to proceed on to London ! Not that many line pilots would have agreed with him but that’s another story…

Makes you wonder why Boeing went to all that trouble to certify the aircraft to continue flight on three engines instead of just instructing pilots to land ASAP
Certifying it to do something only satisfies the Insurance Companies, just as ensuring that The Good Book might legally allow you to land on a contaminated or partially blocked runway, it doesn't necessarily make it the most suitable action to take under the prevailing circumstances, which I agree have to be assessed each and every time.

I rest my case, must go out and snag a few Prehistoric cavemen for dinner.

Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 6th Feb 2012 at 19:44.
YorkshireTyke is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2012, 08:28
  #82 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 578
After 4 pages of interesting discussion, the question remains, did this happen, and if so, apart from a single original post, how are the reports of "a very short scary landing by all accounts" substantiated ? who's accounts and where ?.
Having made a few discrete inquiries at DGAA , nobody seems to have any recollection of this event occurring.

Given the resourceful nature of posters to these forums, has anybody found anything to indicate that this was a real event ?
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2012, 11:03
  #83 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: England
Posts: 76
Forgive an aged SLF for going off thread somewhat, but what is the opposite of landing short? In the good old days Aden Airways DC3s cominng in to Khormaksar used to cross wind half way down the runway and touch down in the last third, saving lots of taxi time to the terminal. But then those guys were used to landing downwind into mountain sides on rough stony 'strips' every day of the week (I've still got some cine I shot from the cockpit of such an event).
Four Wings is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2012, 12:25
  #84 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,347
Pretty sure I remember landing on 27R at LHR in the 90's with a stricken DC10 (Varig?) at the end of the runway that had performed a high speed reject. It had burst a load of tyres and was in the process of being moved but in the meantime the runway was re-opened with a reduced LDA. The runway had just been re-surfaced and one of the wheel rims dug a nice long groove in pristine tarmac that you could see for years afterwards.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2012, 15:06
  #85 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 72
What is the difference between the last three hundred feet of the runway closed due to runway maintenance or a disabled aircraft?

Check the charts and if you can land safely, do, if not, don't.
If you can't stop in time for whatever reason, the latter will end a lot messier especially if people are on board the disabled aircraft.
Irishboy is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2012, 15:24
  #86 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,391
especially if people are on board the disabled aircraft
They won't be.
Have a look at previous posts.
Basil is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 14:07
  #87 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 13,679
As a helicopter pilot, this all seems a lot of fuss and hand wringing about nothing. If the remaining runway was long enough for the landing aircraft to make a safe landing, i.a.w. required distances, what is the actual problem, apart from the fears of some individuals? The runway was still a runway, just a somewhat shorter one! The captain of the aircraft at the time is, by the privileges of his licence, responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. Why not just allow him the privilege of doing just that?

I was once denied landing permission at London heliport as we turned onto final approach because the management suddenly decided it wasn't safe because they had a couple of inches of snow on the FATO (raised helideck) after a shower had passed through. We could have landed perfectly safely, even if an engine had failed (we operated Class 1) and in fact our departure point had been a helipad with much deeper snow on it.

We had to divert back to Denham where there was eighteen inches of uncleared snow. Still no major problem for us, but the pax suffered a hell of a lot of inconvenience afterwards, for no good reason except for the over-cautiousness of others who weren't in a pilot's position to judge the situation properly.

Some overly sensitive/cautious FW pilots could do themselves a bit of learning and go fly in a Class 1 performance helicopter, on a safe and legal flight, to and from an average private landing site. That would open their eyes a bit with regards to "obstructed" operating areas.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2012, 22:29
  #88 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 53
Posts: 2,819
Reduced LDA - no big deal....... Too many 'captains' these days don't have the BALLS to cope with it! Too much 'touchy-feely CRM crap'.

"I say purser! What do you think about reduced LDA?"

Get over it fools....................................................... ..
White Knight is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 20:59
  #89 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL400
Posts: 398
White Knight.... Have you been at the cooking sherry?
I can only assume that you're pissed/joking.
Al Murdoch is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 09:53
  #90 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
I digress slightly, but there is relevance in that an aviating decision had to be made away from the norm. Going into LHR in HS125. ATC said continue due to a BA lined up and waiting for release. Subsequent delay to BA's release and at 500' ATC asked us to G/A. We were going to vacate at the far end so we asked if we could land long over the top. ATC approved it with a pleasant surprise at our flexibility. A win win for everyone.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 10:13
  #91 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
When was this RAT 5?

So after requesting you GA at 500' where you subsequently suggested the better course of action would be the overflight of a fully loaded aircraft and long landing to vacate at the far end, LHR tower ATC agreed to your suggestion?

Just seeing if I've got the facts straight.
JazzyKex is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 10:29
  #92 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL400
Posts: 398
RAT 5. You're saying, if I understand correctly, that you deliberately left the approach path, flew over the top of a passenger transport that was lined up for takeoff and then landed on an occupied runway, with an aircraft lined up for takeoff behind you, on your runway, on the same one.... the exact same piece of tarmac. An occupied runway. You landed on it? And ATC approved this? Was this at an airshow, or one of the world's busiest airports?
Al Murdoch is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 10:38
  #93 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,996
This is interesting. Have you ever landed in Barcelona runway 07L, or Malpensa 35L? Overflight of fully loaded passenger aircraft just before landing is quite normal on these international airports. Ok, the aircraft are on an official taxiway, but the threshold of the landing runway is quite close, a few hundred meters upwind.

So why would a light aircraft not be allowed land long, touching down 2 kilometers upwind on a runway with an occupied threshold? I wouldn't do it in a 737 or 320, but I certainly would in a Cessna 152 or slightly bigger.
PENKO is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 10:55
  #94 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
EGLL 27L: 3660m

Landing distance for an HS125 approx 1000m from touchdown. (guess)

Overfly the a/c at 400', gives a 3 degree slope of 1.33 Nm/2,470m to touchdown.

3660-2470 = 1190m to stop.

In a 125, you don't have to directly overfly, ye gods, you might even do some of that pilot stuff and manouevre!

Sometimes, I think I know why the NIMBYs and lawyers can run the place
helen-damnation is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 11:20
  #95 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
RAT5 really? When?
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 11:56
  #96 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Not quite Helen-Damnation...

Some of us realise that as long as the company that employs us to operate their aircraft, continues to pay our wages we are not there to mess around doing that "pilot stuff" if it's is detrimental to the safe operation of the aircraft... You know, the bit we get paid to do.

If a GA is the safer choice you take it, as I'm pretty sure your wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification. It would be an interesting conversation at the inquiry when, should you happen to overrun due to a reverser and brake failure you would still have to justify why the overflight was the correct choice in the circumstances.

Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... For that hire a toy at the weekend and noon around to your hearts content!

Think why we are paid to do a professional job and if we can justify our actions to the boss and the CAA. If the safest course of action requires us to depart from the rules and that can be justified, then fine, go ahead otherwise be prepared to have your job your licence or even liberty removed from you.

Last edited by Jetdriver; 11th Feb 2012 at 12:41.
JazzyKex is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 18:20
  #97 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Not so much thread creep as thread steal!

So when you go to Doha with a 1,400m threshold displacement due to WIP and do a visual approach, what's the difference? In terms of flying the a/c and the approach, diddley squat! It's an a/c. The perf calculations don't care what you fly over, only the obstacle height and whether you can stop in the LDA.

wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification
Much like the unintended float on a wet & windy day. Bet you don't always do a GA.

Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... Visual approach with a small level platform, hardly destabilised. If you refer to the "manoeuvring", it's an HS125 on a 50m wide runway. Try the old Kai Tak, JFK Canarsie or countless others.

Just a thought, if you press TOGA and the donk falls onto something, will the CAA do you for unauthorised dropping? Yes, I'm yanking your chain!
helen-damnation is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 23:29
  #98 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Smaller Antipode
Age: 87
Posts: 30
Landing long, landing short - before I was checked out for cross country flying in a glider I had to land ACROSS the runway for C****s sake, still it was 140m (459 ft.) WIDE, and Shock ! Horror ! gliders and powered aircraft used the same runway at the same time, just an unmown strip of grass separating the two.

OK, not paying pax. at International Airports, so not relevant, but ...
.......and if we can justify our actions to the boss and the CAA.......
That is the whole point, if at the Subsequent Court of Inquiry the - non pilot - judge will say " I don't understand, it says in The Ops Manual thou shouldn't, or should, do X Y Z, so why did / didn't you ? "

IF you feel that you can ultimately justify your non-standard, "pilot manouvering", actions, then go ahead, that's nothing to do with having the B**ls to do something without the approval of the Cabin Purser.
ExSp33db1rd is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 19:15
  #99 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL400
Posts: 398
Helen - all those procedures you describe (Kai Tak, JFK etc) are very, very different to what RAT5 described, and indeed your idea about manoeuvring at low level in a passenger transport at a parallel runway airport. The key difference being that they are approved instrument procedures, for which performance, obstacle clearance etc has all been calculated.
Are you really a pilot? If so, please let me know the airline so I can stay away from it. A long way away...
Al Murdoch is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2012, 20:48
  #100 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Smaller Antipode
Age: 87
Posts: 30
all those procedures you describe (Kai Tak, JFK etc) are very, very different
Absolutely ....and there is also an official "side-step" manv. promulgated, e.g. last time I landed at LAX ( a long time ago, so may not still be relevant) ATC cleared me for the ILS to 25L with a "side step" to land on 25R ( I think they actually called it 24R to help avoid confusion ? ) and being a 'foreign' airline the controller came back and said he wanted to ensure that I understood, that I was to complete an ILS to 25L, but once past the outer marker, at my discretion as to when I made the switch, I was to complete the side step manv. and actually land on the parallel runway - having subsequently been given landing clearance on the runway they wanted us to land on of course.

The reason, I think, was to allow more aircraft to be accepted for the approach, had they had to provide the appropriate separation behind aircraft on each runway, ti would have slowed the total traffic movements down, by 'mixing and matching' they got a greater utilisation of their Real Estate - I think ?

Was fun !!
ExSp33db1rd 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.