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

Incident at Heathrow

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

Incident at Heathrow

Old 24th May 2013, 20:13
  #221 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 58
The 319 does indeed have such an overwing exit with a slide unfolding over the trailing edge. The 320 has 2 such exits on each side.

The slides come down inboard of the engine and are usually well clear of the hot metal. A passengers natural momentum would carry them well away to the rear, also the evacuation would normally start only once the engine was shut down.

The BA 318 does NOT have an overwing exit.

Last edited by busTRE; 24th May 2013 at 20:15.
busTRE is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:15
  #222 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 184

read back a few hundred posts over and you will see why both LTN and STN
were not chosen to divert too...

LTN had dirty wx, and app over large town...not the longest on runways either,

in 1967 a British Eagle Britannia took off from LAP (LHR) and one of its main LG
bogies got stuck and they could not retract the gear nor extend it again so she diverted to Manston and landed on a foam covered runway after burning up most of the fuel in a hold...poor old bird never flew again.


that is one of the only LHR diverts i can remember on a full emergency...
and VS a340 in 1997.

oh i wish to add BMA 737 kegworth did divert to EMA

also in 1968 was BOAC 707-465 G-ARWE (EX EAGLE BTW) had an engine fire after t/o and returned immediately to LAP on now long gone runway 05

Last edited by rog747; 24th May 2013 at 20:24.
rog747 is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:16
  #223 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 62
Posts: 215
boeing 737 all versions do not,
Ah, that explains it. The training course used a 737 cabin.

How does the slide get released, given that it has to go sideways and not just downwards under gravity?
overthewing is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:23
  #224 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 58
The slide is inflated by a near explosive influx of air. It thus quickly assumes its natural inflated shape which is effectively an L shape which follows the side of the fuselage and down the back of the wing, gravity plays little part in the shaping. Worth noting that the airbus off wing slides can be used in any flap config whereas some older designs can only be used with flaps fully extended.
busTRE is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:33
  #225 (permalink)  
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369

"The flight crew's handling of the incident certainly seems adequate, but what's with this blind and automatic praise of BA? If the fan cowl latches were not secured and that is a big if at this point is that also what you pay for when you fly BA?" Quote from Rick Studder

Adequate? Crews train in the Sim for all emergencies but a sim is a sim.
Having been a crew member in a flight deck with a real emergency there are factors that a simulator can never recreate.

Human factors. We all have different levels of fear and performance under pressure.

Any crew who maintain a level if calm whilst carrying out their drills in a real situation is far more than adequate.

Praise at the highest level is due indeed for all on board.
Aircraft safe back on the ground without loss of life or injury?
How can you better that?

As for speculation regarding BA's maintenance?

Let the AAIB do their job before pointing any fingers.

BA has demonstrated on this occasion and in the last major incident with Boeing 777 MMM what a well trained and safe airline they are.

Not just Flight Deck but to the professional way the cabin crews kept passengers calm during the events.

Simulators don't have passengers on board to add to the equation.

I think all involved should get the credit they deserve.

Last edited by coopervane; 24th May 2013 at 20:41.
coopervane is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:35
  #226 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,412
How you can better that????

Make sure the aircraft is serviceable before takeoff!
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:37
  #227 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 58
Make sure the aircraft is serviceable before takeoff!
And at this stage you already know that it wasn't? Wow, a psychic pilot, what will they think of next!
busTRE is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:40
  #228 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 184
the eagle manston diversion....

rog747 is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:41
  #229 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
I'm assuming that since according to ITN the crew were advised of the separation of the cowls from the engines by ATC (seen by the CT) immediately after rotation, the natural option would be to return to LHR immediately, which presumably would have been agreed with ATC if no other problems were apparent that would otherwise have necessitated diversion to LTN or STN
Of course you'd go to LHR - no point in going to LTN if your cowlings are at LHR

To all considering the time aspect, very rarely, even Red LAND ASAP, is an all out attempt made to get on the ground as soon as physically possible. The only possible exception is a confirmed, unextinqushed, engine Fire. In the event you do want to get on the ground ASAP, 99% of the time it will be the briefed return to the departure airfield. Only exception I can think of is AWOPS when you have a pre-briefed TO Altn.

We will have to await what happened here, and when. But if (and it is a big if) all cowls came off on TO, and the aircraft was flying fine, there would seem no urgency given a static situation and the rather too frequent times this has happened before. The interesting aspect will be what/why then happened to #2?
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:51
  #230 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: York
Posts: 14

I have read some rubbish on these pages of PPRuNe but never as biased as this one. How far up BA's bum do you need to be, how all and sundry think everyone did a wonderful job etc.etc. My 20000hrs experience says that when I loose an engine cowling I check all engine parameters, and then, dump fuel, if required, and land at the nearest suitable airport. Nowhere in my thinking do I take my customers for a ride around the Southern English countryside, and then return to base. Lets wait for the subsequent inquiry, available to the public, because there needs to be one, a lot of people were very lucky today.
Wisden Wonder is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:54
  #231 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Hmm. Lots of speculation, few clear facts yet. It does sound depressingly plausible that the cowls may not have been properly latched.
If so, that is surely a maintenance error, but also a crew failing - inadequate preflight check.
I find it interesting that several folk have immediately opted for an electronic warning system. Now why should that work better than using your eyeballs? Plenty aircraft have come to grief despite warning systems shouting out to the crew! Admittedly a back up for the lazy or busy day helps, just in case. And the possible impact of management pressures for efficiency does need to be thought about - how often is it?.

Luckily this aircraft didn't come to grief - and this crew and many of their colleagues, at least the ones who read incident and accident reports thoroughly, will not make that error again, if their error it was.
Go on - guess how I know? Yep, been there, have made that particular classic boob. Flying around to land while hoping the cowl won't come off fully and take part or all of the tail with it certainly concentrates the mind. There but for fortune...

(And on the little aircraft I fly now I have dayglo stripes to show me that crirical bolts are as they should be !)

Last edited by biscuit74; 24th May 2013 at 20:54.
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:54
  #232 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,387



radio calls about what parts you might have left on the ground are much lower in decision making priority.

What symptoms are apparant should take priority the rest is could-ofs. might-ofs etc.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 20:59
  #233 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,234
And, unlike Vnukovo last week, not a piece of hand baggage in sight.
Not so. The item of home video shown on the Italian website (linked in post #75 by ILS27LEFT) shows hand luggage.

Despite the very jerky movement of the camera, I could see a handbag, a duty free bag and wheeled cabin bag and more. Pax are Pax.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:09
  #234 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,305
The item of home video shown on the Italian website shows hand luggage.
Yes, I was wrong about that.

I also wrote in the same post that AFAIK there had been no reports of injuries, which was true at the time of writing, but I see the BBC are now saying that 3 people were treated for minor injuries.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:18
  #235 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 58
Posts: 69
Widen wonder and others....seem to be numerous armchair experts on this thread with little knowledge of what has to be done w.r.t time management to reposition to a safe landing....and we are probably not talking about an incident of 707 WE seriousness here......WW considers dumping fuel yet appears to criticise the BA crew for their tour of Southern England lasting just 27 minutes....how long would WW consider remaining airborne to dump fuel? And would that really be a good idea with an engine on fire...is he aware no jettison facility on the 319?....if indeed a fire warning was received....it may be that the loss of insecure cowlings suppressed any fire warning which dont forget are only heat detectors....little point commenting on how many hours someone may have with obviously no Airbus knowledge and therefore no appreciation of how complex the ECAM drill can be.....if indeed any were requested...remember the QF A380 ECAM?.Seems to be just plain old anti BA angry rhetoric....good job by the crew btw.
Flap 80 is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:26
  #236 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,442
Thanks Flap80. I posted a reply to Wisden but it was far more vitriolic than your more measured response. Your are absolutely correct though. Presumably they took a ride round the English countryside because they were looking for the fuel jettison switches!!!
Megaton is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:27
  #237 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 24
Nowhere in my thinking do I take my customers for a ride around the Southern English countryside, and then return to base.
Really? Airborne for 26 mins. Flew the SID. Straight to LAM. Quick 180 and then a straight in return. 20000hrs you may have. However, aircraft have been lost despite only having minor technical problems due to undue rushing and panic. I'd have to agree with the rhetoric comment from Flap 80 above.
coffeewhiteone is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:28
  #238 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,886
Krystal, a duplicate inspection is indeed routine if oil has been replenished on more than one engine. Which is most days.
Oil caps have been left off engines before.
Not everywhere.

'ETOPS Maintained' requires different persons or different methods (EG hand pump or gravity fill) on each engine. Some operators/regulators require separate signatures in the log, others pay lip service to 'best practice'.

If UK registered A320s or B737s requires a duplicate inspection after oil servicing then I am seriously out of compliance.

One photo showed a slide coming down from the back of the port wing. Having recently been on a BA safety training course, I didn't think such a slide existed?

And was it really wise to use those overwing exits when the engines were in such a state? Even if neither was on fire after landing, would the mess of hot exposed metal in the presence of fuel not be a potential fire risk?
Erm, what hot exposed metal? The fan cowl covers the accessories on the fan case. They don't get that hot.
TURIN is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:41
  #239 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 62
Posts: 215
Erm, what hot exposed metal? The fan cowl covers the accessories on the fan case. They don't get that hot.
Thanks, I didn't know that. As a passenger sat in my favourite seat, I don't think I'd have taken the risk - I'd be worried about hot engine / sparks / uncontained fuel vapour. Not being an engineer, seems reasonable to me!
overthewing is offline  
Old 24th May 2013, 21:44
  #240 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 59
Posts: 49
What odd comments here....

I work with the airbus every day, there is not jettison system and never will be, with the fan cowls gone they have likely damaged the engine ( as they did for the right one given the fuel or hydraulic trail ) you land ASAP, with the cowls gone the fire bottles are useless and there is a very good chance they have damaged something departing the engine.

Spare a thought please as there will be one or more guys in engineering feeling very sick tonight..
Rimmer 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 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.