Incident at Heathrow

[ManaAdaSystem]

The guys were probably busy dealing with the problems, doing check lists, communicating with ATC, company, pax, crew, etc, so the extra track miles (time) could have been needed for all of this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there have been other emergencies into LHR where ATC have directed the aircraft to other, secondary LON airports?

[spet0789]

@NigelOnDraft Thanks - I think that's the interesting point.

I've only ever flown SE aircraft and as I'm sure you know you're always thinking then what's beneath you both for your own safety as everyone else's (and Rule 5)!

I suppose the point is that airlines discount to zero the chance of a total loss of power and so for them what's on the ground is somewhat irrelevant. And as you say won't even appear on IFR charts.

So... to you and the airline pilots on this thread - if you had secured one engine and the other was suspect, what would you have done? Changed your plan and diverted elsewhere or returned over the 25 mile urban area to your original alternate?

[busTRE]

NOD

No I don't either and never will. What is safest for the A/C will usually be safest for people on ground too. The best way of protecting those on the ground is to get it to a runway safely.

[NigelOnDraft]

but there have been other emergencies into LHR where ATC have directed the aircraft to other, secondary LON airports?

Some examples would be of interest As well as clarifiying by what you mean by "direct"? I tend to tell ATC where I will be diverting to, after making a team based decision with my colleague, not by asking ATC. Else sims would be a lot easier If they read their pre-prepared speech about "LHR being busy go elshewere blah blah" I turn the RT down for a couple of minutes

[jackharr]

It’s not a matter of IF but WHEN something major occurs at/near Heathrow.........or over London.

And the “wise men” (except of course Boris & Co) want to rule out an airport in the Thames Estuary.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

To the crew, both sides of the lock door, all I can say is

[speculate]Always assuming they checked the cowling latches on the walk-round, that is [/speculate]

[Kalium Chloride]

Photos of the starboard engine looking a bit poorly here:

Cowls missing from both engines on BA A319

[Totally_Bananas]

24 mins airborne time and flying over one of the worlds most populated cities...

with LTN or STN very close.

Interesting decision!!

Glad it all worked out well in the end.

[LookingForAJob]

Route

Although the crew of an aircraft with a problem will have first call on routes etc., in the absence of any preference guidance to UK controllers is:

It is desirable that aircraft in an emergency should not be routed over densely populated areas, particularly if there is reason to believe that the aircraft’s ability to remain in controlled flight is compromised or that parts of the aircraft could detach in flight. If this is inconsistent with providing the most appropriate service to the aircraft, for example when any extended routeing could further jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, the most expeditious route is the one that should be given. Where possible,
when expeditious routeing is not required, suggestions of alternative runways or aerodromes together with the rationale that the routeing would avoid densely populated areas and be consistent with safety, shall be passed to the pilot and his intentions requested.

It is recognised that controllers providing en route services at ACCs may not be aware of the boundaries of major cities, towns or villages. However, controllers providing aerodrome, approach or approach radar control services should be familiar with the centres of population within their areas of jurisdiction.

Controllers should be aware that aircraft experiencing engine failure may also
experience associated handling difficulties and should therefore limit manoeuvring instructions to the minimum necessary.

As I recall, this guidance came about after an AAIB recommendation where an aircraft with severe problems (perhaps only evident after the flight was completed) was vectored over central London.

Important note - I do not seek to suggest that this has any relevance to today's events.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by demomonkey

I guess familiarity

• If LHR is your home base vs STN isn't
• You have the LHR procedures/frequencies drummed into your brain vs not having the faintest about STN
• You still have the LHR booklet open vs the STN one being hidden in a diversions manual at the back somewhere
• Technically STN could be less track miles away but if it takes you 5 mins to set it up and brief it rather than 30 seconds to say "Back to 27R?" which is better?

I'm sure the crew would have taken a look at the situation and if they had perceived serious doubts about their ability to make it back to LHR would have put it down on the nearest bit of tarmac too them anyway possible.

Of course, these points all seem to be counted not significant for the substantial number of following aircraft which had to be subsequently diverted to Stansted, without seemingly any of the concerns above.

It would also have avoided the gross interruption to BA's business for the rest of the day.

[Del Prado]

If they read their pre prepared speech about "Heathrow being busy go elshewere blah blah" I turn the RT down for a couple of minutes

Well said. Although to be fair it wouldn't be used in circumstances similar to today's.

Question- if you depart 09R (for example) would you brief for a return (in the event of emergency) to 09L as that is the landing runway?

[BBK]

In the absence of any hard facts to the contrary then at face value the crew did a good job. Well done. The passengers are back safely and the technical investigation can begin although that won't stop ill informed speculation here on pprune!

Regarding diverting to another airport then I imagine those comments are made by non pilots as it would be usual for the flight crew to want to return to their home base in a high workload situation. That doesn't mean that that aspect will not be examined by the AAIB. My experienced of chatting to AAIB inspectors is that they look at everything.

Del Prado 9L is the longer runway so that would make it a good choice all things being equal.

[Flap 5]

There will certainly be interesting lessons to learn from this, especially as the crew got the aircraft back on the ground intact.

The crew would not need to know the Stansted ILS frequency. They could just enter EGSS and the runway in use as the alternate destination, accept radar vectors to the ILS, use the autopilot (with the rudder trimmed correctly on the A319) and fly the approach and landing. The database knows the ILS frequency and, if necessary, ATC knows it anyway.

I wonder if BA practise engine failures in the simulator using the autopilot? It would seem sensible to use it as you can on the A319, as long as the rudder is trimmed, but simulator base checks normally require manually flown engine failure procedures. Certainly the Kegworth incident may well have been different if the captain had used the autopilot instead of flying manually as per his training. It allows you to monitor the situation much better.

[coffeewhiteone]

Question- if you depart 09R (for example) would you brief for a return (in the event of emergency) to 09L as that is the landing runway?

Interesting question. Many people suggest that ATC would want you to land back on the take off runway following a failure on takeoff. The reason being it is easier to delay aircraft sat on the ground on the taxiway queuing for departure than it is to mess up the stream of aircraft on the approach.

Personally I brief to land on the landing runway as following a catastrophic failure on takeoff would lead to a runway closure by NATs as engine debris, bits of birds and engine/hydraulic fluids may be contaminating the runway requiring a full runway inspection.

[DaveReidUK]

As I recall, this guidance came about after an AAIB recommendation where an aircraft with severe problems (perhaps only evident after the flight was completed) was vectored over central London.

Yes, if you're referring to the Evergreen B741 event, the full extent of the aircraft's incapacity wasn't initially known (to ATC):

ATC’s intention was to use 35 track miles from when the aircraft was heading 315º to radar vector it from the left base position onto the final approach. At that stage the controllers believed that the aircraft was capable of reduced thrust and not suffering a total loss of thrust on the three remaining engines. It was only when the co-pilot transmitted the warning that there may not be enough power to make the landing did the full extent of the problem become known.

[coffeewhiteone]

I wonder if BA practise engine failures in the simulator using the autopilot? It would seem sensible to use it as you can on the A319, as long as the rudder is trimmed, but simulator base checks normally require manually flown engine failure procedures.

Yes this is practised. Engine failures with and without autopilot. Of course the engine failure on takeoff won't involve an AP but at 100ft this can be engaged all the way down to a CAT3A autoland which is recommended to reduce workload.

[spet0789]

Well, let's see what the AAIB have to say.

Points of interest related both to the root cause and to the response and great to be able to learn the lessons with no cost to life.

[OPENDOOR]

Are you suggesting that they shut down the wrong engine?

What a bizarre comment.

Unsure which engine is the problem, what's bizarre about that?

[Walnut]

My very strong hunch is this a/c suffered multiple bird strikes. No 1 was destroyed, No 2 was on fire but producing thrust, the ecam will tell you to shut down the engine on fire, fortunately the crew sat on their hands and kept it going. These crew deserve a medal, as a pilot in such a situation you head for the nearest airport, flying over a built up area is not even a consideration.
The guys talking about STN are talking tosh, it would have involved a downwind landing on R/w 05, wet, with a crippled a/c, I believe they had a brake fire so clearly some some of the systems were also u/s (brakes?), maybe slow flap extention.
Lets see what the QAR reveals.

[mog1098]

Buried in that Daily Mail article linked to on page 6 is this interesting comment, which if correct tends to support the unlatched cowling theory....

"Another passenger however has described how the casing of the left engine started to come away during take off and that the right engine exploded as the plane was coming into land.

He said: 'As the plane started to gather speed on the runway for take-off, the engine casing came loose and started flapping and at the point of take-off it snapped off with a loud bang".


Runways closed at Heathrow Airport after BA plane makes emergency landing | Mail Online