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

BA777 stuck "IN" runway at Antigua

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

BA777 stuck "IN" runway at Antigua

Old 4th Jun 2002, 09:59
  #21 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Few Cloudy, there is a new topic on JB; posters from hell, you are next on the list
HotDog is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2002, 10:59
  #22 (permalink)  
mainfrog2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Based on what I can remember from years ago, concrete wasn't used in this case and would probably have needed a lot of water sparayed on it to make it set properly without it cracking and damaging.

Bitumen comes in lots of varieties and is graded on it's penetration. You take a sample of bitumen and a standard test needle is dropped into it,how far it penetrates the bitumen is how hard it is and consequently its load bearing ability with the correct aggregate

If you use the wrong kind it can't bear the weight so the tarmac used for your driveway is a higher penetration reading than on motorways.

When you lay it on the road you can't easily tell what kind of bitumen you are using so presumably because this work was carried out over night no one would have been aware of a problem until the first heavy aircraft was on it. The fact that the aircraft was turning would have put the surface under even greater stress. Basically this fault goes back to the manufacturer of the tarmac getting his tanks mixed up or poor quality control, not the fault of the airport or the airline concerned.
 
Old 4th Jun 2002, 21:18
  #23 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hot Dog - I'm working on it!

Capt Airclues - I actually meant taking consequences such as - a note in the notam about 180s - a reassesment of the bearing strength ( there are "rigid" and "flexible" pavements whose applicable strengths depend on traverse speed, AUW and aircraft type and are usually published and kept in ops planning) or even a change of aircraft type.

Any of these actions would show a concern about the state of the RW. The criticism was not of the crew but the operation.
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2002, 08:57
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Few Cloudy....let it go dude.....you can't salvage anything from this. You engaged keyboard before brain, everyone's done it!
vegas_jonny is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2002, 18:28
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vegas_Johny

You are so right!!!

Few Cloudy

All your posts on this thread speak volumes about you, while contributing absolutely nothing. Grow up mate!

The most interesting question was, how would you have handled this differently to prevent the incident? But of course, you canĀ“t answer that can you!
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 06:44
  #26 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, as the thread has become a forum for BA self defence versus one critic, I can't see much future in yet another reply but here goes anyway.

The question was "How could the incident have been avoided? " In most major airlines, there is an airport state/ notam department. This department keeps/ publishes facility and runway data in the company route documentation. It can be that a documentation supplier such as Jeppesen or Airad is used. It, or a separate department then publishes any change from the documented 'norm', in the form of a Notam which is then seen by the dispatch dept./crew and acted upon if neccessary.

If Ops had received the data about the repair, it should have been Notamed in this way. It would then have been up to the Dispatch/Crew what action to take - possibly to attempt the 180 before the RW end for instance. A crew would never knowingly taxy over soft pavement.

If, as has been reported since my original post, this information was not made available to BA in time for the flight, then no blame can attach. It depends upon what really happened to the Antigua information. Certainly a subsequent Take Off would have to be assessed in the light of any unuseable pavement.
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 09:25
  #27 (permalink)  
mainfrog2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Few Cloudy does the fact that it has become a BA self defence versus one critic suggest anything to you.
 
Old 6th Jun 2002, 12:30
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Oxon, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exclamation

Few Cloudy,
in that part of the world, irregularities are often not Notammed at all until crews start to report the shortcomings.
So an airline's "airport state/ notam department", which for most of us today consists of nothing but one man, who would in any case probably be abed at the time the flight was departing the caribbean, would be unaware of the problem.

A few years ago on a neighbouring island I was cleared for takeoff with the appendage "and by the way the last 1000ft of the runway are closed" (!!!) .... none of this was in the Notam for that day.

Having spent the past six years operating into that region, I'm bound to conclude that the VC Bird incident could have happened to anybody, myself included!

rgds, DCD
DCDriver is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 15:23
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He's making a play to be the Forum's biggest bore since the Guvnor! Let it go Man! Or are we going to flog this non-incident to death and use it as an excuse to contemplate our navels and examine exactly what we can all learn from this amazing incident (yawn)? End of thread all round?
Notso Fantastic is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 16:23
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well apparently a spokesman for the airport has said they did not NOTAM the resurfacing work because it was taking place overnight when the airport was closed and was expected to be completed by the time the airport opened. So that should put this one to bed.
Hand Solo is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 18:32
  #31 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't you believe it! It'll be back!
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2002, 19:30
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Few Cloudy wrote "It would then have been up to the Dispatch/Crew what action to take - possibly to attempt the 180 before the RW end for instance." And where, sir, would the new runway data for takeoff come from for this now indiscriminately shortenend runway come from? From all indications so far, the only blame is with the airport authority/contractor for shoddy repair.
Shore Guy is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2002, 07:51
  #33 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Well look at it this way fans... It's kind of a slow week and you would have missed all the fun without FC.
Few Cloudy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.