Virgin landing gear incident LGW!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
LAS1997,
I agree with your sentiment. Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?
I agree with your sentiment. Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the pilot do a bouncer and then go airbourne again briefly on purpose to try and free the gear hoping it might drop quickly and give the rightside some more support.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why can't they bring Gatwick's other runway into use that is used when the main runway is having maintenance carried out? I assume it has something to do with fire cover but surely cover could have been put back by now at least at a lower level?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?
I doubt there are many other airfields with the same runway length / crash cat. Engineering cover might, in this case, also be a factor to rapidly assess situation v status of the gear.
Anyway, where do you think the Capt's car was parked
NoD
Looks like one, maybe two fuse plugs blowing on the port side during the rollout/stop. Looks like they also *just* avoided a pod scrape on No.3.
Fantastic job.
Looks like airfield open again as of 1905L
Fantastic job.
Looks like airfield open again as of 1905L
Last edited by Wycombe; 29th Dec 2014 at 18:08. Reason: Update
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why can't they bring Gatwick's other runway into use that is used when the main runway is having maintenance carried out? I assume it has something to do with fire cover but surely cover could have been put back by now at least at a lower level?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously an excellent outcome for Virgin, the Crew Passengers and aviation as a whole.
I wonder if anyone does the maths to calculate how much it costs for Gatwick to be closed for an hour or how long it is/was. Its not just the aircraft that have been diverted but of course they are now in the wrong position for their next flight etc.
Who pays the costs of all these diversions? Do Gatwick get paid for the loss of income of having the runway closed?
Obviously it would have been nice to have had a choice of diverting to Manston but then someone would have to pay the costs of keeping the airfield open with emergency fire service car and sufficient staff to sort out an incident like this.
Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it instead.
Its extremely unlikely to happen though.
I wonder if anyone does the maths to calculate how much it costs for Gatwick to be closed for an hour or how long it is/was. Its not just the aircraft that have been diverted but of course they are now in the wrong position for their next flight etc.
Who pays the costs of all these diversions? Do Gatwick get paid for the loss of income of having the runway closed?
Obviously it would have been nice to have had a choice of diverting to Manston but then someone would have to pay the costs of keeping the airfield open with emergency fire service car and sufficient staff to sort out an incident like this.
Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it instead.
Its extremely unlikely to happen though.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelvin D - If you had read my previous post you would have been informed that the reason for the return was probably loss of # 4 hydraulic system.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hartley Wintney .UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the landing impact was exactly as intended.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.
Great job not impacting nacelles 3 + 4, with subsequent engine damage.
I think Mr Branson owes this crew a holiday in Neckar.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.
Great job not impacting nacelles 3 + 4, with subsequent engine damage.
I think Mr Branson owes this crew a holiday in Neckar.
Psychophysiological entity
Doubt there's time to pussy-foot around with a dainty landing if a lot of your brakes are stowed away.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it instead
NB the VS340 landed at LHR, and blocked a runway for 24hrs? or more. Despite being requested to "bog off" they did not, and Manston was available. This incident always was looking likely to end as it did (runway closed for an hour or 2, then tow off), whereas the 340 was known to be going to land and not be moveable.
The "fallout" of this incident in disruption terms will likely be less than the NATS computer **** up earlier this month...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to the pilot and the person on the radio offering advice for him all the way through the incident. A "small" jet was sent up to take a look at the visible damaged so no need for a "tower fly past" and as far as i know from the plan over the radio the pilot did not plan to do any bounce on the runway.
all handled very professional by the crew and airline.
The intention for recovery from the aircraft when on the ground was to let small groups of Pax off evenly to prevent any more damage to the aircraft.
all handled very professional by the crew and airline.
The intention for recovery from the aircraft when on the ground was to let small groups of Pax off evenly to prevent any more damage to the aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed that the leading edge devices between the engines and between the engines and fuselage retracted at touchdown (spoiler deployment?). Is this a "normal" event or something indicative of the issue they may have been dealing with?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. A previous post said it was at FL320 when it turned back.
2. Wing gear alternate extension.
3. Bounced / firm landing.
As said earlier all signs of a system 4 hydraulic failure.
1. Ops/Eng says come home.
2. Alternate extend wing gear & outboard flaps unfortunately right side wing gear gets fouled on the door.
3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no deployment of the ground spoilers (sys #4) on touch down which would cause a pitch up if they were armed due to remaining spoilers (sys 2&3).
Manual braking using system 1 for the rollout (antiskid-yes, autobrake - no)
The leading edge retracts on selection of reverse thrust completely normal. They were extended for the approach.
2. Wing gear alternate extension.
3. Bounced / firm landing.
As said earlier all signs of a system 4 hydraulic failure.
1. Ops/Eng says come home.
2. Alternate extend wing gear & outboard flaps unfortunately right side wing gear gets fouled on the door.
3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no deployment of the ground spoilers (sys #4) on touch down which would cause a pitch up if they were armed due to remaining spoilers (sys 2&3).
Manual braking using system 1 for the rollout (antiskid-yes, autobrake - no)
The leading edge retracts on selection of reverse thrust completely normal. They were extended for the approach.
Last edited by SMOC; 29th Dec 2014 at 20:00.