Virgin landing gear incident LGW!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st why did the Capt decide to keep the passengers/crew in the air for 4 hrs obviously getting very worried when a dump of fuel takes approx. 50mins and a return to Gatwick would take whatever from the point of the problem starting (after take off?)
- Fuel Dump is intended to get aircraft down to MLW, and some tanks cannot be dumped in some aircraft (not sure about 744?). In some emergencies, you then want to burn more to get to minimum weight/fuel which takes time. Clearly this was not a "time critical" issue.
- The nature of the problem will be assessed by airline and Boeing engineers for potential solutions. This takes time, and worth giving them the maximum possible.
1st why did the Capt decide to keep the passengers/crew in the air for 4 hrs obviously getting very worried when a dump of fuel takes approx. 50mins and a return to Gatwick would take whatever from the point of the problem starting (after take off?)
Would you rather have a safe landing after 4 hours or a runway excursion after 50 minutes resulting in damage/fire, injury and loss of life?
Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation
A 747 requires A9, but can in some circumstances accept A7, of course this is an aircraft with a serious issue so will require a full capability
Stansted & Luton are A7
So where would the quieter airport get the capability to deal with a larger aircraft if they don't have it? They can't take it from one close by as that would reduce that one's capability. Or should a random location be A10 and have equipment and staff doing nothing but wait for a divert! Who would pay for the rare times it would be needed?
(A10 BTW is for an A380)
Airport Categorisation
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?
The answer can vary and we do not know the exact circumstances here. But as the TV showed, the runway filled with emergency vehicles. So priority 1 is to stop the aircraft on the runway and get it assessed ASAP, and a narrow taxiway offers less options, and takes longer.
If the aircraft is assessed 100% safe, and can be taxied, then you might choose to do so. However, without full gear, probably hydraulic problems from posts above, I would guess it was never an option here. Just look at how close the #3 engine was to the ground.
There is a theme running here... safety is priority #1. Airport running efficiency very much #2. Also the case with NATS - despite all the fuss over the Dec 2013 and Dec 2014 computer problems, there were nil safety issues. Does not stop the MPs going off on one about the delays of course
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?
But which way would you turn, one way that could overstress the remaining gear, or the way that could tip the aircraft towards where the missing gear is or would it be safer to get the passengers off first?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
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.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.
Of course you don't want to waste valuable landing distance (QRH says 8020' for F30, 290T LW, Gear Disagree one wing or body gear up), but quite honestly I don't see any reason to plant it down like this. Lucky they didn't break or overstress the remaining gears.
Why risk messing the runway at Gatwick when there's other long runways in the country such as Brize Norton. In the time she circled and burnt of fuel and liquors no doubt a considerable contingent of emergency services could have been stationed there by the time she landed without any disruption to travelers.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who care's about anyone else? I couldn't give a monkeys about Billybob who can't get to his meeting in time, these things happen.
I'd rather get down at a place I'm familiar with and worry about my aircraft / passengers rather than anyone else.
People's plans can be changed easily.
I'd rather get down at a place I'm familiar with and worry about my aircraft / passengers rather than anyone else.
People's plans can be changed easily.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Classic we would have deactivated the Body Gear Steering (therefore limited turning capability) and the Autobrakes. Up until the early 90s we would have retracted the opposite symmetrical gear but that changed to "land on all available gear" . Good job done by the crew and it gave me something to watch this afternoon while near MAYfield.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone have a link to the ATC recording of this incident?
OK even listening and making a recording is as well!
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/206...tions-law.html
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the pilot had family/friends as Pax on the flight, flight has been re scheduled for Tomorrow and they are being put up in a hotel over night.
Crew are to interviewed by AIB tonight.
Crew are to interviewed by AIB tonight.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why risk messing the runway at Gatwick when there's other long runways in the country such as Brize Norton. In the time she circled and burnt of fuel and liquors no doubt a considerable contingent of emergency services could have been stationed there by the time she landed without any disruption to travelers.
Even as it turned out this was Christmas week so a significant number of completely full Easyjet flights will have been completely cancelled (short turnaround gives little other option on one hour or less duration flights) and those displaced passengers will find it very difficult to get seats on anything else. But if the worst had happened the airport could easily have been closed for at least 1 to 2 weeks.
So why on earth take the risk, especially when Gatwick is also a long haul hub where the consequences for passengers of prolonged closure are usually much more severe (i.e can't drive or get a train or coach instead).
If this incident had turned out badly that very question would have been asked big time far and wide and especially in Parliament. So even though it didn't turn out badly this time I still ask why on earth not spend the small amount of money to raise Brize Norton's crash capability to 10/E including the possible laying of foam on the runway (which in any 1970s film depictions I watched of what would probably happen with a fictional aircraft with a failed under carriage always seemed to be the only conceivable way of handling this situation).
Instead Gatwick might have had to close down for weeks just so that Captain didn't have to get a taxi back home to Gatwick and/or so that Virgin's operational costs in repairing the aircraft would be significantly lower (assuming that is that Easyjet, Norwegian, BA etc don't all fire compensation suits against Virgin).
AeroSpark
Landing on partial gear is potentially hazardous and could possibly end up disastrously.
Taxying on partial gear is potentially hazardous and could possible end up disastrously.
You HAVE to attempt a landing,( what goes up must come down) you DON'T have to attempt to taxi.
Genuine question from a non-aviator, having just landed safely at 150kts or whatever the speed was, why is it deemed unsafe to slowly taxi the aircraft far enough clear of the runway so the airport can remain open?
Taxying on partial gear is potentially hazardous and could possible end up disastrously.
You HAVE to attempt a landing,( what goes up must come down) you DON'T have to attempt to taxi.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: EU
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A professional job bringing a 747 back to earth safely with a missing MLG. Dumping and rebalancing remaining fuel. The crew deserve much praise for that.
But can we please stop with the praise for the landing? The videos show little flare and a big bounce. Please stop telling us that was intended by the PF! Horseradish! Even with 3/4 elevator control a normal landing should have been a priority with dodgy gear.
And I also agree that we must have better places to send aeroplanes which need to perform an emergency landing? LGW?! I am sure it suits Virgin to go there, but are there better options? If not, in a country where the Government is doing its best to ensure LHR and LGW are run at max capacity, we need to create them.
But can we please stop with the praise for the landing? The videos show little flare and a big bounce. Please stop telling us that was intended by the PF! Horseradish! Even with 3/4 elevator control a normal landing should have been a priority with dodgy gear.
And I also agree that we must have better places to send aeroplanes which need to perform an emergency landing? LGW?! I am sure it suits Virgin to go there, but are there better options? If not, in a country where the Government is doing its best to ensure LHR and LGW are run at max capacity, we need to create them.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ipoh
Age: 71
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo! Well done coming in safely onto terra firma for a safe landing. Everybody walked away safe and sound.
Had a colleague did that in DFW more than a decade ago. All safe and sound!
To all who wrote the negative posts about firm landing etc..stfu, you were never there!
Had a colleague did that in DFW more than a decade ago. All safe and sound!
To all who wrote the negative posts about firm landing etc..stfu, you were never there!