Single rwy operation at LHR 11/06/02
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single rwy operation at LHR 11/06/02
Anyone have any info re. the strichen a/c which forced single runway operation late this morning ? Heard it was a Virgin 747 with a hydraulic problem ? Just curious.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem was known about several hours before it arrived and it was advised that the 747 wouldn't be able to turn off the runway. Landed on 27R which was the departure runway at the time (longer and better surface). Stopped on the runway unable to vacate and was eventually towed off after about half an hour. 27L single runway during this time.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS008 LAX/LHR G-VTOP landed 1001Z was towed off 1032Z. A/c had hydraulic leak and arrived with a strange array of gear doors down (not sure if this was caused by alternate gear dropdown). I think it had lost its nose gear steering and although a tug was quickly on hand, it took an eternity to hook it up and get it off 27R. It was still leaking hyd fluid onto the runway and that had to be cleaned up before the runway could re-open. BA431 AMS/LHR went to BOH, didn't hear of too many more div's though.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange that you mention the landing gear door configuration; 'VAST had a similar problem on the Jubilee bank holiday weekend (Sunday the 2nd) - it arrived in at 7.20am on 09L and although it was able to vacate safely, it had to be towed back to its gate.
I noticed its forward gear doors were fully down as it taxied off the runway, which appears to be the situation with 'VTOP here.
I noticed its forward gear doors were fully down as it taxied off the runway, which appears to be the situation with 'VTOP here.
Regarding the BA431 diversion: I wonder what that cost BA (both financially and in terms of customer relations) as opposed to perhaps carrying a little more juice "for Mum"? On such a short sector I'm sure the customers must have been very pleased with their little side trip to BOH !
P.S. I'm not having a go at BA; just the "minimum trip fuel" concept that many companies have adopted over the past years.
P.S. I'm not having a go at BA; just the "minimum trip fuel" concept that many companies have adopted over the past years.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What cost to BA of carrying a little more fuel 'for mum' on every short sector, day in, day out, 365 days a year? Substantially more than the cost of a 'fuel and go' diversion to BOH. Only one diversion out of all the inbound flights suggest that the fuel policy is mostly working, even with single runway ops for 30 minutes. I suppose the skipper could have made an announcement that a broken Virgin aircraft had blocked the runway at LHR and spoiled everyones day!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I appreciate such factors as crew familiarity / passenger convenience / long runway / rescue services, why is an airliner with a known problem, which would cause failure to vacate the active runway, permitted to land at the busiest airport in the UK... even if it was originally destined to land there?
Ok I know the Commander's decision is final but would it not be more prudent for ATC to suggest a similarly equipped airport where less inevitable disruption would result?
Just a topic that has interested me for a while now (thoughts of KLM Fokker 50 / Virgin A340 crippled on the LHR runway in years past spring to mind).
Ok I know the Commander's decision is final but would it not be more prudent for ATC to suggest a similarly equipped airport where less inevitable disruption would result?
Just a topic that has interested me for a while now (thoughts of KLM Fokker 50 / Virgin A340 crippled on the LHR runway in years past spring to mind).
A case in point, Localiser Green.....
Remember reading about the following incident (which I think happened sometime last Year).
Gemini DC10F, out of EINN into (if memory serves correct) suffers (uncontained?) Eng failure somewhere over Western UK, resulting in some structural damage and fire warnings.
Crew declare emergency and ask for EGLL. LATCC offers EGVN (Brize - which is by now closest suitable that's open - it's late evening) - crew ask again for EGLL and are vectored over a heavily populated area in a potentially damaged aircraft for a landing on the 27's.
As you say, it's the Commanders decision....
Remember reading about the following incident (which I think happened sometime last Year).
Gemini DC10F, out of EINN into (if memory serves correct) suffers (uncontained?) Eng failure somewhere over Western UK, resulting in some structural damage and fire warnings.
Crew declare emergency and ask for EGLL. LATCC offers EGVN (Brize - which is by now closest suitable that's open - it's late evening) - crew ask again for EGLL and are vectored over a heavily populated area in a potentially damaged aircraft for a landing on the 27's.
As you say, it's the Commanders decision....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems to me we are maybe focusing on the wrong thing here! The busiest international airport in Europe was reduced to single runway opeartion, fine. But why? Is it because of an aircraft blockage or due to the fact it only has two runways? Get my angle? Do we need another Runway (Independent of 23) at Heathrow? Anyone think of another major hub restricted to just two runways? Discuss!
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why land at LHR
Because LHR has 2 runways it will remain open whereas any other airport will have to close. If you shut the runway at LGW it will be far more chaotic!!
Presumably LHR is where the pax were expecting to go.
Virgins' Engineering is there and so that is where you would want the aeroplane.
The crew probably didn't realise that it was going to take quite so long to be towed off.
Just a few reasons why.
Because LHR has 2 runways it will remain open whereas any other airport will have to close. If you shut the runway at LGW it will be far more chaotic!!
Presumably LHR is where the pax were expecting to go.
Virgins' Engineering is there and so that is where you would want the aeroplane.
The crew probably didn't realise that it was going to take quite so long to be towed off.
Just a few reasons why.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the engineers attending the aircraft on arrival, normally we would have had the aircraft hooked up and towed off within 10 mins, however another problem arose which prevented it being towed. At the momment the problem is under investigation so I don't want to say too much, however the delay was for safety reasons and in my view very much required. As with most engineers, we are fully aware of the implications of blocking runways etc, but safety is paramount and the disruption a consequence.
As for the strange door config, the 747 has 2 alternate gear systems, in this case the wing gear was fine as the #4 hyd system was OK so only the nose / body gear alternate system was used, due the lack of #1 hyd system there is nothing available to retract the doors.
As for the strange door config, the 747 has 2 alternate gear systems, in this case the wing gear was fine as the #4 hyd system was OK so only the nose / body gear alternate system was used, due the lack of #1 hyd system there is nothing available to retract the doors.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snapoff - thanks for the info. There was some conjecture about the integrity of the noseleg/gear? I know you cannot comment yet but that was one of the rumours doing the rounds!
From the sounds of the report the aircraft had lost 1 hydraulic system - no reason to divert, especially to what must be a shorter runway in the UK! The comments ref the BA diversion must be made by somebody who has never operated into LHR. I have operated the VS8 into LHR many times ave holding approx 20mins. Add that to the delay due to single runway operation and I am surprised more aircraft did not divert.
P.S. re the Virgin A340 with the gear problem. The BAA's vain attempt to divert the aircraft was a disgrace! Lives were at risk that afternoon and all the BAA were worried about was their commercial operation. The Captain that day chose the airfield that he was comfortable with, that was long enough. A good command decision!
P.S. re the Virgin A340 with the gear problem. The BAA's vain attempt to divert the aircraft was a disgrace! Lives were at risk that afternoon and all the BAA were worried about was their commercial operation. The Captain that day chose the airfield that he was comfortable with, that was long enough. A good command decision!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I heard on R/T, several BA a/c were asking for diversion advice whilst holding due fuel - mostly Ockham. Initial recommendations from BA Ops Control were Luton and then Bournemouth, in that order. However, when they had suggested Luton to three or so a/c, Bournemouth was the preferred as they were concerned at ground handling availabilty at Luton. Sorry to stir the pot. Just what I heard at the time.
I begin to wish I hadn't posted this - sorry chaps.
I begin to wish I hadn't posted this - sorry chaps.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localiser-green.. ATC has no authority to request an a/c to divert. The airport authority may request ATC to transmit a message to an a/c with technical problems asking the commander to consider whether he should divert to somewhere less busy. However, that message is not broadcast to an a/c which has declared an emergency, or one with fuel shortage, or if weather may present a problem at the suggested alternate.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest before anyone else suggests the ac should have diverted, they read the VS A340 report (on the AAIB) website...
There was an attempt to "persuade" the aircraft to go to Manston, and it was (I think) considered by the Captain / VS, although they then decided to stick with LHR. The AAIB subsequently pointed out that Manston did not have an adequate Fire Category...
Aircraft "break" once in a while, and then they will block runways. Other aircraft may then have to divert. Its the plan... If it happens too often, think of another solution. But once every few months seems OK to me...
NoD
There was an attempt to "persuade" the aircraft to go to Manston, and it was (I think) considered by the Captain / VS, although they then decided to stick with LHR. The AAIB subsequently pointed out that Manston did not have an adequate Fire Category...
Aircraft "break" once in a while, and then they will block runways. Other aircraft may then have to divert. Its the plan... If it happens too often, think of another solution. But once every few months seems OK to me...
NoD
Pukka PPRuNer!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: PRMK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI
