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

BA2036 Orlando to Gatwick Nov 1st, 2018

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

BA2036 Orlando to Gatwick Nov 1st, 2018

Old 8th Nov 2018, 23:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 37
BA2036 Orlando to Gatwick Nov 1st, 2018

BA 2036 Orlando to Gatwick Thursday November 01, 2018
Initially delayed overnight due tech problem
Airborne on Nov 3rd (2am)
40 minutes later diverted to JFK with landing gear issues, requiring fuel dumping


JFK hotels full due NY Marathon – many PAX slept (at least tried) on terminal floor.
Lots of PAX Peed off with lack of info
Any tech details ?
Warmair is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2018, 01:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,036
Here's a couple of reports, sounds like they had an indication of damage to a brake or gear (e.g. tire pressure zero and/or brake temp high). They didn't want to raise the gear again with possible damage but wanted to burn down to landing weight so they pressed on to JFK after looking at the gear down fuel burn numbers. At least, that's my best guess.

Nov 3, 2018
Following the technical issue it encountered on 1st November, British Airways Boeing 777-236ER G-VIIR departed Orlando in the early hours of this morning operating the delayed BA2036 Orlando – London Gatwick of 1st November as BA9601. Around 40 minutes into the flight at 37,000ft a further technical issue became apparent and the aircraft descended to 15,000ft, dropped the landing gear to cool overheating brakes and turned back towards Orlando before turning around again and heading to New York JFK at a maximum of 20,000ft. Late at night the aircraft operated BA2272 New York JFK – London Gatwick.
The BA Source ? British Airways News and Information

Incident: British Airways B772 near Savannah on Nov 3rd 2018, brakes problem
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Nov 4th 2018 22:40Z, last updated Sunday, Nov 4th 2018 22:40ZA British Airways Boeing 777-200, registration G-VIIR performing flight BA-9601 from Orlando,FL (USA) to London Gatwick,EN (UK), was enroute at FL370 about 70nm southeast of Savannah,GA (USA) when the crew received a high brakes temperature indication, descended the aircraft to FL200 and lowered the gear. The crew subsequently set course to return to Orlando, but re-decided to divert to New York's JFK Airport. The aircraft landed safely on New York's runway 31L about 2 hours after leaving FL370. The crew stopped on the runway and requested emergency services to check the brakes, in particular of the #3 wheel.

The airline reported the aircraft diverted to JFK due to a minor technical problem.

The aircraft had arrived in Orlando on Nov 1st 2018 as flight BA-2037, but did not depart for the return flight BA-2036. About 32 hours after landing in Orlando the aircraft departed for London Gatwick as flight BA-9601.

The aircraft remained on the ground in JFK for about 20 hours, then departed for Gatwick as flight BA-2272 and reached London about 6 hours later.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...400Z/KMCO/EGKK
https://avherald.com/h?article=4bfd9449&opt=0
Airbubba is online now  
Old 9th Nov 2018, 13:56
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 37
Thanks AirBubba
Warmair is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2018, 15:41
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,245
By the time they got to JFK with the already messed about pax (delayed departure, then cancelled 24 hours, then delayed departure again, finally getting going after midnight, and finally diverting to JFK) it would have been about 0330.

BA178, a 747, departs JFK at 0800 for LHR, does it not ? This would have been an appropriate way to move the delayed and distressed passengers, at the expense of cancelling, or severely limiting, the load of those booked on this flight. BA is a regular in straightforward cancellation and reaccommodation. Yet it's decided instead to further grossly inconvenience passengers for whom no hotel accommodation was available (or possibly, nobody was around to organise it) because the statistics would show not one but two groups of delayed passengers.
WHBM is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2018, 16:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,821
Hmmm, tricky decision, do we want one aircraft's worth of irate passengers or two ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2018, 16:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 45
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Hmmm, tricky decision, do we want one aircraft's worth of irate passengers or two ?
And one set of compensation payments or two?
davidjpowell is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2018, 21:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 338
Why go to JFK? Surely there would have been some chat between aircraft and ground as to what to do? Whoever would have to be looking after the passengers in JFK would surely have known that there was zero hotel accommodation and that going back to Florida would have been far better idea than dumping several hundred men women children and babies into a terminal building late at night with nothing to look after them. It might be a convenient place to get the brakes fixed, but surely that can't be the only consideration.

I suppose what I'm asking is, does a Captain's responsibility for the safety of passengers stop once they're on the ground, or does it extend to making sure that the bit of ground they're going to be dumped on isn't going to lead to medical problems (starving dehydrated babies, collapsed elderly, etc). Depending on who is on board, you could end with some serious consequences if there's literally nothing to support them. OK, JFK isn't quite as barren as the wilds of a Canadian wilderness winter, but when everything is closed a terminal building is an inhospitable place for frail people to be trapped in with no where else to go.

And if it comes to that, exactly how much attention was paid to rectifying the problem at Orlando? It does sound like it received comparatively little attention, perhaps the aviation equivalent of hitting it with a hammer that'll do. Getting it fixed properly in JFK might have been convenient for the pilots and ground crew, but piss poor for everyone else.

All in all, not a very impressive service offering. Three days Orlando to Gatwick is a shocking performance. Glad I've not flown BA for years. Last time was on delayed 777 to Japan, and it was filthy dirty. Never again.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2018, 22:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,392
Originally Posted by msbbarratt View Post
Why go to JFK? Surely there would have been some chat between aircraft and ground as to what to do? Whoever would have to be looking after the passengers in JFK would surely have known that there was zero hotel accommodation and that going back to Florida would have been far better idea than dumping several hundred men women children and babies into a terminal building late at night with nothing to look after them. It might be a convenient place to get the brakes fixed, but surely that can't be the only consideration.
Aircraft is patently not going to be a quick fix - might be a good idea to go somewhere where there plenty of options of getting several hundred people to the U.K. on BA or other carriers’ aircraft the next morning....think of a major eastern seaboard airport with multiple multiple daily transatlantic departures.......

I gather the press reports don’t paint a complete story of what happened on the ground...

No idea about the resolution of the technical issue.
wiggy is online now  
Old 11th Nov 2018, 13:46
  #9 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,627
The business model is to only apply the pain and inconvenience the the original group. Those people are already massively ticked off with you, so there's not much you can do to help. If you start bumping people off other flights, you just add to the number of people frantically writing to lawyers. You'll see it frequently with widespread weather cancellations, you don't keep bumping the problem down the schedule, you just draw a line and accept you're going to have a a group of angry passengers, but at least it's a controlled group.
Two's in is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2018, 13:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Crewbunk
Posts: 38
Was the aerodrome in which was selected based on commercial or safety decision criteria.
Seems a long way to go with a possible brake overheat.
Cloudtopper is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2018, 14:40
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 255
Cloudtopper wrote:

[QUOTEWas the aerodrome in which was selected based on commercial or safety decision criteria.
Seems a long way to go with a possible brake overheat.][/QUOTE]

There is no requirement to land at the nearest suitable airport with a brake temperature warning. The requirement is to lower the gear. The higher you are the quicker the brakes will cool. The longer you take to fly to a destination then the cooler the brakes will be when you land. It is the people who elect to land immediately at a nearby airport over max landing weight with hot brakes that face the biggest danger.
suninmyeyes is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2018, 22:44
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 11
You will probably find that BA have more engineers & spares at JFK rather than Orlando.
Jackjones1 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2018, 01:15
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,245
Originally Posted by msbbarratt View Post
You will probably find that BA have more engineers & spares at JFK rather than Orlando...
I thought JFK was principally a 747 destination for BA. Do they have any more licenced engineer 777 maintenance capability or spares holding there than at Orlando ?

BA have always run for JFK from anywhere in the USA. I can recall them doing so on LAX-London that ran into issues when it was already up over central Canada, years ago.
WHBM is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2018, 01:41
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,679
Consider how many flights/day BA has into JFK and how many to MCO.

Lots of Eng support in JFK, and yes there will be enough 777 cover. Getting spare parts will be quicker/easier.

Redistributing pax through multiple flights back to LHR from JFK is preferable to squeezing more on already busy and limited MCO services.
TURIN 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.