BA emergency landing 1st Sept at LHR
I think the reason Notso... got so hot under the collar is not because of the detail in Moo's account but (judging by statements made on other threads), the fact that a non-pilot dared to make a comment on PPRUNE regarding a BA a/c!
We know we are the scum of the earth Notso.... but do you really have to labour the point on every thread? Give it a rest man!
We know we are the scum of the earth Notso.... but do you really have to labour the point on every thread? Give it a rest man!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOVIS- Well I have been reading this thread with interest (fascination more like)! I have been scratching my head as to the point of it. What are we to make of:
<<BA emergency landing yesterday at LHR
just for anyone's interest, G-BNLN 747-400 had to make an 'emergency' landing at heathrow yesterday due to a total loss of fluid in no. 2 hydraulic system. only 2 drivers on the whole thing, we had just despatched it from BA Cardiff, sphincters flexing in cardiff, turns out to be a cracked hydraulic pipe (not our fault butt!!) apparently cardiff tower told the drivers that there was something coming out the back of no. 2, but they had decided to plod on as EICAS told them everythin was just fine!!>>?
Now, does that read to you of "We had LN for 50 days! Got those 2 mugs to take it! Me and the boys.....we wuz laughin'! 'Ad our fingers crossed! Blew their #2 Hydraulics out their tailpipes! Tower told 'em summat was up, but orf they went all the same, EICAS tellin' 'em all OK, but it wuzn't!"
I wonder at the professional pride of having an aeroplane for 50 days then having it do 'an emergency landing' on the first flight. THEN we have the self appointed experts and instant opinion expressers this forum is unfortunately full of pontificating that they did 'an emergency landing (maybe without telling ATC shock horror!)'. Well, in the grand scheme of things, #2 Hydraulics is not Earth shattering. Let's see: Autopilot R inop, Stab trim rate reduced, Spoiler capability reduced, alternate brake source inop. Marginally worse than losing #3, but a LOT less serious than losing #1 or #4. Did they really think EICAS did not reveal the story. I objected greatly to an attempt to malign the professionalism of the 2 pilots and their decision to 'plod on', allegedly in ignorance! If such an event happened after T/O on a HKG-LHR, no pilot in BA would land back. They would all happily fly 12 hours to LHR, so exactly what sort of 'emergency' landing are we talking about? Perhaps it would be better to keep away from such emotive language! Consign it to headlines like "Hundreds not killed in hydraulic emergency! Minor failure handled according to the book! Tech log entry made and repair carried out!". Not really very exciting eh?
<<BA emergency landing yesterday at LHR
just for anyone's interest, G-BNLN 747-400 had to make an 'emergency' landing at heathrow yesterday due to a total loss of fluid in no. 2 hydraulic system. only 2 drivers on the whole thing, we had just despatched it from BA Cardiff, sphincters flexing in cardiff, turns out to be a cracked hydraulic pipe (not our fault butt!!) apparently cardiff tower told the drivers that there was something coming out the back of no. 2, but they had decided to plod on as EICAS told them everythin was just fine!!>>?
Now, does that read to you of "We had LN for 50 days! Got those 2 mugs to take it! Me and the boys.....we wuz laughin'! 'Ad our fingers crossed! Blew their #2 Hydraulics out their tailpipes! Tower told 'em summat was up, but orf they went all the same, EICAS tellin' 'em all OK, but it wuzn't!"
I wonder at the professional pride of having an aeroplane for 50 days then having it do 'an emergency landing' on the first flight. THEN we have the self appointed experts and instant opinion expressers this forum is unfortunately full of pontificating that they did 'an emergency landing (maybe without telling ATC shock horror!)'. Well, in the grand scheme of things, #2 Hydraulics is not Earth shattering. Let's see: Autopilot R inop, Stab trim rate reduced, Spoiler capability reduced, alternate brake source inop. Marginally worse than losing #3, but a LOT less serious than losing #1 or #4. Did they really think EICAS did not reveal the story. I objected greatly to an attempt to malign the professionalism of the 2 pilots and their decision to 'plod on', allegedly in ignorance! If such an event happened after T/O on a HKG-LHR, no pilot in BA would land back. They would all happily fly 12 hours to LHR, so exactly what sort of 'emergency' landing are we talking about? Perhaps it would be better to keep away from such emotive language! Consign it to headlines like "Hundreds not killed in hydraulic emergency! Minor failure handled according to the book! Tech log entry made and repair carried out!". Not really very exciting eh?
Last edited by Notso Fantastic; 4th Sep 2002 at 16:41.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the thread hasn't been stopped this time.
I wonder who re-opened it /combined it.
The same 'type' of posts appear in RP frequently - that's what RP is for.
I have an idea that if this hadn't been stopped it would have gotten 5 or 6 posts - and once everyone had figured out the depth of the problem - i.e. Emergency .vs. non-event it would have dropped off the bottom .
HKG-LHR without no.2 system - can anyone from another 744 carrier confirm that this would indeed be a 'we can continue' thing ?
I wonder who re-opened it /combined it.
The same 'type' of posts appear in RP frequently - that's what RP is for.
I have an idea that if this hadn't been stopped it would have gotten 5 or 6 posts - and once everyone had figured out the depth of the problem - i.e. Emergency .vs. non-event it would have dropped off the bottom .
HKG-LHR without no.2 system - can anyone from another 744 carrier confirm that this would indeed be a 'we can continue' thing ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
st athan
u think ba at cardiff are bad? u should see some of the stuff that st athan has put out over the years. harriers with kim wipe(thats a blue paper towel kind of stuff) left in fuel tanks. buccaneers with nuts put on bolts. mind you those are exceptions , normally saints turn out good kit. i wonder how they manage to hang on to people with ba just down the road?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know about the jumbo, but on 2eng/2hyd aircraft with 1stdby hyd system, you only need to Land at nearest suitable airort if you have only 1 system remaining. So you can lose Right Hyd system and as long as the Left and Stby works you can continue to base.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well blue Eagle and Capt Prop, my experience and that of my engineers is that hydraulic oil is very difficult to ignite, certainly on Boeings. Also if the system has failed i.e zero pressure, then there won't be any high pressure sprays will there.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DistantRumble- are you sure you are qualified to start making objective decisions about continuing or not? According to your profile, you are qualified to fly nothing with no licences- your nearest apparent connection to aviation being that you live in Dublin, which also happens to have an airport! I'm also interested in how you estimate the number of posts this daft topic would have had if it hadn't been stopped?
I would have hoped IF Moo was studying for ATPL etc, he might have concluded better not to use emotive expressions like 'emergency landing' talking about the major airline of the UK (after LN underwent major maintenance at his own facility) when it simply does not apply. All in a forum where journos are cruising around just beneath the surface with their fins sticking out of the water waiting for just such an opportune target to present itself. Next thing there'll be a full Panorama investigation about 'the unrevealed emergency of XX airline'. If you think that is ridiculous, I remember a few weeks after the Airtours 737 burnout at MAN in '86 I think it was, one of the papers had a photograph of an engineer sticking his head in the cowling of the alleged engine inspecting the front fan blades, with the headline "Did they suspect something was wrong". You cannot be too careful, and Moo should have known better.
I would have hoped IF Moo was studying for ATPL etc, he might have concluded better not to use emotive expressions like 'emergency landing' talking about the major airline of the UK (after LN underwent major maintenance at his own facility) when it simply does not apply. All in a forum where journos are cruising around just beneath the surface with their fins sticking out of the water waiting for just such an opportune target to present itself. Next thing there'll be a full Panorama investigation about 'the unrevealed emergency of XX airline'. If you think that is ridiculous, I remember a few weeks after the Airtours 737 burnout at MAN in '86 I think it was, one of the papers had a photograph of an engineer sticking his head in the cowling of the alleged engine inspecting the front fan blades, with the headline "Did they suspect something was wrong". You cannot be too careful, and Moo should have known better.
A ans C raises an interesting point about the paint stripping qualities of Skydrol for all those who use the staff car park at LHR.
To save a walk, I always used to park near the northerly bus stop, the one the bus loiters at under the fligt path to 27R. This was until I discoverd the paint on my car blistering in small spots on the roof - I suspect from a Skydrol leak from a landing aircraft. I now park well to the south, no furhter north that the H block.
To save a walk, I always used to park near the northerly bus stop, the one the bus loiters at under the fligt path to 27R. This was until I discoverd the paint on my car blistering in small spots on the roof - I suspect from a Skydrol leak from a landing aircraft. I now park well to the south, no furhter north that the H block.
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..THE major airline???!!!
rather arrogant assumption isn't it?
Maybe they have the most aircraft/routes/slots, but..
..quantity DOES NOT equal quality!
rather arrogant assumption isn't it?
Maybe they have the most aircraft/routes/slots, but..
..quantity DOES NOT equal quality!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distant Rumble
The check list for loss of #2 HYD system on the B744 states:
Autopilot R............................OFF
Stabilizer trim rate reduced.
Spoiler capability reduced.
Inoperative items:
- system 2 alternate brake source.
- thrust reverser #2 engine.
So, if already airborne then yes, you would continue to scheduled destination, subject to wx etc.
If on the ground then consult your MEL but I find it difficult to see why one would depart HKG with a u/s system. The MEL, (minimum equipment list), is simply a 'get you home' provision, if no adequate maintenance/spares are available and is NOT the base line for a normal despatch.
Autopilot R............................OFF
Stabilizer trim rate reduced.
Spoiler capability reduced.
Inoperative items:
- system 2 alternate brake source.
- thrust reverser #2 engine.
So, if already airborne then yes, you would continue to scheduled destination, subject to wx etc.
If on the ground then consult your MEL but I find it difficult to see why one would depart HKG with a u/s system. The MEL, (minimum equipment list), is simply a 'get you home' provision, if no adequate maintenance/spares are available and is NOT the base line for a normal despatch.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone follows my posts, I try and make it very clear what I do know and do not know and therefore when I am not qualified to say 'I would/I would not'
Thus my question ' Can anyone from another carrier' .
(thanks for the response - it speaks for itself - these are people who do know and are qualified)
The problems associated with a no.2 H failure are available if anyone asks. (and thank you for those who posted them).
However watching RP and the rate at which posts occur normally (unless it's something like the BMI contract or other topical stuff) - threads tend to move off the burner fairly quick.
If NSF doesn't like analysis then please flame me on Jet Blast or other relevant spleen-venting forum
Thus my question ' Can anyone from another carrier' .
(thanks for the response - it speaks for itself - these are people who do know and are qualified)
The problems associated with a no.2 H failure are available if anyone asks. (and thank you for those who posted them).
However watching RP and the rate at which posts occur normally (unless it's something like the BMI contract or other topical stuff) - threads tend to move off the burner fairly quick.
If NSF doesn't like analysis then please flame me on Jet Blast or other relevant spleen-venting forum
Join Date: May 2001
Location: right now?
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moo
NLN was not in for a "D check" it was only there for an "S
check"and dusk mod although while it was there it did have all four engines changed
ps
there are pressure checks carried out on the engine ground runs quite often,pessure taken up to 4 psi diff.
Where did you get the 25 psi info from?
NLN was not in for a "D check" it was only there for an "S
check"and dusk mod although while it was there it did have all four engines changed
ps
there are pressure checks carried out on the engine ground runs quite often,pessure taken up to 4 psi diff.
Where did you get the 25 psi info from?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle- the alleged 'emergency incident' occured on T/O at Cardiff, so I was using this as an example. Whether one WOULD start engines and depart with #2 Hydraulics U/S would require further investigation in the MEL. As to whether #2 reverse would be U/S, our -400s would still be OK, but still not a drama, landing performance is still not predicated on use of reverse power anyway. Notso rests his case- an 'emergency' is in very short supply in this case! But if people want to discuss a total non-event 'till the cows come home, then 'let's roll'!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well, I wasn't exactly entering the fray, just answering a technical question!
On the PW4056 version of the B744 then it most definately states in the check list and Vol.2 - System description, that, in the event of the failure of the #2 HYD system then the #2 engine thrust reverser will be u/s.
The PW engine uses hydraulic power for the reversers, not air.
Sorry, should have made that clear in my post re checklists etc.
On the PW4056 version of the B744 then it most definately states in the check list and Vol.2 - System description, that, in the event of the failure of the #2 HYD system then the #2 engine thrust reverser will be u/s.
The PW engine uses hydraulic power for the reversers, not air.
Sorry, should have made that clear in my post re checklists etc.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 5th Sep 2002 at 12:16.
Oops!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSF:
According to your profile, you are qualified to fly nothing with no licences- your nearest apparent connection to aviation being that you live in Dublin, which also happens to have an airport! I'm also interested in how you estimate the number of posts this daft topic would have had if it hadn't been stopped?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Rythm- feel better having used this forum to get a bit of anonymous abuse out of your system? I had no idea that a patent had been taken out on the use of the expression "let's roll!". Next time I want to use it I shall apply to..............?
Greatorex- "Steady on, Old Boy - he was just asking for info was he not?". No he wasn't. It was frankly a rather insulting request for confirmation:
<<HKG-LHR without no.2 system - can anyone from another 744 carrier confirm that this would indeed be a 'we can continue' thing ?>>
I have 16,000 flying hours of which 5,300 are on the Classic and 3,500 are on the B747-400. I think I know! I think someone ignorant of aviation procedures should not really start asking for confirmation of things they don't know anything about. Exactly how deep do we need to burrow into this non-event to understand THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY?
Greatorex- "Steady on, Old Boy - he was just asking for info was he not?". No he wasn't. It was frankly a rather insulting request for confirmation:
<<HKG-LHR without no.2 system - can anyone from another 744 carrier confirm that this would indeed be a 'we can continue' thing ?>>
I have 16,000 flying hours of which 5,300 are on the Classic and 3,500 are on the B747-400. I think I know! I think someone ignorant of aviation procedures should not really start asking for confirmation of things they don't know anything about. Exactly how deep do we need to burrow into this non-event to understand THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY?
Last edited by Notso Fantastic; 5th Sep 2002 at 14:57.