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

Blow Me ! ( not literally though ! )

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

Blow Me ! ( not literally though ! )

Old 27th Oct 2002, 20:34
  #21 (permalink)  
MAX
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Right Here.
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We dropped the C550 into EGLL this morning. 240/30G55. The real problem was taxiing with the wind behind us. A real arm and leg workout. Apologies to the AF boys who went around behind us.

MAX
MAX is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 21:29
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ventured over to Sat 2 at Stansted on my break to see what the pax were looking like after getting off the inbounds. Never seen such a long que outside the toilets or so many green looking people! Guess that Schipol METAR was why we cancelled our AMS this afternoon! Mid afternoon AMS-STN had a 2100Z slot out of AMS! Had another aircraft stuck in LGW, and the full cost lot seem to have nabbed all the coaches in that neck of the woods!

Interesting array of BA 74's and 777's on the cargo apron at EGSS as well, and the worlds biggest supply of coaches down the bus station taking all the punters back to EGLL and EGKK.

Passengers were not happy at the delay to their bags coming up to reclaim - I think the 80mph winds blowing across the ramp is a reasonable reason as to why.

Liked the coment about noise abatement on the 1395. Wonder what the take off brief was like - "stuff what the FMC says about the N1's, I'm gonna be using full power"

Last edited by timzsta; 27th Oct 2002 at 23:13.
timzsta is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 21:32
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Given that planes were landing at LHR, if a little sportingly, why were all BA trans-Atlantic flights cancelled today? I was one of the people milling around in the new Heathrow Zoo, formerly T4, being told that no planes could take off or land, when I'd watched them coming in as usual on 27L on the way to the airport. [I couldn't see if they were also taking off on 27R.]

If A319s could land, why not 777s and 744s? Or was it that the incoming flghts had been cancelled or diverted, because of worse conditions earlier in the morning?
Nigel PAX is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 21:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
See the above post Nigel! Most of BA's long haul fleet spent today on Stansteds cargo ramp!
timzsta is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 21:44
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: St Albans, herts, UK
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An absolute nutter passed over my house this lunchtime at about 2000ft in a SE light aircraft. The trees at the bottom of my garden were bent over double at the time . Couldn't identify the type as it must have been doing about 250kts over the ground.
Don D Cake is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 21:49
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, our posts crossed. I wondered if it was something like that, but the harassed BA staff didn't know, and no-one was telling the poor SLFs like me (and some were much more disrupted than I was). And, of course, when you combine the flight I would have taken today with tomorrow's, it's full, so I now have to go via Vancouver and lose a day in Seattle. I'm sure the connecting Alaska Dash 8 will really feel great after the BA744 flying bed!

It would have been nice if the BA Executive Club had emailed me or called before I set off for the airport, given that they have my details and must have known about the cancellation. It would have saved them hassle as well as me -- T4 was getting almost dangerously overcrowded. Nothing on the BAA Heathrow Web site to warn intending passengers, either.
Nigel PAX is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 22:12
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West of LAM.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My ma and Pa arrived from PHL into EGLL this morning at 0800 on a BA 777 They have never been sick on a plane before but an hour in the hold did for that...

To top it all off they were waiting for a stand for an hour then four hours in reclaim (being told nothing) only to be told no bags could be off loaded due to the wind.

They are now sitting at home with no bags and a best ETA of Tuesday before they will arrive.....

oh well ........we are British after all......chin up


320
320JI is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 22:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If BA are looking for a 744, there's one at EGNT..........

Last edited by BahrainLad; 27th Oct 2002 at 23:28.
BahrainLad is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 22:54
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry to hear of your bad day at London Zoo Nigel. Sometimes when we are having a real bad day we just cant cope. It's not good enough I know, have been there myself, we dont mess you around on purpose.

Regarding e-mail, internet sites and delays, had an interesting conversation on check in with a passenger going on to Berlin (3 hour delay due weather)

"You could have put the delay on your internet site"
"We don't do that, a delay could be for many reasons, something like ATC slot or a tech problem could come and go in minutes, then lots of people would miss the flight".
"But Ryanair do it, why cant you?"
"Yes and Ryanair just cancelled all their flights to Germany, we are still operating, all be it late"
"Oh rite ...."

Don - nice one about the SE aircraft! Tickled me pink. You would have had no problem if he was going the other way - he would have been hovering in a fixed wing aircraft.
timzsta is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2002, 23:26
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Stansted
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Still some BA 777's abandoned at STN........
go_edw is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2002, 00:06
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: South West of Heathrow
Age: 38
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heathrow T4 shambles

Heathrow T4 is an absolute shambles, and it has been for several months. What was going on today in the wind was a disgrace. It appears that BA could not organise a p up in a brewery.

(And for once nothing to do with ATC or HAL, despite what was being allegedly said to crews on 131.9)

I really feel for all the crews who had to sit for up to five hours for a gate and also for the punters whohad to wait even longer to get their bags (if they ever did get them).

BA really need to draw up contingency plans for such events. I still can't work out why they were letting Amsterdam and Paris flights take off at the other end full knowing that they would be waiting for hours for gates. The people who pay our wages should be treated with a little more respect.

On a more cheerier note, good job done by all the crews operating onto 27L today. There was a few hairies, but the fire engine at the edge of 27L was not required. Keep up the good work.
HounslowHarry is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2002, 07:31
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FL410 (if she's light enough)
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pushed back at 1000z yesterday from L29 at LHR. Atis was giving 250/37G58. Started the 4 hairdriers and as we asked for taxi about 8 ULD's were being blown onto the taxiway at L coul de sac. Sat there for about 30 minutes as these poor guys in land rovers were chasing these ULD's which were definately doing way more than the speed limit at LHR.

After take off we did the DVR5F and at 6000 feet our groundspeed was 350kts with indicated at 250


Last edited by CaptSnails; 28th Oct 2002 at 07:37.
CaptSnails is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2002, 13:40
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 66
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't agree more with HounslowHarry.

There is a gulf between the professionalism of the aircrew and management/groundstaff@LHR. (featherlite landing on BA116 from JFK well done guys)

Still havn't got the bags, and groundstaff customer services, lost bags etc etc in free fall at BA

Perhaps Rod should listen to his own TV adverts! Definitely a case for advertsising standards on the basis of their current performance

Suggest aircrew start up their own airline with their own management team. Could be the only chance for survival.
martinidoc is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2002, 14:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BA 744 @ EGNT

I believe the BA 747-400 left Newcastle this morning after a nightstop, positioning back to LHR.
You can see pics of it at NCL at:
http://www.airnorth.co.uk
GrahamK is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2002, 23:14
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said Hounslow Harry

HAL were definatly getting the blame on 131.9. The 6 stands they lost due to 23 in use were given back to them at 10:00 so why they were in such amess who knows, especially as all the other terminals were basically operating normally bar one ot 2 delays. in fact terminal 3 only had 2 flights canx.


There was space at lGW to divert the 11 aircraft we had on the ground at one stage, Some of these were actually on the ground more then 4 hours !!!.
2 medical emergencies were also declared by BA036 and BA038 at nearly the same time and BA still could not find stands. The good old ops boys came to the rescue again even talking the flight crews on 131.9 to keep them informed of the impending arrivals of the ambulances.

A total fiasco from start to finish by T4 and they were even asked if they would like assistance in deplaning the pax from the airfield with coaches. This was deemed as bad customer service for the pax. I suppose sitting on the ground for 5 hours isnt !!.

Perhaps its about time BA took responsiblity for there downfalls and not blame everyone else.

southern duel is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2002, 01:34
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last BA 777 pushed back at STN at around 1400 Monday. 2330 Monday and there was still a massive pile of bags tagged "LHR" in the baggage hall of the same airport.
timzsta is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2002, 01:42
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Someone earlier asked the wind limits on different types. I fly the A320/321 and the limits we use are as follows:

65 kts max from any direction for taxi/doors operation.

Crosswind limits of:
35 kts for engine start
29 gusting 38 for take-off
33 gusting 38 for landing

FOs limited to 2/3 of the above. Hope that answers the question.
Norman Stanley Fletcher is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2002, 13:09
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wind Direction/Velocity from ATC

I wonder how many pilots know that the wind they are being passed by ATC in the UK is the average over the last two minutes? The instant wind is available but according to the rules is only passed if requested. I take a more pragmatic view and always pass the instant wind in strong or gusty wind conditions. What do the drivers think?
ATCO Two is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2002, 21:52
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Civil crosswind limits frighten this boffin silly. In order to get a C of A the manufacturer has to demonstrate a crosswind of 0.2 Vs, except that he must demonstrate at least 20 knots but doesn't have to demonstrate more than 25 knots irrespective of stall speed. The manufacturer may test at a higher crosswind, or claim to have flown the simulator at higher crosswinds, but it is basically up to the airline to decide where they want to put the limit for their pilots. The simulator is only as good as the data fed into it, and I doubt that the roll power derivative in ground effect at 10 degrees angle of bank is actually all that well known. The same goes for a dozen other inputs to the simulation. I work for an organisation which only clears crosswinds which we have actually seen for real, and some interesting things come out of the woodwork when you actually go there. EG. anti-skid failure because one wheel had lifted off and fuddled the WOW logic, or the inadvertent thumbful of trim applied while the yoke was upside down in the roundout.

If your destination has a silly crosswind, divert. Otherwise you may be doing it for real for the first time.

If your employer asks you to land in a silly crosswind, divert to a sensible employer.
northwing 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.