BA 744 Smoke in cockpit
 

Just heard over the radio a full emergency about a BA 744. Landed on 27R. It seemed all ok and full emergency was downgraded but does anyone know the full circumstances of this?

No, but if it was Cathay there'd be a total news blackout on it :*

think it was BA206. He was a 744 with 320ish pax. we were in the area at the time going north bound.Called a PAN with smoke in the cabin requesting divert to cardiff. he had to dump a bucket load of juice. Planned a figure of eight over cardiff untill he got the weight down. planned this when the smoke seemed to be in control......then he diverted back to LHR. (comment deleted as per next post)well done to the crew (huge work load)....all our worst night mare hearing there is smoke in the cabin.

Capt Bear

Ok.
This is something I just don't understand.
You say they dumped fuel, and a lot of it (meaning they were taking their time). Dumping fuel is precisely what killed de crew and pax on that swissair flight off the canadian coast a couple of years ago.
Why didn't they just make a heavy weight landing and just get the plane on the ground ASAP?
Heavy weight landing means a maintenance check. Fluffing around with smoke/fire can mean a funeral.

Any thoughts on this?

cheers,
oasis

"A Heavy landing?" Just how heavy would you like? Burst tyes causing a fire spreading to the tanks which you have not emptied. Broken undercarriage because overloaded. Same result. Too heavy to land at Cardiff runway for runway length. I am not a flyer, but any of the above seem basic reasons for dumping fuel. Swissair did not crash because they were dumping fuel, they did because of another fault, and as you know there are laid down procedures for any likely scenario. Here is a link

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/27/swissair111030327

Oasis...

Don't know if you have anything to do with aircraft, but things are not as "black and white" as you make out. If everytime there was a slightest wiff of smoke, an airliner had to immediately land, overweight, the airline industry would quickly come to a halt!

How do you know how bad the smoke was? How do you know whether the drill(s) the crew carried out stopped or reduced the smoke? Was it "electrical" or "air conditioning"? I'm glad you know enough of what happened on the BA flight yesterday to criticise the crew already...

NoD

Tis was the BA209 which returned to LHR and landed 27L.

Aircraft had got airborne from LHR at 15:42z and basically returned an hour later. There was signs of smoke in the cabin area possibly comming from the galleys. The crew pulled the circuit breakers, the smoke stopped and aircraft returned without incident.

Something similar happened to me a few years ago - cabin crew member put her hand bag in the oven for safe keeping whilst pax boarded, then her colleague turned the oven on after take without checking inside!

It was nicely roasted by the time the smoke started.........

In fact, despite the well-documented staff shortages at London ACC, there was another controller alongside within about thirty seconds, and with the discrete frequency available. However, it was deemed appropriate to keep the Speedbird on its original frequency (which was relatively quiet) until it was settled in the descent and heading east. Although there was little traffic to affect the descent, those familiar with the geography (the emergency occurred in the Strumble area) will realise that the area to the north is occupied by a Military Training Area and danger areas used by pilot-less aircraft, whilst the area to the south has danger areas used for live firing! Attempts to get these activities suppressed to allow a more direct route to Cardiff were unsuccessful.

From where I was, it was handled like a text-book training exercise, just like the three other PAN calls received by the same team during the afternoon! However, we're always anxious to improve our knowledge and procedures, and a careful analysis is always made of events like this to learn any lessons.

{edited to remove superfluous comment following edit of an earlier post}

I really don't understand what happens when some of my colleagues get on the plane... is the brain extracted or just temporarily numbed?

They were talking about putting toasters into the First galley using the AC point there.... luckily it didn't come to pass cos it sounded like a recipe for fire to me (looks like a toaster, perhaps I could use it as a menu holder or told hold newspapers)

:hmm:

Like many before, this incident required crew judgment; in the circumstances neither crew or ATC should be criticised. We can all learn from such incidents, both from the good and not so good aspects, but until the report is published, we should not speculate on the details.
However, the more general issues and debate so far have yet again identified misconceptions and the human need to put things in neat boxes.

Nickctaylor, you either do not understand or have very poor knowledge of the certification processes that maintains such a high standard of safety in our industry. An aircraft (including landing gear) is stressed for a 10 ft/sec landing at MLW – in some circumstances equivalent to an unflared landing. For an overweight landing, the limit is 6 ft/sec; a landing at this rate would spill your G&T and most pilots would report this as a very heavy landing in normal operations. Piloting standards are more than adequate to land an aircraft well within these limits. In exception for those very rare occasions that are often weather related, then the ultimate design limit of the structure has even more safety margin.
Burst tyres do not cause fires; usually a heavy weight (high energy) landing will cause the tyre safety system to deflate them. The graphic pictures from flight test high-energy landings are limiting cases and the test requirements specify a 5 min “burn” without intervention.
Fuel tanks do not rupture during heavy weight landings; and as for partially empty tanks, thankfully most aircraft make all landings in that condition.

If the industry has learned the technical lessons from the SR111 accident then we will not see another one; this is not to say that crews will not be faced with similar circumstances requiring quick thinking and a decision on a course of action. Generally, most operators have focussed on the requirement to land quickly and not spend time trouble shooting; if a crew undertakes this we can ask little more of them.

A discrete frequency; why should we expect (demand) such a service? Good for LHR or any other ATC if they can provide it, but don’t rely on it because in most parts of the world it is not available, be thankful for a runway and a controller with basic skills.

@Oasis
 

<Dumping fuel is precisely what killed de crew and pax on that swissair flight off the canadian coast a couple of years ago.
>

I'm not sorry to say, this statement is wrong. Completly. Have u ever read the full findings of SR 111?

regards

alf5071h

Obviously you did not read my message which was really questioning a previous post. I said I was not a flyer. Why do you dump fuel then? As the previous poster said why not get down asap?

numpo nigit....its only where i was sitting i made the comment. as i said you guys are the best.....from my angle smoke is worse than an engine failure.....i would just like to have a guy declaring a pan with smoke shifted asap to discreet period. also i believe all controllers should have on hand wx reports for all suitable airports to cater for airliners within their area as against having to go and get the wx(more work for you also)..... its just a nice thing but when you have a tech prob and a contoller can say xyz open, wx at 1530 lah lah it make a massive difference in work load....another part of the possible error chain closed.
i will delete my orig comment out of respect and a job well done by atc . we are all here to learn and if i can learn something from yesterdays event, i am a better person. my thoughts might be taken on board or fired in the bin...thanks.

Abird747

What makes you think some people (like this) actually ever use theirs?

But seriously, when you have some cabin crew idiots who put barplus machines [battery powered machines that record in-flight duty free sales from credit cards etc] into ovens and switch the ovens on in order to recharge the batteries ..... well, calling them idiots is do idiots a dis-service!

I've caught someone doing exactly that little trick to my Barplus when I came back from break.

Words escape me how stupid some people can be. I asked whether this particular person would put her mobile phone in the oven at home to recharge it; "of course not" was the answer.

What can you say?

If source of smoke/fire is clearly identified and eliminated, there is no reason to turn back.

However, it seems to me as if the decision to dump was taken very quickly.

Reading some of the comments to what I wrote, made me revisit the atc transcript of sr 111. What a horrible read.
Reading it makes me wish I could help them.
Anyway, at 1:14:18 sr111 declared a pan, last transmission was 1:25:49. That's 11 minutes and 31 secs, not a lot.
At 1:21:59 they were told to turn south (to reach the ocean) for fuel dump. To me this reads as they were flying away from a possible divert airport.
As far as the ba story, it's fair to say there is not enough info to say one thing or the other. I'm sorry for implying they did the wrong thing. It just seems strange that one the one hand the problem is bad enough for ba to divert, and on the other hand it is ok to wait for the fuel to dump. Maybe it was one of those grey areas.
As far as sr111, the only way they could've survived in my opinion is to use the 11min 31s to do an emergency descent, Mmo/Vmo to the nearest strip, road. Not turn south to the shore line to dump fuel.

This I say with a nice cup of coffee in my hand and in the comfort of my own home, no stress, no oxy mask on, no noises, no molten plastic dripping on my head and no fear for my life.
It's anyones guess how we would fare On The Day.

Thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to talk about these things.

NickCTaylor,

[QUOTE]Why do you dump fuel then?

The facetious answer is because they can! As per the certification regulations an aircraft has to be capable of landing within 15 minutes of a Max weight takeoff. An allowance for fuel dumping is permitted although you might be surprised at how many airliners do not have a fuel dumping system!

The ONLY requirement to dump fuel is due to the aircrafts performance limitations for the planned runway. Cardiff shouldn’t suffer from these!

Mutt.

whatever happened to the " rule of thumb", that if you can take off on it ,you can land on it.
immediate smoke/ whatever after take off ,you can land on that runway.
if assessing(?) later on route ,look up your limiting t/o wt.
if below ,you can land.
if on fire, or in serious doubt,do not go for pretty.
old saying.." i can live with the egg on my face, hate like hell to have to go to all those funerals"