GB Incident this morning
 

Overheard on DX GB aircraft apparently with engine failure over channel islands. Any one have more info ? apparently requested to return to LGW.

GB Incident 9 Sept 2005
 

1. Engine Stall in climb passing FL 250

2. Thrust reduced to idle

3. Engine parameters checked within limits

4. Aircraft returned to LGW for precautionary landing (avoiding all orphanages, hospitals, schools etc.)

5. Aircraft landed uneventfully at 0802 GMT

6. Errr..... That's it

Sorry for asking a stupid question, but are you in London given special vectors in case your plane is not safe? Or how would you avoid those sensitive areas?

Dani

Oh dear oh dear

Dani The response was, I believe, 'Tongue in Cheek' in reference to the usual sensationalsit journalistic reporting of these incidents. eg

"Passengers feared for their lives as an heroic pilot wrestled with the controls of a stricken holiday jet today. He steered the plane clear of [enter appropriate institution here: e.g. orphanages/hospitals/schools etc] to make a full emergency landing at Gatwick".

So, in answer to your question - no, not in a situation as described by Tommy.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Dimbleby, If your response to Dani was to make you look worldly wise and smart - failed.

Look at his profile - he’s most certainly not a journo. However, he mentions Singapore and Switzerland as his ‘locations’ - neither of which are renowned for their grasp of sarcasm or irony.

Your obvious talent on the keyboard would have been put to better use by an explanation of these two concepts - at which the Brits are the undisputed world leaders. Now apologise to Dani and wish him a good weekend.

But this is supposed to be the Professional PILOTS Rumour Network is it not?????

Wasn't BUSJ was it? Someone mentioned recently it has been a bit of a "sicknote" since it came over from BA.

Haven't had that many problems with usj, at least not with the engines. ;)

It wasn't G-BUSJ

Not sure where this post is going.... machines do mal-function sometimes, it's a fact of life. Highly skilled (and paid) pilots engineers ATC and other staff do their stuff when the ****e hits the fan. End of story... unless you can prove a trend .. :ok:

Highly paid engineers???? I have never heard of one.. :{

Err, as a percentage of the contributers are ATCO's then no.

Sick bus now having engine change in BA hangar.

The flaming of posters asking questions has to stop folks.

It's gotten to the point where people are apparently at the risk of being banned from threads, according to BOAC - check the "Emirates 777 Go Around At Birmingham" thread.

We don't know the interest level, or experience level of those who ask questions about go arounds, engine failures, aborted take offs etc - and they will have to learn over time what is 'normal' and what gets the whole forum talking.

I must be the first to stand up and say that I have done it before - on both sides......asked about go arounds and the like, and then as my experience progressed, got overly cocky, jumped the fence and started flaming.

I know some of you have been on here for years and must get fed up answering the same old questions day in day out but....all it takes is a gentle redirection to an appropriate thread or even just a blind eye and hit the "Back" button on your browser.

Have a good weekend!

Farrell

has this GB engine prob yesterday got anything to do with a Titan 757 operating under a GB call sign this morning at LGW?

BPM

It is a good question though,
Should aircraft in an emergency be vectored clear of built up areas?

This being an 'engine stall' then no. what about an uncontained engine fire? or multiple engine failure?

Who's responsible for avoiding built up areas? (and where is the guidance?)

Del Prado
Usually ATC will ask if there are any problems maintaining height or control of the aircraft. If not, then no need to avoid any built up areas.

If there are problems maintaining height or control, then avoiding built up areas, although a concern, isn't going to be easy since the aircraft won't be doing what the pilots want it to do anyway.

If the problem is serious enough, they probably wouldn't be going to a London airport anyway but the nearest suitable runway.

So the answer to your question, like I said before, is no.

And I would hazard a guess that the answer to:
..would be the commander of the aircraft I suppose.

Having vectored good numbers of commercial aircraft with engine failure (a fair percentage with 50% loss of power) over central London I often wondered about this matter.. However, during my time at Heathrow there were no specific directions to controllers to direct such aircraft on to other than the usual flight paths - may there are such procedures now? For landing on westerlies at Heathrow it would be exceptionally difficult to avoid "built up" areas, which are in some profusion to the east of the airport. And what does one do about the Airbus I once had which did two missed approaches in LVPs and lost an engine on the second. He diverted straight to Manchester on one engine, thereby overflying "built-up" areas much of the way.

ATC radars do not show terrain in any form so it would not be possible to vector aircraft clear of built-up areas with any degree of accuracy.

There was (and probably still is) a procedure for the Airport Authority to request, via ATC, commanders of aircraft with technical problems(s) to consider diverting elsewhere. But, of course, that decision rests with the commander.