The problem at Uralsk is not runway length or width, it is PCN. The PCN of the runway is only 20, which is very light indeed and precludes operations by many types of aircraft. It is not an uncommon problem in former Soviet airfields where Russian aircraft tended to have lots of wheels across which to spread the weight of the aircraft, thus reducing the weight footprint of each wheel on the tarmac.

The only European carrier flying there is Astraeus which operates a weekly 757 flight to service a nearby major oil & gas facility. The 757 is OK for ops on this runway due four-wheel main gear bogies. I would imagine that BA would have needed a dispensation to operate A320 / A321 equipment in there from the airport authority and their flight ops people as it is definitely above the ACN which can be supported by the PCN of Uralsk's runway.

The other factor is that the runway is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory - surface (particularly at one end, I think 04) is quite poor.

I can imagine that a 747-400 landing here would create an absolutely huge stir.

We have been there many times and never had a problem with fuel quality. Astraeus refuelling there as well.
On the other hand I'm not sure if URA have a deckloader to offload 747 belly.

Spoke to a friend on this flight; she said it was scary. From the time, the Captain told them of the problem the aircraft was on the ground within 30mins.
She also said the aircraft drew alot of attention whilst on the ground. Police, Army, the Mayor all coming onboard, the local press was there. The Russian authorities only allowed 10 passengers off at a time. The airport would only accept US dollars in the terminal, although there was only one small shop.
They had to jump about two feet from the aircraft door onto steps to get off. She could not praise the crew enough, after first and club had been transferred to the first relief aircraft, the cabin crew allowed the remaining passengers to use both club and first cabins to sleep.

Let’s not forget that the support continued back at Heathrow. The ground staff she said were fantastic, alot of passengers had been travelling for 2 days with no change of clothes, they were told their bags would be delivered to them in a few days whilst BA was trying to get them back to the UK. She went to say alot of children on the flight, with no change of clothing and becoming restless.
She also said the ground staff pulled out all the stops on arrival and offered alot of support when they landed, hotels, taxi's, money etc.

BA at its best... Customer Service

Well done BA - good to see a good professional job done by all in particular the flight crew for what appears to have been a clear and decisive decision. :)

Did the cargo smoke/fire warning go out quickly after both extinguishers were used? Ironically, the only "bonuses for the crew", at a US airline, would have gone only to upper mgmt. :cool:

As for preflight planning, if any aircaft must make a immediate landing, for example, on a route from India to Amsterdam, or from Bangkok to LHR etc, do the Dispatchers only list possible divert airports which are far from mountains and not at high elevations?

The situation might be hypothetical, but from an 8,000' runway at 4,000' msl (even in cold weather at -10*C.) might require an aircraft either to be almost empty or have a very high thrust/weight ratio to safely accelerate and climb out after a flame-out, i.e. the 767 or A-319. How would the A-330 perform?

This thread has made The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, no less!

Dakar and Flightrider - you're famous....!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pas...e#contentSwap1

A Sydney newspaper has labelled it "A Horror Flight". I would have thought an actual fire in one of the holds might have been a little more 'horrifying'.

Ignorant, inflamatory morons.

Lets not forget the UPS cargo airplane that burned several months ago in the states. From the fire alarm to flames coming through the top of the fuselage was about 20 minutes. Crew escaped through the cockpit windows.

Sounds like the BA crew did the right thing.

CD

After arriving in Uralsk, passengers were forced to jump "about two feet from the aircraft door" onto a staircase to get off the plane, according to a report on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network website, an online forum for pilots and airline industry workers.

"Spoke to a friend on this flight; she said it was scary," said a forum correspondent named Dakar.

And...

The passenger quoted on the PPRN website "could not praise the crew enough", according to Dakar.

"After first and club had been transferred to the first relief aircraft, the cabin crew allowed the remaining passengers to use both club and first cabins to sleep."

Another correspondent, Flightrider, said: "The runway [at Uralsk] is probably one of the bumpiest in living memory. [The] surface particularly at one end . . . is quite poor.

"I can imagine that a 747-400 landing here would create an absolutely huge stir."

Correspondents no less! I walk amongst immortals!!!!:ooh:

Good Job
 

I hear all in BA ops are patting themselves on the back for a great recovery job........nice to hear ?

The pax must be pleased that they flew an airline who could mount such an efficient and rapid recovery from such a remote station from within their own resources. But that part was presumably fairly 'routine' for an airline who regularly operates ad hoc.
My salute is to the 744 flight crew who clearly discharged their duties in an exemplary fashion.

Without wanting to raise the old thorny issue of the fact that we do not have US style dispatchers in the UK and without wanting to second guess exactly what happened or BA sops I would make the following comment.

I would have thought that the pilots would have only contacted Company to let them know that they were diverting if they contacted Company at all. In UK airlines these are decisions that the Captain makes on his own (ie without Company or "Dispatchers" input).

If one suspects that there is a fire on board one aims the aircraft at the nearest runway.

I have been off the B744 for over 6 years now so systems knowledge is fading fast but I do not recall the hold fire suppressant/extinguishing system works on a simple discharge of two bottles.

As far as I know, the lower cargo fire extinguishing system is similar to the Classic set up. Two fire bottles are provided and the extinguishing agent can be directed to the forward or aft compartment as required. One bottle, larger than the second, must be used first. The second bottle may be kept in reserve if the first discharge extinguishes the fire.

Bit more complex than that..........

First line of the "FIRE CARGO" checklist states "Land at nearest suitable airport"


There is a "Cargo fire arm switch" which needs selecting as appropriate then a discharge switch to start the fire bottle sequence. There are 4 fire bottles (not 2) and the initial action discharges 2 into the selected hold. The remaining two are allowed to "bleed" into the compartment, after a short delay, or at touchdown. This gives continous suppression for enough time to divert to somewhere if over the ocean.

You can tell I've just done the course...

Yes, HotDog, the -400 is very similar to the Classic, but slightly enhanced and automated. The details are:

Four cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottles, designated A, B, C, and D are installed for fire control in the forward and aft lower cargo compartments. The four bottles provide a total of 195 minutes of extinguishing.

Pushing a Cargo Fire Arm Switch arms all four bottles for discharge into the selected compartment. Pushing the Cargo Fire Discharge Switch discharges bottles A and B into the armed compartment. The EICAS advisory message >CGO BTL DISCH is displayed and the Cargo Fire Discharge Light illuminates when bottles A and B are discharged. Bottles C and D automatically discharge after a brief delay and maintain a metered flow. The EICAS advisory messages >BTL LOW CGO C and >BTL LOW CGO D are displayed when the respective bottles discharge. If not previously discharged in flight, bottles C and D discharge on landing.


PS sorry, ETOPS, just seen you beat me to it !!

Thanks for that; obviously a great improvement on the Clasic system. Cheers, HD.

May the compartments be loaded and the aircraft depart with empty bottles?

744s go into Cambridge [CBG..?] for maintenance; last time I was there the runway length was something like 6000' if I correctly recall. :p

I seem to recall the Classic could depart with discharged extinguishant bottle(s), only if the compartments were not loaded, so I expect the -400 is the same ...

It certainly wouldn't make sense for an aircraft to depart with discharged bottles if either compartment was loaded - I would expect that to be contrary to the MMEL.

Yes, it makes for an interesting operation. I ferried an empty 744 from Cambridge to LGW some years ago - no derate, great fun!