|
BA460 heavy landing on March 12th
|
Having read the "story", it appears there is no story?
|
No story? Someone has died and you say 'no story'. :rolleyes:
|
Leg:
Did he die on the aircraft? The Police are treating his death as non suspicious, and it seemed to happen on a beach, not on an aircraft. A shame the gentleman died young, granted, but it doesn't appear related - at least not according to anyone who knows the story. So, where is the story? |
Great photo of a "Boeing 767"!
|
It amazing how the media can get it so wrong. Just heard on the radio here, that there was a plane crash in Madrid, and bodies are washing up on the beach. :ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
It's the Express, what do you expect?
|
I find it odd that this incident want reported before. If it was so bad, there would have been at least some chatter on social media which would have been picked up by the Daily Fail as this kind of thing is right up their street.
|
Crew members were signed off sick by a doctor and none have flown since. The reported injuries included damage to legs, necks, back, vertebrates and the coccyx. |
They are scraping well below the bottom of the journalistic barrel in this one. Even the DM's scriptwriters write more coherent drivel.
|
Expess has updated the story
The Daily Express has updated this story..........
The Civil Aviation Authority has also confirmed that it has received a Mandatory Occurrence Report, either from a pilot or crew member, which referred to a heavy landing. Additionally, the Sunday Express has obtained the flight's classified landing report logged on BA's internal systems. The report says: "Variable winds on approach into MAD. Approx 50ft aircraft Rate of Descent (ROD) increased. "A lot of thrust applied but aircraft landed firmly before ROD could be arrested. All cabin crew complained of back or neck pain. Crew were examined by paramedics on the aircraft who confirmed that they were not fit to operate as crew but were fit to passenger back." Earlier version |
Key words. "Cremation" and "not suspicious".
Also note... the "doctors passed him fit to fly (pax) but not work". That's ....nothing serious, have the day off. The PF. A British Airways "manager". Don't tell me. Another "do three years in the office and pick your command". |
Who said the PF was the Captain?
|
Its always the fault of the Captain!!
|
Key words 'heavy' when by the sounds of it, it was a 'hard' landing!
|
There must be more to this. How can all the cabin crew be injured but none of the passengers? I'm not saying they weren't, it just sounds all a bit odd.
|
only cabin crew injured
I think it was only cabin crew who complained of injuries. Flight crew would have known when the impact would occur (if any).
|
Panic over, the Daily Mail has now picked up on the story. :ugh:
Steward Andrew Barnes who was on BA 'horror' landing flight is found dead on a beach | Mail Online |
Great photo of a "Boeing 767"! It's the Express, what do you expect? Of course referring to the online version |
Here some factual Engineering Dept based guidance regarding the assessment of hard landings (from the Boeing AMM for the B737-600/700/800/900, though other types will undoubtedly be similar):
B) Hard Landing 1) The hard landing procedure is for hard landings at any weight. (a) If the landing is also overweight, the Overweight Landing Conditional Inspection, plus the Hard Landing Conditional Inspection, must be done as defined in the respective procedures. If damage is found in the Phase I Conditional Inspection of either procedure, then both Hard landing and Overweight Landing Conditional Inspection Phase II inspections must be done. NOTE: for a hard landing that is overweight, the peak recorded vertical acceleration can be significantly less that the G-level thresholds provided for landings at or below the designed landing weight. NOTE: When both the Hard Landing Conditional Inspection, and the Overweight Landing Conditional Inspection, as defined above, must be done, it is not necessary to do duplicative tasks twice, such as: Landing gear, nacelle struts, fuselage, wing LE fairings, horizontal stab, cargo area, engine inspection, flight controls, etc. 2) The pilot must make a decision if a structural examination is necessary. (a) If a structural examination is necessary, do the procedure “Phase I Inspection” in this section. (b) For a landing at or below the maximum design landing weight on airplanes with flight data recording systems capable of at least eight (8) samples per second, the following can be used: An indication of a hard landing on the main landing gear is a peak recorded vertical acceleration that exceeds 2.1 G (incremental 1.1 G). This vertical accelerometer data must be measured by the flight data recorded accelerometer at a data sampling rate of at least eight (8) samples per second. This vertical acceleration G-level threshold is valid for a conventional landing with impact with no more than two (2) degrees of roll, main landing gear touchdown first and normal rotation onto the nose gear. For a hard landing that is a hard nose landing or is accompanied by more than two (2) degrees of roll at the time of main landing gear impact, the recorded peak acceleration can be significantly less than the 2.1. G, but a hard landing inspection may still be necessary. (c) For a landing at or below maximum design landing weight on airplanes with flight data recording systems capable of at least sixteen (16) samples per second, the following can be used: An indication of a hard landing on the main landing gear is a peak recorded vertical acceleration that exceeds 2.2 G (incremental 1.2 G). This vertical accelerometer data must be measured by the flight data recorded accelerometer at a data sampling rate of at least sixteen (16) samples per second. This vertical acceleration G-level threshold is valid for a conventional landing with impact with no more than two (2) degrees of roll, main landing gear touchdown first and normal rotation onto the nose gear. For a hard landing that is a hard nose landing or is accompanied by more than two (2) degrees of roll at the time of main landing gear impact, the recorded peak acceleration can be significantly less than the 2.1. G, but a hard landing inspection may still be necessary. |
I read that the pilot apologised for a 'heavy landing due to high winds', yet the Actual was shown to be 7-8 kts.
Does that not seem incongruent? |
Well done moderator
I am not usually a fan of moderation on these forums bit the comments on here about someone who took BA to court were very inappropriate and removal from these pages was the correct thing to do.
This is supposedly a professional forum, please think and post in a professional way. |
More than odd
Strake, your question went unanswered.
Is this a matter of PROFESSIONALS closing ranks? The entire cabin crew books off crook. But passengers are uninjured and BA says "no hard landing recorded". I would suspect that the cabin crew may have been making a statement - possibly as some nebulous "final straw" was broken. But we will probably never know the real nature of that straw. I'd also be interested to know if any disciplinary action arose out of this, and I'm talking about the cabin crew, not the flight crew. |
BA says "no hard landing recorded" May not have any connection with the alleged incident, of course. |
not high winds
The article actually says, "The witness said the female pilot apologised for the unusual landing and blamed the wind."
Wind shear? Does anyone know if thermals are a possibility? |
FACT:Not the first time crew have been unfit to operate but pax back due to a Firm but not hard landing.......G report tells all!!
|
Kerdunker I think that "Firm" landings were taken out of the international industry definition a few years ago. It was interpreted as a weasel word seen as a way to ameliorate what was essentially a hard landing.
Print out your flight data report and if it is above 2.0g for a landing, it is hard. (Your aircraft manufacturer may vary). I know, I have done one, 2.15 g and it was not pretty. My excuse was a wind that went from 20 head to 10 tail in 2 seconds, but that is not a real excuse. There are pilots out there who could have made a 1.3 landing out of that bag of nails. |
There are some very strange contradictory statements relating to this case, whilst some posts here and elsewhere have a suspicious aroma, IMHO.
|
There is a report of erratic altitude keeping during the descent. If true, why? I personally will try harder next time I fly but I can't guarantee to succeed. |
|
woodpecker wrote: There is a report of erratic altitude keeping during the descent. If true, why? Why? Well I would agree it is very difficult to maintain a constant altitude during descent, my experiences show that the altitude reduces after the TOD. I personally will try harder next time I fly but I can't guarantee to succeed. A perfect example of my observation that 'some posts here and elsewhere have a suspicious aroma'. British Airways Flight Attendant Found Dead - Possible Link To Rough Landing - SavvyStews.com The aircraft dropped altitude during the routine final from 33,000 feet to 22,900 feet, but then back up to 27,500, a sudden change of 2,280 feet. Another drop in altitude happened at 26,000 feet to 13,600 where another bump in altitude took them to 18,700 feet. From there, the aircraft drops more altitude to 11,000 feet, then back up to 16,900. Now we see a pattern of bad weather combined with the pilot operating in a manner consistent with anxiety and what may have also been an attempt to stay above some turbulent conditions. I repeat: There are some very strange contradictory statements relating to this case, whilst some posts here and elsewhere have a suspicious aroma, IMHO.
Is it not about time the facts were established by the CAA and published? Dismissals on the grounds of 'Typical news reporting' or 'Cabin crew conspiracy' simply don't suffice. |
Utter Hogwash !
To base a story on Flight Aware data (which is second or third hand and supplied by Amateur Enthusiasts) shows the quality of the "Journalism". Look at the "Data" from Flight Aware for 12th May.....I did not hear reports of near disasters on that flight despite the apparent anxiety that must have been experienced by the pilots and passengers :ugh: 24780 feet per minute descent followed by 26100 fpm climb anyone ? :} Flight Track Log ? BAW460 ? 12-May-2014 ? EGLL / LHR - LEMD / MAD ? FlightAware |
Erwin
Is it not about time the facts were established by the CAA and published? Dismissals on the grounds of 'Typical news reporting' or 'Cabin crew conspiracy' simply don't suffice. There are normal landings which do not merit further reporting which are less smooth than others. A smooth touchdown isn't necessarily a good landing and equally a firm landing isn't necessarily a bad landing. |
Can any qualified, professional pilot explain how the described flight profile could be termed a 'normal descent' and to give his/her opinion of the competence and mental state of the pilot executing such a descent? BA, like many airlines, runs a FOQA program. All the data from that flight will have been processed and any exceedances or odd behaviour flagged up for closer inspection. This is then tied in with pilot reports (ASR, MOR, etc.) to give an overview of any event(s) and whether anything needs to be done. As an example, some years ago they were getting a lot of high ‘g’ events at Madrid and it turned out to be the runway surface profile that was causing them. |
If there is a need to establish the facts, then I am positive that the CAA will be on to it already. This is then tied in with pilot reports (ASR, MOR, etc.) Is this a matter of PROFESSIONALS closing ranks? |
Look at the "Data" from Flight Aware for 12th May..... |
Do you have a CAA case reference number? Do you have ASR and/or MOR reference numbers? |
BA, like many airlines, runs a FOQA program. All the data from that flight will have been processed and any exceedances or odd behaviour flagged up for closer inspection. |
Wiggy, You are absolutely right - I KNOW!!
|
It truly beggars belief that someone can trust an unlicenced amateur radar tracking site that is notorious for its inaccuracy and a group of militant cabin crew and then accuse the entire pilot community, CAA, FOQA, the passengers involved and BA management of closing ranks . And we wonder why the media are so poor at reporting accurate news...:ugh:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.