I assume the gear didnt retract correctly after departure or they wouldnt have been aware of a problem until lowering the gear on arrival?

Lo and behold, Sky have got a pax from the flight on air. She said "everyone on board was scared".

No, they weren't. Those up front wouldn't have had time to be scared, they had better things to do. Well done to the crew for a successful outcome. :D

As usual the DM lead with "Passengers' terror" before quoting quite a few passengers who seem to have taken it all in their stride. Some can't wait to get back on a 'plane.

Edit to add: those quoted in the article all praised the CC for keeping things calm. They also said that they were kept well-informed by those at the business end of things. Looks like the all the crew were on their game.

VS43
 

Is the aircraft still on the runway as aircraft are diverting an hour or so after VS landed?

"Does anyone know of any other incident where a 747 could not get a main gear down?"

Its happened a few times, last one was in October.

Accident: Great Wall B744 at Shanghai on Oct 24th 2014, right main gear up landing

Suninmyeyes - I have experience of exactly this problem a few years back in Sharjah with a 747 freighter. Number 4 hydraulic system lost all fluid due to a fractured flexible line.The gear was free falled but the greased plate that allows the wheel to slide down it sheared off - I suspect due to the impact of the gear coming down undamped with lack of fluid.the greased plate assembly is linked to the doors and is supposed to push the doors inboard to clear the gear. With the plate sheared the wheel sat on top of the outboard door with no way of being moved - a successful landing was made as with the Virgin aircraft. If you look at the photographs of the Virgin aircraft you can see that the wing gear doors are open - they should normally close after gear is down,this indicates that the free fall system was operated. This incident brings to 3 the number of times I have known this to happen. I suspect that the gear came up and locked,fluid was then lost and the crew decided to return - that was when the gear hung up after operating the free fall.

I'm glad "the" pilot and the stewardess did a good job. Must be hard flying a big crippled jet like that on your own. Makes you wonder why there aren't two or three pilots to do the flying, the radio, the EICAS, QRH, NITS brief, PAs, fuel dump, landing performance calculations...

Very proud of the way this was handled.

I can say no more than that.

Heavy landing on the remaining boogies......over weight landings are a tricky beast. Well done crew......pints and medals deserved.

I remember once reading about someone who ran an obscure pilot's forum but supposedly 'gave it all up' to go flying B744s. Went to work for Virgin even. Surely not, it couldn't have been...?! Nah. I mean, who in their right minds would give up a cushy-number and subject themselves to working over Xmas and New Year? :(

PS. Are smilies OK to use here? Yes.

http://www.pprune.org/images/3flypigs.gif

According to the expert currently on Sky News, it's SOP to carry out a low fly past to allow a visual inspection from the ground and also to shake the Aeroplane around to try and extend the gear??? Pretty sure that's not the case in any company I have worked for, best I go and re-read Pt B, the QRH and dig out some FSIs.:confused:

(Reply to Sun in my eyes)
SAA at JFK early 80's? Procedure then was to retract the opposite wing gear and land on body gear only .... very wobbly so not a good idea to taxi off the hi-speed!

What happened to the system of diverting aircraft with gear probs to Manston? Presumably it is uneconomic nowadays but it would avoid the disruption to other flights.

Airport was initially closed for two hours, but given that it will take quite a while to move the aircraft, it will probably be another few hours before it is moved.

Good job to the crew. Aircraft was G-VROM.

Its a pity they closed Manston with its wide and long runway they could have diverted there, instead the 747 now blocks the runway at one of the busiest airports in the UK causing diversions and chaos.

NOTAM?
 

I am surprised that a NOTAM has not been issued yet for EGKK. The runway is closed UFN, the diversion parade is in force and nothing is published.

Manston sadly closed and most Aviation related infrastructure sold and gone. Would be a lonely landing there now and no response on the Tower frequency......

Can I ask a daft question? Can this incident really have been caused by a landing gear fault?
The aircraft had made it as far as Lundy (more or less) and was at 32,000' before changing course. I assume there would be no landing gear warning at that speed and altitude so am I correct in assuming the landing gear was a side show and the pilot had decided to return to LGW as a result of some other anomaly?

LAS1997, would you rather a smouldering smashed up mess at the end of a runway or a moveable aircraft with everyone down safe? Honestly, :mad: happens and always better a good result than the alternative, regardless of the diversions and inconvenience afterwards, surely?

Video of the Landing
 

From the end of the runway


Port side

BAENG Crash Team en-route to Lgw. ETA 21-00.

LAS1997,

I agree with your sentiment. Although Manston has long since closed, why is there not another less busy airport to land at in such a situation. Apart from all of those aircraft diverted from Gatwick, what about those landing at Heathrow using Gatwick as their alternate. Did they all carry enough fuel to go elsewhere?
It would appear that landing back at Gatwick could have compounded the problem?

Did the pilot do a bouncer and then go airbourne again briefly on purpose to try and free the gear hoping it might drop quickly and give the rightside some more support.

So why can't they bring Gatwick's other runway into use that is used when the main runway is having maintenance carried out? I assume it has something to do with fire cover but surely cover could have been put back by now at least at a lower level?

Hello Dave
 

It seems the pilot flying was called Dave.


I hope his FMS was not called HAL

The Captain decides where to land. ATC may have read their "please bog off elsewhere script" (LHR does, not sure about LGW?), but Capt has right to override.

I doubt there are many other airfields with the same runway length / crash cat. Engineering cover might, in this case, also be a factor to rapidly assess situation v status of the gear.

Anyway, where do you think the Capt's car was parked :ok:

NoD

Looks like one, maybe two fuse plugs blowing on the port side during the rollout/stop. Looks like they also *just* avoided a pod scrape on No.3.

Fantastic job.

Looks like airfield open again as of 1905L

Kelvin D - If you had read my previous post you would have been informed that the reason for the return was probably loss of # 4 hydraulic system.

Well Done to the whole crew of VS43.

Happy to fly with you folks anytime :D

Not enough space between runways and the 747 is stuck on one of them - in normal use with the secondary runway aircraft have to be clear of the parallel taxiway before the next aircraft can land.

Looks as though Gatwick has re-opened - flights are departing

Obviously an excellent outcome for Virgin, the Crew Passengers and aviation as a whole.

I wonder if anyone does the maths to calculate how much it costs for Gatwick to be closed for an hour or how long it is/was. Its not just the aircraft that have been diverted but of course they are now in the wrong position for their next flight etc.

Who pays the costs of all these diversions? Do Gatwick get paid for the loss of income of having the runway closed?

Obviously it would have been nice to have had a choice of diverting to Manston but then someone would have to pay the costs of keeping the airfield open with emergency fire service car and sufficient staff to sort out an incident like this.

Suspect there aren't many volunteers to pay those costs but is probably worth those that want Manston to be compulsorily purchased to be suggesting that the other major London airports and government should be paying towards the costs of keeping Manston open so that in cases like this a damaged aircraft can go to it instead.

Its extremely unlikely to happen though.

The videos above appear to confirm this. The right outboard elevator remains neutral while the others are commanded nose up during the landing roll. I believe system 4 is the only system that feeds that control surface.

I think the landing impact was exactly as intended.
A positive touchdown might just of shaken the errant gear leg down.
Great job not impacting nacelles 3 + 4, with subsequent engine damage.
I think Mr Branson owes this crew a holiday in Neckar.

Doubt there's time to pussy-foot around with a dainty landing if a lot of your brakes are stowed away.

It's not just keeping it open, but manned up with comprehensive Fire Cover etc.

NB the VS340 landed at LHR, and blocked a runway for 24hrs? or more. Despite being requested to "bog off" they did not, and Manston was available. This incident always was looking likely to end as it did (runway closed for an hour or 2, then tow off), whereas the 340 was known to be going to land and not be moveable.

The "fallout" of this incident in disruption terms will likely be less than the NATS computer **** up earlier this month...

Well done to the pilot and the person on the radio offering advice for him all the way through the incident. A "small" jet was sent up to take a look at the visible damaged so no need for a "tower fly past" and as far as i know from the plan over the radio the pilot did not plan to do any bounce on the runway.
all handled very professional by the crew and airline.
The intention for recovery from the aircraft when on the ground was to let small groups of Pax off evenly to prevent any more damage to the aircraft.

Flamin Squirrel - Right outboard elevator is powered solely by #4 hydraulic system as you suggest.

I noticed that the leading edge devices between the engines and between the engines and fuselage retracted at touchdown (spoiler deployment?). Is this a "normal" event or something indicative of the issue they may have been dealing with?

1. A previous post said it was at FL320 when it turned back.
2. Wing gear alternate extension.
3. Bounced / firm landing.

As said earlier all signs of a system 4 hydraulic failure.

1. Ops/Eng says come home.
2. Alternate extend wing gear & outboard flaps unfortunately right side wing gear gets fouled on the door.
3. Firm due to no R/H outboard elevator leaving approx 3/4 pitch authority. Bounce due to speed brake not armed as per the QRH due to no deployment of the ground spoilers (sys #4) on touch down which would cause a pitch up if they were armed due to remaining spoilers (sys 2&3).

Manual braking using system 1 for the rollout (antiskid-yes, autobrake - no)

The leading edge retracts on selection of reverse thrust completely normal. They were extended for the approach.