I think it might have been partly due to the Vanguard accident at Heathrow that a mandatory landing limit for RVR was introduced which raised my companies limits from 200m to 600m for Cat 1 ILS operation.

Its common to only fly 2 approaches with go arounds and a third approach ONLY if there is significant improvement in the weather, this is in place because there is substantial evidence to suggest that the more approaches and go arounds you do the more likely there is for an accident to occur.

[mischievous mode on] 743 passengers :ooh: or a 747-300? I suggest that you haven't got all your facts correct [mischievous mode off]

"London Prestwick" A reminder to not express wit or humour on a PA.

What were the landing limits of SAA? perhaps they made an earlier decision to divert.

How full was the ramp at MAN when the diversion to PWK was made?

Crew hours? Was the plan to fuel and go but the hours ran out?

All in all a pretty dumb post IMHO

Personally I have a bit of sympathy for their mental state after that length of flight.

They must have been knackard when they got on the ground. Hope it was a couple of days off afterwards not min rest.

Or Indeed Chicago O'Hare (ORD), formally ORcharD Field.

Come to think of it, BA (the airline in question) never operated 747-300s, did they ?

Hmmm - now I am having doubts, It was definitely before the -400 series and the aircraft in question was an oddball with all of the passenger labeling such as seat instructions in Chinese/Japanese script which means that it was either on lease or bought secondhand. It might well have been a -200, memories of the 1980s tend to be a tad vague. I have memories of looking out of the terminal windows at Smuts before boarding and noticing a long top deck which would suggest a -300 but I could very well be confused.
Was there a -200 with the stretched upper deck ?.

That's a bit harsh. Geek's post made perfect sense to me...

G-APEE accident
 

Although it's not really relevant to the issues of conducting multiple go-arounds especially in dynamic changing wind conditions, for those interested, attached is a summary report of the Vanguard accident.

There's also a summary of the history of changes to operating minima at How Operating Minima developed. | PicMA

At the time of this accident the concept of Decision Height had not been developed. One post implies that this approach was "busting limits" but that was not the case, and it did lead to a general increase in ILS Cat 1 minima from 350 to 600m.
As a personal opinion I did fly the Vanguard for a brief period as a newly qualified Captain. The combination of flight instruments and low altitude flying qualities was horrible and were certainly the major elements in causing this accident. The Smiths Flight System SFS2 had an awful attitude display which IIRC had a very small movement for pitch change with a variable horizontal datum, and when combined with the lags in the pressure instruments produced a monumentally confusing mental picture of what was happening.

Incidentally AG, re your PWK diversion, I believe there were some -200s with a stretched upper deck including JAL. Quite why one would have been operating a JNB-LHR sector for BA I have no idea!

I'm sure they would have left with extra fuel due to the terrible weather we have been having lately and Sunday's forecast. It was bad across the state Sunday, probably the reason the flight deviated a long way east before heading straight west into MSP. We in the north were having a miserable stormy day. A problem MSP has is availability of other airports that can handle a loaded A330 through immigration. Usually they end up diverting to ORD which means an additional hour's fuel. A couple weeks ago I saw Delta flight from London divert to Detroit while an Icelandair flight divert to O'Hare, both after spending more than a half hour circling MSP.

There was indeed a B-747-200 SUD (Stretched Upper Deck) variant operated by KLM, and perhaps later by Corsair (or was it UTA?).

Boeing 747-206BM(SUD) - KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines Aviation Photo #0514462 Airliners.net

JAL operated a B-747-100SR SUD

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...473400794).jpg

These -200 SUD's were all conversions and led to the production B-747-300's with the similar upper deck. Seems like Singapore Airlines used to run a print advertisement about how if you could discern the differences in the pictured B-747-300 instrument panel, they wanted you to apply for a DEC position. I couldn't tell the difference, so I didn't apply. ;)

As far as I know, the B-747-300 was never operated in pax service by U.S. carriers (possibly due to lack of an evac demo) but I'm thinking I've seen one in freighter livery somewhere.

Those were retrofits - once the engineering was done for the 747-300, Boeing made the offer to retrofit the -300 stretched upper deck to the -1/200. Set up a special line in the Everett factory to do it.
IIRC, KLM was the only customer to get it (although those aircraft may well have eventually ended up at other operators), zero recollection of the JAL airplane linked above. Memory says they did 20 aircraft, but don't quote me on that.

I believe there were ten 747-200 SUD variants built/converted - 8 with KLM and 2 with Air France. Most of them subsequently went to other operators.

It seems like the pedants of pprune have shown that this oldphart has confused some 40 year old memories.
Perhaps a few senior moments are not a great surprise at 3 score and 13. It is entirely possible that I have conflated some of many JNB-LHR flights into a single "memory". Some of these flights were BA, some SAA and later KLM to Bristol via Schipol to avoid the mess that is LHR, ending up very close to home.

And I think the Air France SUD's were originally delivered to UTA (as was the first B-747-300):

https://www.planespotters.net/airfra...rance/3DALFdk4

https://www.planespotters.net/airfra...rance/79qDfDYy



The two JAL -100 SUD's were late models of the -100 series apparently converted in production prior to initial delivery.