Pod Scrape at LHR
 

Seems the windy conditions got the better of one 747 this morning at LHR with a number 1 engine pod scrape on landing....

Whose the culprit?

Whoever decided to close 23...

WF.

I could not have put it better but the damage is unlikely to come out of the BAA budget.

Good grief...
 

Here we go again.

Lets see.
The airport is responsible because 23 is closed.

What claptrap.

IF the handling pilot cannot land the aeroplane with a decent crosswind component, they should be assigned to a ground job where, all things considered....they belong.

Hey, they accepted the job, passed the checks, and if they canNOT cut the mustard, they should get a don't come Monday letter.

Let's hear it again for the 'wing-down' boys.....................:D

Here we go again. Judgement before the facts are known!! We all make mistakes and it is unfair to be so critical at this stage in an open forum. Try to think how you would feel if it ever happened to you! GIVE THE GUY A BREAK!!!!

411A; while you have the bones of a valid point, everyone does make mistakes and to say the pilot should be assigned to ground duties is to say that anyone who has ever had a tiny shunt in their car should have their driving license revolked. A tad stupid methinks.

You have to hand it to 411A though. He is one of the best putter-downers on this forum. ;)

Was the landing in question on 27R by any chance?

411A writes
Again jumping in with both feet. Ever looked at the record of pod scrapes on the B747. Get the right configuration and wind, it happens. I feel sorry for the crew. Guess like the last time they will get the talking to, six crosswind landings in the simulator and be back out on line. Not sure I would like to share a flightdeck with someone as perfect as 411A. Could be dangerous.

Those that can do, those that cannot sit at home and make silly comments on PPRuNe!

In answer to a previous question, yes it was 27R, could that be why they seemed to be using 27L for the rest of the day (no change over at 3pm as normal. (May have been other reasons?)
As to which airline involved, I think nothing is gained by naming it.
Regardless of pilot skills, the fact is that if 23 was still available then the chances are this wouldn't have happened. As previously said, I'm sure the BAA wont pick up the repair bill, but I'm sure closing the runway has saved a few pounds...

When the wind is strong from the south west it is standard practise to use 27L for landing due to turbulence from hangers on approach to 27R. this incident had no bearing on de-alternation.
The problem is that a strong SW wind gives a stronger headwind component. The landing rate suffers as a result, so delays go up.
Then we use the departure runway to land an extra 6 per hour (TEAM). I believe the aircraft yesterday was allocated the departure runway (27R).

Maybe if there wasn't so much pressure put on the landing rate by airline management we wouldn't be exposed to these risks.

All this is all very well but who's was it?

411A is saying nothing that the silent majority of Pprune readers reading this thread don't already think. Too often, cocked up crosswind landings are the result of incompetent handling so why shy away from saying it? And why be so coy of naming the airline concerned? Political correctness gone mad again?

Hey these things happen, it was at times a pretty awful day weather wise yesterday. We are all just a tiny slip up away from similar things happening. I don't feel that it is very useful to be critical of the pilots before all of the facts are known. Just hope I am lucky enough that I avoid this sort of incident in my future!!!

I`m not aircrew but we all know what a cross wind can do if it is gusty and not only with planes

I was on a double desk bus going up the M4 to Heathrow a few years ago and it was caught by a cross wind and blown right across three lanes and the driver only just managed to catch it before it hit the central reserve
I was on the top deck at front and it scared the living daylights out of me

G-I-B

met conditions at the time-wind aprox 200deg with 25-36 kt ,more or less. Our flight,landing some time later on 27L had encounter strong windshear bellow 100' .I only imagine what was like landing on that conditions on 27R ,with the turbulance given by the hangars...some great show for the guys on the airport to watch..:}

411A - you love fishing dont you.



Why not wait for the report. This was a pod scrape in Perth a while back. According to the report the handling pilot did eveything within his powers correctly, the aircraft ran out of roll control. Mother nature won.

This aircraft landed on 27R despite the turbulence from the hangers. wasn't there a similar incident a couple of years back when an aircraft (same type) ended up on the grass?

Challenging conditions at the best of times, even more so after a long over night sector. Interesting to see the driver's recent roster.

Pax perspective: The flight crew got the machine to the gate without anyone being hurt. Sounds like a good result to me.

A little off topic, do VS have F/O X-wind limits? Personally I hope they don't.

Agree with PAXboy,

I PAX’d in late yesterday afternoon on a 737 to LGW, a good landing in the end, but lots of wind sheer and turbulence most of the way in. Bet the captain was also a little tense with the FO as PF.

Way over my x-wind limit.

Del Prado

I'm afraid you are wrong in some of what you say.

I've been flying all week and landing on 27L after 3pm.

Yesterday when we landed before 3pm it was on 27L along with everyone else.No-one was landing 27R yesterday afternoon when I was around. It should have been 27R (up to 3pm) under normal circumstances so something caused the change, I suspect it was the pod scrape.

SMOC/EGBT, as I understand it most airlines will limit an FO to a low crosswind until they have a certain number of hours.

So an FO handling an aircraft at or near it's limit will be an experienced one.

In BA FO's have 2/3rds the aircraft limits on all types.

There are no varying degrees, its 2/3rds for all from day 1, or you don't make the line.

Obviously the captain has to use his judgment as to the experience of the FO, but in theory its from day 1.

Incidentally I let my FO land it yesterday up to his limits with windshear and turbulence under 100'. Did a great job as I knew he would.

behind_the_second_midland,
sorry, I never seem to make myself clear on these boards so just to clarify,

You're right, in normal circumstances it should have been 27R before 3pm, 27L after. However in strong SW winds it is known that turbulence is created by the hangers and so 27L is always used when the crosswind is above a certain limit.(I won't quote the figures in case I get them wrong!)

Yesterday morning because of the wind 27L was the nominated landing runway, I believe the aircraft in question landed on the departure runway in accordance with the TEAM procedures used to tactically enhance the landing rate.

The landing runway was not decided because of the pod scrape but because of the existing crosswinds.

Ps. hope it wasn't a case of sod's law for you when the very day you get 27L , you end up parking at Terminal 1 ?

;)

CX crosswind limit:

JF/O - 10kts
F/O - 15kts

However Base training & training Captains can up the limit.

In my company the F/Os have exactly the same crosswind limit as me - 35 knots. It is usually better to let the youngsters get on with it. It is good for their confidence-building and they are mostly better at it than me!

Don't pay any attention to 411A. The miserable old curmudgeon comes from the L-1011 which was a wing down aeroplane and, as far as I am aware, he has zero time on the 747 landing in a 35-knot cross wind. The 747 is a "kick-off drift" aeroplane (for very obvious reasons).

Del

Understood, thanks

BTSM

I flew a variety of aircraft in a variety of crosswinds over the years and always tried to get in rather than have to divert.

I didn't scrape anything but must have been very close to it at times.

From the safety of retirement I have every sympathy for the guy that did nick a pod at LHR. I trust that his company will accept that pilots do their best in these conditions.

The alternative is to divert anytime the gusts look even slightly above the limit (say just once in the last fifteen minutes).

No one wants that.

Doors to Automatic

As I think was clear in my post I had no problems, but I hate other people driving me in a car and if I had been the captain yesterday I'd be trying not to show the white knuckles when my No 2 was flying – but I’d let him do it as I know about delegation, confidence boostingetc etc (I could never be a FI!).

Unfortunately my little a/c (shared) has a 13 Knt demonstrated X-wind limit which rather put the kybosh on my planned trip today but it was fun landing at the home base at 2/3 the normal speed over the ground.

The morning in question was interesting, I caught sight of the 747 at about 2 miles on final 27R. The aircraft had a significant amount of drift on, as it appeared from my position, perhaps (15-20) degrees.
It was quite early in the morning and the holding point on RW27R ( the departure RW) had several aircraft in situ unable to depart due to SIG WX to the north of the field.

The 744 continued its approach and appeared stable all the way.
The ROD was checked and the drift kicked off beautifully, but the mains went on fairly solidly followed almost immediately by the nose.
To my horror I caught sight of the no 1 pod make contact with the ground. The aircraft continued along the runway and vacated out of my view. A couple of a/c reported the incident over the R/T.

I have been to LHR on more than one occasion.
On the day in question (Thur Nov 3). The turbulence on approach gave rise to conditions that the typical short haul operator might encounter on only a couple of occasions a year.
Tower reported wind and GPS wind just 100' above the RW were significantly different.
On a later approach to LHR wind display at 200' gave the wind as 200/36 when the tower was reporting 210/19.

Have no doubt about the conditions the crew experienced...

From my front row seat the a/c was stable throughout the approach...But hey there but for the grace...go we all.

Del Prado,
The incident you mention was very different in that it wasn't turbulence off the hangers, but the fact that it encountered a gust exceeding the limits of the aircraft as it came out the lee of terminal 3. (and yes the wind was in limits when they landed)

The last 200' were a wee bit tricky on Thursday!

I once rode in back of a TriStar into AMS - there was teethjarring turbulence (note to self: great alliteration!) all the way down the approach to about the last 100' - whereupon the F/E finally found the "Cancel Turbulence" knob and we touched down smooth as glass.

Never witnessed this phenomenon before or since.

Off the topic slightly..and my apologies if this issue has been raised before. But why do some pilots (I see it all the time in military pilots of non UK origin) transition way out to the wing down cross contol technique? Uncomfortable for SLF . So kick it off and plant it says I! It appears this is what they did and the gods where just not with them. Wonder what a wing down , boot full of right rudder approach would have been like in the same situation.