Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

G-BYGC BA049 turn back today

Wikiposts
Search
Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

G-BYGC BA049 turn back today

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17th Feb 2013, 22:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: london
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Matelo said "probably" in his first post, just his opinion and he was jumped on by other "experts"

Let's see who apologises to him....
ceeb is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2013, 04:16
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,294
Received 170 Likes on 87 Posts
Lucky guess, or inside information.

A pressurisation problem on departure is rare event.
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2013, 19:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The fact that it turned out to be a pressurisation problem is neither here nor there.....it's the groundless supposition with no evidence whatsoever that's in question..... It's much akin to the man in the street who happens to be interested in diseases going on a medical website and glibly saying to a patient who has constipation..."it's probably bowel cancer"
sorvad is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2013, 21:15
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,822
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
it's the groundless supposition with no evidence whatsoever that's in question
I'd have to agree with that.

The only thing that can reasonably be inferred from an aircraft flying around for an hour at FL100 or thereabouts is that it's probably not going to continue to its original destination and may well be dumping fuel prior to a diversion or return.

It tells you nothing whatsoever about the nature of the problem, except that it's probably technical in nature rather than a passenger medical emergency.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 12:35
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 31
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
well, no sorvad, it is here or there actually. he's taking a logical guess at what it could be, given the information provided - newbie, wannabe or whatever he is. what other 'evidence' could you extract from
G-BYGC B 744 Ba049 currently flying around FL90
?

he guessed right, just suck it up.
AndoniP is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 13:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only thing that can reasonably be inferred from an aircraft flying around for an hour at FL100 or thereabouts is that it's probably not going to continue to its original destination and may well be dumping fuel prior to a diversion or return.
I'll have to disagree with this statement. My first thought on reading it was circling at FL90 was a pressurisation problem. Contrary to what Capt Fathom wrote, pressurisation problems do happen fairly frequently. I've lost count how many times in the past couple of years I've worked an aircraft that has asked to level off at FL90/FL100 whilst they deal with pressurisation.
To be fair, in almost all of those cases the crew have managed to rectify the situation and subsequently continued on to their destination.
jackieofalltrades is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 13:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So there's no presumption that above circa 10,000ft, or thereabouts, there's no belief that passengers, and indeed crew, might suffer breathing difficulties?

There was a most definite clue, for a heavy, in the altitude that it had descended to, it might be "rocket science" to some but clearly not to others.
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 14:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,822
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
I've lost count how many times in the past couple of years I've worked an aircraft that has asked to level off at FL90/FL100 whilst they deal with pressurisation.
For an hour ???

To be fair, in almost all of those cases the crew have managed to rectify the situation and subsequently continued on to their destination.
Then the airline(s) concerned must have had a very generous reserve policy if 60 minutes orbiting at FL100 still allowed a flight to continue to its destination and arrive with sufficient hold/diversion fuel.

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 19th Feb 2013 at 14:26.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 14:34
  #29 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DRUK - you are obviously seeing 'posts' that are invisible to normal folk. Did 'jackie' mention 1 hour? Kind of renders your last paragraph a bit of a non-starter.

It must be very annoying for the experts here when someone 'guesses' right - for whatever reason.

Last edited by BOAC; 19th Feb 2013 at 14:36.
BOAC is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 15:49
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 31
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
BOAC - original post states holding for over an hour.

It's too bad that on this forum the 'professionals' don't give some degree of latitude to enthusiasts that might be prepared to hazard an educated or logical guess as to the cause of problems. If the analysis is wrong then correct them, don't just chastise and belittle. You'd hope that the spectators balcony would be just the place for patience.
AndoniP is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 15:50
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Phileas, where exactly does BRISTOLRE say 'descending to FL 90"?...had he done, it may indeed have been a clue, but the fact is, there are any multitude of problems for which the crew may decide to maintain their current level (or closest if climbing or descending)...and just because it happens to be FL90, without any other information, your lucky guess is just that

Last edited by sorvad; 19th Feb 2013 at 15:52.
sorvad is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 16:07
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having said that, AndoniP you are quite right......Sometimes it just gets very wearing reading the Sensationalised tabloid type disaster stories about anything to do with flying.......things like "Near Miss for 400 passengers at Heathrow" when all thats happened is a go around!.... they do trawl websites like this for their information...and we all know, where papers are concerned, why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

But, you are quite right..sometimes we so called experts just need to remember that we are (or were) also enthusiasts too..and the more the better...so my apologies for being such a grotbag

Last edited by sorvad; 19th Feb 2013 at 16:08.
sorvad is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 16:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For an hour ???
Yes, it's unusual for an airline to hold for an hour before deciding to continue, but it has happened.

Then the airline(s) concerned must have had a very generous reserve policy if 60 minutes orbiting at FL100 still allowed a flight to continue to its destination and arrive with sufficient hold/diversion fuel.
For short haul flights in Europe, it's not uncommon for the airline to have fueled enough to undertake the trip there and back without refueling at the destination. Having orbited for an hour it may now mean that the aircraft will require fueling at destination. But this is one of the considerations that the crew and Ops will be discussing. ie which is more cost effective: burning fuel and returning to origin, then fueling another aircraft, potentially getting another crew in to get the passengers to destination, or continuing if the crew can fix the problem in the air.
jackieofalltrades is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 16:18
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,822
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
It must be very annoying for the experts here when someone 'guesses' right - for whatever reason.
Well I don't claim to be an "expert" on anything, and I rarely get annoyed even when unjustly accused of making things up.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 16:34
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,822
Received 206 Likes on 94 Posts
For short haul flights in Europe, it's not uncommon for the airline to have fueled enough to undertake the trip there and back without refueling at the destination. Having orbited for an hour it may now mean that the aircraft will require fueling at destination.
Indeed so. That's why my comment wasn't intended as a generalisation, but was specifically in the context of the thread subject - an hour's orbiting at the beginning of a 9-and-a-half hour sector to SEA, and the likelihood that the flight would have continued after that.

I should probably have used the word "probably".
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 17:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
True, I was speaking generally, and not specifically about BA49. I remember a few years ago a KLM transatlantic orbiting above my sector (FL260 if I recall) for a long time before continuing across the pond. I remember going for a break and it still being there when I returned. Slightly different because it was highly than FL90, but just an example to show it does happen.

I don't know for sure BA's long-haul policy, but again I would imagine that it's plausible that the flight would have sufficient fuel for an hour's orbit at the start of the flight and still have reserves for the end of the flight. A large portion of the flight to SEA would have been over Canada, where there are numerous diversions available if fuel were low after crossing the Atlantic.

Like I say, I'm not sure if BA in particular would continue the crossing, but it wouldn't surprise me if they chose to knowing there were plenty of alternates to land if need be. I admit that then opens the whole crew-hours etc to get the passengers to their final destination should they divert, but that's another debate.
jackieofalltrades is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 18:42
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Joat

I don't know for sure BA's long-haul policy, but again I would imagine that it's plausible that the flight would have sufficient fuel for an hour's orbit at the start of the flight and still have reserves for the end of the flight. A large portion of the flight to SEA would have been over Canada, where there are numerous diversions available if fuel were low after crossing the Atlantic.
You surely don't know the LH fuel policy judging by your remarks!

Furthermore, if you were to look at a great circle tracker, you might decide to reword your "numerous diversions available" remark.

Additionally, your point about diverting en-route and crew hours issues is all part of the same debate, not a separate one. Better returning to LHR and recrewing and ariving 5 hours late than diverting, crew out of hours and arrive 24 hours late.

Last edited by TopBunk; 19th Feb 2013 at 18:44.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 19:31
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 614
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A pressurisation problem on departure is rare event.
All pressurisation problems manifest on departure.

Everything else is just a loss of cabin pressure.
MATELO is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 19:38
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hey Matelo, can you tell me whats wrong with my no.4 generator?

you set a new standard in victory with humility.

bloody funny...

expert? ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.....


say "sorry matelo, you were spot on and we were a bit stupid to accuse you of being a flight sim jockey"
tommoutrie is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2013, 20:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done MATELO.....
CaptainSox is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.