BA103 returns to LHR - 7700
But the one person who decides is the man at the front with 4 rings. If the airport authority so wishes it can ask ATC to transmit a message asking the captain to consider alternatives if a blocked runway may result but the captain has the final say and rightly so.
"The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) should review the guidance provided in the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) Part 1 and Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 475 (The Directory Of CAA Approved Organisations) and consider whether ATC unit Training for Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies (TRUCE) plans adequately prepare controllers to handle aircraft in emergency, and in particular, whether sufficient guidance is provided on the avoidance of built-up areas when vectoring aircraft in emergency. Where considered necessary, this guidance should be amended as soon as practicable." [my emphases]
(Safety Recommendation made as part of the N481EV investigation)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's just suppose the flight was aborted because the crew did not want to sit for hours in fumes and become more Richard Westgates. Let's suppose they managed to isolate whatever caused 'the smoke' and have effectively a functioning aircraft. Whilst I am totally against the routing of aircraft with bits hanging off or on fire over London, I cannot see the problem this time based on what we know at present.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not flying over Central London. Gatwick and Stansted have lots of grass at both ends.
All will doubtless be revealed in the fullness of time, but it all seemed to go slightly pear-shaped rather close to Manchester. I think it's a reasonable assumption that if either flight crew had envisaged a fiery death in the near future, they'd have dumped it down there and damn the torpedoes.
Given that they didn't, let's grant them the rationality to say "It's under control, but let's not press on to Canananananada over that large stretch of water. Let's get this sorted out". No major hurry, but it would be good to get down somewhere. Being lighter would be good. Drop the gear, go to a flight level where the engines burn more fuel, and get somewhere that the paying punters can be sorted out quickly at.
Which is all rather professional. no?
Given that they didn't, let's grant them the rationality to say "It's under control, but let's not press on to Canananananada over that large stretch of water. Let's get this sorted out". No major hurry, but it would be good to get down somewhere. Being lighter would be good. Drop the gear, go to a flight level where the engines burn more fuel, and get somewhere that the paying punters can be sorted out quickly at.
Which is all rather professional. no?
Well, maybe, going around as much of the built-up areas as possible and joining final for 27L from the south, say a little to the east of Richmond
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For goodness sake, two pages of 'why's' and 'what if's' over an incident which nobody on here knows the true facts!! The Captain made his decision on what HE KNEW. End of. If he needed to land in Manchester he would have, and Manchester has two runways, so disruption yes but airport closure no. He obviously went to Heathrow because it was safe to do so.
At Heathrow alone, a departing aircraft making an unplanned return happens roughly once a week, so just be grateful that there aren't even more of these ambulance-chasing posts.