BA103 returns to LHR - 7700
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rugby
Age: 33
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Galleywood, Essex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BaW103 Diversion
Was looking at FlightRadar and noticed that BAW103 (G-BNWC) was squarking 7700.
Looked at its flightpath and it had left Heathrow at 1815 and had reached Manchester enroute to Calgary when it made a turn passing over Liverpool before heading back south. I picked it up over Hinckley at about 14000 feet. It then descended at 2000 ft per minute until it got to 8000 ft where it remained until near Heathrow, It did not join the pattern for the left runway , which was being used for arrivals but landed on the right runway at 1955.
Anyone know the reason?
Looked at its flightpath and it had left Heathrow at 1815 and had reached Manchester enroute to Calgary when it made a turn passing over Liverpool before heading back south. I picked it up over Hinckley at about 14000 feet. It then descended at 2000 ft per minute until it got to 8000 ft where it remained until near Heathrow, It did not join the pattern for the left runway , which was being used for arrivals but landed on the right runway at 1955.
Anyone know the reason?
Aviation Herald sez "crew reported smoke in the cockpit about 140nm northwest of London (almost over Liverpool) and returned to London Heathrow for a safe landing on Heathrow's runway 27R. Responding emergency services found no trace of fire or heat. The passengers disembarked normally."
I guess it can't have been very smoky or they'd have put it down quicker (Manchester?). Maybe we'll get an AAIB report in due course.
I guess it can't have been very smoky or they'd have put it down quicker (Manchester?). Maybe we'll get an AAIB report in due course.
I saw them come over my house in North Herts, low and gear down (which is what prompted me to look on FR24).
So, idle curiosity question to the pros: Why gear down so far from LHR? I'm guessing they wanted to burn fuel off to get lighter, so went low-level and high-drag? As I said, just idle curiosity and from a position of deep ignorance...
So, idle curiosity question to the pros: Why gear down so far from LHR? I'm guessing they wanted to burn fuel off to get lighter, so went low-level and high-drag? As I said, just idle curiosity and from a position of deep ignorance...
1/ I thought all 767-300ER's ( indeed all 767's ) came fitted with fuel dump as standard?
2/ with smoke you wouldn't bother to wait for max landing weight anyway.......
LAND ASAP
2/ with smoke you wouldn't bother to wait for max landing weight anyway.......
LAND ASAP
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/ with smoke you wouldn't bother to wait for max landing weight anyway.......
Much better to have the aircraft back at main base if possible both for the passengers and the engineers.
If the checklist takes enough time to get you back fine but, in general I would agree that the landing weight is pretty irrelevant in a smoke filled cockpit.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the operating crew and those in receipt of the ASR no-one knows what caused the smoke and fumes. (Probably only the engineers know at the moment! :-) )
In most Boeings some of the cockpit air comes from the avionics cooling bay and thus will pick up anything that might overheat. The smoke and fumes checklist is designed to isolate various systems not critical to the immediate task of flying the aeroplane in order to stop/reduce the emission of fumes/smoke.
If the checklist is successful then you will have reduced the smoke problem and be left with an aircraft with potentially degraded secondary systems but one that is perfectly flyable.
Hence there is no reason why, in those circumstances, you should not return to your main operating base for the convenience of your customers. Even if that means going 'straight over the top of central London' in a serviceable aircraft on a standard approach to Heathrow.
In most Boeings some of the cockpit air comes from the avionics cooling bay and thus will pick up anything that might overheat. The smoke and fumes checklist is designed to isolate various systems not critical to the immediate task of flying the aeroplane in order to stop/reduce the emission of fumes/smoke.
If the checklist is successful then you will have reduced the smoke problem and be left with an aircraft with potentially degraded secondary systems but one that is perfectly flyable.
Hence there is no reason why, in those circumstances, you should not return to your main operating base for the convenience of your customers. Even if that means going 'straight over the top of central London' in a serviceable aircraft on a standard approach to Heathrow.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not flying over Central London. Gatwick and Stansted have lots of grass at both ends.
Command decision was taken to return, perfectly sensible.