East Midlands incident.

[hoss183]

Agree with Dave, it was not the fault of the Police, rather the advice they received from the 'expert'.
One might possibly consider if it was coming in 09 and had some fault that affected stopping distance, it 'could' be warranted. As it was it came in on 27, if there was something that suggested it coming in short such as dual engine failure or bingo fuel a-la Heathrow 777... it could perhaps be justified. But as we have no real information on the 'fuel box' fault it might be worth waiting for more information before hanging anyone...

[Flying Wild]

Is the M25 & M4 closed if an aircraft comes into LHR with a problem?
What about the M9 at EDI, or the M8 at GLA, or the M42 at BHX, or the M23 at LGW?

Someone added 2+2 and got 10. What a ridiculous overreaction.

[c52]

It's the same mentality that imposes a 50 limit on six miles of motorway because there's a car stopped on the hard shoulder.

[Expatrick]

Have seen the M27 closed for aircraft reporting an issue.

[Doors to Automatic]

It's the same mentality that imposes a 50 limit on six miles of motorway because there's a car stopped on the hard shoulder.

Or 4 miles of enforced 40mph after an incident!!

[Jonty]

I imagine its standard procedure for any aircraft declaring an emergency, probably put in place after the Kegworth accident.

Does anyone know what the problem was? preferably with out using the words "fuel box"!

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Does anyone know what the problem was?

- yes, and it had nothing to do with the fuel box

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like we'll never know.

[Richard J.]

If the reported fuel-related problem was a suspected fuel leak, perhaps the police didn't want it poured over a working M1.

[USER0005]

A logical extension of this kind of "policy" is surely that when there are heavy crosswinds making landings difficult we might wind up with "level crossing gates" on motorways that will be closed as every arriving aircraft comes in - just in case something goes pear shaped.

At some stage this country has got to get a grip, accept that we don't live in a risk free environment, and that restore some rationality to assessing risk, and managing said risk.

It remains to be seen whether the Jet2 incident last weekend was serious, hopefully if it was it will be properly reported through the usual channels.

Motorways lane / complete closures are another example highlighted above. Drive on the continent as see how few km of cones there are ahead on roadworks or lane closure ahead of an incident. 1000m is normal for road works, often less for incidents, and curiously people cope by driving accordingly - as they would in UK.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by ATNotts

A logical extension of this kind of "policy" is surely that when there are heavy crosswinds making landings difficult we might wind up with "level crossing gates" on motorways that will be closed as every arriving aircraft comes in - just in case something goes pear shaped.

That's not really a logical extension.

The criterion that appears to have been applied here (though we can't be sure) is that an aircraft that has declared an emergency (which we know is the case as it was squawking 7700) is presumed to represent a potential danger to traffic on a busy motorway that it is intending to overfly at low level.

We can argue till the cows come home about how realistic the prospect was of the aircraft falling out of the sky (though of course there have been aircraft declaring fuel-related emergencies that have done exactly that in the past), but it's hard to fault the police who are, after all, programmed to react to the word "emergency" in the public interest.

[fireflybob]

I met someone today who was a passenger on the aircraft in question. He advised me that passengers were told that an engine was shutdown as a precautionary measure due to reducing oil pressure. He is an experienced retired air force pilot who still keeps his hand in on light aircraft.

[fotheringay]

Originally Posted by fireflybob

I met someone today who was a passenger on the aircraft in question. He advised me that passengers were told that an engine was shutdown as a precautionary measure due to reducing oil pressure. He is an experienced retired air force pilot who still keeps his hand in on light aircraft.

And bearing in mind that the Kegworth accident was caused by a B737 with engine problems, some 28 years ago, crashing on the western side of the M1, in a cutting, with fatalities, you can perhaps understand the reason why the emergency procedures were carried out as they were. No vehicles were affected on that occasion but easily could have been.
I am sure the Shoreham accident, although not directly comparable, have sharpened the minds of those agencies responsible for emergency action.

[Piltdown Man]

Fotheringay - I can understand their little person logic but it is not based on science. Modern airliners fly well with one engine, they are designed to do so. The pilots are generally trained to make a mayday call to declare an emergency, if only to make the point that they do not want to be messed around. That call, is then extrapolated by ignorant idiots that there is going to be a crash. And the M1 gets shut. It takes a fair while to close a motorway. In the process, there is a very reasonable chance that others will be injured due to the unusual activity of the closing process. Re-routed motorway traffic will then be jeopardising others by travelling on roads not designed for such traffic loads. So in the process, thousands will be inconvenienced, several crashes will have occurred and many people's lives will have unnecessarily be put at risk. All because of a bloody idiot who doesn't understand risk management.

And is it OK to call mayday or do we have to give prior notice? And why aren't other major roads and railways shut when there are emergencies? Should we maybe stop flying? Or should we stop driving because we kill a few thousand people on the roads every year?

PM

[MATELO]

I can understand their little person logic but it is not based on science.

Science has proven, unequivocally, that jet airliners can't fly with out power.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Piltdown Man

Modern airliners fly well with one engine, they are designed to do so.

Indeed they do.

Provided you've shut down the right one, that is.

[Chesty Morgan]

Correct one!

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Man the noise coming out of the Midland 737 as it lurched into Kegworth
(I can only describe as horrendous cranking) I can recall it even now.
Sad

[Harry Wayfarers]

pilots are generally trained to make a mayday call to declare an emergency, if only to make the point that they do not want to be messed around

Well then they've been trained incorrectly.

A emergency, or a problem such as this, is a PAN, a MAYDAY is supposed to be only used when a loss of life is imminent, as a recent example the Swiss B777 in to Frobisher made a PAN call when they found themselves reduced to one engine.

[Denti]

I guess that is a matter of opinion. In dense middle european airspace i would always go to mayday, and be it only for the reason that i will deviate from ATC clearances and minimum separation is no longer assured. And i won't get any RAs either. A mayday state can allways be downgraded to PAN PAN later on when the initial actions are done.

And of course, remember that PAN PAN is not recognized everywhere, try it in spain for example...