BA Flight suffers "possible" electrical fault.
 

seen this on bbc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4561558.stm

What a complete non-story!

Quote:

A BA spokesman added: "These things happen, unfortunately. The pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, unless it's a Heathrow-bound whale that loses an engine on T/O out of LAX....right, Mr. BA Spokesman?

We had to shut down both engines last night. It followed an indication from the AGNIS system that the aircraft was very close to the airbridge. Following the standard procedures for this kind of incident, we had to apply the parking brake and turn off several aircraft systems.

All the passengers were obliged to leave the aircraft to the safety of the terminal, and the crew had to wait for half an hour in freezing conditions for a bus to take them to the car park.

An airline spokesman said this kind of thing can happen from time to time, although he admitted that it was unusual for a stand to be allocated so quickly.

An enquiry is underway as to why the crewbus left 2 minutes late from the CCO.

Nice One MS ! :ok:

another: possible technical problem
 

In GMMX last night a GB bus, declared a possible technical problem, on its arrival....

Is this a PC version of Mayday, (perhaps)....

It was raining, so perhaps the bus was leaking...?????

Bumz

Can you imagine being a PPruNe Mod and having to trawl through this sort of $$$$ every day :{

well at least AMF's attempt to turn the story into a BA bashing thread fizzled out..............

Reminds me of a civil court case brought by relatives of the unfortunate passengers killed in the Silk Air 737 crash a few years ago.

While a series of astounding coincidences gave understandable rise to a suspicion the crash was caused by deliberate pilot input (like full forward electric stab trim among other things), one of the prime expert witnesses for the company defence stated solemnly that, in his professional opinion, the crash was caused by a "progressive electrical fault" that popped the CVR circuit breaker followed six minutes later by the two FDR circuit breakers, followed probably by a crack propogating in the front windscreen that caused one of the pilots to make an emergency descent at full thrust and no speed brake and no radio call.

. His Honour the esteemed judge agreed whole-heartedly with that scenario and the the unfortunate relatives lost all their money that they had sunk into finding the truth....

I think I'd better step in on AMF's pathetic posting:
Quite wrong, Mr. AMF! The crew took the outrageous decision, exactly as I would have done, that it was better and safer to proceed on 3 engines (heavens above, some airlines have been known to set off across the Pond on just two engines to start with!) than dump God knows how many tons of fuel in the LAX area and land back. I shutdown an engine on the N Atlantic and continued to Chicago- where was the risk? 4 to 3 is not like 2 to 1.

Why are you trying to open up that irrelevant discussion again?

Rainboe,
Is BA approved to continue a revenue service after losing an engine on a 747 well before the PNR (like after take-off)? While the aircraft undoubtedly was safe on 3 engines, the margin for redundancy had been reduced. Was it really the right decision to continue?

The AAIB has had cause to question an operational decisions made by BA regarding the decision to continue a revenue service after experiencing an electrical failure on an A319. Surely that crew was wrong to continue?

Rainboe,

Aha, I knew it! Smoked you out my friend....you're the BA Spokesman!!!

So I guess Santa forgot you bring you a sense of humor again this year?

You are SO easy.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with dumping fuel. What, do you think the atmosphere's going to light-up in a huge fuel/air explosion if someone lights a smoke nearby, or it'll land on the ocean like a kerosene-slick tossed from heaven by angry gods and and smother all the helpless little sea critters? Don't worry, it wont. It's harmless and, in fact, kinda fun.

Bus,

I know on the surface it seems inconsistent, but rest easy because in the case of the A319 continuing after electrical failure as opposed to the B737 turning back which in turn is seemingly opposed to the 747 continuing with reduced performance and as a consequence running short of fuel, BA made the correct decisions because.....

\"....the pilots err on the side of caution every time, which is the right thing to do.\"

And that, boys and girls, comes straight from the mouth of someone of no less stature than a BA Spokesman.

I mean, what more does anyone need?

Bus 429

Quite simply, in a word that even you may understand .... YES

... and BTW, wrt 4 engine ops, define PNR

Bus429. It is not disapproved either! Throwing the spotlight onto several totally different incidents in one thread is just clouding the whole issue. In my 34 years paid employment as a pilot and 18,400 flying hours from turboprops to 747s, I am firmly of the opinion that the flight continuation policy is correct.

If AMF can stop playing teasing games and indulge in a serious discussion, don't underestimate the risks of fuel dumping. Pouring out 2 tonnes/minute close to the outboard engines carries separate risks of its own as well as atmospheric pollution- benzene is a carcinogen, and 100 tonnes of jet fuel has to go somewhere. It is an emergency-only procedure and not to be done lightly. The 747 on 3 is almost up there with a trijet on 3- it is a wonderful machine with incredible redundancy. The spotlight should fall instead on allowing the concept of 777s to proceed on 1 engine over the Pacific wastes for hours on end, not a 747 that would still be flyable on 2. I know which I would rather experience.

BA633 27dec05, what is going on?
 

Flight Number Departing from Arriving at Scheduled Time of Departure Time of Departure Estimated or Actual

Information updated 1 minute ago.

BA0633 ATH ATH 27 DEC 19:15 27 DEC 19:43 Actual

ATH ATH should be ATH LHR!!!!

late dep, normal t/o, engines went a little quiet, PA announced a/c would return, it turned back, now waiting on the ground, pilot mate on board (I told him to go Olympic....)

Maybe I'm being naive but I think you've answered your own question. It's reading ATH-ATH because it returned to ATH. Updated automatically. As to if/when a second attempt will ocurr, who knows?

Garage......

With over 100,000 registered members out of nearly 300,000 readers globally, in as many countries as there are in the world, 57% of readers are Professionals (either doctors, lawyers, pilots, CEO's, or high ranking executives with a large Technical/Engineering readership and a large percentage of university students) PPRuNe readers on average earn over US$50,000 per year. 37% make over US$75,000 and 10% of PPRuNers make over US$150,000 per year etc................

And you want flight information!

Mind boggling :hmm:

Information updated 1 minute ago.

BA0633 ATH LHR 27 DEC 21:15 28 DEC 11:51 Estimated

seems they try again in the morning.......

Well, there's your answer.:}

a/c had #2 engine failure due to FADEC.... landed 45 tons as they were tankering

PS, moderator, BA 737s don't do ATH, you merged two different stories I guess