787-9 emergency landing incoming LHR
Discussion
Just seen this:
https://twitter.com/999London/status/1026424533413...
Not sure on timings/when it's due as I'm currently posting on phone. Must be shortly if it's not on the ground already.
https://twitter.com/999London/status/1026424533413...
Not sure on timings/when it's due as I'm currently posting on phone. Must be shortly if it's not on the ground already.
Generally if you’re flying to somewhere like Moscow and you get a fault with the aircraft, you’d get directed to complete some actions via an electronic checklist or if it’s a smaller problem just a status message telling you what’s broken.
If it’s a big thing like an engine or your pressurisation system or multiple electric generators that’s broken you’d get an instruction in your checklist saying “plan to land at the nearest suitable airport”
That might sound vague and open to interpretation. Someone might think Moscow is the nearest suitable airport and someone else might think flying all the way back to Heathrow is the nearest suitable. This has happened in the past with aircrew deciding to fly most of the Atlantic on one engine instead of diverting enroute. Boeing has now made it clear that this isn’t an appropriate course of action and it’s about landing (much) sooner rather than later.
If however it’s a smaller problem you won’t get the instruction “to land at the nearest suitable” you might just get a lesser status message and no instructions to do anything. All great then keep going to Moscow?
Well perhaps not. The aircraft has a list of what you need to depart with and what unserviceable items are OK etc. It’s called the minimum equipment list. So you might just have a small problem that doesn’t necessitate an in flight diversion but when you land in Moscow, you can’t take off again. The item might need to be replaced and there aren’t any in Moscow.
Usually though aircraft aren’t carrying enough fuel to nearly reach Moscow and then return to Heathrow so your options are more limited. Normally there’s just enough fuel to get to the destination and hold for 30 mins and divert to somewhere nearby.
If fuel is expensive in the destination, you might be tankering fuel, that is carrying much more fuel than you need for your flight so your airline have to buy less (expensive fuel) at the destination. Even though you burn more fuel carrying this extra fuel, big differences in price can make this viable,
Another issue is the fact that now 200 plus passengers are going to be more than 3 hours late getting to Moscow so they’re going to get loads of delay compensation payments. Plus the passengers in Moscow will likely get the full 3 hours delay compensation as there likely won’t be an aircraft able to get them quick enough.
Is it cheaper to get the passengers to Moscow and avoid the delay compensation or cheaper to return and get the aircraft fixed in the UK? What’s safest? How are you going to decide?
It would appear that here the crew have had a minor problem that means the aircraft doesn’t need an immediate diversion but can’t take off again once it lands. There wasn’t suitable engineering or parts in Moscow and were tankering fuel and luckily had enough to get back to the UK.
Depending on the aircraft and the airline you will probably have resources like a satellite phone or can send text messages to your company’s operations and engineering to help you decide.
If you get it wrong though you can be in for a lot of criticism or retraining etc. As you can see from flight radar, this kind of diversion wouldn’t even be known about publicly previously . Now sky news twitter etc are getting alerts as soon as you decide to divert. If you select 7700 on your transponder (the emergency code), it’s even worse.
If it’s a big thing like an engine or your pressurisation system or multiple electric generators that’s broken you’d get an instruction in your checklist saying “plan to land at the nearest suitable airport”
That might sound vague and open to interpretation. Someone might think Moscow is the nearest suitable airport and someone else might think flying all the way back to Heathrow is the nearest suitable. This has happened in the past with aircrew deciding to fly most of the Atlantic on one engine instead of diverting enroute. Boeing has now made it clear that this isn’t an appropriate course of action and it’s about landing (much) sooner rather than later.
If however it’s a smaller problem you won’t get the instruction “to land at the nearest suitable” you might just get a lesser status message and no instructions to do anything. All great then keep going to Moscow?
Well perhaps not. The aircraft has a list of what you need to depart with and what unserviceable items are OK etc. It’s called the minimum equipment list. So you might just have a small problem that doesn’t necessitate an in flight diversion but when you land in Moscow, you can’t take off again. The item might need to be replaced and there aren’t any in Moscow.
Usually though aircraft aren’t carrying enough fuel to nearly reach Moscow and then return to Heathrow so your options are more limited. Normally there’s just enough fuel to get to the destination and hold for 30 mins and divert to somewhere nearby.
If fuel is expensive in the destination, you might be tankering fuel, that is carrying much more fuel than you need for your flight so your airline have to buy less (expensive fuel) at the destination. Even though you burn more fuel carrying this extra fuel, big differences in price can make this viable,
Another issue is the fact that now 200 plus passengers are going to be more than 3 hours late getting to Moscow so they’re going to get loads of delay compensation payments. Plus the passengers in Moscow will likely get the full 3 hours delay compensation as there likely won’t be an aircraft able to get them quick enough.
Is it cheaper to get the passengers to Moscow and avoid the delay compensation or cheaper to return and get the aircraft fixed in the UK? What’s safest? How are you going to decide?
It would appear that here the crew have had a minor problem that means the aircraft doesn’t need an immediate diversion but can’t take off again once it lands. There wasn’t suitable engineering or parts in Moscow and were tankering fuel and luckily had enough to get back to the UK.
Depending on the aircraft and the airline you will probably have resources like a satellite phone or can send text messages to your company’s operations and engineering to help you decide.
If you get it wrong though you can be in for a lot of criticism or retraining etc. As you can see from flight radar, this kind of diversion wouldn’t even be known about publicly previously . Now sky news twitter etc are getting alerts as soon as you decide to divert. If you select 7700 on your transponder (the emergency code), it’s even worse.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th August 08:34
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Note that when an aircraft develops a problem and looks to land, there's a lot more involved than just landing at the nearest adequate airport.
If you divert as soon as you have a problem (without problem solving/checklists/decision making) then you'll still need 120 miles at a normal descent to get on the ground.
If you have checklists to run, resets to action, fuel to burn/dump etc then it's going to take you time, and rather than circling in Riga (for example) for an hour you could be well on your way to LHR by then.
None worse than this I imagine?If you divert as soon as you have a problem (without problem solving/checklists/decision making) then you'll still need 120 miles at a normal descent to get on the ground.
If you have checklists to run, resets to action, fuel to burn/dump etc then it's going to take you time, and rather than circling in Riga (for example) for an hour you could be well on your way to LHR by then.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/arti...
Trevatanus said:
None worse than this I imagine?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/arti...
Some of the comments on the Fail article are rather amusing!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/arti...
Example "I should add and I hate to alarm people is that when all the engines are lost and the delay is really long then there is a chance the plane could run out of fuel and crash... "
If you've lost all your engines, I'd have thought running out of fuel is not your biggest problem
Gojira said:
Trevatanus said:
None worse than this I imagine?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/arti...
Some of the comments on the Fail article are rather amusing!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/arti...
Example "I should add and I hate to alarm people is that when all the engines are lost and the delay is really long then there is a chance the plane could run out of fuel and crash... "
If you've lost all your engines, I'd have thought running out of fuel is not your biggest problem
Neptune188 said:
Never go tech in Moscow. It's sort of better now but it wasn't long ago when happiness was V1 at Sheremetyevo.
Speaking to my friends in BA, they said having an aircraft go tech in Moscow is a nightmare, and they will do anything to avoid it The factors mentioned were only unionised techs can perform work there, a right PITA. BA do have some techs in Moscow, probably guys perform checks for the turn arounds, as they jumped on a plane to Baku last month for the 777 that had an engine problem to help sort that.
Flight crew need visa's for Russia, but BA avoid this by the crew doing a back to back as the distance/flight time allows it, so avoiding an overnight in Moscow. If the aircraft goes tech, this proves to be a big headache with a visaless crew.
Last if they need to send out a crew of flying techs to fix the aircraft, such as to change a engine gearbox, or even an engine, they have to get them visa's before they can go, delaying things even more.
So I wouldn't be surprised if they fill the aircraft with extra fuel, just so they have the option to turn back.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff