TUI Dreamliner MAN-UVF U-Turn
Discussion
Afternoon All.
Bit of a delay in posting this, but the question in my head has been gathering pace so wanted to ask a wider audience.
Long story short, on the 10th Dec we 'finally' managed to get a holiday underway, that being a week in St Lucia & overall what a great trip & some much needed rest, however the start of the holiday was somewhat unusual & i'm keen to understand the why's & wherefores?
Flight was TOM104 MAN-UVF on one of TUI's Dreamliner's (i think it was a 787-8) on Thursday 10th December. Nothing unusual during the first hour or so, until the Captain took to the radio & informed us we 'may' have a mechanical fault on the aircraft, this being an external Temp sensor that was playing up. I'm guessing he persevered for a while longer but after another 30mins announced the sensor had now failed & we needed to turn around & head back to MAN.
We got little additional info, other than the required part was available at MAN & should take around 30-60mins to fit.
Needless to say the Pilot was accurate & after a 90min outbound, 90min return & 45mins on the ground, we were back underway & arrived in Saint Lucia just under 4 hours late (he put his toe down & did the crossing in just under 7hrs).
Now although we were all hugely relieved to arrive at our holiday destination & the delay was nothing more than a minor inconvenience, it got me thinking about why the U-Turn & was it purely the lesser of 2 financial evils?
I'm guessing if we'd continued to Saint Lucia (Pilot did state during his announcement that the plane was still safe to fly), the part 'may' not have been readily available at UVF & therefore the returning passengers would have likely needed hotels overnight & all could have claimed the €600 compensation for the over 4hrs delayed which would have been an expensive option. However the additional fuel required to return to MAN & no compensation for the outbound passengers as we were only delayed in total for under 4hrs was the better option?
Is it really that simple?
Bit of a delay in posting this, but the question in my head has been gathering pace so wanted to ask a wider audience.
Long story short, on the 10th Dec we 'finally' managed to get a holiday underway, that being a week in St Lucia & overall what a great trip & some much needed rest, however the start of the holiday was somewhat unusual & i'm keen to understand the why's & wherefores?
Flight was TOM104 MAN-UVF on one of TUI's Dreamliner's (i think it was a 787-8) on Thursday 10th December. Nothing unusual during the first hour or so, until the Captain took to the radio & informed us we 'may' have a mechanical fault on the aircraft, this being an external Temp sensor that was playing up. I'm guessing he persevered for a while longer but after another 30mins announced the sensor had now failed & we needed to turn around & head back to MAN.
We got little additional info, other than the required part was available at MAN & should take around 30-60mins to fit.
Needless to say the Pilot was accurate & after a 90min outbound, 90min return & 45mins on the ground, we were back underway & arrived in Saint Lucia just under 4 hours late (he put his toe down & did the crossing in just under 7hrs).
Now although we were all hugely relieved to arrive at our holiday destination & the delay was nothing more than a minor inconvenience, it got me thinking about why the U-Turn & was it purely the lesser of 2 financial evils?
I'm guessing if we'd continued to Saint Lucia (Pilot did state during his announcement that the plane was still safe to fly), the part 'may' not have been readily available at UVF & therefore the returning passengers would have likely needed hotels overnight & all could have claimed the €600 compensation for the over 4hrs delayed which would have been an expensive option. However the additional fuel required to return to MAN & no compensation for the outbound passengers as we were only delayed in total for under 4hrs was the better option?
Is it really that simple?
Passenger safety is paramount.
If the fault had happened over 1/2 way you would have landed without incident.
As the fault happened early in the flight there will have been a risk assessment made, in consultation with engineering on the ground, to decide the best course of action.
It sometimes isn't a straight forward financial or safety decision, often a blend of the two but as you say the consequence of a empty return flight or the aircraft delayed on the ground would have factored in the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_44...
Best advice is post your question on Pprune.
If the fault had happened over 1/2 way you would have landed without incident.
As the fault happened early in the flight there will have been a risk assessment made, in consultation with engineering on the ground, to decide the best course of action.
It sometimes isn't a straight forward financial or safety decision, often a blend of the two but as you say the consequence of a empty return flight or the aircraft delayed on the ground would have factored in the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_44...
Best advice is post your question on Pprune.
Often you get things that you can continue to fly with but can’t then take off again (dispatch) until it’s fixed.
The aircraft in this case can continue to fly to the destination but is then stuck in UVF until fixed, which may take much longer to get the parts and repair done with no parts and limited engineering cover etc there.
So in this instance it might be simply down to where it’s easier to get the aircraft fixed.
The aircraft in this case can continue to fly to the destination but is then stuck in UVF until fixed, which may take much longer to get the parts and repair done with no parts and limited engineering cover etc there.
So in this instance it might be simply down to where it’s easier to get the aircraft fixed.
As others have said, its fine to carry on depending where you are on the journey timeline if the part that has failed is not an immediate issue but the Pilot(s) and plane operator now know there is a fault with the plane. So once passengers are offloaded then there would be no way a operator/pilot would take off with other self loading cargo and sign off that journey. For the sake of a 4 hour arrival change then it would be considered acceptable to do a turnaround, sort the fault and get away again.
essayer said:
I suspect the temperature sensor that failed was one of the systems required for the aircraft to be more than a certain flying time from an airport (ETOPS) - so the journey couldn’t be flown directly and the only option was to return
Depending on what sensor was ‘broken’ this could partly be the case.On the 787 the TAT (total air temperature) sensor, which is part of the probe heat system limits the flight to within 60 minutes of a “suitable” airport.
This is a dispatch rule though so if it happens after you start taxing, then you can continue as normal but there is a restriction for the return flight as said before.
So if it failed in flight, the ETOPS thing isn’t relevant, it’s more about being able to leave UVF or being able to leave UVF and not have any restrictions.
El stovey said:
essayer said:
I suspect the temperature sensor that failed was one of the systems required for the aircraft to be more than a certain flying time from an airport (ETOPS) - so the journey couldn’t be flown directly and the only option was to return
Depending on what sensor was ‘broken’ this could partly be the case.On the 787 the TAT (total air temperature) sensor, which is part of the probe heat system limits the flight to within 60 minutes of a “suitable” airport.
This is a dispatch rule though so if it happens after you start taxing, then you can continue as normal but there is a restriction for the return flight as said before.
So if it failed in flight, the ETOPS thing isn’t relevant, it’s more about being able to leave UVF or being able to leave UVF and not have any restrictions.
M22s said:
Did the a/c shut down and main cabin door open with people in and out?
I don't believe they shut down the A/C or opened the cabin door, although to be fair we were sat near the back of the aircraft.The certainly didn't allow people off the plane & i don't recall anyone boarding such as Engineers, all the activity took place outside the aircraft.
Anyone who knows MAN & the terminal layout, basically after landing back at MAN we taxi'd close to the entrance of the large hanger that's opposite the gate Emirates use & the part was replaced in situ there. Engineering work took no longer than 30/45mins & we were then quickly back in the air.
We had a TUI flight a few years ago from Luton in a 757. We taxied about half way to the runway and then stopped. The captain reported a similar fault to this and returned to a stand outside their hangar. They did have the replacement part, but it was down at Gatwick, so we had to wait until someone drove it up to Luton. Unfortunately it was morning rush hour, so it took quite a while to deliver and fit. I can’t remember for sure if we stayed on board or not, but I think we did.
You've got to ask yourself 3 questions in a specific order
1) Is it safe?
2) Is it legal?
3) Is it commercial?
Stick to that and you'll be ok - for a commercial decision - speak to operations on the sat phone/ acars and ask them what they want you to do. After all they pay your wages and provide maintenance and onward transport for the passengers.
Hope this helps.
1) Is it safe?
2) Is it legal?
3) Is it commercial?
Stick to that and you'll be ok - for a commercial decision - speak to operations on the sat phone/ acars and ask them what they want you to do. After all they pay your wages and provide maintenance and onward transport for the passengers.
Hope this helps.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff