Flight BA762 LHR – Oslo emergency landing
Back to Forum- This topic has 131 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 11 Mar 2016
at 17:09 by FDOS_UK.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
JordanDParticipantBigDog. – in what way are BA “increasingly on the hook as to the cause …” – I can’t see any reference to it; nor can I (at time of writing) see any report on the NTSB website to which the reference is made.
NTSB may be providing guidance to the AAIB, but it is the AAIB alone who will be determining the cause, as the lead investigative party.
30 May 2013
at 14:23
BigDog.Participant@JordanD 14:23
a)…” the engine cowls from both International Aero Engines V2500 engines separate and fall on to the runway”
– not one cowl but cowls, from both engines. A highly remote co-incidence?b) then…”In 2008 the NTSB issued four safety recommendations to the US Federal Aviation Administration in relation to engine fan cowls coming off, including concerns over fastening of the cowl latches after maintenance.“
– several links to this were also provided by Guest Poster in another thread.Given that a bird strike was not mentioned, the remaining alternatives become increasingly likely – basic probability theory.
30 May 2013
at 14:43
AnthonyDunnParticipant@ BigDog. – 30/05/2013 14:43 GMT
As you say, basic probability theory. Or, to paraphrase the redoubtable Lady Bracknell in “The Importance of Being Ernest”
“To lose one may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”
I should imagine that BA’s Head of LHR line maintenance is currently having a few sleepless nights at the prospect of the AAIB investigation potentially revealing serious and serial maintenance shortcomings and lapses.
30 May 2013
at 15:03
JordanDParticipant@ BigDog. – 30/05/2013 14:43 GMT
Indeed – but as others have said elsewhere, the NTSB recommendations were on engines not operated by BA. Same family of engines, different engine type.
Put simply, instead of speculation, shall we not just wait for the AAIB to at least publish the interim report (as they very often do), rather than try and interpret second hand comments?
30 May 2013
at 15:08
BigDog.Participant@JordanD – 30/05/2013 15:08 GMT
…instead of speculation, shall we not just wait for the AAIB to at least publish the interim report.
Given there were no passenger casualties, I do not believe it is morally wrong to speculate here. In fact speculation is a raison d’être for many fora including BT.
Some of the longest threads have been/are speculative, sustained by constant drip feeding from the press and posters’ insights, well in advance of “authoritative reports” – The number of runways at LHR, LHR v Estuary Airport; future routes; HS2; whether BA has cut the LHR lounge budget; whether Walsh and the senior team will coordinate their diaries with VK to meet at ToL again? etc as well as speculating on the cause of the tragic AF447 and other serious air incidents.
So Jordan are you suggesting it is inappropriate to speculate generally or speculate about air incidents or is it because this incident involves BA?
As to my comment “It appears BA are increasingly on the hook as to the cause…” as noted, Probability Theory would demonstrate my comment to be factual, not speculation.
Besides if speculation stopped, Bucksnet’s fascinating conspiracy theories would not be aired, which would be a loss to all.
30 May 2013
at 20:43
VintageKrugParticipantIt’s just a long held grudge against British Airways with the usual CallMeIshmael/TetedeCuvee agenda.
I had hoped all this had ended with the departure of Henkel and others, but apparently they are still out in force.
Yawn.
I’m off to my pool now, ciao!
30 May 2013
at 22:08
HarryMonkParticipantTallinnman – 29/05/2013 07:35 GMT
Your concern over the flight path of the aircraft is also I question I have had, it was something I raised in a previous comment on another thread.
While I praise the pilots for their abilities to get the aircraft safely back on the ground, I wondered about the reason for flying a crippled aircraft on a flight path over London rather than over less heavily populated areas and into Stansted perhaps30 May 2013
at 22:19
Guest_PosterParticipantAs I explained before, the responsibility of the aircraft captain is for the safety of the aircraft, passengers and cargo. S/he will therefore make a decision based on an assessment of the aircraft capability and the highest probability of achieving a safe outcome. I won’t second guess the crew on this flight, but had a similar event happened to me, near home base, I would have taken some convincing to divert to an alternate airport in a period of very high workload.
As student pilots learn, the priority in flying, especially under non-normal conditions, is aviate, navigate, communicate.
Edit: the term crippled is not a judgment you (or me) can make about this Airbus. The captain would have sufficient experience to decide the capability he had and what this implied. As it returned and made a landing where no injuries were sustained and where the aircraft was not severely damaged (from the landing), the word crippled is probably a little overwrought.
31 May 2013
at 07:35
MartynSinclairParticipantI haven’t seen the flight path / track taken for the 319 once the decision to return had been made, nor have I seen the weather.
However, I don’t think a diversion to Stansted would have overworked the very experienced flight crew. In some ways it could have reduced the pressure, knowing the aircraft would not be overflying central London.
I am sure the reason for the return to Heathrow will become known and why Stansted was not selected.
31 May 2013
at 07:41
Guest_PosterParticipantI have not seen the wx, etc, either, but assuming the decision to return was made reasonably shortly after departure, I would speculate that EGSS would require more track miles than ‘LL, due to the need to position for a 23 arrival.
If the wind was favourable for a straight in to 05, maybe a different decision would emerge from the considerations.
31 May 2013
at 08:39
BigDog.ParticipantThe BBC is reporting there will be a special bulletin from the CAA’s AAIB today. Apparently these interim reports are designed to give operators an early heads-up thus hoping to avoid similar occurrences before the full report is issued in a few months.
…”The BBC’s Transport Correspondent Richard Westcott said: “What we do now know from the NTSB is that the plane lost both engine cowlings during take-off.
“The fact that they both broke at about the same time points towards a problem with the latches that hold them in place.
“That could mean a mechanical fault or it could mean the engineering team hasn’t locked and checked them properly after maintenance.”
He added: “We don’t yet know for certain what has caused this problem but I have spoken to a number of experts and so far, failing to lock the engine “bonnet” properly is looking like the most likely explanation.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22717943
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/30/air-safety-officials-ba-jet
31 May 2013
at 11:40
BigDog.ParticipantInterim findings as per speculation. Guest_Poster called correctly.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/engine-covers-left-unlatched-in-ba-heathrow-emergency-8639294.html
Covers left unlatched.
From the article …..
Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said the incident was of “incredible concern” earlier, as investigators rushed to publish the report.
The Cabinet minister vowed that the Government would “take no hesitation” to order action to prevent a repeat of the drama amid fears that it could have ended in disaster.
The report confirmed earlier suggestions that maintenance was to blame rather than any design fault.
Besides concerns about safety shortcomings, the AAIB findings could spark a surge of claims from an estimated 25,000 BA passengers whose flights were cancelled as a result of the incident, plus thousands more whose flights were delayed.
European passengers’ rights legislation, known as EU261, obliges airlines to pay between €250 and €600 to such passengers unless the carrier can demonstrate the disruption was the result of “extraordinary circumstances”.
The airline said: “We do not believe we are liable for further EU261 compensation payments as the closure or restriction of airspace, which lead to the cancellations and delays, is defined as an extraordinary circumstance.”
As the report reveals maintenance shortcomings at BA, lawyers may argue that the airline is liable. The total exposure to BA of compensation claims could total £10m.
31 May 2013
at 14:31
BigDog.ParticipantThe AAIB interim/special bulletin report in full
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s3_2013___airbus_a319_131__g_euoe.cfm
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20S3-2013%20G-EUOE.pdf
“The flight crew elected to return to Heathrow” once the emergency was called – there is no comment as to whether LHR was the most appropriate nor whether the pilots were obligated to do a walk around check which may have prevented the incident.
31 May 2013
at 14:38
Guest_PosterParticipantOh dear.
Not entirely unexpected, but sad to hear.
On the upside, fine work by all the crew to recover safely and evacuate without injuries.
31 May 2013
at 14:50 -
AuthorPosts