[LaurentPerrier]

Keeps the riff raff out.

[Tallinnman]

Hi Martin – enjoyed the the video. The cowlings could have been open on that aircraft and the pilots conducting the aircraft walk around would have been none the wiser even though he put his hand on the cowling.

There are latches that could be seen to be open underneath but I gather these are often left ‘flat’ be engineers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcScjE_QDTM – have a look at 8.30 onwards.

It would appear that this has happened before and that design changes including painting the latches in bright colours and been made.

[MartynSinclair]

Xuluman – “Please understand the walk round on a turn between sectors is much reduced compared with the initial check before you accept an aircraft.”

Understand the above Xuluman – I am not Airbus rated or BA ops familiar. However, checking covers are closed / latches locked – term sometimes used – “nothing loose” is how some walk rounds are structured, even between sectors.

[pdtraveller]

Stanstead. The reason no one allowed off is that it would have costs BA to have the aircraft handled and as they have no operations at that airport those charges could be very significant. In addition if you allow one off how do you justify keeping others on board. If large numbers then wish to disembark there are issues around trim and correctly identifying who is still on board.

LHR was closed for so long almost certainly because the fire cover was no longer available – it being all used on a genuine emergency with a real fire. ie the BA762.

Single runway ops would have resumed as soon as the fire cover could be reinstated. However the landing runway and removal of the air frame would take time. The AIB may wish to examine the aircraft in situ and the police may also be treat the scene as a possible crime scene. Moving an aircraft that has deployed the slides is also quite time consuming.

All in all the disruption in terms of closure was probably kept to a minimum however there are clearly questions to be asked about the suitability of using LHR for known events like this. When you at the route actually flown it does suggest that other alternatives were available.

The bottom line is that in such circumstances LHR is always going to struggle and BA in particular will suffer disproportionately to all other carriers due to their dominance at LHR and the nature of their operation.

For me they do not act quickly enough and always seem to over promise and under deliver in disruption. People will understand that they are being delayed and disrupted but they don’t understand when they wait for hours, are boarded onto aircraft and then go nowhere.
I would rather they cancelled and focused on customer service and recovery than try to run short haul flights – only to find at the end of the day that they have no resources to depart flights and no ability to offer any service whatsoever.

[BigDog.]

Could the wrong aircraft have been signed off?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334648/New-picture-shows-BA-jet-landed-Heathrow-Airport-engineers-failed-lock-doors-engines.html

A warning light could be added.
Given the problem is not new, begs the question – why not years ago?

..”The AAIB and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin have demanded closer checks and it is believed a warning light could be added to the cockpit displays to show unsecured cowls.

Keith Williams, BA chief executive, told the Sunday Express: ‘We can confirm that appropriate initial action has already been taken in accordance with the AAIB’s safety recommendation to Airbus…

[Xuluman]

Martin,

Many panels/covers are used throughout the turn, therefore the pilot on inspection may see these open. Do you recommend the pilot physically checks they have been secured again before pushback? Or would you say it is reasonable to have the ground staff confirm that all doors/latches etc have been secured via headset, placing final responsibility on someone else?

[MartynSinclair]

Clearly the 319 incident raises the question…

Bottom line is the aircraft is under the command of the Captain who is ultimately responsible for not only the safety of his passengers and aircraft but also he/she must have confidence in the company’s ops procedure.

I see many examples of pilots going beyond the ops procedures of airlines and companies and increasing their airmanship in terms of navigational and flight safety procedures.

To directly answer your question, my walk round (first or third sector of the day) does include all panels/covers closed, – but I accept a G IV is easier to inspect than a larger passenger jet.

[Xuluman]

Yes it may be the Captains ultimate responsibility, however my point being it is impossible to know everything is secure as so much has been done to the aircraft since they completed the walk round.

Another example on the Airbus being the cargo door sensors. These can be faulty and give us an indication of being still open, yet the ground staff confirm they are closed and secure…

[canucklad]

I like BigDogs take on this….

I wonder if BA would have been so quick to give up the ghost and cancel all those flights at their normal drop of a hat, if they had considered that the outcome might be that they will have to pay compensation since it looks increasingly likely that it was BA’s own negligence that created the disruption…. And will they compensate other airlines too……

[JohnHarper]

If this case is down to the negligence of BA and it’s difficult on the evidence seen thus far to believe anything else the they would be liable for the costs incurred by other airlines and for that matter the airport as a result of the incident. Those costs could spell the end of BA given the scale of them and the precarious financial state of IAG.

I disposed of my shareholding albeit at a loss several days ago.

[SimonS1]

I agree re the liability, however I am not sure I would describe IAG financial position as precarious…..

[MartynSinclair]

Xuluman – and you are happy to fly with this on going sensor problem?

[rodders]

Martyn
i think if you look closely, you will find that the Air Canada A320 family use different engines to BA, making comparison tough! Also I would have thought that it was Heathrow Airport Ltd who closed the airport not BA, or have I got this wrong??

[SimonS1]

And why did Heathrow Airport Ltd have to close the airport then?

[JordanD]

LHR closed after the incident, because (I’m guessing here, but other sites/sources suggest this is the case):
– outbound aircraft took off from southern runway, leaving debris on the runway. As a safety precaution (cf. Concorde for potentials for Foreign Object Damage to aircraft), and to recover any debris, the runway was closed for inspection
– BA762 landed onto the northern runway, closing it
– Firecrews were dispatched to support the Mayday landing, and involved in the ‘incident’ (i.e. putting any fire out on BA762)
– As firecrews were dispatched to the incident, the ‘available’ fire crew capacity was decreased, so the airport cannot operate until requisite fire fighting capacity is available (to deal with any other incident occurs).

Thus the airport had to close until enough crews were released from dealing with the BA762 incident.

[Author]

Posts