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
-
JohnHarperParticipantDo we know yet when there will be a full report in to this near disaster? It’s most concerning that a situation like this could have come about in the first place and the fact that the plane returned to LHR flying over central London and all the residential areas to the west seems incredible.
While we are all relieved that it was not a lot worse, in the event of a future similar event I would prefer to think that the stricken aircraft will not fly over central London.
15 Jun 2013
at 08:09
Henkel.TrockenParticipantI too hope that issues are raised about the approach over London. Surely that can’t have been right.
15 Jun 2013
at 12:38
BigDog.ParticipantRather off topic – however is this another instance where the pre-flight walk around check didn’t spot a problem?
20 Jun 2013
at 15:47
AnthonyDunnParticipant@ BigDog. – 20/06/2013 15:47 GMT
Hmm, how many engines are BA consuming a week at present…? BA’s LHR second line maintenance must be being run ragged if this continues for much longer.
Alas and alack… I was reminded of my Summer vacation job in passenger handling with BA/British Airtours as was at LGW in the late 70s/early 80s. In those days, Airtours flew ex-mainline B707s which did not have an on-board auxiliary power unit and they required an air start to get the blades rotating.
So there we were one morning, plane fuelled, catered, fully loaded, trim approved, ATC slot given and chocks off. The tug starts the push back at which point I notice that the rubber hose between the port outboard engine and the air start is being str-e-t-c-h-e-d taut…. The ground engineer has forgotten to detach it… The tug driver, having not noticed the rubber hose stretching tight continues the push back until ping! The hose rips asunder and slaps back on to the wing and engine. Thankfully no-one was in the immediate vicinity and no-one was injured. One tech delay and some extremely red-faces all round.
I never did hear what happened to the culprit.
21 Jun 2013
at 00:32
pdtravellerParticipantThe gun is about the size of a scanner in your local Tesco or Sainburys and is quite large and robust due to where it is used and by whom. It is to my mind inconceivable that it could have been missed had even the most cursory of glances been made toward the engine.
My concern is less about the costs of the damage but rather that it happened at all. Given the events of a few short weeks ago one would think that the engines would be at the top of everyone’s agenda as far as checks go and this incident suggest that no refresher training has been given. Either than or a nonchalance that borders on negligence by all those responsible for the loading and push back of that aircraft….
At a time when the a firm is clearly doing anything it can to reduce costs (the biscuit and food saga in lounges for example) these incidents suggest that cost cutting is going far further than just removal of crisps but may now be impacting on their ability to deliver safe and secure operations.
A very worrying trend
22 Jun 2013
at 11:21
BigDog.ParticipantNot the smartest move by a senior BA pilot at a critical time given the recent lapses…
22 Jun 2013
at 15:33
JohnHarperParticipantBA do seem to be attracting a lot of publicity at the moment that I suspect they would rather not. O’Leary’s line of any publicity is good clearly doesn’t apply to any of the things that have happened to BA in recent weeks.
23 Jun 2013
at 13:40
ImissConcordeParticipantI’m surprised (not) that there hasn’t been a robust conversation on the topic below ……
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2007002&c=setreg®ion=2
26 Jun 2013
at 10:08
superchrisParticipantImissconcorde – but where’s the fun in taking a pop at any other carrier other than BA??!! lol.
Great video. is this it on its take off roll or taxiing? But they were all glad they hadnt just lifted off and this happened.
26 Jun 2013
at 11:06
SimonS1ParticipantImissConcorde – I don’t really follow your point there.
Was the Thomas Cook incident caused by the engine cowlings being left unfastened? Luggage scanner being left on the engine cover? Some other self inflicted incident? Did the incident close a major airport for hours?
All I see is an engine failure, the pilot doing a good airmanship job to bring it under control and then the plane apparently taxied back to the gate?
26 Jun 2013
at 12:17
CXDiamondParticipantSimonS1 – 26/06/2013 12:17 GMT
+1
Quite, the BA incidents were the result of negligence until proved otherwise. Engine failure is is a different category all together. Well done to the Thomas Cook pilot.
The other reason the incident probably hasn’t been mentioned on here is that I doubt that Thomas Cook features in our daily lives as travelers. Perhaps some fly with them for the odd holiday. I never have.
26 Jun 2013
at 16:48
BigDog.ParticipantThe first class action has begun, interestingly …
…”the legal action is against Airbus, which made the aircraft, and International Aero Engines, which made and sold the engines.”11 Jul 2013
at 18:38
roddersParticipantand so the stream of US style litigation follows to europe, rather sad in my opinion, accidents happen, and walking way with no injuries would in my view be a result, going through the mess of litigation will in itself cause psychological damage….anyone care to differ??
11 Jul 2013
at 20:49
pdtravellerParticipantRodders …..accidents do indeed happen, however negligence is not an accident it is either a deliberate act or one of omission. Given what we know thus far about this matter there may indeed be a prima facia case for a law suit and for a class action.
BA were quick ( and probably quite right) to parade the crew of BA 038 and milk the publicity. Their silence on the OSLO incident in comparison has been deafening.
Given the rather paltry sum offered to VCE passengers let stranded without food or water and locked in, I would not put much faith in BA being generous toward the poor souls who may have been terrified by – what may yet prove to be, an act of gross negligence by not one, but many members of staff.
BA may yet feel that this class action is altogether more palatable than a criminal case for corporate manslaughter.
11 Jul 2013
at 21:14 -
AuthorPosts