Delays through Gatwick, 29/12

[LBSCR Times]

Haven't been able to use this excuse for a while for delays to services...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30625945

A Virgin Atlantic passenger plane has landed safely at London's Gatwick Airport after discovering a problem with part of its main landing gear.

Virgin flight VS43 with 447 passengers and 15 crew was travelling from Gatwick to Las Vegas when it had to return.
The Boeing 747 circled over southern England for several hours dumping fuel before making a bumpy but safe landing just before 16:00 GMT.

Traction current discharged and all signals put to red whilst the plane made an emergency landing!

 

[Geezertronic]

Glad to hear it landed ok, must have been scary for all involved and I guess weird for onlookers if the plane was making odd manoeuvres to try and free the stuck wheels

 

[tsr]

Video of the very well-executed landing here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30625879

All trains via Gatwick Airport are now resuming a punctual service.

 

[Kryten2340]

Off topic a little bit and may deserve its own thread but are there many stations that run near airports that have cut out systems if a plane has to make an emergency landing? Other than what's discussed here the only one I know is up in TW Metro land and the Airport trip wire that runs along part of the track before the Newcastle Airport station and this cuts out the current to the OHLE.

 

[Starmill]

Off topic a little bit and may deserve its own thread but are there many stations that run near airports that have cut out systems if a plane has to make an emergency landing? Other than what's discussed here the only one I know is up in TW Metro land and the Airport trip wire that runs along part of the track before the Newcastle Airport station and this cuts out the current to the OHLE.

A similar system is in use I think between Heald Green junctions and Manchester Airport.

 

[cf111]

Off topic a little bit and may deserve its own thread but are there many stations that run near airports that have cut out systems if a plane has to make an emergency landing? Other than what's discussed here the only one I know is up in TW Metro land and the Airport trip wire that runs along part of the track before the Newcastle Airport station and this cuts out the current to the OHLE.

I think Edinburgh airport has something similar which will force signals to red if a the tripwire is broken. No station, obviously, just the railway line.

 

[Class 170101]

Southend Airport next to GEML.

Gatwick reopened to flights 19:03 GMT doubtless will be fun for trains tonight with delayed flights landing late into tonight.

 

[racyrich]

Hmm, watching the video of the landing it was a normal east to west landing, so crossing the railway before touchdown. Can't see how that was any more dangerous for the railway than any other landing.

 

[tsr]

Hmm, watching the video of the landing it was a normal east to west landing, so crossing the railway before touchdown. Can't see how that was any more dangerous for the railway than any other landing.

Apparently there was concern about the integrity of the landing gear and where the parts could go on approach. But if not, in any case, blocking local roads/railways (the M23 was also briefly blocked) will always seem to be a safer option, in case another technical malfunction comes into the picture, or the pilots become stressed by the serious failure and misjudge the approach in any way at all.

 

[Hornet]

Hmm, watching the video of the landing it was a normal east to west landing, so crossing the railway before touchdown. Can't see how that was any more dangerous for the railway than any other landing.

Remember BMI to Belfast falling short at EMA. Pure luck that no-one was wiped out travelling along the M1.

Believe White Waltham Aerodrome had a system which put back the signals, in the era of the original Slough Panel.

 

[Antman]

Haven't been able to use this excuse for a while for delays to services...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30625945



Traction current discharged and all signals put to red whilst the plane made an emergency landing!

Passengers certainly seemed to be full of praise for the crew..........rumour has it they were later put on a replacement bus service to Las Vegas

 

[paul1609]

Hmm, watching the video of the landing it was a normal east to west landing, so crossing the railway before touchdown. Can't see how that was any more dangerous for the railway than any other landing.

Shallower approach angle I'd imagine, therefore much lower over the railway

 

[Bald Rick]

Birmingham Airport has the same procedures with the WCML.

 

[EM2]

Passengers certainly seemed to be full of praise for the crew..........rumour has it they were later put on a replacement bus service to Las Vegas

Unlike a number of railway passengers who were less than impressed with the stopping of trains :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

How long was the railway stopped for? I assume it would only be a few minutes for a landing, but I think I read there were several unsuccessful attempts before it actually touched down.

The runway was closed for several hours before the 747 could be moved off it.

 

[47802]

Well at least it was a 747 with that problem as they have 4 sets of landing gear at the back unlike an A330 or Boeing 777 which only have 2.:roll:

 

[jon91]

And where would you propose they put the extra landing gear and hydraulic equipment for them? :P

 

[47802]

And where would you propose they put the extra landing gear and hydraulic equipment for them? :P

I'm not proposing anything but I think I would rather be on a 747 with that problem than a 777 at least there is a chance a of it landing without it tipping onto the wing as indeed happened, obviously if both sets had failed on that side it would have been more difficult but they didn't.

Also call me old fashioned if you like and I don't particularly like flying at the best of times, but when I travel across the Atlantic I also tend to look for flights which have planes with 4 engines rather than 2 but of course that will be more difficult in future as 747's and A340's get binned in favour of the big twin jets.

 

[tsr]

How long was the railway stopped for? I assume it would only be a few minutes for a landing, but I think I read there were several unsuccessful attempts before it actually touched down.

The runway was closed for several hours before the 747 could be moved off it.

There were a couple of low passes/"go around" manoeuvres before further holding/fuel dumping in the skies over the coast near Newhaven, but I am not so sure these were not just for the control tower staff to check the visible issues with the landing gear, rather than actual full attempts at landing. The railway was only closed for the actual successful landing, which took about 12-14mins.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And where would you propose they put the extra landing gear and hydraulic equipment for them? :P

Longer models of the A340 have an extra central landing gear, and the A330 and A340 are effectively one model being sold in different lengths and with different numbers of engines, so I can't see it being that difficult to get Airbus to whip up what he's suggesting.

In any case, airlines are designed to perform emergency landings on runways with no landing gear whatsoever. There are videos on YouTube of LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16 landing in Warsaw with no gear down and no injuries to anyone on board, although the aircraft was then not worth repairing.

Virgin Atlantic have had something like this happen before with one of their A340s at Heathrow back in 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprTbTVl1Uk

 

[47802]

Longer models of the A340 have an extra central landing gear, and the A330 and A340 are effectively one model being sold in different lengths and with different numbers of engines, so I can't see it being that difficult to get Airbus to whip up what he's suggesting.

In any case, airlines are designed to perform emergency landings on runways with no landing gear whatsoever. There are videos on YouTube of LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16 landing in Warsaw with no gear down and no injuries to anyone on board, although the aircraft was then not worth repairing.

Virgin Atlantic have had something like this happen before with one of their A340s at Heathrow back in 1997.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprTbTVl1Uk

Indeed but that's a much more scarier landing than what happened yesterday with the 747, all credit to the Pilot on the A340 and the 747.

 

[jon91]

Longer models of the A340 have an extra central landing gear, and the A330 and A340 are effectively one model being sold in different lengths and with different numbers of engines, so I can't see it being that difficult to get Airbus to whip up what he's suggesting.

Yea, but the wing structure on the A340 is far more substantial in order to cope with the extra engines hanging off each wing and thus requires the extra gear to even out the weight distribution. Adding extra central gear to the A330 will shorten its useful range and serve little purpose other than to look odd.

As for 47802's concern about twin engine Atlantic flights, I wouldn't be so worried seeing as most aircraft these days are ETOPS certified, basically meaning that even if an engine fails for whatever reason the aircraft will make it to a suitable diversion airport.

 

[Bald Rick]

As for 47802's concern about twin engine Atlantic flights, I wouldn't be so worried seeing as most aircraft these days are ETOPS certified, basically meaning that even if an engine fails for whatever reason the aircraft will make it to a suitable diversion airport.

Indeed, any commercial twin jet going transatlantic has to be ETOPS certified doesn't it?

 

[jon91]

Yea, the A330 in particular being the first to attain ETOPS-240, basically meaning it can be as much as 240 minutes away from a diversion airport and still arrive in one piece with only one engine working.

Doesn't mean that they can fly in a straight line from Heathrow to New York, but it offers the chance of reducing emissions.

 

[47802]

Indeed, any commercial twin jet going transatlantic has to be ETOPS certified doesn't it?

Indeed but I would still prefer 4, if one engine fails mid Atlantic its a long way to fly on 1 engine whatever ETOPS might say, after all the main driver for this is reducing costs particularly fuel, not that you will have much of a choice in a few years time anyway when the 747's and A340 get phased out. Of course there are already plenty of twinjets that fly the Atlantic and one hasn't dropped into the drink yet, added to which Airbus have a plan for a long range A321 to turn the Atlantic run into a Ryanair Job.

 

[jon91]

There isn't a driver per se for ETOPS, it simply proves the reliability of the aircraft and its ability to land safely if something does decide to go wrong. Fuel efficiency is simply a side effect of using two engines instead of four.

 

[Hornet]

Indeed but I would still prefer 4, if one engine fails mid Atlantic its a long way to fly on 1 engine whatever ETOPS might say, after all the main driver for this is reducing costs particularly fuel, not that you will have much of a choice in a few years time anyway when the 747's and A340 get phased out. Of course there are already plenty of twinjets that fly the Atlantic and one hasn't dropped into the drink yet, added to which Airbus have a plan for a long range A321 to turn the Atlantic run into a Ryanair Job.

BA operate a couple of A318's across the Atlantic and Westjet operate a Dublin to St John's (Newfoundland) service with 737's.

 

[47802]

There isn't a driver per se for ETOPS, it simply proves the reliability of the aircraft and its ability to land safely if something does decide to go wrong. Fuel efficiency is simply a side effect of using two engines instead of four.

No but there is driver from the Airlines for Fuel Efficiency and ETOPS allows them to do that a hence buy big twin jets instead, and probably before very long we will have the likes of Ryanair and Easy Jet rocking up with their extended range narrow bodied planes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BA operate a couple of A318's across the Atlantic and Westjet operate a Dublin to St John's (Newfoundland) service with 737's.

Yes I know but I think you might struggle to get a 747 into London City Airport and it has refuel in Ireland on the outward journey, but I guess its handy for the city elite. Personally I would prefer to take a 747 than a A318 on longish journey.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Shallower approach angle I'd imagine, therefore much lower over the railway

It was flying a lot lower than usual whilst it was trundling around Sussex using fuel. In fact that why I knew about it, one of the anti-gatwick noise brigade posted about this low flying aircraft and I responded saying I hadnt heard it, only to step outside and be deafened by it as it was only a 2,600 feet above us according to flight tracker.

So I I assume it remained lower than anything else which would give it a different angle of approach to the runway..

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed but I would still prefer 4, if one engine fails mid Atlantic its a long way to fly on 1 engine whatever ETOPS might say, after all the main driver for this is reducing costs particularly fuel, not that you will have much of a choice in a few years time anyway when the 747's and A340 get phased out. Of course there are already plenty of twinjets that fly the Atlantic and one hasn't dropped into the drink yet, added to which Airbus have a plan for a long range A321 to turn the Atlantic run into a Ryanair Job.

There will still be some A380s to choose from. Having been 8000 feet above the Atlantic and 'enjoyed' a spectacular engine failure, followed by a full emergency landing, I can confirm that the level of 'enjoyment' would have been no different if we'd had another 3 engines going rather than just the one we did have. You can only ruin one set of underwear at a time!

(It was a turboprop, and not transatlantic, but I should imagine the feeling would be much the same).