Gatwick Closed/VS Emergency Landing

Blue Punto

Any details available are here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17730154

homerjay2005

Blue Punto wrote: »

Any details available are here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17730154

why would they need to close the airport for that, especially for any more than the length of time it takes to get the plane safely out of the way of other aircraft?

surely once the passengers are moved away, they could tow the plane to a remote area of the airport?

Tenger

Was VS027, an A333 LGW-MCO. 13 crew 299 pax it seems. (G-VSXY)

Climbed out to FL210 then turned and made an immediate descent into LGW approx 30 mins after take-off.
SkyNews have pics of her stopped on the runway,with emergency vehicles all around, including a cargo loader at the rear cargo hold. BBC have a pic showing all chutes deployed. So not sure what the sequence of events was.
Initial reports are that there was smoke in the cabin after take-off but that no injuries occurred.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why would they need to close the airport for that, especially for any more than the length of time it takes to get the plane safely out of the way of other aircraft?

LGW only had a single runway, and it is a very busy airport. The aircraft stopped on the runway. They will leave in in situ until they are sure there is no danger of fire/explosion. It had full fuel for a 9 hour flight, it may have damaged the brakes/wheel bogies by landing back above Max Landing Weight. It will be checked over first. Then they will tow it away.

These are just educated guesses, any Flight Ops poster are welcome to critique my opinion.


EDIT: In regard to the latest reports and the passenger reactions, just what I expected. (I still remember when the BA B777 crashed in Heathrow reading of a passenger who complained about how rude the crew were to him) This incident was obviously very time critical and the passengers seem not to realise what was actually happening.......as they were being shouted at to hurry up and get off.

I'm sure The Sun or the Daily Mail will have an extremely detailed and factual analysis of the incident by tomorrow morning.

roundymac

Blue Punto wrote: »

Any details available are here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17730154

The bullsh*t that comes out of people, "I knew something was wrong the minute it took off, it was really wobbly", "One of the crew panicked on landing, she was screaming like a banshee, get off get off and pushing people down the slide". There was a suspected fire in the hold, what was she suspose to do.

L1011

How badly constrained will LGW be due to having to use the smaller runway for a while? Think its a good bit smaller.

BrianD

"Tom Alridge said one of the cabin crew panicked upon landing.

"She was screaming like a banshee - 'Get off, get off' - she was literally pushing people down the chute," he said."

Dear Tom, it sounds like the crew member was doing their job. If she was in a state of panic you would have been looking at the back of her head as she went down the chute ahead of you!

A Dub in Glasgo

Tenger wrote: »

I'm sure The Sun or the Daily Mail will have an extremely detailed and factual analysis of the incident by tomorrow morning.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130493/Gatwick-airport-emergency-landing-15-injured-cabin-forces-Virgin-plane-land.html

mayotom

MYOB wrote: »

How badly constrained will LGW be due to having to use the smaller runway for a while? Think its a good bit smaller.

Yes using the other runway would constrain things greatly.. The A23 can be busy at rush hour, so using it as a runway would cause havoc...


oh Gatwick only has one Runway..

adamski8

BrianD wrote: »

"Tom Alridge said one of the cabin crew panicked upon landing.

"She was screaming like a banshee - 'Get off, get off' - she was literally pushing people down the chute," he said."

Dear Tom, it sounds like the crew member was doing their job. If she was in a state of panic you would have been looking at the back of her head as she went down the chute ahead of you!

is there not something to be said for not creating a panic on board? could actually make the evacuation longer rather than quicker?
i doubt the passengers would have been lax about trying to get off a plan that just performed an emergency landing after smoke being reported in the cabin, i know id be moving ass! Screaming at passengers hysterically (if true) might cause a crush, hampering the safe exit?

coylemj

BrianD wrote: »

"Tom Alridge said one of the cabin crew panicked upon landing.

"She was screaming like a banshee - 'Get off, get off' - she was literally pushing people down the chute," he said."

Dear Tom, it sounds like the crew member was doing their job. If she was in a state of panic you would have been looking at the back of her head as she went down the chute ahead of you!

Dear Brian, you weren't there, he was. I wouldn't fancy being pushed down a chute by a screaming cabin steward.

In most cases where there was an emergency and the passengers later praised the professionalism of the crew, it's because they (the crew) stayed calm and as a result so did the passengers, thereby making the evacuation more orderly and reducing the stress for all concerned.

The last thing you need is a hysterical crew member literally shoving people down the emergency chute.

Virgin said that four people suffered 'minor injuries', Dr Jane Pateman, medical director for the South East Coast Ambulance Service, said several people were injured using the plane's escape chutes."A total of 15 patients were transferred to hospital, 14 of which went to two major trauma centres, at St George's Hospital and Royal Sussex County Hospital suffering from suspected fractures," she said.

14 people with fractures after sliding down the emergency chutes, sounds like a pretty botched evacuation to me.

BrianD

coylemj wrote: »

Dear Brian, you weren't there, he was. I wouldn't fancy being pushed down a chute by a screaming cabin steward.

In most cases where there was an emergency and the passengers later praised the professionalism of the crew, it's because they (the crew) stayed calm and as a result so did the passengers, thereby making the evacuation more orderly and reducing the stress for all concerned.

The last thing you need is a hysterical crew member literally shoving people down the emergency chute.

Virgin said that four people suffered 'minor injuries', the BBC claims that 15 people 'needed hospital treatment, 14 of them for suspected fractures'

Clearly some information management going on here.

Sure if you want to hang about and shoot the breeze off you go. I doubt if there have been many evacuations that didn't result in some injuries. Better a broken ankle that burnt to a crisp.

lintdrummer

At least fifteen people were injured when a packed Florida-bound Virgin Atlantic passenger jet made an emergency landing at Gatwick Airport today after reports of a mid-Atlantic on-board fire - sparking chaos for thousands more travellers. The giant America-bound Airbus A330-300 was forced to turn around mid-flight and land back in Britain around 30 minutes after take-off as the cabin filled with smoke.

Good old daily mail strikes again. Mid Atlantic after 20 minutes from Gatwick. And here was me thinking the 330 was subsonic!

It's this kind of sensationalist shoddy journalism that feeds people with crazy ideas and a false understanding of current affairs. Thank God most of us have the sense to see it for what it is.

coylemj

BrianD wrote: »

Sure if you want to hang about and shoot the breeze off you go. I doubt if there have been many evacuations that didn't result in some injuries. Better a broken ankle that burnt to a crisp.

Nobody is talking about 'shooting the breeze', I'm all for a speedy but orderly evacuation.

However if you break your ankle thanks to being 'assisted' down the chute by a shove in the back from said hysterical member of the crew, you won't be able to run away from the plane and given that this particular plane had enough fuel on board to fly to Orlando, that's precisely what any sensible person would do when they reached the bottom of the chute.

If you break your leg or ankle during the evacuation, you won't be able to save yourself in the event that plane is on fire and you will impede the evacuation of people behind you. I really find your attitude incredible.

eatmyshorts

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why would they need to close the airport for that, especially for any more than the length of time it takes to get the plane safely out of the way of other aircraft?

surely once the passengers are moved away, they could tow the plane to a remote area of the airport?

It's not as simple as that. An overweight landing is most probably going to result in melted fuseplugs and subsequent tyre deflations, disabling the aircraft.
The fire services can't open a cargo hold to investigate the scene until all the passengers have been removed from the aircraft, so there's an extra delay.
Then all the evacuated pax have to be safely removed from the area.

But most importantly, while the fire services are dealing with all this, there is zero RFF (Rescue Fire Fighting) cover available at the airfield in case of another emergency.

coylemj wrote: »

Dear Brian, you weren't there, he was. I wouldn't fancy being pushed down a chute by a screaming cabin steward.

In most cases where there was an emergency and the passengers later praised the professionalism of the crew, it's because they (the crew) stayed calm and as a result so did the passengers, thereby making the evacuation more orderly and reducing the stress for all concerned.

The last thing you need is a hysterical crew member literally shoving people down the emergency chute.

Virgin said that four people suffered 'minor injuries', Dr Jane Pateman, medical director for the South East Coast Ambulance Service, said several people were injured using the plane's escape chutes."A total of 15 patients were transferred to hospital, 14 of which went to two major trauma centres, at St George's Hospital and Royal Sussex County Hospital suffering from suspected fractures," she said.

14 people with fractures after sliding down the emergency chutes, sounds like a pretty botched evacuation to me.

coylemj wrote: »

Nobody is talking about 'shooting the breeze', I'm all for a speedy but orderly evacuation.

However if you break your ankle thanks to being 'assisted' down the chute by a shove in the back from said hysterical member of the crew, you won't be able to run away from the plane and given that this particular plane had enough fuel on board to fly to Orlando, that's precisely what any sensible person would do when they reached the bottom of the chute.

If you break your leg or ankle during the evacuation, you won't be able to save yourself in the event that plane is on fire and you will impede the evacuation of people behind you. I really find your attitude incredible.

You don't really seem to understand the physics of an evacuation. Have you ever done one, either for real or in a simulation? It's a serious situation that requires immediate action and control, not politeness.
Cabin crew are trained to shout loud and clear commands to get everyone moving in the right direction and off the aircraft. Just have a read of the latest AAIU reports and see what happened during the evacuation of the Ryanair 737 in Kerry. 50% of the pax tried to bring their luggage with them.

Injuries are 100% guaranteed to occur during an evacuation. They always do and always will. 99% of these occur when the person slides off the end of the slide onto the ground, causing leg and spinal injuries. It's nothing to do with "being assisted" or a having "shove in the back".
That's why ordering an evacuation should always be the last course of action, only once all others have been exhausted.


I recently had the very same exercise during my last recurrent simulator session. An air turnback due to a cargo fire indication resulting in an overweight landing at a high altitude airfield. Maximum reverse and using almost 3000 metres of runway still resulted in 6 tyres deflated. The cargo holds on my type are Class D, so in theory should be able to keep a fire self contained. After landing, we performed a "Precautionary Disembarkation", which involves pax leaving the aircraft by steps, but in an expedited manner.

Tenger

coylemj wrote: »

Dear Brian, you weren't there, he was. I wouldn't fancy being pushed down a chute by a screaming cabin steward.

In most cases where there was an emergency and the passengers later praised the professionalism of the crew, it's because they (the crew) stayed calm and as a result so did the passengers, thereby making the evacuation more orderly and reducing the stress for all concerned.

The last thing you need is a hysterical crew member literally shoving people down the emergency chute.

14 people with fractures after sliding down the emergency chutes, sounds like a pretty botched evacuation to me.

Dear coylemj, 14 minor injuries out of 299 is a pretty good result. During the original test of the A380 evacuation, with marshalls on the ground, using pre warned Airbus employees who had been shown how to use the slide in the safest manner, there were 8-10 injuries.

All evacuations result in injuries, pax don't land correctly, pax don't clear the area quick enough, pax lie back and thus speed up, etc. As stated above most airlines will only order an chute evacuation as the absolute last resort for this reason.

Look at photos of the AF A340 in Toronto, pax took their bags with them.
The BA B777 crew at LHR shouted at pax and pushed those who hesitated at the threshold of the slide.

If a passenger doesn't follow instructions the crew will shout at them, if the passenger stops at the door, the crew will push them out. Better out with a broken ankle that halting at the door to sit down, thus slowing down the rate of evacuation. And in an evacuation the crew will not care about your 'bad knee', its get outside NOW.

Oh BTW, a botched evacuation is one in which the passengers don't get out.

Foggy43

MYOB wrote: »

How badly constrained will LGW be due to having to use the smaller runway for a while? Think its a good bit smaller.

That 'other runway' is too close to the main runway and could not be used. It is the taxi-way beside it and is only used when major maintenance is being carried out main runway. I think it has been a few years since this was last required.

drdeadlift

the unused 08 left is 2565 meters, 08 right is just over 3300 meters.Anyone know the history behind the design of this airport? On the charta they still acknowledge 08l and 26r as being runways so am i right in guessing when they need to they can use it/?

Zonda999

Some more rounded analysis here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article4260145.ece

The Daily Mail calling it mid atlantic eh? Really have to lol at that



I reckon they were about 30 miles from the UK there! In a jet travelling at 450mph, i believe you'd be back over land in 4 minutes! Typical sensationalist crap!

kippy

Zonda999 wrote: »

Some more rounded analysis here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article4260145.ece

The Daily Mail calling it mid atlantic eh? Really have to lol at that



I reckon they were about 30 miles from the UK there! In a jet travelling at 450mph, i believe you'd be back over land in 4 minutes! Typical sensationalist crap!

As a matter of interest, why did the jet have to fly back to Gatwick? If an emergency was declared, would there not have been an airport it could land at, closer than Gatwick?

No idea bout these things but logicilly it would strike me as odd, but perhaps there was nowhere nearer.

Tenger

kippy wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why did the jet have to fly back to Gatwick? If an emergency was declared, would there not have been an airport it could land at, closer than Gatwick?

No idea bout these things but logicilly it would strike me as odd, but perhaps there was nowhere nearer.

The A330 has to return to an airfield with certain level of rescue cover. Off the South Coast of England LGW is probably the best option. I doubt Brighton or Southampton could handle an A330.

Airlines also prefer to 'return to home base' in non-time critical situations.

kippy

Tenger wrote: »

The A330 has to return to an airfield with certain level of rescue cover. Off the South Coast of England LGW is probably the best option. I doubt Brighton or Southampton could handle an A330.

Airlines also prefer to 'return to home base' in non-time critical situations.

I was thinking something along those lines alright (the rescue cover).

Surely this was a "time critical" situation however? (not that this would be the main concern in this instance)

L1011

Brighton Airport has a <4,000ft runway, I'm not sure I'd want to be landing an A330 that's hugely above max landing weight on that....

Foggy43 wrote: »

That 'other runway' is too close to the main runway and could not be used. It is the taxi-way beside it and is only used when major maintenance is being carried out main runway. I think it has been a few years since this was last required.

There were claims on a.net that the second runway had been opened though. That's the only place I saw it, however.

Foggy43

It probably did open. I cannot confirm it. There was a bit of panic at Heathrow yesterday for a short while worrying about flights diverting in. Didn't appear to be any.
It was only a few days ago take offs were suspended in Gatwick due to a stray baloon. I can remenber the BBC Radio 2 news reader assure listners that it wasn't a joke.

A Dub in Glasgo

Foggy43 wrote: »

It was only a few days ago take offs were suspended in Gatwick due to a stray baloon. I can remenber the BBC Radio 2 news reader assure listners that it wasn't a joke.

It was no joke as I was delayed on Friday because of it!

Tenger

Here is a blog from the Virgin Flying Without Fear program about the pax experience on the evacuated flight on Monday.

It explains some of what has been discussed here.

http://virginfwf.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/vs27-special-blog.html