Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Flight Control Problem" On PR 102 To LAX  
User currently offlineSQ_EK_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1633 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4919 times:

On Saturday, Jan 14 2006 I flew Philippine Airlines PR 102 from Manila to Los Angeles. We boarded and departed a bit late, at about 2220 rather than the expected 2200. About thirty to forty minutes after take off, the captain comes on and says that were crusing at about 18,000 feet - which got me to think that we were a bit low considering how much time had passed since depature. He then said we'd be returning to Manila, due to a "flight control problem", but didnt specify much else, except saying that "everything was under control". I was up in First Class, so I couldnt really hear or see anything wrong with the engines or flaps - but a really high pitched whiny noise did start soon after we descended. The Captain then came back on the P/A and said before we could land, we would fly southwest of the airport at 7,000 feet to dump fuel to make it safe for us to land - the captain said it would take us 25 minutes.

We basically circled for about an hour - it was uncomfortable as we could see the water under us, and there was this consistent whiny noise that I presume was the fuel being dumped? I asked the cabin crew, but they couldn't elborate on the flight control problem or much else. The captain came back on, apologized for taking longer, but stating that we needed to dump as much fuel as possible to make it safe for us to land.

We landed back in Manila, where Lufthansa Tehcnik crews worked on the plane - an hour thirty minutes later we pushed back once again for LAX.

All the purser would say was that the captain mentioned that the flaps would not retract after take off, and that we couldn't fly up to a higher altitude because of it.

All that taken into consideration, how serious might the problem have been? Safety wise, was there any grave risk? Why not just say out the problem?

I think PR handled the situation well apart from the lack of communication between the flight deck and the cabin crew, and indeed the passengers. Once we were on the ground, the cabin crew immideatley served us our post take off drink orders as well as assorted nuts. During the one hour or so delay, served us foccachia sandwiches and were very accomadting. Way to go PR!

But the exccellent service and flight behind and aside, how serious was the problem, at least as far as you can tell from the info above?


Keep Discovering
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

Quoting SQ_EK_freak (Thread starter):
All that taken into consideration, how serious might the problem have been? Safety wise, was there any grave risk? Why not just say out the problem?

Not sure what A/C type you were on but the Flap limit was probably 20,000' also they would have been trouble shooting with the ground so they could retract them.

Safety wise doesn't sound too bad they just couldn't continue due to the altitude & speed restrictions with the flaps out.

Once they realized the problem couldn't be fixed in the air, dump fuel, land and fix it on the ground.

Some people wouldn't have a clue what "flaps" are so there's not much point getting technical with pax, as much as us keen aviators would like them to.

CCA



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

Quoting SQ_EK_freak (Thread starter):
All the purser would say was that the captain mentioned that the flaps would not retract after take off, and that we couldn't fly up to a higher altitude because of it.

All that taken into consideration, how serious might the problem have been? Safety wise, was there any grave risk? Why not just say out the problem?

The risk would have been in attempting to continue the flight, and purely on the back end. The flight's fuel consumption was predicated on the crew "cleaning up" the aircraft after departure (retracting the flaps and gear). Had they continued with the flaps extended, they would have had to stay lower and slower, and the resultant fuel consumption would have been greater that they had fuel onboard for, which likely leaves you in the drink somewhere west of LAX. Going back to the departure airport (after dumping fuel) was the prudent thing to do.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airlines Planning On Launching Services To LAX? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 04:46:33 by Juventus
BA 763 Crucial Flight Control Problem Tonight posted Mon Feb 6 2006 01:24:53 by Hovitzer
NON REV On AS PVR To LAX 11MAY posted Tue May 11 2004 20:16:22 by Miami1
9V-SGA SQ A340 On It's Way To LAX! posted Wed Dec 31 2003 20:16:30 by BA777
Qantas Formula One On Its Way To LAX And JFK posted Thu Aug 9 2001 09:02:49 by N178UA
"Bomb On Flight LH686 To Tel Aviv" posted Tue Oct 5 2004 14:10:26 by EL-AL
Spirit Reverting To "Old New" Scheme On 321s? posted Mon Oct 4 2004 19:13:00 by UA744Flagship
"lax" Preview On USA Channel posted Fri Aug 20 2004 00:01:31 by Blackbird1331
Man Squats On Plane's Wing To "Get Some Fresh Air" posted Wed May 5 2004 08:58:35 by Singapore_Air
DL To Unveil New "Retro" Livery On 767 posted Fri Mar 26 2004 22:58:08 by Peachair