Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA853 Mayday - Fumes And Smoke In Cockpit  
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19029 times:

This flight has declared a Mayday due to smoke and fumes in cockpit and is being directed to land on 27R at LHR. The pilot is clearly flying the a/c with his oxygen mask on.

[Edited 2006-04-26 09:46:53]

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19000 times:

Downgraded to a pan. Smoke and fumes have appeared to cleared somewhat.

All this was picked up on London ATC.

Is landing on the current departures runway and requested to pull over an assess the situation on landing.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 18872 times:

BA853 PRG - LHR

Left the gate in Prague at 0758 (23 minutes late)
Took off from the Prague runway at 0809 (34 minutes late)
Reason for delay: OTHER TRAFFIC.

Landed on LHR runway at 0843 (7 minutes early).
Arrived at Terminal 1? at 0901 (11 minutes late).



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineMusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18633 times:

anyone know what registration was that aircraft is?
Thanks.



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlineNoelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18608 times:

Quoting Musapapaya (Reply 3):
anyone know what registration was that aircraft is?

Showing on ACARS as G-EUOA this morning:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Ballerstedt



Noel


User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4512 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18445 times:

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 2):
Landed on LHR runway at 0843 (7 minutes early).
Arrived at Terminal 1? at 0901 (11 minutes late).

All is well that ends well.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineLeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18297 times:

I wonder if the fire brigade surrounded it with flashing lights? Have seen this occur on a number of occasions in daylight which could be regarded to be over the top. No doubt the passengers onboard will already feel incredibly 'on edge' which surely can't be helped by being surrounded by blue lights upon landing?!

User currently offlineKLbambie From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 98 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18185 times:

Actually saw this happen thins morning from Gate 5 (Terminal 1 UK Domestics).

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 6):

Yup, and the rest. the Brigade came horsing down the runway after them along with some police and airfield ops vehicles.

As you can imagine it caused a bit of a stir with everyone in the gate are as well.

Aircraft pulled off the runway and parked up on the taxi way (please forgive the lack of detail, i am not familiar with the finer points of LHR) for a couple of minutes while the 'services' circled, then the aircraft moved of, presumably to it's gate.

S


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17574 times:

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 6):
I wonder if the fire brigade surrounded it with flashing lights? Have seen this occur on a number of occasions in daylight which could be regarded to be over the top. No doubt the passengers onboard will already feel incredibly 'on edge' which surely can't be helped by being surrounded by blue lights upon landing?!

It is certainly better than not having enough in the worst case scenario.

Like a questionable go-around, if such exists.

M


User currently offlineIFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17029 times:

Any identification of the source of the smoke and fumes?

User currently offlinePhelpsie87 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16797 times:

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 6):
I wonder if the fire brigade surrounded it with flashing lights? Have seen this occur on a number of occasions in daylight which could be regarded to be over the top. No doubt the passengers onboard will already feel incredibly 'on edge' which surely can't be helped by being surrounded by blue lights upon landing?!

I am almost positive that they came out and surrounded it. With smoke reported, I bet that they were ready and waiting in case a fire was to occur. I have seen pilots roll the trucks in less intense situations as a precaution.


User currently offlineThowman From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16728 times:

I didn't get the beginning of the conversation this morning, only picking up on it part way through the emergency when the a/c was around the LAM (Lambourne) area. It was clear that the flight crew were wearing oxygen masks as their transmissions made them sound like they were scuba diving - i.e. their breathing through the mask valve was very audible. They were very calm through the whole incident. I don't know if it was just the cockpit or the cabin that was affected. Seeing as there were no news reports, I assume the passenger cabin remained unaffected?

When they downgraded to Pan, when about 11 miles out, they said the "action they had taken seemed to have cleared the source of the problem". What exactly that was, I don't know.

Where are the BA insiders when you need them?

[Edited 2006-04-26 18:09:32]

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9641 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16082 times:

Quoting LeonB1985 (Reply 6):
I wonder if the fire brigade surrounded it with flashing lights? Have seen this occur on a number of occasions in daylight which could be regarded to be over the top. No doubt the passengers onboard will already feel incredibly 'on edge' which surely can't be helped by being surrounded by blue lights upon landing?!

Smoke in the cockpit is a huge deal that definitely warrents emergency precautions. Sure the chances that the fire brigade would be needed are small, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

Remember that it was only about 10 years ago when Swissair 111 crashed on approach into Halifax after reporting smoke in the cockpit. It didn't seem like a huge emergency as things developed, but the problem got worse and everyone on the plane lost their lives. You should prepare for the worst in emergency situations. It doesn't matter if you make the passengers feel more on edge. Precautions should be taken because only if 1 in 1,000 emergency landings require the fire brigade, then their presence is warrented.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15576 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
Remember that it was only about 10 years ago when Swissair 111

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11037&key=1

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/a98h0003.asp

M


User currently offlineRob878 From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14583 times:

I'm glad it all ended well....

Just out of curiosity, which make seems to have had more smoke in the cockpit incidents over the past couple of years, Boeing or Airbus?
Or has it been pretty equal?


Rob


User currently offlineStanstedFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2001, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13976 times:

Quoting Rob878 (Reply 14):
which make seems to have had more smoke in the cockpit incidents over the past couple of years, Boeing or Airbus?

Please don't tweak the tail of the tiger!!!!



View the photos by C Newman on Airliners.net!
User currently offlineFrontiercpt From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 973 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10204 times:

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 10):
I am almost positive that they came out and surrounded it. With smoke reported, I bet that they were ready and waiting in case a fire was to occur. I have seen pilots roll the trucks in less intense situations as a precaution.

On a United Express(GoJet) flight that I was on, we made two emergency landings in STL, with the firetrucks racing after us both times. The first landing was around 3PM, but they had their lights flashing, and the second time, our landing was around 5:30ish, and it was pretty dark, so they obviously had their lights flashing. It was weird to think about what the passengers in the terminal were thinking! And imagine the firefighters, having to chase down the same airline, but two aircraft within hours of each other! Lol, it was fun though, the FA was just reading her magazine like it happens everday(knowing my luck, it always happens to me when I fly with them lol).

Sean


User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9687 times:

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 16):
On a United Express(GoJet) flight that I was on, we made two emergency landings in STL, with the firetrucks racing after us both times. The first landing was around 3PM, but they had their lights flashing, and the second time, our landing was around 5:30ish

Why 2 emergency landings? and why so far apart? or is this two seperate flights?



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineLouA340 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9646 times:

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 16):
And imagine the firefighters, having to chase down the same airline, but two aircraft within hours of each other! Lol

Two separate flights but same airline.

Has it been determined what caused the smoke and fumes in the cockpit?



RyEng
User currently offlineFrontiercpt From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 973 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9519 times:

Quoting Cadet57 (Reply 17):
Why 2 emergency landings? and why so far apart? or is this two seperate flights?

We left STL at around 12:45, and were about 25 minutes out of STL, when we turned around and the Captain said that the screw in the T-tail was not responding, and that the flaps would not extend all the way, so we had to make an emergency landing( I dunno why we went back to STL, we were closer to MCI, but we circled near Scott AFB burning fuel for about 15 minutes). We landed and pulled off the runway and were checked by the fire crew, and then we pulled into the gate. It was around 2:30 when we pulled into the gate, and it was muddy outside, and the jetway was stuck. BTW, I'm not sure about the times, I am looking through my TR notebook to get all this stuff in order.

Anyways, we got off and they had to get another GoJet CR7 for us, and by the time they got it fueled, pre-flighted and all the bags onboard, it had been about 40 minutes, and then we had to have the safety demo again, and then we pushed back around 3:10ish. We didn't even taxi out before we pulled back in because the GPS wasn't working. We were all rebooked for a 5:05 733 flight to DEN, but before that left, the first CR7 was "fixed". We pushed back, and were near the same spot near MCI again when they discovered the probes were not working, so again back to STL.

This time, the landing was in the dark, and the firefighters checked us out before letting us taxi back in. By that time, it was about 5:30, and the 5:05 733 crew had been kind enough to hold the flight for us(it was only half full), and the passengers were all willing to wait for us to run off one plane, across the end of the concourse, and right down the other jetway lol. It was some fun stuff lol, and hey, I got a $100 voucher off it, which was cool. It took seven hours to reach DEN, and I then we almost had to switch TED A320's in DEN, cuz some carbon on the wing was exposed, but thats a whole OTHER story lol.

Sean


User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9439 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
Smoke in the cockpit is a huge deal that definitely warrents emergency precautions. Sure the chances that the fire brigade would be needed are small, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

The situation being that 99% of all smoke in cockpit comes from non life threatening sources. Either turbine oil seal leaks, deicer fluid, etc through the air cycle machines, hydraulic leaks, an electrical component overheating/burning that are confined.

The problem before SR-111 was that pilots were not immediately donning their smoke hoods and treating the smoke problem as an emergency until situation had progressed beyond serious. Basically SOP's and QRH dealt with the 99% rule. Most fire problems over the years had been becoming fewer and fewer as engineering and equipment design had dealt with most of the fire problems.

Then they woke up and respond to the 1% rule and error on the side of safety.

There will always be speculation that SR-111 should have taken and emergency decent and made and overweight landing instead of circling and dumping fuel.

Since SR-111 I have noticed many a plane being followed to the gate with safety equipment. Sometimes one truck, sometimes and armada (slow day at the firehouse?).

I would think it would be safe to say that SR-111 incident woke up a lot of pilots and aircraft operators to error on the side of safety.

Okie


User currently offlineLouA340 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9384 times:

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 19):
and I then we almost had to switch TED A320's in DEN, cuz some carbon on the wing was exposed, but thats a whole OTHER story lol.

Can you do a trip report? Sounds like you had a very interesting trip.  bigthumbsup 



RyEng
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9263 times:

[

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 19):
It took seven hours to reach DEN, and I then we almost had to switch TED A320's in DEN, cuz some carbon on the wing was exposed, but thats a whole OTHER story lol.

Please explain how carbon is exposed on the wing?


User currently offlineFrontiercpt From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 973 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8689 times:

Quoting LouA340 (Reply 21):
Can you do a trip report? Sounds like you had a very interesting trip.

Ya, I have soooo many to do haha, I will try and get them done by the time summer rolls around.  Wink

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
Please explain how carbon is exposed on the wing?

I dunno, that's all the passengers were told, but I'm sure there are other people around here who can explain that.

Sean


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8529 times:

Quoting Thowman (Reply 11):
downgraded to Pan

Pan is not really a downgrade. It's still an emergeny that takes priority over every other airplane, except in the rare case when there are simultaneous Mayday and Pan.


25 Pilot21 : While you are correct, in the order of emergency transmissions, Pan basically means I have a situation that I need priority with , while Mayday is I
26 TristarSteve : An instrument cooling fan had seized. They turned it off and the engineers at LHR replaced it, and the aircraft left for MAD two hours late.
27 Frontiercpt : I wonder what the MAD passengers felt like, getting on a plane that just made an emergency landing, if they even knew! ~Sean
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...
Aircraft W/ Smoke In Cockpit Inbound BOS Right Now posted Tue Feb 7 2006 02:30:30 by 767ALLTHEWAY
BA Flight Diverts Due To Smoke In Cockpit posted Wed Dec 28 2005 14:50:53 by RichardPrice
UA 881 Smoke In Cockpit - Diversion To DTW posted Thu Aug 25 2005 19:26:52 by MikeM2648
ACJ DH8-100 Diversion-Smoke In Cockpit posted Tue Aug 16 2005 08:37:52 by TIMEAIR
Air Zimbabwe Emergency In JNB: Smoke In Cockpit posted Wed Jun 8 2005 19:42:12 by SA006
CX507 A343, From Osaka Lands With Smoke In Cockpit posted Wed Sep 25 2002 16:56:26 by Hkgspotter1
Singapore Airlines And QF In Cockpit Door Talks posted Sat Feb 23 2002 14:41:12 by Singapore_Air
USAir Emergency - Smoke In Cockpit posted Wed Jan 3 2001 21:47:36 by Avilitigator
Toxic Fumes In Cockpit posted Mon Feb 27 2006 14:28:46 by Zephyrus
Do Pilots Smoke In The Cockpit?!? posted Tue Feb 22 2005 07:18:21 by POR2GAL