sq_ek_freak
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 4:48 pm

"Flight Control Problem" On PR 102 To LAX

Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:00 pm

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
 
User avatar
CCA
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:29 pm

RE: "Flight Control Problem" On PR 102 To LAX

Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:14 pm

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
P1 in A330, A340, A346, B742, B744, B748.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: "Flight Control Problem" On PR 102 To LAX

Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:19 pm

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.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.