BA 747 Lands Without Wing Gear, LHR Runway Blocked

321neo · Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Big version: Width: 1025 Height: 633 File size: 145kb

Big version: Width: 282 Height: 197 File size: 16kb

Big version: Width: 598 Height: 351 File size: 47kb

https://twitter.com/Mraviationguy/status/693484652888211457

https://twitter.com/bendepear/status/693484792176861184

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba295/#8ada289

BA295 was well on its way towards ORD when it turned back to LHR. The above image of the landing at LHR , courtesy of Twitter user @Mraviationguy, appears to show the 747, G-CIVX, about to land on runway 27R using only its nosegear and the two most central sets of landing gear. The aircraft has remained on the runway and LHR has consequently been reduced to single runway operations.

It would seem to be a similar incident to the VS43 incident at LGW back in December 2014?

[Edited 2016-01-30 10:04:58]

xms3200 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:00 pm

Sees like it has the nose and the body gear only, which indicates hyd. system 1 is working. Since the wing gear is not deployed, it tells me that there is a loss of system 4 which deploys the wing gear.

Gazdon121 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:09 pm

looks like both runways are back open

speedbored · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:24 pm

4 replies to a very interesting post (thanks, 321neo) and half of them are complaining about whether the wording of the title matches their version of reality. That's A.net for you.

Agree that it looks like a hydraulic system failure of some sort, which probably affected some other systems. Must have been an interesting landing for the flight crew.

But isn't the 747 undercarriage supposed to be able to be deployed under gravity?

F9Animal · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:25 pm

That is pretty scary. I would imagine they dumped a ton of fuel.

7673mech · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:41 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 7):
4 replies to a very interesting post (thanks, 321neo) and half of them are complaining about whether the wording of the title matches their version of reality. That's A.net for you.

Agree. Seriously these are the posts the bring the site down.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 7):
But isn't the 747 undercarriage supposed to be able to be deployed under gravity?

Yes the 747 has a manual extension system that deploys nose and body gear and separately wing gear.

BlueShamu330s · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:41 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 8):

That is pretty scary. I would imagine they dumped a ton of fuel.

I would guesstimate it was more than a tonne...

migair54 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:49 pm

Even with a total hydraulic loss planes can extend the landing gear by gravity, that's a certification must, so it's very strange that they can't do it, specially if it's 2 of them, one can be stuck due to some mechanical break down, but 2 at the same time is weird.

if the crew kept the plane in the runway safe kudos for them it's not easy to do this kind of unsafe landing gear landings.

Everybody is fine and plane can fly again soon, that's a wonderful landing... I hope we can see some videos and some more pics later.

ZuluTime · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:03 pm

Sounds very similar to this:
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-boeing-747-443-g-vrom

And the aircraft hasn't flown for a week since its last arrival into LHR before today's flight to ORD...so another maintenance error even though the AAIB report highlighted the risks?

readytotaxi · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:09 pm

Curious, how come the aircraft got that far out before a problem was spotted?

Quoting 321neo (Thread starter):

bralo20 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:11 pm

Curious if the alternative extension was used, can't see open doors under the wings (as far as the unclear picture shows).

321neo · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:17 pm

"Passengers at rear of BA295 being disembarked first to avoid plane tipping back onto its tail. This is crazy stuff."

https://twitter.com/kevin_lang/status/693496557111492608

There must've been an interesting atmosphere on board after that announcement!

werdywerd · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:20 pm

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 13):
Curious, how come the aircraft got that far out before a problem was spotted?

I'm sure it was spotted right after take off but they maintained the heading to get over water and dump fuel, then turn back when they were light enough to land.

B747forever · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting werdywerd (Reply 16):
I'm sure it was spotted right after take off but they maintained the heading to get over water and dump fuel, then turn back when they were light enough to land.

I doubt they would need to fly that far out just to dump fuel. They could have dumped fuel over water much closer to LHR.

ACDC8 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:41 pm

Quoting 321neo (Reply 15):

"Passengers at rear of BA295 being disembarked first to avoid plane tipping back onto its tail. This is crazy stuff."

No kidding - First must be pissed

joeytaffy93 · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:43 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 17):

I doubt they would need to fly that far out just to dump fuel. They could have dumped fuel over water much closer to LHR.

Maybe it was hydraulic related and wasn't an issue as such until they were X amount into the flight?

I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

speedbored · Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:44 pm

Quoting 321neo (Reply 15):
Passengers at rear of BA295 being disembarked first to avoid plane tipping back onto its tail. This is crazy stuff

That sounds a bit strange given that the gear that was extended is the rear-most pair.

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 13):
Curious, how come the aircraft got that far out before a problem was spotted?

It's entirely possible that the fault didn't become apparent until some way out into the flight - maybe just a slow hydraulic leak, something that took time to work loose, or even something that only gave way when the pressure differential reached a certain point in the climb. Until there's an official report, we'll never now for sure exactly what happened.

zeke · Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:44 am

Virgin did similar on one of their A340s, there is good youtube videos about of that landing.

Sounds like a job well done for the crew. Time will tell if the aircraft will return to service, or if they use this opportunity to accelerate its retirement like the JNB incident.

DFWflightpath · Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:42 am

does anyone know more about why the gear/hydraulic/gear door problem occurred?

Max Q · Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:38 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 4):
hat is pretty scary. I would imagine they dumped a ton of fuel.

Why is it scary ?

RickNRoll · Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
Why is it scary ?

Although the 744 appears to be fine with the weight for landing I would assume you would want weather conditions to be good. There is nothing there to keep the plane stable in difficult conditions during touchdown.

Max Q · Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:09 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 25):
Although the 744 appears to be fine with the weight for landing I would assume you would want weather conditions to be good. There is nothing there to keep the plane stable in difficult conditions during touchdown.

No reason for fear, worst case it could become unbalanced an end up resting on an outboard engine, a few scrapes, that's all, no big deal.

cf6ppe · Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:55 am

Can someone briefly detail the Aircraft Maintenance Manual actions required to get past this unusual landing event..??

KC135Hydraulics · Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 24):

Undoubtedly this plane will need to be jacked and then they will have to figure out how to free up the gear.

zeke · Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:51 am

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 25):
Undoubtedly this plane will need to be jacked and then they will have to figure out how to free up the gear.

Might be as simple as jacking it, and then adding external hydraulic pressure to the system to lower it.

migair54 · Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:59 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 26):
Might be as simple as jacking it, and then adding external hydraulic pressure to the system to lower it.

Or putting the breaker back in like with the LOT B767.

They will have to find the problem and maybe make a overweight landing check on the gears that were down during landing, I don't think it will take too long to have this plane back in the air again.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
No reason for fear, worst case it could become unbalanced an end up resting on an outboard engine, a few scrapes, that's all, no big deal.

It is not, but as usual media make a huge story out of it. Hero pilot. Anyway I do understand people to be scare when something happen in a plane, many people don't feel that safe or comfortable flying so as soon as they listen a technical issue they start thinking about the worst possible scenario. But the reality is that there are few techinical issues everyday and flying is very safe.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...es-emergency-stop-at-Heathrow.html

Lofty · Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:42 am

I was not on duty but I understand Air Malta also blocked the runway at LHR.

musapapaya · Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:08 pm

This news article will surely make all of us laugh.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...-wheels/ar-BBoVmDw?ocid=spartanntp
1. Wrong picture of a Boeing 747-400. An airbus 319 last time I checked doesn't fly from LHR to ORD.
2. All the reference on how brilliant the pilot was et etc - it was only just 'normal ops'

Ahh well!

[Edited 2016-01-31 05:09:06]

Lofty · Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:12 pm

UPT and not even at LHR.

rbrunner · Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:12 pm

Quoting werdywerd (Reply 12):
to get over water and dump fuel

Sorry mate, but if an aircraft dumps fuel at altitude, it quickly evaporates.

Okie · Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:17 pm

Quoting werdywerd (Reply 12):
I'm sure it was spotted right after take off but they maintained the heading to get over water and dump fuel, then turn back when they were light enough to land.

I have no idea when the problem was spotted but a return to LHR is pretty much a must to have enough runway length to stop that puppy with only half the brakes.

Okie

DTWPurserBoy · Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:31 pm

So when is someone going to blame it all on Delta? Nice job landing, crew. And, as always, the Queen of the Skies proves her worth yet again.

shanxz · Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:03 pm

It's amazing how the whole story unfolded on social media, with passengers tweeting Live updates and our very own #avgeek spotters caught the plane landing! And then kudos coming from all over for the pilots. How the world has changed.

Here's a good summary of how the incident played out on social media: http://storify.com/simpliflying/bri

NWAROOSTER · Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:33 pm

A 747 should be able to land safely with one wing gear retracted as long as the pilot can burn off as much fuel as possible to reduce the landing weight of the aircraft. Also as gentle as possible landing would need to be made with out using brakes on the longest runway possible. Engine reversers would be used to slow the aircraft down to a very slow speed before any use of the brakes would be gently used to stop the aircraft Deplaning the passengers aft of the wing is a wise thing to do as the wing gears are located somewhat aft of the main body gear. After the passengers are removed from the aircraft it could be towed to the maintenance hangers and all cargo and passenger luggage could be removed starting at the back or aft of the aircraft with a jack stand installed at the aft of the aircraft.
After that trouble shooting and repair could be completed with the aircraft on jack stands and several gear swings completed to assure everything is taken care of. It could be as simple as a switch preventing the gear door from opening and it may have given the flight crew a gear unsafe light which caused the crew to turn back to LHR.

speedbored · Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:50 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35):
as the wing gears are located somewhat aft of the main body gear

Er ... No, they are not. The rearmost gears are the main body ones:

tonystan · Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:07 pm

Quoting shanxz (Reply 34):

Think you'll find the passengers where not tweeting "live updates" as there is no WIFI on BA aircraft.

vikkyvik · Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:34 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 25):Although the 744 appears to be fine with the weight for landing I would assume you would want weather conditions to be good. There is nothing there to keep the plane stable in difficult conditions during touchdown.

No reason for fear, worst case it could become unbalanced an end up resting on an outboard engine, a few scrapes, that's all, no big deal.

People have different thresholds for fear. If someone thinks this is scary, he/she thinks it's scary. No reason to call them out on it.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 16):
That sounds a bit strange given that the gear that was extended is the rear-most pair.

Indeed, that's what I was thinking.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 35):
Also as gentle as possible landing would need to be made with out using brakes on the longest runway possible. Engine reversers would be used to slow the aircraft down to a very slow speed before any use of the brakes would be gently used to stop the aircraft Deplaning the passengers aft of the wing is a wise thing to do as the wing gears are located somewhat aft of the main body gear.

Why would you not use brakes? I'd think getting the aircraft stopped on the runway would be the most important thing.

And also as noted:

Quoting speedbored (Reply 36):
Er ... No, they are not. The rearmost gears are the main body ones

flightsimer · Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:37 pm

Quoting tonystan (Reply 37):

Never heard of a cellular network? I would guess that more than 75% of tweets are not done on Wifi...

tonystan · Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 39):

You'd be hard pressed to find a network above 10000ft over the UK and especially over the North Sea/Atlantic Ocean not to mention that all mobiles should be in flight safe mode anyway.

So no, the passengers couldn't have provided live updates as it happened. Only after it happened!

DTWPurserBoy · Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:18 pm

Back in 1970, a Pan Am 747-100 hit the landing light stanchions on take off out of SFO bound for TYO, driving one up through the cargo bay and into the cabin. It pierced a seat where, thankfully, no one was sitting. It had one main gear smashed and I remember Boeing claiming that the 747 could land safely on two main gear. During the evac, the plane sat back on its tail rendering the 1L and 1R slides inop. After this accident, the slides at doors 1 and 5 were lengthened to allow for either a nose gear collapse of sitting on its tail.

RickNRoll · Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:41 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 38):
Why would you not use brakes? I'd think getting the aircraft stopped on the runway would be the most important thing.

Apparently the hydraulic group that controls the wing gear is also the main braking one as all. For this landing the reserve braking hydraulics are used.

mmo · Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:04 pm

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 42):

Apparently the hydraulic group that controls the wing gear is also the main braking one as all. For this landing the reserve braking hydraulics are used.

On the 400 normal braking is via hydraulic system 4, secondary brakes are through system 1 and reserve brakes are from system 2. There is no difference, other than the power source, in primary and secondary. Both provide anti-skid to each wheel, while reserve on the 400 provides anti-skid to axles.

There could be a couple of reasons for the gear problem. Loss of Hyd 4 would be an obvious one, but the alternate extension should have worked. Which leads me to believe the problem could be with the sequencing valve which would explain why the alternate extension did not work. The alternate extension is electrically operated and unlocks the gear door latches so the gear will free fall. Or another possibility is a failure of the landing gear structure itself but for both wing gear to fail would be extremely unlikely.

Notice the procedure is for the alternate extension. The procedure and landing itself is not a big deal. The aircraft was designed to land on the nose and body gear or nose and wing gear. Given the flight it would not have been close to MTOW and given where the decision was made to return it would have been well below MLW.

Viscount724 · Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 41):
Back in 1970, a Pan Am 747-100 hit the landing light stanchions on take off out of SFO bound for TYO, driving one up through the cargo bay and into the cabin. It pierced a seat where, thankfully, no one was sitting. It had one main gear smashed and I remember Boeing claiming that the 747 could land safely on two main gear. During the evac, the plane sat back on its tail rendering the 1L and 1R slides inop. After this accident, the slides at doors 1 and 5 were lengthened to allow for either a nose gear collapse of sitting on its tail.

It was in 1971, not 1970. There's a 10 minute Youtube video on that event with footage of the landing and the aircraft damage. Note the huge bounce on landing due to minimal ability to flare as a result of damage to the hydraulic systems. Only had about 1/6 of normal elevator control. I'm guessing the film was produced by BA (still BOAC then) for their crew training purposes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl_wXfSwRzM

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19710730-2

It was the 2nd 747 built, N747PA, then named Clipper America, and the first for an airline after the original prototype kept by Boeing. It wasn't the first delivered. It remained with Pan Am until their demise in 1991.

ltbewr · Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:05 am

This was a very serious event, one that is very rare and troubling, but proper procedures were followed by the pilots leading to a safe landing. There will be a through investigation as to the landing gear, related hydraulic, mechanical and electrical systems as well as procedures from when the problem was first detected to when the last pax was out of the aircraft.

LAX772LR · Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:40 am

Quoting 321neo (Reply 11):
"Passengers at rear of BA295 being disembarked first to avoid plane tipping back onto its tail. This is crazy stuff."

Perhaps a silly question: but wouldn't connecting a tow tractor to the nose gear, help mitigate such a situation?

Or would that just serve to stress the airframe beyond what it was designed to handle?

cf6ppe · Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:21 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 24):
Can someone briefly detail the Aircraft Maintenance Manual actions required to get past this unusual landing event..??

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 25):
Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 24):

Undoubtedly this plane will need to be jacked and then they will have to figure out how to free up the gear.

Quoting zeke (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 25):
Undoubtedly this plane will need to be jacked and then they will have to figure out how to free up the gear.

Might be as simple as jacking it, and then adding external hydraulic pressure to the system to lower it.

My question pertains to structural and other inspections needed to be accomplished in accordance with the B747 Aircraft Maintenance Manual. The applicable B744 AMM should have a chapter(s) telling the operator (i.e., BA) what has to be done to return the subject equipment to service. I would suspect that these return to service items are done in a hangar and could possibly include gear swing, hydraulic system checks, and the AMM items. I would be surprised if Boeing is not involved.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:57 am

Why send the plane to LHR to make an emergency landing? They could have had it sent it somewhere else and avoided all the disruption to all the other flights operating out of LHR.

zeke · Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:59 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 47):
My question pertains to structural and other inspections needed to be accomplished in accordance with the B747 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

That will depend on if there was damage to the airframe or not. This article shows a VS 747 landing at LGW with one gear failing to extend, the aircraft was not damaged in the landing. There has been no report I am aware of to suggest the BA aircraft was damaged in the landing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-fault-forces-return-Gatwick.html

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 47):
I would be surprised if Boeing is not involved.

If it just parts that need to be replaced in the hydraulic circuit, I doubt Boeing would need to be involved. Returning the aircraft to service would be standard maintenance tasks.

mmo · Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:07 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 45):

This was a very serious event, one that is very rare and troubling, but proper procedures were followed by the pilots leading to a safe landing. There will be a through investigation as to the landing gear, related hydraulic, mechanical and electrical systems as well as procedures from when the problem was first detected to when the last pax was out of the aircraft.

Fear mongering???? This is not, as you say a "very serious event"!! To be honest, it's not a big deal at all. The landing gear is very robust and can tolerate quite a bit. Also, while it is not a routine occurrence, it's not "very rare" as you say.

Eagleboy · Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:55 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 18):
That is because:

.............................

I could list a few more reasons

I wonder how Air India will spin this incident as detrimental to their business?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net